Bluesky thread laying out, with evidence, why Bondi’s accusations against former President Obama are bullshit. For those who don’t have Bluesky, I will compile it all in a blog post. But really, you should get Bluesky
I'm at RosedaleTom@Bluesky.social
The Bluesky thread includes screen shots from the declassified reports that Bondi refers to; I have elected to not include the screenshots, but to include the text from those screenshots with a light grey background
Bluesky post by Laura Jedeed
@laurajedeed.bsky.social
The "Obama did a coup" thing is a pathetic attempt to distract from growing evidence that Trump and Epstein abused kids together. Also, it's total bullshit
Here's a fully-annotated point-by-point refutation of Gabbard's nonsense, evidence-free accusations:
For this thread we'll be comparing Gabbard's 7 basic accusations as written in her press release and parroted on Fox and now a White House press conference (dni.gov/index.php/ne....
...With the 118-page report she claims proves the accusations (dni.gov/files/ODNI/d...)
Gabbard uses precise, actionable language. She's using the same words and phrases over and over both in the press release and all her media appearances
You can read about those phrases and also find an article version of this thread here:
3/
www.bannedinyourstate.com/p/cornered-d...
1. “In the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the Intelligence Community (IC) consistently assessed that Russia is “probably not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means”
This quote comes with some HUGE caveats Gabbard leaves out:
Subject: RE: Russia and the US Elections --- Classification: ; ; cia Classified By: Derived From: Declassify On: ====================================================== I took the intent of this email to get the basic starting point regarding Russia. We agree with: Russia probably is not (and will not) trying to influence the election by using cyber means to manipulate computer-enabled election infrastructure. Yes, if we're going further, while Russia has some capability to conduct cyber manipulation of election infrastructure, we judge that efforts by them (or others) to change the outcome of an election through cyber means would be detected. That's a key element of our cyber-focused PDB. We assess that foreign adversaries, notably Russia, are more likely to focus their cyber operations on undermining credibility/public confidence. That assessment feeds directly into the influence operations, some cyber-enabled, that we've seen related to current and historic election cycles. We concur with CIA's change related to that.
It's weird that Gabbard chose to quote discussion of the report rather than the report itself
Maybe it's because the report itself clearly states that the intelligence community IS worried about Russia influencing the election in ways that don't involve altering vote totals
We judge that foreign adversaries do not have and will probably not obtain the capabilities to successfully execute widespread and undetected cyber attacks on the diverse set of information technologies and infrastructures used to support the November 2016 US presidential election. We have only moderate confidence in our overall threat assessment, The most likely cyber threat to the election is from low-level, detectable, cyber intrusions and attacks that cause localized disruption but do not threaten the overall functionality of the election services or infrastructures. Nonetheless, even the perception that such low-level intrusions and attacks have occurred risks undermining public confidence in the legitimacy of the electoral process, the validity of the election’s outcome, and the mandate of the winning candidate. We further assess that foreign adversaries are more likely to focus election-related cyber operations on undermining the credibility of the electoral process than on clandestinely manipulationg the vote outcome through cyber means.
The report Gabbard declassified states "with only moderate confidence" (see above) that Russia will "probably" not pull off successful cyber operation capable of changing election results
The report explicitly does NOT rule out the possibility of Russia pulling it off
Despite the diverse nature of the computer-enabled US election infrastructure and the difficulties associated with anticipating decisive tipping points in advance—in cases where an election is decided by a few closely contested areas that also employ vulnerable technologies—a targeted cyber attack on these locations might have significant impact on public confidence in the election or even actually be able to shift the overall outcome. If a “perfect storm” of coincident political and technological sensitivity were to develop, a cyber adversary might be able to target a small number of critical counties in highly contested states with significant numbers of Electoral College votes. This could potentially alter the apparent outcome of, and almost certainly undermine public confidence in, the election. Although we understand this scenario is unlikely, it remains a possibility that we cannot discount.
