Internal Intelligence Community Report Names Grenell and Ratcliffe for ‘Politicalization’ of Analysts’ Findings
By Alison Greene
Even in his re-election campaign, Trump's ties to Russia stood out |
The analytic ombudsman, career intelligence community veteran Barry A. Zulauf, determined that under Trump national intelligence reports had become highly politicized.
Important findings were suppressed to appease Trump’s refusal to acknowledge
Russian interference in American elections.
Zulauf’s
unclassified report paints a frightening picture of just how much the Trump
administration skewed intelligence to suppress knowledge of interference by
Russia in our 2020 elections.
From
March 2020, in the critical months leading up to the elections, Zulauf
“identified a long story arc of—at the very least—perceived politicization of
intelligence.”
Zulauf works in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), a Cabinet-level position created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to oversee all U.S. intelligence operations. Zulauf’s job within the ODNI was created by Congress to assist analysts throughout the intelligence community with complaints and concerns about politicization, biased reporting or lack of objectivity in intelligence analysis.
Zulauf
determined that Trump’s ODNI took “willful actions that… had the effect of
politicizing intelligence, hindering objective analysis or injecting bias into
the intelligence process.”
While
Zulauf tried to avoid specifically naming individuals responsible for much of
the political heavy-handed rewriting, he repeatedly calls out actions taken by
two recent Trump appointees, neither of whom had any chops as intelligence
experts.
One
is former an acting director, Richard Grenell. He had been a Fox News
commentator and Trump-appointed ambassador to Germany, and took over the ODNI
in February 2020 then relinquished the post the following May.
The
second was the Texas congressman Trump appointed to replace Grenell, John
Ratcliffe, best known as a fervent defender of the ex-president in his first
impeachment.
In
one particularly egregious example, Zulauf wrote, Ratcliffe insisted on
highlighting Chinese election interference while downplaying Russian efforts.
“Ratcliffe
just disagreed with the established analytic line on China, insisting ‘we are
missing’ China’s influence in the US and that Chinese actions ARE intended to
affect the election,” Zulauf wrote. “Ultimately the DNI insisted on putting
material on China in…. As a result, the final published [assessment], analysts
felt, was an outrageous misrepresentation of their analysis.”
The
intelligence community has procedures to make sure assessments are based on
sound judgment by seasoned analysts, not rogue points of view especially when
they are not supported by facts.
The Senate Intelligence Committee requested the ombudsman review possible politicization of intelligence. Interestingly, Zulauf notes, he had his own review under way when the Senate Intelligence Committee request arrived.
The
ombudsman started his own investigation after he was approached by ombudsmen at
three other agencies within the intelligence community. They acted because
intelligence agency professionals and managers perceived problems and were
getting internal complaints about the politicization of intelligence.
Helsinki
Betrayal
The
findings come 29 months after Trump declared in Helsinki, standing next to
Vladimir Putin, that he trusted the Russian leader, but not the American
intelligence services.
By
putting his trust in Putin, a former KGB colonel, saying that he took him at his
word when he denied interfering in the 2016 presidential election, Trump
reiterated his denunciations of American intelligence services.
Trump refused on most days to sit for his intelligence
briefing, a closely guarded summary of worldwide threats to America and its
allies. The report is prepared by experienced analysts based on reports from 17
American intelligence agencies, which feed material to Central Intelligence
Agency for consideration.
The
Presidential Daily Brief is tailored to each sitting president’s style. Trump’s
brief was reduced to simplistic points, often illustrated with graphics. Russian actions against the United States were often
left out or described obliquely to avoid provoking Trump.
Trump
would have found even simplified daily briefings difficult to grasp given his
ignorance about geopolitical affairs and history. For example, he once asked aides if Finland was part of Russia. He met
with the Baltic presidents and confused their countries with the Balkans.
Mueller’s
Warning
While
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III was barred from investigating Trump’s
conduct as a counterintelligence matter, his office did look into Russian interference
in the 2016 election.
On
July 24, 2019, Mueller told the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees
that Russia would continue interfering in our elections. “It was not a single
attempt, [Russia’s] doing it as we sit here,” he testified. “And they expect to
do it during the next campaign.”
Yet
eight months later, on March 10, 2020, in presenting the views of the
intelligence community, Bill Evanina, director of the National
Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), briefing members of Congress on
election interference, said the opposite. He told lawmakers in a closed-door session for which
summaries were released that there was no evidence that Russia had taken steps
to help any candidate in the 2020 elections.
Analysts
refer to talking points in these March statements, as well as subsequent
statements in July, August and October of last year, as examples of “gross
misrepresentation” of established intelligence community views.
The
ombudsman’s report attributes the rationale for these distortions and lies to
the opposition they faced “getting their views on election interference
across…in a confrontational environment.”
But
it does not assert that Trump directly ordered them. Several House managers
noted during impeachment and Trump’s better biographers have long noted, Trump
gives direction the way mob bosses do, not by direct order but by relying on
people to interpret a wink and a nod or even just tone of voice.
