To be clear, this ODNI report is a declassified version of the classified report, which remains classified. It differs from the 2017 IC Analysis, which focused exclusively on Russian activities and intentions regarding the 2016 election, by evaluating the conduct of other /1
foreign actors directed at the 2020 election. The Report uses the same estimative language as the 2017 version but, unlike 2017 version, does not identify the views of individuals agencies within the IC.
Key takeaways: (1) there is no indication that any foreign actor /2
attempted to alter any technical aspect of the 2020 voting process. The Report notes that"unlike 2016, we did not see persistent Russian efforts to gain access to election infrastructure." (2) But, Putin did authorize, and Russian actors conducted, influence ops aimed at /3
denigrating the Biden candidacy, supporting Trump, and undermining public confidence inthe electoral process. The IC has "high confidence" (the highest expression of analytic judgment) in this assessment. A key element of this effort was Russian use of proxies, like Andriy /4
Derkach, a Ukrainian politician who met w/ Giuliani, spread false rumors about Biden,and was ultimately blacklisted by the U.S. govt. The "primary effort" at smearing the Biden candidacy involved influence actions undertaken by Ukrainian proxies, like Derkach, designed to /5
give Moscow plausible deniability, and directed at U.S. media that spread"unsubstantiated and misleading claims about Pres. Biden and his family's alleged wrongdoings related to Ukraine." These activities also involved Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence operative who /6
is a favorite character in the Mueller and SSCI Reports on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Russian online actors continued to promote narratives questioning the election results and disparaging Biden after the election had concluded. (3) The Report states /7
with "high confidence" the assessment that China "did not deploy interference efforts intended to change the outcome of the US presidential election." (Contemporaneous reporting documents Trump loudly accusing China of such interference.) (4) Iran conducted an influence /8
principally directed at undercutting Trump's reelection prospects.
Summing up: (a) most importantly, there is no analytic support for any foreign actor having technically interfered in the 2020 voting process; (b) there is "high confidence" in the assessment that Russia /9
sought to support Trump and undermine his opponent, largely through proxies spreading "unsubstantiated or misleading" claims about Biden and his family's wrongdoings in Ukraine; (c) there is "high confidence" in the assessment that China essentially sat out any attempt to /10
interfere in the 2020 election - despite the claims of Trump and his toady DNI Ratcliffe to the contrary; and (d) other actors, like Iran, engaged in election influence efforts to a greater extent than in 2016. /END

Full report here:….

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with George Croner

George Croner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgeCroner

25 Feb
There is a need for some context here. The FBI's FISA process has received justified criticism with respect to its Carter Page FISA applications. However, it is worth noting, given the implications of this post, that a review of other FBI FISA applications identified by the /1
DoJ IG revealed no material errors. Still, the Page situation produced plenty with which to be concerned about the FBI's FISA process. But, best not to get too far ahead on this case. The defendant, Gartenlaub, filed a motion to suppress in his criminal trial that was denied /2
by the trial judge so, unlike Page, a FISC judge reviewed the initial FISA application (likely for both surveillance and physical search authority) AND another federal judge reviewed the record in connection with the suppression motion filed at trial (concluding that the /3
Read 10 tweets
11 Nov 20
Since the NYT article refers to PA litigation, in PA there is a statute called the Dragonetti Act that codifies an action based on the wrongful use of civil proceedings.

But, more importantly, in federal court where this farce is playing out in PA, /1
there is good, old Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. It says: when a lawyer signs on to a lawsuit, the signature is a representation that (1) the action is not being filed for an improper purpose, (2) the claims are warranted under existing law or /2
by a non frivolous argument for extending existing law, and (3) that the factual contentions have evidentiary support. Violations of Rule 11 are punishable by court-ordered sanctions. I sincerely hope that, when this baseless litigation is dismissed, that the Biden folks /3
Read 4 tweets
10 Nov 20
Your parallels with Iran-Contra are well-taken. I worked on the Iran-Contra interagency group that coordinated the review and release of information to the Tower Commission, the Intel Committees, and the Independent Counsel. The decapitation of the Defense Department /1
the emasculation of the ODNI, and, now, even the installation of a partisan hack as General Counsel at NSA will only serve to muddy accountability and mask activities controlled out of the White House (like Iran-Contra) without customary oversight. We, at the interagency group /2
saw how the use of the NSC allowed partisan zealots to organize an international operation using enormous resources completely outside the purview of Congress or even the executive agency departments customarily charged with those functions. If nothing else, the neutering /3
Read 4 tweets
15 Oct 20
The former "acting" (and I use that term in its most literal sense) DNI is completely adrift on the "unmasking" issue, just as he was when he ordered the substantively pointless but politically motivated declassification of an NSA memo detailing Flynn unmasking requests made /1
at the end of 2016. Anyone who doubts the legitimacy of the surveillance that contributed to the questioning of Flynn needs to read Sally Yates's testimony given to the Senate Judiciary Cmte. in August. Here's the Washington Post's summary: 1) The Trump transition team was not /2
being surveilled, nor was Flynn. While she could not say why because of national security concerns, it was obvious that then- Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak was the one being monitored. Flynn wound up being recorded when he spoke with Kislyak; 2) Flynn was attempting to /3
Read 16 tweets
7 Oct 20
I see where @KimStrassel has taken a swipe at @NormEisen for Eisen's endorsement of the report discussed in today's @washingtonpost that addresses Barr's politicized DoJ.

Kim, you're quite insistent about not letting facts in the way of taking myopic /1
swipes at Comey/Brennan even when Mueller, Horowitz, and the entire IC have convincingly demonstrated that (1) the Russians interfered, in 2016, (2) Putin wanted to hurt Clinton, and (3) the Russians wanted to (and did) help Trump. This is what the unanimous Intel Community /2
Assessment concluded, and that ICA was thoroughly vetted by the Republican-controlled Senate Intel Committee who described it as "a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 US /3
Read 9 tweets
30 Sep 20
@LindseyGrahamSC described the Horowitz report this morning at the Comey hearing as a "thorough examination" - while Bill Barr has done nothing but impugn the conclusion that the FBI investigation was adequately predicated. Graham is a grandstanding ham who is misrepresenting /1
the background and timing related to the information included in the Carter Page FISA applications. Graham is futilely trying to undermine an entire FBI investigation that Horowitz concluded was adequately predicated. Graham says he is trying to insure that what happened to /2
Page never happens again but no one can offer that assurance for an activity that is conducted by humans. Retrospective examination of almost any activity scrutinized as closely as Crossfire Hurricane will reveal things that might have been done differently, perhaps better. /3
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!