Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ODNI declassified assessment of “Russian activities and intentions in recent U.S. elections”

On October 7, 2016,[7] the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta‘s personal email account and leaked their documents to WikiLeaks.[8][9] Several cybersecurity firms stated that the cyberattacks were committed by Russian intelligence groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.[10] In October 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop interfering or face “serious consequences”.[11] Russian officials initially issued categorical denials of any Russian involvement in any DNC hacks or leaks.[12][13][14] In June 2017, however, in a shift from Russia’s previous blanket denials, Putin suggested that private “patriotically minded” Russian hackers could have been responsible for cyberattacks, while continuing to deny government involvement.[15] In January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign went beyond hacking, and included disinformation such as the dissemination of fake news often promoted on social media.[16] President-elect Trump initially rejected the reports of Russian interference and criticized the intelligence agencies, saying that Democrats were simply reacting to their election loss.[17][18]United States intelligence agencies have concluded that there was Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[1][2][3] In January 2017, a published U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed “high confidence” that the Russian government favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an “influence campaign” to denigrate Clinton and to harm her electoral chances and potential presidency.[4] The report concluded that Russia used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media “trolls” in an effort to give an advantage to Trump over Clinton but did not target or compromise vote tallying.[1] These conclusions were reaffirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017.[5] Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe had found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015.[6]

Investigations on Russian influence, including potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, were started by the FBI,[19] the Senate Intelligence Committee[20] and the House Intelligence Committee.[21] Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump’s associates, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner and advisers Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.[22][23] In December 2016, Obama ordered a report on hacking efforts aimed at U.S. elections since 2008.[24] On December 29, 2016, the U.S. expelled 35 Russian diplomats, denied access to two Russia-owned compounds, and broadened existing sanctions on Russian entities and individuals.[25] Russia did not retaliate.[26]

On March 20, 2017, FBI director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI had been conducting a counter-intelligence investigation about Russian interference since July 2016, including possible coordination between associates of Trump and Russia.[27][28] On May 9, 2017, in a move that was widely criticized as an attempt to curtail the Russian investigation by the FBI, Trump dismissed Comey.[29] On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel in the FBI’s Russian investigation.[30]

Russian involvement

Vladimir Putin

shoulder height portrait of man in suit and tie with dyed thinning hair in his sixties

American intelligence officials stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin (pictured) personally controlled the covert operation.[31]

In December 2016, two senior intelligence officials informed U.S. news media[Note 1] that they were highly confident that Vladimir Putin personally directed the operation to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. They said Putin’s motives were a vendetta against Hillary Clinton and the desire to foment global distrust of the U.S.[32] Putin became personally involved after Russia accessed the DNC,[32] because such an operation required high government approval.[35] U.S. officials said that under Putin’s direction, the goals evolved from criticizing American democracy to attacking Clinton, and by the fall of 2016 to directly help Trump’s campaign, because Putin thought he would ease economic sanctions.[31] White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest[36] and Obama foreign policy advisor and speechwriter Ben Rhodes agreed with this assessment, with Rhodes saying operations of this magnitude required Putin’s consent.[31]

In January 2017, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,[37] representing the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA), published the following assessment[4] in public, non-classified form. The FBI and CIA gave the assessment with high confidence and the NSA with moderate confidence.[4]

President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.[4]

Russian Institute for Strategic Studies

three story modern beige office building, gray portico with writing, trees, natural setting

The Russian Institute for Strategic Studies began working for the Russian presidency after 2009.

Several U.S. officials said to Reuters that the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS) had developed a strategy to influence the U.S. elections in a direction desirable for Russia.[38] The development of strategy was ordered by Putin and directed by former officers of Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. The Institute was a part of Russian SVR until 2009. It started working directly for the Russian Presidential Administration later.[39]

The propaganda efforts began in March 2016. The first set of recommendations, issued in June 2016, proposed that Russia must support a candidate for U.S. president more favorable to Russia than Obama had been via a social media campaign and through Russia-backed news outlets. The second report was written in October 2016 when a Clinton win appeared likely. It advocated messages about voter fraud in order to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system and a Clinton presidency.[38] RISS director Mikhail Fradkov and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied the allegations.[40]

Internet trolls

Clint Watts, Foreign Policy Research Institute fellow and senior fellow at the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University, and Andrew Weisburd reported for The Daily Beast in August 2016 that Russian propaganda fabricated articles were popularized by social media.[41] The authors wrote that disinformation spread from government-controlled outlets, RT and Sputnik to pro-Russian accounts on Twitter.[41] Citing research by Adrian Chen, they compared Russian tactics during the 2016 U.S. election to Soviet Union Cold War strategies.[41] They referenced the 1992 United States Information Agency report to the U.S. Congress, which warned about Russian propaganda called active measures.[41] They wrote active measures were made easier with social media.[41] Institute of International Relations Prague senior fellow and scholar on Russian intelligence, Mark Galeotti, agreed the Kremlin operations were a form of active measures.[42] The Guardian wrote in November 2016 the most strident Internet promoters of Trump were paid Russian propagandists, estimating several thousand trolls involved.[43]

In a follow-up article, together with colleague J. M. Berger, Weisburd and Watts said they had monitored 7,000 pro-Trump social media accounts over a two-and-a-half year period,[44] and found that such accounts denigrated critics of Russian activities in Syria and propagated falsehoods about Clinton’s health.[45] Watts said the propaganda targeted the alt-right movement, the right wing, and fascist groups.[46] Watts’ findings cited Russian propaganda which exacerbated criticism of Clinton and support for Trump, via social media, Internet trolls, botnets, and websites denigrating Clinton.[41]

Background

Putin and Clinton

Russians protest against Putin’s re-election in 2012. Putin accused Secretary of State Clinton of inciting 2011–13 Russian protests.[47][48]

The U.S. intelligence community, in a joint January 6, 2017, declassified report, stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin wish to retaliate against Hillary Clinton due to faulting her for 2011-2012 mass protests against him.[4] On March 20, 2017, FBI Director James Comey testified that Putin disregarded Clinton and preferred her opponent.[49] Putin repeatedly accused Clinton, who served as U.S. Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, of interfering in Russia’s internal affairs,[50] and in December 2016, Clinton accused Putin of having a personal grudge against her.[51] Michael McFaul, who was U.S. ambassador to Russia, said that the operation could be Putin’s retaliation against Clinton.[48] In July 2016, NBC News reported that Clinton was outspoken against Putin.[52] According to Russian security expert Andrei Soldatov, one of the reasons Russia tried to sway the U.S. presidential election is perceived antipathy between Clinton and the Russian government.[53]

