{"id":34469,"date":"2025-07-03T05:19:12","date_gmt":"2025-07-03T05:19:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/34469\/"},"modified":"2025-07-03T05:19:12","modified_gmt":"2025-07-03T05:19:12","slug":"cia-declassifies-review-of-intelligence-report-on-2016-russia-election-interference","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/34469\/","title":{"rendered":"CIA declassifies review of intelligence report on 2016 Russia election interference"},"content":{"rendered":"

WASHINGTON \u2014 CIA officials failed in some cases to follow standard procedures in an intelligence analysis of Russian interference efforts<\/a> in the 2016 election, according to an internal review declassified Wednesday.<\/p>\n

Intelligence officers were given an unusually short timeline for the analysis, there was \u201cexcessive involvement\u201d by senior leaders, and staff members were given uneven access to crucial intelligence about Russia, the \u201clessons-learned\u201d review said.<\/p>\n

But the review did not refute the findings of the 2017 intelligence assessment that Russia waged an information warfare campaign designed to undermine Americans\u2019 confidence in the electoral process, damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald Trump<\/a>\u2019s prospects in the 2016 election.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile the overall assessment was deemed defensible, the identified procedural anomalies and tradecraft issues highlight critical lessons for handling controversial or politically charged topics,\u201d the review<\/a> said.<\/p>\n

Follow live politics coverage here<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Trump and his allies have long rejected intelligence and other reporting indicating that Russia employed false information and propaganda to try to influence the 2016 election and tip the scales in his favor. They have accused intelligence and law enforcement officials of plotting to tie Trump to Russia and cast doubt on the legitimacy of his victory in 2016.<\/p>\n

A special counsel appointed during the first Trump administration looked extensively into how the CIA crafted its assessment but filed no criminal charges and reported no clear evidence that political bias tainted the process.<\/p>\n

A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation in 2020 concurred with the 2017 intelligence assessment<\/a> and found no reason to dispute its conclusions.<\/p>\n

In Trump\u2019s second presidential term, his deputies have vowed to bring more transparency to the intelligence community and prevent any attempt to politicize its work.<\/p>\n

CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the internal review this year and declassified it Wednesday, according to the CIA.<\/p>\n

The intelligence assessment of the 2016 vote, which President Barack Obama requested after the November election, found that Russia sought to undermine public faith in the democratic process and denigrate Clinton and that Moscow \u201caspired\u201d to help Trump win the election.<\/p>\n

Two senior leaders of a CIA mission center focusing on Russia objected to including the conclusion that Russia aimed to help secure Trump\u2019s victory, according to the internal review. They argued that the view was supported mainly by a single intelligence report while other judgments were backed up by more information.<\/p>\n

The review said the assessment was conducted on an unusually short timeline. Instead of having months to prepare a complex and politically sensitive analysis, the authors had \u201cless than a week to draft the assessment\u201d and \u201cless than two days to formally coordinate it\u201d with other intelligence officers.<\/p>\n

Multiple intelligence officers \u201csaid they felt \u2018jammed\u2019 by the compressed timeline,\u201d according to the review.<\/p>\n

The review said top CIA officials were heavily involved in the assessment effort, which \u201cwas highly unusual in both scope and intensity.\u201d As a result, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department\u2019s Bureau of Intelligence and Research were \u201centirely shut out\u201d of the analysis, which was a \u201csignificant deviation\u201d from standard practice in the intelligence community, according to the review.<\/p>\n

Authors of the 2016 assessment and other CIA officers also \u201cstrongly opposed\u201d including a reference in the analysis to the so-called Trump dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The dossier included unverified allegations about Trump\u2019s colluding with Russia.<\/p>\n

In the end, a summary of the dossier was included in an annex, with a disclaimer that it was not used \u201cto reach the analytic conclusions\u201d in the assessment.<\/p>\n

The review also found reasons to praise the 2016 assessment, saying that much of the team\u2019s work showed \u201crobust\u201d tradecraft with extensive sourcing and that there was no sign of systemic problems.<\/p>\n

\u200b\u200bJohn Brennan, who was CIA director at the time of the assessment, told NBC News on Wednesday he was aware of the review but had not had a chance to read it yet.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WASHINGTON \u2014 CIA officials failed in some cases to follow standard procedures in an intelligence analysis of Russian…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":34470,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[51,50,52],"class_list":{"0":"post-34469","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-news","8":"tag-headlines","9":"tag-news","10":"tag-top-stories"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114787619070035517","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34469","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34469"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34469\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}