WASHINGTON – CIA officials failed in some cases to follow the standard procedures in Intelligence analysis of Russian intervention efforts In the 2016 elections, according to an internal review, the secrecy was lifted from Wednesday.
“The intelligence officers were given an extraordinary short schedule for the analysis, and there was” excessive participation “by senior leaders, and unequal employees were granted to decisive intelligence around Russia.
However, the review did not refute the results of the 2017 intelligence evaluation that Russia launched the information war campaign designed to undermine the confidence of Americans in the electoral process, Hillary Clinton and Boost Donald TrumpHorizons in the 2016 elections.
“Although the general evaluation was defense of this, the specific anomalies and Tradecraft issues are highlighted by critical lessons to deal with controversial or politically charged topics,” Review He said.
Follow the coverage of the living policy here
Trump and his allies have long rejected intelligence and other reports indicating that Russia has used false and advertising information to try to influence the 2016 elections and prepare standards in his favor. They have accused intelligence and law enforcement officials of planning to link Trump and Russia and doubt the legitimacy of his victory in 2016.
A special advisor who was appointed during the first Trump administration considered widely on how the CIA evaluated it, but she did not provide any criminal charges and did not report any clear evidence that political bias distorts the process.
Achieving the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 He agreed to evaluate intelligence for the year 2017 He found no reason to object to her conclusions.
During the second period of Trump, his deputies pledged to bring more transparency to the intelligence community and prevent any attempt to politicize its work.
The Director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, ordered the internal review this year and the company was raised on Wednesday, according to the Central Intelligence Agency.
The intelligence assessment of the 2016 vote, which President Barack Obama requested after the November elections, found that Russia has sought to undermine the public belief in the democratic process and the Calingon distortion and that Moscow “aspires” to help Trump win the elections.
Two senior leaders in the mission of the CIA’s mission objected to Russia to include the conclusion that Russia aims to help secure Trump’s victory, according to the internal review. They argued that the opinion was mainly supported by one intelligence report, while other provisions were supported by more information.
The review said the evaluation was conducted on an extraordinary short schedule. Instead of having months to prepare a complex analysis and political sensation, the authors had “less than a week to formulate the evaluation” and “less than two days to formally coordinate” with other intelligence officers.
Multiple intelligence staff said they felt that they were “jammed” through the compressed timetable, “according to the review.
The review said that senior CIA officials were strongly participating in the evaluation voltage, which was “very unusual in both the range and density.” As a result, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Intelligence and Research Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were “completely closed” from the analysis, which was “a great deviation” from the usual practice in the intelligence community, according to the review.
Also, the authors of the evaluation evaluation of 2016 and other CIA officers are “strongly opposed”, including an indication in the analysis to the so -called Trump file collected by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steel. The file guarantees an unintended allegations about collusion with Trump with Russia.
In the end, a summary of the file was included in an annex, with the responsibility of the responsibility that it was not used “to reach analytical conclusions” in the evaluation.
The review also found reasons for the evaluation in the 2016 evaluation, saying that many of the team’s work showed the strong Tradecraft with extensive sources and that there was no sign of regular problems.
John Brennan, who was the director of the CIA at the time of evaluation, told NBC News on Wednesday that he was aware of the review, but he had no opportunity to read it yet.