Cyberattack and email leaks

In June 2016, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) first stated that the Russian hacker groups Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear had penetrated their campaign servers and leaked information via the Guccifer 2.0 online persona.[54][55][56] On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released approximately 20,000 emails sent from or received by DNC personnel.[57]Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chairwoman following WikiLeaks releases suggesting collusion against Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign.[58] A few days later, Trump publicly called on Russia to hack and release Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails from her private server during her tenure in the State Department.[59][60] Trump’s comment was condemned by the press and political figures, including some Republicans;[61] he replied that he had been speaking sarcastically.[62] Several Democratic Senators said Trump’s comments appeared to violate the Logan Act,[63][64] and Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe added that Trump’s call could be treasonous.[65] On October 7, 2016, WikiLeaks started releasing series of emails and documents sent from or received by Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, which continued on a daily basis until Election Day.[66] Podesta later blamed Russia.[67] In April 2017, CIA Director Mike Pompeo stated WikiLeaks was a hostile intelligence agency aided by foreign states including Russia, and said that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that Russia’s “propaganda outlet” RT, had conspired with WikiLeaks.[68]

U.S. Counter-Disinformation Team

The International Business Times reported that the United States Department of State planned to use a unit formed with the intention of combating disinformation from the Russian government, and that it was disbanded in September 2015 after department heads missed the scope of propaganda before the 2016 U.S. election.[69] The unit had been in development for 8 months prior to being scrapped.[69] Titled the Counter-Disinformation Team, it would have been a reboot of the Active Measures Working Group set up by the Reagan Administration.[70] It was created under the Bureau of International Information Programs.[70] Work began in 2014, with the intention of countering propaganda from Russian sources such as TV network RT (formerly called Russia Today).[70] A beta website was ready, and staff were hired by the U.S. State Department for the unit prior to its cancellation.[70] U.S. Intelligence officials explained to former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler that the Obama Administration decided to cancel the unit, as they were afraid of antagonizing Russia.[70] A State Department representative told the International Business Times after being contacted regarding the closure of the unit, that the U.S. was disturbed by propaganda from Russia, and the strongest defense was sincere communication.[69] U.S. Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Richard Stengel was the point person for the unit before it was canceled.[70] Stengel had written in 2014 that RT was engaged in a disinformation campaign about Ukraine.[71]

Intrusions into state voter-registration systems

As early as June 2016, the FBI sent a warning to states about “bad actors” probing state-elections systems to seek vulnerabilities.[72] In September 2016, FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI was investigating Russian hackers attempting to disrupt the 2016 election and that federal investigators had detected hacked-related activities in state voter-registration databases,[73] which independent assessments determined were soft targets for hackers.[74] Comey stated there were multiple attempts to hack voter database registrations.[72] Director of National Intelligence James Clapper attributed Russian hacking attempts to Vladimir Putin.[75]

In August 2016, the FBI issued a nationwide “flash alert” warning state election officials about hacking attempts.[74] In September 2016, U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials and the National Association of Secretaries of State reported that hackers had penetrated, or sought to penetrate, the voter-registration systems in more than 20 states over the previous few months.[73] Federal investigators attributed these attempts to Russian government-sponsored hackers,[72] and specifically to Russian intelligence agencies.[74] Four of the intrusions into voter registration databases were successful, including intrusions into the Illinois and Arizona databases.[75] Although the hackers did not appear to change or manipulate data,[73][72] Illinois officials reported that information on up to 200,000 registered voters was stolen.[74] The FBI and DHS increased their election-security coordination efforts with state officials as a result.[72][73] Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson reported that 18 states had requested voting-system security assistance from DHS.[72] The department also offered risk assessments to the states, but just four states expressed interest, as the election was rapidly approaching.[73] The reports of the database intrusions prompted alarm from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, who wrote to the FBI saying foreign attempts to cast doubt on free and fair elections was a danger to democracy not seen since the Cold War.[75]

Leaking of classified document to The Intercept

NSA Report on Russia Spearphishing[76]

On June 5, 2017, The Intercept published a top secret NSA document describing details about Russia’s attempts to hack American voting systems a week before the election in November 2016.[77][78][79] Less than an hour later, federal contractor Reality Leigh Winner was charged[80][81] with removing this document from a government facility and leaking it to the Intercept.[82][83][84] Winner, a 25-year-old contractor with Pluribus International Corporation, had been arrested on charges of leaking the document on June 3.[85][86][87][88][89][90]

Putin payroll conversation

In June 2016, a month before the Republican Party nominated Trump for president, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, after ending a meeting with Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, said in a private conversation with his Republican colleagues that he thought “Putin pays Rohrabacher and Trump”. House Speaker Paul Ryan interjected to end the conversation and instructed those present to secrecy.[91] The conversation took place a day after it was revealed that Russian operatives had hacked the DNC.[91] The existence of the conversation was publicly revealed in May 2017, by The Washington Post, which obtained a recording of the conversation[91] and published a full transcript of the conversation.[92] When asked for comment, spokesmen for both McCarthy and Ryan initially gave a categorical denial that the conversation had taken place, with the former calling the claim silly. After being informed that a recording of the conversation existed, the spokesmen called the conversation comedic. Evan McMullin, who was present at the conversation as the then-policy director for the House Republican Conference, confirmed its content, saying Ryan was worried about it being made public.[91]

Cybersecurity analysis

In June and July 2016, cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike,[93] Fidelis, Mandiant, SecureWorks[94] and ThreatConnect, stated the DNC email leaks were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian intelligence groups, called Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear,[10][95] also known respectively as APT28 and APT29.[93][96]ThreatConnect also noted possible links between the DC Leaks project and Russian intelligence operations because of a similarity with Fancy Bear attack patterns.[97] Symantec and FireEye examined the data themselves and supported Crowdstrike’s analysis that the perpetrators were Fancy Bear and The Dukes (also known as APT29).[98] In June, 2016, SecureWorks stated that the actor group was operating from Russia on behalf of the Russian government.[99] In December 2016, Ars Technica IT editor Sean Gallagher reviewed the publicly available evidence, and wrote that attribution of the DNC hacks to Russian intelligence was based on clues from attack methods and similarity to other cases, as the hacking was tracked in real time since May 2016 by CrowdStrike’s monitoring tools.[100]