This declassified intel report from September 2016 -- the one Gabbard says proves the intel community didn't think Russia would interfere with the election "using cyber means" -- very explicitly states (with high confidence!) that Russia was actively preparing to interfere
Key Judgment 4. We judge Russia has conducted cyber and intelligence operations that suggest that it has potential interest in disrupting the US presidential election. Russia is probably the most capable and willing actor to conduct such operations based on its probable involvement in US election-related disclosures, the downward trend the bilateral relationship, and Russian leaders’ deeply held belief that Washington has tried to influence past Russian elections. We assess that Russian intelligence services were behind the compromises of the DNC and DCCC networks and of email accounts from members of Congress, state political parties, a voter registration organization, and seven other US political organizations. We have high confidence in our assessment
Claim 2:
“On Dec 7 2016, after the election, talking points were prepared for DNI James Clapper stating “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter US Presidential election outcome"
That's the first sentence, yes. There were some others
ACTIVITY ON AND SINCE ELECTION DAY We assess that foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome this year. We have no evidence of cyber manipulation of election infrastructure intended to alter results. There was, however, minimal targeting of election infrastructure probably by cyber criminals to steal data, although these efforts did not disrupt the election. o Unattributed denial-of-service attacks against election infrastructure were reported on election day, including a 4-minute attack against an unspecified Illinois elections website that had no impact on the website’s availability. Since the election, cyber actors linked by signals intelligence to Russia’s SVR on 9 November conducted multiple election-themed spear-phishing campaigns. 1 Large quantities of emails – purportedly Clinton Foundation election postmortems from a Harvard University email address – were sent to individuals in national security, defense, international affairs, public policy and European Asian studies organizations. Multiple U.S. government agencies report having received the emails
OTHER INTRUSIONS Prior to the election, there were two reported instances of compromises against state election networks (Arizona and Illinois) and 20 or more states reported experience vulnerability scanning attempts and attempts to compromise web sites, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. We now assess with low-to-moderate confidence that Russian Governmentaffiliated actors compromised the Illinois voter registration database and tried to compromise comparable infrastructure in multiple other states. We assess that a probable criminal cyber actor targeted the voter database in Arizona, based on the fact that a known criminal posted credentials for the database online. DNC INTRUSION The US Intelligence Community has high confidence in its attribution of the intrusions into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) networks, based on the forensic evidence identified by a private cyber-firm and the IC’s review and understanding of cyber activities by the Russian Government. Most IC agencies assess with moderate confidence that Russian services probably orchestrated at least some of the disclosures of US political information. Our level of confidence is based on the timing and that Russian intelligence was in possession of leaked information from both the DNC and DCCC as was subsequently leaked by Guccifer 2.0, the WikiLeaks website, and the DCLeaks website. In addition, the disclosures of White House e-mails by the DCLeaks website appear to be consistent with the tactics and motivations of the Russian Government.
While Russia did not ALTER the 2016 election through cyberattacks, the Clapper talking points accuse Russia of mounting cyberattacks against US election infrastructure:
1) Russia compromised an Illinois database and attempted at least 20 more breaches in other states
OTHER INTRUSIONS Prior to the election, there were two reported instances of compromises against state election networks (Arizona and Illinois) and 20 or more states reported experience vulnerability scanning attempts and attempts to compromise web sites, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. We now assess with low-to-moderate confidence that Russian Governmentaffiliated actors compromised the Illinois voter registration database and tried to compromise comparable infrastructure in multiple other states. We assess that a probable criminal cyber actor targeted the voter database in Arizona, based on the fact that a known criminal posted credentials for the database online.
2. The Clapper talking points from December 7, like the intel assessment from September 12, clearly state that Russia is behind the DNC and DCCC hacks and probably participated in leaking some of that info with the intent of influencing the 2016 election
DNC INTRUSION The US Intelligence Community has high confidence in its attribution of the intrusions into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) networks, based on the forensic evidence identified by a private cyber-firm and the IC’s review and understanding of cyber activities by the Russian Government. Most IC agencies assess with moderate confidence that Russian services probably orchestrated at least some of the disclosures of US political information. Our level of confidence is based on the timing and that Russian intelligence was in possession of leaked information from both the DNC and DCCC as was subsequently leaked by Guccifer 2.0, the WikiLeaks website, and the DCLeaks website. In addition, the disclosures of White House e-mails by the DCLeaks website appear to be consistent with the tactics and motivations of the Russian Government.
Accusation 3:
“On Dec 9 2016 President Obama’s White House gathered top National Security Council Principals for a meeting that included James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and others, to discuss Russia.”
This did happen, yes
Summary of Conclusions for Meeting of the Principals Committee
DATE: December 9, 2016
LOCATION: White House Situation Room
TIME: 11:30 a .m. - 1:30 p.m. 005018
SUBJECT: Summary of Conclusions for PC Meeting on a Sensitive Topic
Participants:
Chair Susan Rice
OVP No Representative
State Secretary John Kerry (SVTS)
Victoria Nuland
Treasury Adam Szubin
DOD Brian McKeon
Justice Loretta Lynch
Mary McCord
WH Counsel Neil Eggleston
DNI James Clapper
FBI Andrew McCabe
CIA John Brennan
JCS (SVTS) Gen Joseph Dunford
Gabbard has declassfied a "summary of conclusions" from a meeting that seems to discuss Russian attempts at election interference, along with a spear-phishing campaign outlined in James Clapper's talking points
(here's a screenshot of that part of the talking points)
Since the election, cyber actors linked by signals intelligence to Russia’s SVR on 9 November conducted multiple election-themed spear-phishing campaigns.
