Gabbard's Relitigation of Russian Interference in 2016 Just Drives Home the Point that Putin Wanted Trump to Win
The release from ODNI reeks of desperation
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released supposedly “new” and “overwhelming evidence” that purports to show that “President Obama and his national security cabinet members manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup.” The release just happens to come as DNI Tulsi Gabbard is reportedly on the outs with the White House and the drama over the Epstein files continues to hound Trump and House Republicans.
Before we go on, I think it’s essential to establish that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) published a bipartisan report in five volumes on Russia’s activities in and around the 2016 presidential campaign. That bipartisan report shows that Russia, at the direction of Vladimir Putin, tried to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. These efforts by Russia included the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) email network, the attempted access of election infrastructure, and the extensive use of social media to influence the outcome of the election.
SSCI’s bipartisan report is separate from the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, conducted by former FBI Director Robert Mueller,1 and the Intelligence Community’s assessment of Russia’s activities in 2016. However, SSCI’s bipartisan report found no direct conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. This is the same conclusion reached by the Mueller report.
The conclusion reached by SSCI doesn’t mean that there weren’t red flags. The SSCI report called Paul Manafort, who chaired Trump’s 2016 campaign, “a grave intelligence threat” because of his connections to Konstantin Kilimnik, who SSCI described as “a Russian intelligence officer” and may have been connected to the hacking of the DNC.2 Roger Stone also sought and got information about the release of the hacked DNC emails through WikiLeaks.
“Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks's planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and senior Campaign officials on multiple occasions,” the SSCI report explains. “Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone's information suggested more releases would be forthcoming. The Committee could not reliably determine the extent of authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the Campaign.”
Speaking on the effort that SSCI put into the investigation, then-acting chair of SSCI, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said, “Over the last three years, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a bipartisan and thorough investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and undermine our democracy.” He added, “No probe into this matter has been more exhaustive.”
So, what new information is available in the ODNI's release on Monday? Not much. Gabbard claims that Obama administration officials weren’t concerned about cyberattacks that could lead to manipulated vote counts, but that the narrative changed after the election. She also alleges that the changed narrative influenced the Intelligence Community’s post-election assessment.
First, Gabbard seems to have misinterpreted at least some of the language in the emails from Obama administration officials that she provided as evidence. For example, ODNI cites a December 2016 NBC News story–“U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack”–which states in the opening paragraph, “U.S. intelligence officials now believe with 'a high level of confidence' that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.” That paragraph is used as evidence of the Obama administration's alleged misleading of the public.
The thing is, this story isn’t about the hacking of election systems. It’s about the hacking of DNC emails. The literal subtitle is, “New intelligence shows that Putin became personally involved in the computer breach, two senior U.S. officials say.” The second paragraph–the one immediately after what ODNI cites as purported evidence–states, “Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.”
ODNI also claims the Intelligence Community used the opposition research compiled by Christopher Steele in its post-election assessment as a source of information about Trump and Russia.3 SSCI criticized the FBI for relying on the Steele dossier. The Intelligence Community’s post-election assessment included the Steele dossier in the annex. Still, the bipartisan SSCI report notes, “[T]he dossier material was not used in the ICA and did not contribute to its findings.”
Why was the Steele dossier included in the Intelligence Community’s assessment? According to SSCI, “The Assistant Director for [redacted] also noted the FBI insisted on including the Steele reporting because ‘they didn't want to look like they were hiding anything,’ and that '[t]o me, that sounded fair.’”4 SSCI also notes that “[t]he Assistant Director for [redacted] told the Committee that her understanding was that 'the analysts were very much against' putting the FBI material in the ICA.”5
ODNI also seems to want to relitigate whether Russia’s intention was to help Trump defeat Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. This is considered established fact, and I don’t know why we continue to have to push back on claims to the contrary. The SSCI report endorsed the finding of the Intelligence Community. SSCI explained, “The Committee found that the ICA presents information from public Russian leadership commentary, Russian state media reports, and specific intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government demonstrated a preference for candidate Trump.” The levels of confidence in the intelligence ranged from “high” to “moderate.”
The ODNI’s release just reeks of desperation to feed red meat to Trump’s base and divert public attention from the drama over the Epstein files. Still, the language used by Gabbard–calling this “a treasonous conspiracy”–is an example of how poor our national political discourse is right now. Gabbard is a high-level official in the administration, and she referred this information to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution. It’s ridiculous we’re even here.
From here on out, references to this are simply referred to as the “Mueller report.”
Known as the “Steele dossier.”
Presumably, this is an assistant director for the CIA or the FBI.