U.S. intelligence analysis

GCHQ tips and CIA briefings to Congress

shoulder high portrait of man in his fifties or sixties standing in front of an American flag and the flag of the CIA

John O. Brennan, former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency

In part because U.S. agencies cannot surveil U.S. citizens without a warrant, the U.S. was slow to recognize a pattern itself. From late 2015 until the summer of 2016, during routine surveillance of Russians, several countries discovered interactions between the Trump campaign and Moscow. The UK, Germany, Estonia, Poland, and Australia (and possibly the Netherlands and France) relayed their discoveries to the U.S.[6]

According to The Guardian because the materials were highly sensitive, Robert Hannigan, then the director of the UK’s GCHQ, contacted CIA director John O. Brennan to give him information directly.[6] Concerned, Brennan gave classified briefings to the Gang of Eight (the leaders of the House and Senate, and the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees) during late August and September 2016.[101] Referring only to intelligence allies and not to specific sources, Brennan told the Gang of Eight that he had received evidence that Russia might be trying to help Trump win the U.S. election.[6] On May 23 2017, Brennan stated to the House Intelligence Committee that Russia “brazenly interfered” in the 2016 US elections. He said that he first picked up on Russia’s active meddling “last summer”,[102] and that he had on August 4, 2016 warned his counterpart at Russia’s FSB intelligence agency, Alexander Bortnikov, against further interference.[103]

October 2016 ODNI / DHS joint statement

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified about Russian attempts to influence the U.S. presidential race.

At the Aspen security conference in summer 2016, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Vladimir Putin wanted to retaliate against perceived U.S. intervention in Russian affairs with the 2011–13 Russian protests and the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in the 2014 Ukraine crisis.[104] In July 2016, consensus grew within the CIA that Russia had hacked the DNC.[105] In a joint statement on October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence expressed confidence that Russia had interfered in the presidential election by stealing emails from politicians and U.S. groups and publicizing the information.[8] On December 2, intelligence sources told CNN they had gained confidence that Russia’s efforts were aimed at helping Trump win the election.[106]

December 2016 CIA report

On December 9, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community had concluded, in a consensus view, that Russia conducted operations to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency, stating that “individuals with connections to the Russian government”, previously known to the intelligence community, had given WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and John Podesta.[107] The agencies further stated that Russia had hacked the RNC as well, but did not leak information obtained from there.[108] These assessments were based on evidence obtained before the election.[109] According to an unnamed official, the intelligence community did not believe that Moscow’s efforts altered the outcome of the election.[110]

FBI inquiries

In June 2016, the FBI notified the Illinois Republican Party that some of its email accounts may have been hacked.[111] In December 2016, an FBI official stated that Russian attempts to access the RNC server were unsuccessful.[108] In an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, RNC chair Reince Priebus stated they communicated with the FBI when they learned about the DNC hacks, and a review determined their servers were secure.[112] On January 10, 2017, FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russia succeeded in “collecting some information from Republican-affiliated targets but did not leak it to the public”.[113]

On July 25, 2016, the FBI announced that it would investigate the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, following the publication on July 22 of a large number of the emails by WikiLeaks.[114][115] On October 31, 2016, The New York Times stated that the FBI had been examining possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, but did not find any clear links.[116] At the time, FBI officials thought Russia was motivated to undermine confidence in the U.S. political process rather than specifically support Trump.[116] During a House Intelligence Committee hearing in early December, the CIA said it was certain of Russia’s intent to help Trump.[117] On December 16, 2016, CIA Director John O. Brennan sent a message to his staff saying he had spoken with FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and that all agreed with the CIA’s conclusion that Russia interfered in the presidential election with the motive of supporting Donald Trump’s candidacy.[118]

On March 20, 2017, during public testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, FBI director James Comey confirmed the existence of an FBI investigation into Russian interference and Russian links to the Trump campaign, including the question of whether there had been any coordination between the campaign and the Russians.[27] He said the investigation began in July 2016.[28] Comey made the unusual decision to reveal the ongoing investigation to Congress, citing benefit to the public good.[119]

December 2016 FBI / DHS Joint Analysis Report

On December 29, 2016, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released an unclassified Joint Analysis Report titled “GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity”.[96] It gave new technical details regarding methods used by Russian intelligence services for affecting the U.S. election, government, political organizations and private sector.[120][121]

The report included malware samples and other technical details as evidence that the Russian government had hacked the Democratic National Committee.[122] Alongside the report, DHS published Internet Protocol addresses, malware, and files used by Russian hackers.[120] An article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung discussed the difficulty of proof in matters of cybersecurity. Persons quoted in the article told the paper that the unclassified evidence provided by the Joint Analysis Report did not provide proof of Russian culpability. One analyst told the Süddeutsche Zeitung that U.S. intelligence services could be keeping some information secret to protect their sources and analysis methods.[123]

Ars Technica security editor Dan Goodin wrote that, the U.S. analysis lacked technical evidence of an attempt to influence the 2016 election.[124] Former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, stated that while other public sources provide solid evidence of Russia’s interference, the JAR report did not adequately explain it, thus encouraging conspiracy theorists who doubt the report.[98] The Daily Beast stated that the report faced criticism from cybersecurity analysts for its lack of concrete evidence and disorganization.[125]

January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment

On January 6, 2017, after briefing the president, the president-elect, and members of the Senate and House, U.S. intelligence agencies released a de-classified version[126] of the report on Russian activities. The report asserted that Russia had carried out a massive cyber operation ordered by Russian President Putin with the goal to sabotage the 2016 U.S. elections. The agencies concluded that Putin and the Russian government tried to help Trump win the election by discrediting Hillary Clinton and portraying her negatively relative to Trump, and that Russia had conducted a multipronged cyber campaign consisting of hacking and the extensive use of social media and trolls, as well as open propaganda on Russian-controlled news platforms.[127] The report contained no information how the data was collected and provided no evidence underlying its conclusions.[128][129] A large part of the report was dedicated to criticizing Russian TV channel RT America, which it described as a “messaging tool” for the Kremlin.[130] On March 5, 2017, James Clapper said, in an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press that, regarding the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, their report did not have evidence of collusion.[131] On May 14, 2017, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Clapper explained more about the state of evidence for or against any collusion, saying he was personally unaware of evidence of collusion but was also unaware of the existence of the formal investigation.[132]