Large quantities of emails – purportedly Clinton Foundation election postmortems from a Harvard University email address – were sent to individuals in national security, defense, international affairs, public policy, and European Asian studies organizations. Multiple US Government agencies report having received the emails.
Claim 4:
“After the meeting, DNI Clapper’s Executive Assistant sent an email to IC leaders tasking them with creating a new IC assessment “per the President’s request” that details the “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.”....."[the email] went on to say, “ODNI will lead this effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS.”"
The “to” line of the email is redacted but the attribution makes logical sense. All those quotes do, in fact, appear somewhere in the email
The IC is prepared to produce an assessment per the President’s request, that pulls together the information we have on the tools Moscow used and the actions it took to influence the 2016 election, an explanation of why Moscow directed these activities, and how Moscow’s approach has changed over time, going back to 2008 and 2012 as reference points. ODNI will lead the effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS.
The goal would be to produce a highly classified version and an unclassified version: o The classified version would include a comprehensive analysis of Russia’s activities, drawing from all available sources, with a target delivery date of 9 January to the President.
The unclassified version would follow the classified delivery, and to the greatest extent possible would include the same information while still protecting sources and methods. The goal would be to make the unclassified document publicly available.
The implication of Gabbard's accusation here is that Obama commanded the intelligence community to alter their previous assessment. Unfortunately for Gabbard, those "tools" Moscow used? All covered in previous intel assessments
Let's look at them now!
2. Interagency Tiger Team will draft assessment of “what happened”
a. CIA, FBI, NSA officers will participate; DHS and OSE analysts will contribute
b. Assessment will address the following questions
i. How did Moscow seek to influence the US presidential election in 2016? What tools did they use?
1. Hacking (CIA, FBI, NSA lead)
2. Leaks (CIA, FBI, NSA lead)
3. Cyber activity against voting system (DHS input)
4. Media spin, trolls, fake news (OSE lead)
5. Domestic Russian Intelligence efforts (FBI input)
ii. Why did Moscow direct these activities? What have the Russians hoped to accomplish? (CIA lead)
Tool 1: Hacking. Previous reports consistently stated, with high confidence, that Russia hacked the DNC and DCCC
Tool 2: Leaks. Previous reports also consistently stated that Russia was likely behind at least some of the leaked info from that hack
Tool 3: Cyber activity against voting system. the James Comey talking points discuss attacks against Illinois and at least 20 other states, as mentioned above
Tool 4: Media spin/trolls/fake news. Not mentioned in the previous declassified reports, it's true
Also: this section is assigned to Open Source Enterprise (OSE). The report does not include comms from OSE, so we're missing any previous discussion that might have happened
2. Interagency Tiger Team will draft assessment of “what happened” a. CIA, FBI, NSA officers will participate; DHS and OSE analysts will contribute b. Assessment will address the following questions i. How did Moscow seek to influence the US presidential election in 2016? What tools did they use? 1. Hacking (CIA, FBI, NSA lead) 2. Leaks (CIA, FBI, NSA lead) 3. Cyber activity against voting system (DHS input) 4. Media spin, trolls, fake news (OSE lead) 5. Domestic Russian Intelligence efforts (FBI input) ii. Why did Moscow direct these activities? What have the Russians hoped to accomplish? (CIA lead)
Tool 5: Domestic Russian Intelligence efforts:
Unclear what they're referring to. The report they eventually wrote based on these instructions suggests Russian agents tried to gain physical access but were denied access. That's the only thing that matches this description
Other Russian Influence Efforts
Some Russian influence efforts appeared to be short lived or have little traction, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] indicates Russian officials were unable to conduct their desired election monitoring plan because US officials denied them access
[REDACTED] indicates plans for a Russian-language newspaper supportive of President-elect Trump to be published in the United States were scaled back in late October after Moscow deemed the President-elect's chance for victory to be unlikely
While it's true that the declassified reports don't talk about "domestic Russian intelligence efforts" prior to these post-election instructions for producing an intelligence report, it also doesn't factor into the end report, so I'm not really seeing the scandal here
Claim 6:
“Obama officials leaked false statements to media outlets, including The Washington Post, claiming “Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election.””
The report does not mention WaPo even once
Claim 6 quotes from Obama's alleged leak: "Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election."
This quote appears nowhere in the docs and there's no record of this quote anywhere, at any time, before Gabbard's press release
Just want to emphasize that: Gabbard's press release contains a quote that exists nowhere else on the Internet except in her press release
So, you know. She's lying
Claim 6: “On January 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months.”
