Trump's Campaign of Retribution: Director of National Intelligence Attacks Obama's Role in 2016 Presidential Election Intelligence Assessment

Strategic Insights -

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has intensified attacks on assessments about Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election, releasing a new document that she claims undermines the conclusion of the Obama administration's intelligence agencies that Russia favored the election of Donald Trump. The document, a report from the House Intelligence Committee originally drafted in 2017, takes issue with the conclusion reached in December 2016 that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had favored Trump. The report portrays the information as incomplete and subject to interpretation, pointing to a single piece of intelligence from a source that said Mr. Putin had decided to leak emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee to damage Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election.

Key Takeaways:

  • The report from the House Intelligence Committee, released by Tulsi Gabbard, takes issue with the conclusion reached in December 2016 that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had favored Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
  • The report portrays the information as incomplete and subject to interpretation, pointing to a single piece of intelligence from a source that said Mr. Putin had decided to leak emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee to damage Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election.
  • The source of the intelligence was an aide to a senior Russian official, and Russia officials made his identity public.
  • Current and former American officials pushed back on the characterization of the source's intelligence, saying he was well-placed and had provided sound information to the United States on Mr. Putin's intentions.
  • The report also takes issue with the inclusion of unverified information from a dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, in the 2016 intelligence assessment.
  • Trump administration officials have maintained that the 2016 intelligence review was tainted by unverified information in the Steele dossier, but former officials said the C.I.A. did not take it seriously and did not allow it to influence their assessment.

Statistics:

  • 2016: The year in which the intelligence assessment was made that concluded Russia had favored the election of Donald Trump.
  • 2017: The year in which the House Intelligence Committee drafted the report that takes issue with the conclusion reached in December 2016.
  • 2020: The year in which the House Intelligence Committee revised the 2017 report.
  • 200+ The number of witness interviews conducted by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee in its investigation of Russia's influence in the 2016 election.
  • Millions: The number of documents reviewed by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee in its investigation of Russia's influence in the 2016 election.

Sources:

  • "The New York Times"
  • "House Intelligence Committee report"
  • "Senate Intelligence Committee report"
  • "C.I.A. tradecraft analysis"
  • "F.B.I. documents"
  • "Christopher Steele dossier"
  • "Tulsi Gabbard statement"