Investigation into financial flows

On January 18, 2017, McClatchy reported that an investigation into “how money may have moved from the Kremlin to covertly help Trump win” had been conducted over several months by six federal agencies: the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Justice Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the DNI.[22] The New York Times confirmed this investigation into Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone on January 19, 2017, the eve of the presidential inauguration.[133]

Preservation of evidence

On March 1, 2017, The New York Times reported that, in the last days of the Obama administration, “there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the [American] government…” The information was filed in many locations within federal agencies as a precaution against future concealment or destruction of evidence in the event of any investigation.[134]

U.S. government response

U.S. Senate

Joint Statement on Committee Inquiry into Russian Intelligence Activities

Members of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee traveled to Ukraine and Poland in 2016 and learned about Russian operations to influence their elections.[135][135] Senator Angus King said the problem frustrated both political parties.[136] On November 30, 2016, seven members of the committee asked President Obama to declassify and publicize more information on Russia’s role in the U.S. election.[135][137] Representatives in the U.S. Congress took action to monitor the national security of the United States by advancing legislation to monitor propaganda.[138][139] On November 30, 2016, legislators approved a measure within the National Defense Authorization Act to ask the U.S. State Department to act against propaganda with an inter-agency panel.[138][139] The initiative was developed through a bipartisan bill, the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, written by U.S. Senators Republican Rob Portman and Democrat Chris Murphy.[138] Senate Intelligence Committee member Ron Wyden said frustration over covert Russian propaganda was bipartisan.[138]

Republican U.S. Senators stated they planned to hold hearings and investigate Russian influence on the 2016 U.S. elections.[140] By doing so they went against the preference of incoming Republican President-elect Trump, who downplayed Russian interference.[140] Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain and Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr planned investigations of Russian cyberwarfare.[140] U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker planned a 2017 investigation.[140] Senator Lindsey Graham indicated he would conduct an investigation during the 115th Congress.[140] On December 11, 2016, top-ranking bipartisan members of the U.S. Senate issued a joint statement responding to the intelligence assessments Russia influenced the election.[141] The two Republican signers were Senators Graham and McCain, both members of the Armed Services Committee; the two Democratic signers were incoming Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senator Jack Reed, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.[142][143][144]

Senator McCain called for a special select committee of the U.S. Senate to investigate Russian meddling in the election,[145][146] and called election meddling an “act of war”.[147]Republican Senator and Intelligence Committee member James Lankford agreed that investigation into Russian influence on the elections should be cooperative between parties.[148] Republican Senator Susan Collins said a bipartisan investigation should improve proactive cyber defense.[149] Outgoing Senate Democratic Caucus leader Harry Reid said the FBI hid Russian interference to swing the election for Trump, and called for James Comey to resign.[150]

On December 12, 2016, Senate Majority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell expressed confidence in U.S. intelligence.[151] McConnell added that investigation of Russia’s actions should be bipartisan and held by the Senate Intelligence Committee.[151] The next day, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) announced the scope of the committee’s official inquiry. Senators McCain, Graham, Schumer, and Reed issued a joint bipartisan statement on December 18, urging McConnell to create a select committee tasked with the investigation.[152]

On December 14, 2016, Graham said Russians hacked into his Senate campaign email, adding that the FBI contacted his campaign in August 2016 to notify them of the breach in security that occurred in June to his campaign vendor.[153][154] On December 15, Graham stated that in order for Trump’s nominee for United States Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, to earn his confirmation vote, Tillerson would need to acknowledge his belief Russia interfered in the 2016 elections.[155]

On December 16, Burr denied that the CIA was acting on political motives and stated that intelligence employees hold diverse perspectives.[118] The committee issued a release emphasizing they earnestly took into consideration the fact that both the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders were in agreement a bipartisan investigation should take place.[156]The Senate Intelligence Committee began work on its bipartisan inquiry on January 24, 2017.[20] On May 25, 2017 a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee voted to give both Chairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committee solo subpoena power.[157][158] On May 26, 2017, Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and Vice-Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) both signed off on a bi-partisan subpoena for all documents, emails, telephone records and anything else responsive to be turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee.[159]

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, commented on Putin’s aims, and said U.S. intelligence agencies were concerned with Russian propaganda.[104] Speaking about disinformation that appeared in Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland, Schiff said there was an increase of the same behavior in the U.S.[104] Schiff concluded Russian propaganda operations would continue against the U.S. after the election.[104] He put forth a recommendation for a combined House and Senate investigation similar to the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.[160]

Republican U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said external interference in U.S. elections was intolerable.[161] Ryan said an investigation should be conducted by U.S. House Intelligence Committee chairman Representative Devin Nunes, and stated interference from Russia was troubling due to Putin’s activities against the U.S.[162] On December 12, 2016, Nunes emphasized that at the time he had only viewed circumstantial evidence Russia intended to assist Trump win.[163] On December 14, Nunes requested a formal briefing to gain more information about assertions officials had revealed to the media; the DNI refused, citing the ongoing review ordered by President Obama.[164]

In January 2017, both the House and Senate intelligence committees launched investigations on the Russian meddling into the presidential election, including possible ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia.[21] In February, General Michael Flynn, Trump’s pick for National Security Advisor, resigned after it had been discovered that he had been in touch with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, discussing the possibility of lifting sanctions against Russia.[165]

On February 24, 2017, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa called for a special prosecutor to investigate whether Russia meddled with the U.S. election and was in contact with Trump’s team during the presidential campaign, saying that it would be improper for Trump’s appointee, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to lead the investigation.[166][167] On March 19, 2017, Schiff told Meet the Press that there was sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.[168] On March 22, 2017, Schiff stated that he had seen evidence of a higher standard than circumstantial regarding collusion.[169] On April 6, 2017, Nunes temporarily recused himself from the Russia investigation after the House Ethics Committee announced that it would investigate accusations against him that he had disclosed classified information without authorization. Representative Mike Conaway subsequently assumed control of the investigation.[170]