Misleading
Congress
The
March assessment delivered to a House and Senate all-members meeting was
delivered by Evanina. Zulauf called this “the most egregious example” he
uncovered of distorted intelligence.
When
interviewed by the ombudsman, Evanina said he received his talking points from
ODNI and National Intelligence Council (NIC) officials. He said that since they
were directly from the ODNI and NIC he assumed the talking points represented
the coordinated views of the intelligence community.
Zulauf
could not find anyone at ODNI who wrote or contributed to the talking points
Evanina used. The various individuals laid the distortions off on various excuses
and reasons. Zulauf did not accuse them directly of lying and denying.
However,
Zulauf said “red flags” were ignored. He took note of “widespread reluctance
among intelligence professionals to deliver” assessments. “This
reluctance on the part of seasoned IC [intelligence community] officers should
have been a red flag but did not stop the statement from being issued.”
Despite
leadership’s efforts to downplay any threat of Russian interference, the report
was unequivocal on what U.S. intelligence analysts who specialized in Russia
were seeing: “Russia analysts assessed that there was clear and credible
evidence of Russian election influence activities.”
Analysts
expressed frustration that political appointees were suppressing the actual
intelligence because it was not well received at the Trump White House. The
analysts told the ombudsman that their intelligence was being suppressed and
politicized as the ODNI leaders cherry-picked intelligence supporting a
narrative that Trump wanted rather than presenting facts.
Mulvaney’s
Warning
By Steve Sack, Star Tribune |
Mulvaney warned Nielsen not to speak with
Trump about Russian attempts to interfere in future U.S. elections.
That
revelation by journalists, now buttressed by Zulauf’s report, illustrates how
Trump’s disregard for and suppression of intelligence assessments about Russian
interference consistently made its way from the White House to his cabinet and
the highest levels of the intelligence community where it had a clear impact of
how intelligence was written up and disseminated.
Zulauf
wrote that in May 2020, the acting director of National Intelligence, Grenell,
delayed the release of a memo for “politically motivated editing.”
The
changes “buried the lead,” Zulauf wrote, regarding known election security
threats. Analysts found intelligence community leadership consistently “watered
down conclusions” and were “boosting the threat from China.”
Overstating
the threat from China also minimized, and distracted from, actual threats from
Russia. Instead of speaking on Russia, leaders regularly pivoted instead to
China.
In
an interview on Oct. 6, 2020, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who heads the House
Intelligence Committee, addressed similar statements by then Attorney General
William P. Barr. Schiff is one of the “Gang of Eight,” the bipartisan leaders
in Congress who are regularly copied into the highest levels of intelligence.
The attorney general had just asserted that China posed the greatest threat to
U.S. elections based on intelligence he had seen.
Barr
Called a Liar
“That’s
just a plain false statement by the attorney general, a flat-out false
statement,” Schiff said. “You can tell that Bill Barr is just flat-out lying to
the American people, and it’s tragic but it’s as simple as that.”
The United States spends hundreds of millions of dollars each day to monitor activities around the world, including efforts by China, Iran, Russia and other countries to probe government and business computer networks.
The Russians are
known to have the ability to open and close floodgates on American
hydroelectric dams. That prompted us to quietly take actions against the Russian electric grids to make
clear that any disruption of the dams would come with consequences.
Decades-Long
Seduction
For decades,, the Russians courted Trump, one of many prominent people around the globe sought by intelligence services as potential assets.
A former KGB spy who
had a cover working in Washington for the Russian government-controlled news
agency TASS, recently told The Guardian that Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset
during 40 years.
When
Trump became president, the Kremlin hit the biggest intelligence jackpot
imaginable. The first known payoff came in May 2017, just weeks after Trump
took his oath to defend America against foreign enemies.
Trump
held an unannounced meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian foreign minister and the
Russian ambassador. In that meeting Trump revealed the most sensitive intelligence material, known as sources and methods.
Disclosing
sources and methods would naturally discourage friendly governments from
sharing many of their own intelligence findings since their spies and ways of
uncovering information could be compromised, even ruined, with the potential
that the spies would be assassinated by the Russian government.
We
know this because the Russians announced what Trump had done. The same
government-controlled TASS news agency released photos of a smiling Trump with
the two grinning Russian officials taken by a Russian photographer who was let
into the Oval.
The
Russian officials, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak, are, like Putin, trained spies.
President
Joe Biden’s announcement on Feb. 5 that he will not grant Trump the courtesy of
intelligence briefings was summarized by Schiff as an important move to protect
America’s national security.
Schiff tweeted: “Donald Trump politicized and abused
intelligence while he was in office. Donald Trump cannot be trusted with
America’s secrets. Not then, and certainly not now. Americans can sleep better
at night knowing he will not receive classified briefings as an ex-president.”