No it fucking doesn't
That's not true
Nothing in the report contradicts anything stated in previous released intel assessments. It has more info on Putin preferring Trump over Clinton, but that was never discussed either way and seems to draw on open source data
The report emphasizes the most damning aspects of the previous reports, it uses more strident language, but that’s not a contradiction, never mind a "years-long coup"
I don't even know what to screenshot here. How can you screenshot something that doesn't exist?
The report includes a LOT of information media spin/trolls/fake news, which does not appear in previous reports
This is because -- as stated earlier! --we don’t have any reports or emails from OSE, the department tasked with investigating that aspect of Russian interference
FINAL CLAIM:
“After months of investigation into this matter, the facts reveal this new assessment was based on information that was known by those involved to be manufactured i.e. the Steele Dossier or deemed as not credible.”
The report LITERALLY SAYS THE OPPOSITE
The last 10 pages of Gabbard's released report contain a 2019 FOIA request from all communications between FBI and the DNI office from May of 2016 to February of 2017 pertaining to the Steele Dossier
The National Intelligence Officer for cyber issues from 2015 to time of email (Sean Kanuck) answers the request
He says the only “highside” (classified) email that referenced the Steele Dossier during the specified time frame (May 2016-Feb 2017) was a news compilation
An email with the from and to fields redacted
U: To u only at this time;
U: First - when I search all my mail highside items, only 9 hits match ("Steele + "dossier") and I believe these are 1 error plus 8 open-side news compilations sent to me as a member of a wide distro. Only one of these is as old as 2017 (attached). I can also run lowside if needed. However,
Kanuck points out that seraching 9 months of emails between DNI and the FBI for terms like "dossier" and "James Clapper" would be, in the understatement of the year: "impractical"
Please review the attach [sic] document and conduct a search for the time period May 2016 through February 2017 of all records of communications (including emails on both .gov and non-.gov accounts, text messages, and instant chats) between the office of the Director of National Intelligence, including but not limited to former ODNI Director James Clapper, and the office of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including but not limited to former FBI director James Comey, regarding the collection fo memos known as the "Steele Dossier."
Recommended search terms the "Steele" "Dossier" "Cater Page" "James Comey" and "James Clapper" "John Brennan" in my election-related files
Kanuck states, unequivocally, that his office never even reviewed the Steele Dossier, never mind used it in an Intelligence Community report
The only time the report came up at all was when some other colleagues made the same baseless accusation, which he found "concerning"
To this day, I have never seen or reviewed dossier materials in a work setting. I did recently hear them referenced by two colelagues in terms consistent with the email below, which struck me as concerning and at odds with my personal experience working election issues during 2015-2017.
With that single, recent exception, other than the email below, at not ime in my I career has "dossier" material ever been represented to me in a work setting as something the NIC viewed as credible, or that was influential in crafting NIC products.
Within the intel world, people receive info on a need-to-know basis. Kanuck says it's possible that some secret working group used the dossier
He also heard SECOND-HAND that the dossier was used in one presidential briefing
This is not "overwhelming proof" of ANYTHING
I have intermittently participated in IC foreign influence and election security efforts from 2014 through this evening
I was asked by NIO Cyber [
to participate in the analytic scrub of the non-
compartmented version of what I think is the 2017 ICA referenced below. It included no dossier reference that I recall.
o I was not / am not in all of the Russia compartments, and so I did not participate in the crafting of the compartmented version
o At no point did suggest that there was any analytically significant reporting that I was NOT seeing, with the exception of compartmented material (I asked repeatedly, because of analytic concerns I held regarding a KJ that remain unresolved to this day.)
o At no point did I see or consider what I gather is, or was represented to be, 'dossier' materials.
I did hear second hand from
ostensibly recounting words of then DNI Clapper, on the
day of a briefing to current [then, I think, just elect] POTUS, about inclusion of dossier materials in a presentation to POTUS elect. This was characterized as an unexpected and unwanted sudden and unilateral act by then DIR FBI Comey, and as a source of concern to the DNI.
The exchange ends with an extremely snippy demand for Kanuck to execute the FOIA request
That’s the end of the report. There is nothing else
An email with the to and from fields redacted
I think you just need to respond to the request based on a plain reading of what it is asking. If you have further questions about what is responsive, I think we can link you to the FOIA officers and they probably have better expertise to guide you. Obviously, this all predates me.
On #3, it is routine that we get material and don't share it with everyone--and it's not a matter of a particular clearance
So yeah. The accusations are baseless bullshit; a completely manufactured conspiracy and a Hail Mary pass to save a floundering, failing president from his own stupidity
if this absolute nonsense somehow lands a former president in jail it will be one of the most embarrassing things to ever happen in this country — and that’s a high bar.
Here's a whole article about Gabbards bullshit, plus analysis of MAGA's reaction to the "Obama did a years-long coup and should be in jail" thing
This is groundwork for arresting Dems at a time when Trump is desperate. Unfortunately, the story matters