Obama administration

President Obama ordered the United States Intelligence Community to investigate election hacking attempts since 2008.[24]

U.S. President Obama and Vladimir Putin had a discussion about computer security issues in September 2016, which took place over the course of an hour and a half.[171] During the discussion, which took place as a side segment during the then-ongoing G20 summit in China, Obama made his views known on cyber security matters between the U.S. and Russia.[171] Obama said Russian hacking stopped after his warning to Putin.[172]One month after that discussion the email leaks from the DNC cyber attack had not ceased, and President Obama decided to contact Putin via the Moscow–Washington hotline, commonly known as the red phone, on October 31, 2016.[11] Obama emphasized the gravity of the situation by telling Putin: “International law, including the law for armed conflict, applies to actions in cyberspace.”[11]

On December 9, 2016, Obama ordered the U.S. Intelligence Community to investigate Russian interference in the election and report before he left office on January 20, 2017.[24] U.S. Homeland Security Advisor and chief counterterrorism advisor to the president Lisa Monaco announced the study, and said foreign intrusion into a U.S. election was unprecedented and would necessitate investigation by subsequent administrations.[173] The intelligence analysis would cover malicious cyberwarfare occurring between the 2008 and 2016 elections.[174][175] CNN reported that an unnamed senior administration official told them that the White House was confident Russia interfered in the election.[176] The official said the order by President Obama would be a lessons learned report, with options including sanctions and covert cyber response against Russia.[176]

On December 12, 2016, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was critical of Trump’s rejection of the idea that Russia used cyberattacks to influence the election.[177] Earnest contrasted Trump’s comments on Twitter with the October 2016 conclusions of the U.S. Intelligence Community.[177] At a subsequent White House press conference on December 15, Earnest said Trump and the public were aware prior to the 2016 election of Russian interference efforts, calling these undisputed facts.[36] United States Secretary of State John Kerry spoke on December 15, 2016, about President Obama’s decision to approve the October 2016 joint statement by the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.[31] Kerry stated the president’s decision was deliberative and relied upon information cautiously weighed by the intelligence agencies.[31] He said the president felt a need to warn the U.S. public and did.[31]

In a December 15, 2016 interview by NPR journalist Steve Inskeep, Obama said the U.S. government would respond to Russia via overt and covert methods, in order to send an unambiguous symbol to the world that any such interference would have harsh consequences.[171] He added that motive behind the Russian operation could better be determined after completion of the intelligence report he ordered.[171] Obama emphasized that Russian efforts caused more harm to Clinton than to Trump during the campaign.[171] At a press conference the following day, he highlighted his September 2016 admonition to Putin to cease engaging in cyberwarfare against the U.S.[178] Obama explained that the U.S. did not publicly reciprocate against Russia’s actions due to a fear such choices would appear partisan.[178] President Obama minimized conflict between his administration and the Trump transition, stressing cyber warfare against the U.S. should be a bipartisan issue.[179]

Sanctions imposed on Russia

 Executive Order 13694

Executive Order 13694, expelling Russian diplomats and enacting other retaliatory measures

On December 29, 2016, the U.S. government announced a series of punitive measures against Russia.[180][181] Namely, the Obama administration imposed sanctions on four top officials of the GRU and declared persona non grata 35 Russian diplomats suspected of spying:[182][Note 2] they were ordered to leave the country within 72 hours. Further sanctions against Russia were announced, both overt and covert.[122][184][185] A White House statement said that cyberwarfare by Russia was geared to undermine US trust in democracy and impact the election.[186] President Obama said his decision was taken after previous warnings to Russia.[187] On December 30, two waterfront compounds used by families of Russian embassy personnel were shut down on orders of the U.S. government, citing spying activities: one in Upper Brookville, New York, on Long Island, and the other in Centreville, Maryland, on the Eastern Shore.[181][188][189] They had served as luxury retreats for various Russian diplomats over several decades.[190]

2017 developments

Dismissal of FBI director James Comey

A brief letter on an 8.5x11 sheet of White House stationery with a colored seal at the top and large signature in marker

Trump’s letter firing Comey (page 1 of 6 pictured)

On May 9, 2017, the Trump Administration dismissed Comey, attributing it to a recommendation from United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,[191] particularly Rosenstein who had submitted a memo critical of Comey’s conduct in the investigation about Hillary Clinton’s emails.[192] Reportedly Trump had been talking to aides about firing Comey for at least a week before acting, and had asked Justice Department officials to come up with a rationale for dismissing him.[193][194] Trump later confirmed that he had intended to fire Comey regardless of any Justice Department recommendation.[195] Trump himself and a White House spokesperson also seemed to tie the firing to the Russia investigation, with Trump saying “When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.'”[196] [197] Trump was also reported to have told Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” adding “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”[198][199][200]

The dismissal came as a surprise to Comey and most of Washington, and was described as having “vast political ramifications” because of the Bureau’s ongoing investigation into Russian activities in the 2016 election.[201] The termination was immediately controversial. It was compared to the Saturday Night Massacre, President Richard Nixon‘s termination of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had been investigating the Watergate scandal,[202][203] and to the dismissal of Sally Yates in January 2017.[204]

White House attempts to influence the investigation

In May 2017 a February memo by James Comey was made public, describing an Oval Office conversation with Trump on February 14, 2017, in which Trump is described as attempting to persuade Comey to drop the FBI investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.[205][206] The memo notes that Trump said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey made no commitments to Trump on the subject.[207] Comey reportedly created similar memos about every phone call and meeting he had with the president.[208] Earlier, senior White House officials had reportedly asked intelligence officials if they could intervene to stop the FBI investigation into Michael Flynn.[209]

In February 2017 it was reported that White House officials had asked the FBI to issue a statement that there had been no contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence sources during the 2016 campaign. The FBI did not make the requested statement, and observers noted that the request violated established procedures about contact between the White House and the FBI regarding pending investigations.[210] After Comey revealed in March that the FBI was investigating the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump reportedly asked Director of National Security Admiral Michael S. Rogers to speak out publicly if he had not seen evidence of collusion. Trump also made a similar request to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats.[209] Both Coats and Rogers believed that the request was inappropriate, though not illegal, and did not make the requested statement. The two exchanged notes about the incident, and Rogers made a contemporary memo to document the request.[211][212]

Disclosure of classified information to Russia

According to a current and former government official, Trump discussed highly classified intelligence in a May 10, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, providing details on sources and methods.[213][214][215] The intelligence was about an ISIL plot.[213] During the same meeting, Trump told Russian officials that firing the F.B.I. director, James Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him. He stated, “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” He continued, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”[216][217]

Investigation by special counsel

Shoulder height portrait of man in his sixties wearing a suit and tie

Special counsel Mueller directed the FBI from 2001 to 2013.

Appointment of special counsel

On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel in its investigation. Mueller will direct FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors investigating election interference by Russia.[30][218][219] As special counsel, Mueller will have the power to issue subpoenas,[220] hire staff members, request funding, and prosecute federal crimes in connection with the election interference.[221] On May 23, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts announced they had declared Mueller ethically able to function as special counsel.[222] In an interview with the Associated Press, Rosenstein said he would recuse himself if any of his (Rosentein’s) actions were to become a subject in the investigation due to his role in the dismissal of James Comey.[223]

Links between Trump associates and Russian officials

As of March 2017, the FBI is investigating Russian involvement in the election, including alleged links between Trump’s associates and the Russian government.[27] British and the Dutch intelligence have given information to United States intelligence about meetings in European cities between Russian officials, associates of Putin, and associates of then-President-elect Trump. American intelligence agencies also intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.[134] The New York Times reported that multiple Trump associates, including campaign chairman Paul Manafort and other members of his campaign, had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016, although officials said that so far, they did not have evidence that Trump’s campaign had co-operated with the Russians to influence the election.[224]

Chest height portrait of man in his sixties wearing a suit and tie

Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak met with a number of U.S. officials.

In particular, Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak has met several Trump campaign members and administration nominees; involved people dismissed those meetings as routine conversations in preparation for assuming the presidency. Trump’s team has issued at least twenty denials concerning communications between his campaign and Russian officials;[225] several of these denials turned out to be false.[226] In the early months of 2017, Trump and other senior White House officials asked the Director of National Intelligence, the NSA director, the FBI director, and two chairs of congressional committees to publicly dispute the news reports about contacts between Trump associates and Russia.[227][228]

Michael Flynn

National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was forced to resign on February 13, 2017, after it was revealed that on December 29, 2016, the day that Obama announced sanctions against Russia, Flynn had discussed the sanctions with Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak. Flynn had earlier acknowledged speaking to Kislyak but denied discussing the sanctions.[229][230]

On March 2, 2017, The New York Times reported that Kislyak met with Flynn and Jared Kushner in December 2016 to establish a line of communication with the Trump administration.[231] In May 2017 it was further reported that at that December meeting, Kushner and Flynn asked the Russians to set up a direct, encrypted communications channel with Moscow, so that Flynn could speak directly to Russian military officials about Syria and other issues without the knowledge of American intelligence agencies. Kislyak was hesitant to allow Americans to have access to Russia’s secure communications network, and no such channel was actually set up.[232][233]

In December 2015 Flynn was paid $45,000 by Russia Today for delivering a talk in Moscow, and Russia provided him a 3-day, all-expenses-paid trip.[234] Two months later, in February 2016 when he was applying for a renewal of his security clearance, he stated that he had received no income from foreign companies and had only “insubstantial contact” with foreign nationals.[235] Glenn A. Fine, the acting Defense Department Inspector General, has confirmed he is investigating Flynn.[234] CNN reported that, during a phone call intercepted by American Intelligence, Russian officials claimed they had cultivated such a strong relationship with Flynn that they believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team.[236]

Other Trump associates

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an early and prominent supporter of Trump’s campaign, spoke twice with Russian ambassador Kislyak before the election – once in July 2016 at the Republican convention and once in September 2016 in Sessions’ Senate office. In his confirmation hearings, Sessions testified that he “did not have communications with the Russians about the election”.[237] On March 2, 2017, Sessions recused himself from any investigations into Russia’s election interference,[238] deferring to Rod Rosenstein.

In April 2017, it was reported that Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, on his application for top secret security clearance, failed to disclose numerous meetings with foreign officials, including Ambassador Kislyak and Sergei Gorkov, the head of the Russian state-owned bank Vnesheconombank. Kushner’s lawyers called the omissions “an error”. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election plans to question Kushner in connection with the meetings he had with these individuals.[239]

The New York Times reported that campaign chairman Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials.[224] Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump.[102]

Roger Stone, a former adviser to Donald Trump and business partner of Paul Manafort, stated that he had been in contact with Guccifer 2.0, a hacker persona believed to be a front for Russian intelligence operations, who had publicly claimed responsibility for at least one hack of the DNC.[240] Stone had predicted the Wikileaks release of the Podesta emails which damaged the Hillary Clinton electoral campaign.[241] Stone also reportedly stated privately that he has “actually communicated with Julian Assange“, although he has since denied this.[242]

Oil industry consultant Carter Page had his communications monitored by the FBI under a FISA warrant during the summer of 2016, after he was suspected to act as an agent for Russia. Page told The Washington Post that he considered that to be “unjustified, politically motivated government surveillance”.[243] Page spoke with Kislyak during the 2016 Republican National Convention, acting as a foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump.[244][245] In 2013 he had met with Viktor Podobnyy, then a junior attaché at the Russian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, at an energy conference, and provided him with documents on the U.S. energy industry.[246] Podobnyy was later charged with spying, but was protected from prosecution by diplomatic immunity.[247] The FBI interviewed Page in 2013 as part of an investigation into Podonyy’s spy ring, but never accused Page of wrongdoing.[247]

On January 11, 2017, UAE officials organized a meeting in the Seychelles between Erik Prince, the founder of the Blackwater security company and a Trump campaign donor, and an unnamed Russian “close to Vladimir Putin”. They reportedly discussed a “back channel” between Trump and Putin along with Middle East policy, notably about Syria and Iran. U.S. officials told the Washington Post and NBC News that the FBI was investigating the meeting; the FBI refused to comment.[248]

On May 30, 2017, both the House and Senate congressional panels asked President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen,[249] to “provide information and testimony” about any communications he had with people connected to the Kremlin.[250][249]

On June 1, 2017, The Guardian reported that Nigel Farage, former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party and one the first foreign political figures to meet Trump following the election, was a person of interest in the FBI investigation, which Farage denied.[251]

Steele dossier

Christopher Steele, a former MI6 agent, was hired by Fusion GPS to produce opposition research on Donald Trump. His reports were first sold to Republicans, then to Democrats, and included alleged kompromat which may expose Trump to blackmail from Russia. A 35-page compilation was leaked to the press in October 2016 but was not published by mainstream media who doubted the material’s credibility.[252] On January 5, 2017, U.S. intelligence agencies briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump on the existence of these documents.[253] Eventually, the dossier was published in full by BuzzFeed on January 11.[254]

On March 30, 2017, Paul Wood of BBC News revealed that the FBI was using the dossier as a roadmap for its investigation.[255] On April 18, 2017, CNN reported that corroborated information from the dossier had been used as part of the basis for getting the FISA warrant to monitor former Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page during the summer of 2016.[256]

Commentary and reactions

Public opinion

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted January 5–9, 2017, showed that 55% of respondents believed that Russia interfered in the election.[257] According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted January 12–15, 51% of respondents said they believed Russia intervened in the election through hacking.[258] As of February 2017 public-opinion polls showed a partisan split on the importance of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election.[259] An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 53 percent wanted a Congressional inquiry into communications in 2016 between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.[260] Quinnipiac University found that 47 percent thought it was very important.[261] A March 2017 poll conducted by the Associated Press and NORC found about 62% of respondents say they are at least moderately concerned about the possibility that Trump or his campaign had inappropriate contacts with Russia during the 2016 campaign.[262]

According to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted in late March and early April 2017, 68% of voters supported “an independent commission investigating the potential links between some of Donald Trump’s campaign advisors and the Russian government”.[263] An April 2017 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that respondents had little confidence in Congress’s investigation into the Russian interference in the election. The poll reported that “some 73% of adults in the survey said that a nonpartisan, independent commission should look into Russia’s involvement in the election”.[264] An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in April 2017 found that 56 percent of respondents thought that Russia tried to influence the election.[265]

A May 2017 Monmouth University poll, conducted after the dismissal of James Comey, found that “nearly 6-in-10 Americans thought it was either very (40%) or somewhat (19%) likely that Comey was fired in order to slow down or stop the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links with the Trump campaign.” Like other recent opinion polls, a majority, 73%, said that the FBI investigation should continue.[266] A second May 2017 poll conducted after Comey’s dismissal by Quinnipiac University reported significantly higher levels of unease than in previous polls. The poll asked respondents if they thought that “President Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey because President Trump had lost confidence in his ability to lead the FBI well, or that President Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey to disrupt the FBI investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government”. 55% of the sample said that they thought Comey was fired to disrupt an investigation.[267]

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton said Vladimir Putin held a grudge against her due to her criticism of the 2011 Russian legislative election.[156]

On December 15, 2016, Hillary Clinton gave a gratitude speech to her campaign donors in which she reflected on Putin’s motivations for the covert operation.[268] She partially attributed her loss in the 2016 election to Russian meddling organized by Putin.[269] Clinton said Putin had a personal grudge against her, and linked his feelings to her criticism of the 2011 Russian legislative election, adding that he felt she was responsible for fomenting the 2011–13 Russian protests.[156] She drew a specific connection from her 2011 assertions as U.S. Secretary of State that Putin rigged the elections that year, to his actions in the 2016 U.S. elections.[268] During the third debate, Clinton stated that Putin favored Trump, “because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States”.[270] Clinton said that by personally attacking her through meddling in the election, Putin additionally took a strike at the American democratic system.[269] She said the cyber attacks were a larger issue than the effect on her own candidacy and called them an attempt to attack the national security of the United States.[156] Clinton noted she was unsuccessful in sufficiently publicizing to the media the cyber attacks against her campaign in the months leading up to the election.[268] She voiced her support for a proposal put forth by U.S. Senators from both parties, to set up an investigative panel to look into the matter akin to the 9/11 Commission.[268]

Republican National Committee

The RNC said there was no intrusion into its servers, while acknowledging email accounts of individual Republicans (including Colin Powell) were breached. Over 200 emails from Colin Powell were posted on the website DC Leaks.[108][271] Chief of staff-designate for Trump and outgoing RNC Chairman Reince Priebus appeared on Meet the Press on December 11, 2016, and discounted the CIA conclusions. Priebus said the FBI had investigated and found that RNC servers had not been hacked.[112] When asked by Chuck Todd whether Russia interfered in the election, Priebus stated that despite the conclusion of intelligence officials, he still didn’t “know who did the hacking”.[272]

Donald Trump

Trump’s transition team dismissed the U.S. Intelligence community conclusions.

Prior to his presidential run, Donald Trump made statements to Fox News in 2014 in which he agreed with an assessment by FBI director James Comey about hacking against the U.S. by Russia and China.[273] Trump was played a clip of Comey from 60 Minutes discussing the dangers of cyber attacks.[273] Trump stated he agreed with the problem of cyber threats posed by China, and went on to emphasize there was a similar problem towards the U.S. posed by Russia.[273]

In September 2016, during the first presidential debate, Trump said he doubted whether anyone knew who hacked the DNC, and disputed Russian interference.[274] During the second debate, Trump said there might not have been hacking at all, and questioned why accountability was placed on Russia.[275] During the third debate, Trump rejected Clinton’s claim that Putin favored Trump.[270] After the election, Trump rejected the CIA analysis and asserted that the reports were politically motivated to deflect from the Democrats’ electoral defeat.[17] Trump’s transition team drew attention to prior errors emanating from the CIA,[18] namely stating: “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”[108] The intelligence analysts involved in monitoring Russian activities are most likely different from those who assessed that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.[276] Responding to The Washington Post, Trump dismissed reports of Russia’s interference, calling them “ridiculous”; he placed blame on Democrats upset over election results for publicizing these reports,[277] and cited Julian Assange‘s statement that “a 14-year-old kid could have hacked Podesta.”[278] After Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and announced further sanctions on Russia, Trump commended Putin for refraining from retaliatory measures against the United States until the Trump administration would lay out its policy towards Russia.[279]

File:WATCH Trump says Russia will have greater respect for U.S..webmhd.webm

Excerpt of Trump’s press conference on January 11, 2017, discussing the issue.

On January 6, 2017, after meeting with members of U.S. intelligence agencies, Trump released a statement saying: cyberwarfare had no impact on the election and did not harm voting machines. In the same statement, he vowed to form a national cybersecurity task force to prepare an anti-hacking plan within 90 days of taking office.[280] Referring to the Office of Personnel Management data breach in 2015, Trump told The New York Times he was under a “political witch hunt”, and wondered why there was no focus on China.[281] Two days later, Reince Priebus reported that Trump had begun to acknowledge that “entities in Russia” were involved in the DNC leaks.[282] On January 11, 2017, Trump conceded that Russia was probably the source of the leaks, although he also said it could have been another country.[283][284]

WikiLeaks

In July 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange stated he had not seen evidence linking Russia to the emails leaked from the DNC.[285] In November 2016, Assange said Russia was not the source of John Podesta’s hacked emails published by Wikileaks.[286] On January 3, 2017, he said that a “14-year-old kid could have hacked Podesta’s emails.”[287] On January 6, 2017, Reuters reported on a secret briefing given to Barack Obama by U.S. intelligence agencies on January 5, and scheduled to be shown to Trump a few days later. According to this assessment, the CIA had identified specific Russian officials who provided hacked e-mails to WikiLeaks, following “a circuitous route” from Russia’s military intelligence services (GRU) to third parties and then WikiLeaks, thus enabling WikiLeaks to claim that the Russian government was not the source of the material.[288]

Electoral College

On December 10, ten electors, headed by Christine Pelosi, wrote an open letter to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper demanding an intelligence briefing on investigations into foreign intervention in the presidential election.[289][290] Fifty-eight additional electors subsequently added their names to the letter,[290] bringing the total to 68 electors from 17 different states.[291] The Clinton campaign supported the call for a classified briefing for electors, with John Podesta saying electors “have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution.”[292] On December 16, the briefing request was denied.[293]

United States Intelligence community

The CIA assessment, and Trump’s dismissal of it, created an unprecedented rupture between the president-elect and the intelligence community.[294][295][296] On December 11, 2016, U.S. intelligence officials responded to Trump’s denunciation of its findings in a written statement, and expressed dismay Trump disputed their conclusions as politically motivated or inaccurate. They wrote that intelligence officials were motivated to defend U.S. national security.[294] On the same day, The Guardian reported that members of the intelligence community feared reprisals from Donald Trump once he takes office.[297] Former CIA director Michael Morell said foreign interference in U.S. elections was an existential threat.[298] Former CIA spokesman George E. Little condemned Trump for dismissing the CIA assessment, saying that the president-elect’s atypical response was disgraceful and denigrated the courage of those who serve in the CIA at risk to their own lives.[299] Former NSA director and CIA director Michael V. Hayden said that Trump’s antagonizing the Intelligence Community signaled the administration would rely less on intelligence for policy-making.[300] Independent presidential candidate and former CIA intelligence officer Evan McMullin criticized the Republican leadership for failing to respond adequately to Russia’s meddling in the election process.[301] McMullin said Republican politicians were aware that publicly revealed information about Russia’s interference was likely the tip of the iceberg relative to the actual threat.[301]

Russia

The Russian government initially issued categorical denials of any involvement in the U.S. presidential election.[15] Already in June 2016, in a statement to Reuters, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied any connection of Russian government bodies to the DNC hacks that had been blamed on Russia.[12][54] When a new intelligence report surfaced in December 2016, Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, rejected the accusations again.[13][31] When ABC News wrote that Russian President Vladimir Putin was directly involved in the covert operation,[32] Peskov called this report garbage.[302] On December 16, 2016, Peskov called on the U.S. government to cease discussion of the topic unless they provide evidence to back up their assertions.[303] According to The New Yorker, a pro-Kremlin MP justified the Russian attacks as a possible counterpunch to U.S. interference in foreign elections via color revolutions.[304]

At the Valdai forum in October 2016, Vladimir Putin denounced American “hysteria” over alleged Russian interference.[14] During his December 23 press conference, Putin deflected questions on the issue by accusing the U.S. Democratic Party of scapegoating Russia after losing the presidential election. He also remarked that the Republicans won control of the House and Senate in state elections and wondered if Russia was deemed responsible for this as well.[305] In early 2017, it was reported that there was a purge of suspected traitors underway in Russia’s intelligence apparatus that mainly targeted computer security professionals, the arrested men being charged “with treason in favor of the United States”; expert opinions were voiced that those arrested might have provided the U.S. government with information that allowed the U.S. intelligence officials to accuse Russia of using hackers to try influence the 2016 presidential election.[306][307][113]

On December 30, 2016, commenting on his eventual decision to refrain from retaliatory measures to actions by the U.S. on December 29, Putin released a published statement that his government, while reserving its legitimate right to respond adequately, would not take action at that time; he also invited all the children of the U.S. diplomats accredited in Russia to New Year’s and Christmas celebrations at the Kremlin. The statement went on to say that Russia would take work on Russian-American relations under the administration of President D. Trump.[308][26][309] In May 2017, Russian banker Andrey Kostin, an associate of President Vladimir Putin, said the Washington elite was purposefully disrupting the presidency of Donald Trump.[310][311]

On June 1, 2017, Putin told journalists in St. Petersburg that “patriotically minded” Russian hackers could have been responsible for the cyberattacks against the U.S. during the 2016 campaign, while continuing to deny government involvement. Putin said that hackers “are like artists” stating: “If they are patriotically minded, they start making their contributions — which are right, from their point of view — to the fight against those who say bad things about Russia. Putin continued to deny Russian government involving, stating, “We’re not doing this on the state level.”[15] Putin’s comments echoed similar remarks that he had made earlier the same week to the French newspaper Le Figaro.[15]The shift in Russia’s stance mirrored Russia’s shift of public positions on the 2014 annexation of Crimea and conflict in eastern Ukraine: Putin at first categorically denied the involvement of Russian troops, but months later admitted that Russian forces had “of course” taken part.[15] The line between state and non-state actors in Russian influence efforts abroad is unclear: “Nominally private Russian citizens have fought alongside Russian-speaking rebels in eastern Ukraine and have taken part in various campaigns to advance Moscow’s agenda in Eastern and Central Europe.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s