U.S. media outlet Washington Watch reported on Jan. 7 that a U.S. intelligence agency inspector concluded that intelligence agencies had a problem with politicized intelligence assessments in assessing foreign influence in the 2020 U.S. election, and that analysts disapproved of the Trump administration’s policy of withholding information about Chinese Communist Party interference in the election.
Barry Zulauf, a senior intelligence officer and analytical ombudsman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), released the 14-page report to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday (Jan. 7), which was also obtained by The Washington Examiner.
Also on Thursday, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe (R-Ariz.) submitted to Congress an assessment of foreign influence in the 2020 election. The report, originally expected in December, was delayed because of disagreements among senior intelligence officials about the role of the Communist Party in the election and, of course, an element of National Intelligence Director Ratcliffe wanting to include more perspectives in the final analysis. A source familiar with the process of developing the 2020 assessment process told Washington Watch that another consideration in delaying the submission of the assessment to Congress was that submitting the report after Wednesday would save, the report from being used in the debate over the congressional certification of the Electoral College votes.
John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, signed a three-page classified letter along with the report, which was also obtained by The Washington Examiner.
Intelligence inspector believes intelligence analysis should be independent of politics
Intelligence Inspector Zulauf revealed that those conducting analysis against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) appear reluctant to assess CCP actions as undue influence or interference, and analysts are reluctant to present analysis of the CCP because they disagree with the Trump administration’s policies. In fact, I don’t want our intelligence analysis to support or oppose certain policies; such behavior violates intelligence analysis standards, and intelligence analysis should be independent of politics.
In response, Ratcliffe’s letter accommodated Zulauf’s recommendations, including “strengthening direct communication between the Office of the Director of Intelligence and the intelligence agencies and between the upper and lower levels of the agencies; emphasizing the integrity of the analysis; and reiterating that the analysis must strive for objectivity and avoid politicization of policy and execution.”
The August intelligence assessment showed that Russia and Ukraine were both opposed to Biden, and that only the Chinese Communist Party wanted Trump out of office.
In his letter, Ratcliffe said, “I have read through all of the most sensitive intelligence the U.S. government has on the Chinese Communist Party, and I do not believe that most of the views expressed by Intelligence Community analysts are a fully accurate reflection of the Chinese Communist government’s influence on the 2020 U.S. federal election. “
Ratcliffe explained in his letter that “similar actions by Russia and the CCP, while both would be assessed, would be communicated to decision makers in different ways, and could lead to the misperception that Russia is trying to influence the election but the CCP is not.”
An intelligence assessment in August also warned that Russia “is taking a number of steps to destroy Biden,” noting that Ukrainian MP Andrii Derkach (D-N.Y.) is working to undermine him. Iran, on the other hand, is trying to “undermine” Trump and divide the country by 2020. We assess that the Chinese Communist Party prefers that President Trump …… not be re-elected” and that the Communist Party “has been expanding its influence” through November 2020, the report said. The report “recognizes that all of these efforts” could influence the election.
Commentator Wang Dukran described De Kahl as the local lawmaker who exposed the collusion between the Biden family and corrupt Ukrainian forces. Video report on the attempted threat by top U.S. Democrats, Ukrainian lawmaker’s surprise revelation about Biden
Ratcliffe disagrees with the established line of analysis of the CCP and insists on joining the minority view
The Ombudsman said Ratcliffe “disagreed with the established line of analysis of the CCP” and, quoting Ratcliffe, insisted that “the CCP’s actions were aimed at influencing the election.”
The analysis monitor concluded that “the Office of the Director of National Intelligence must ensure that differing views, even if they are minority views, are expressed.” The inspector said, “Ultimately, the Director of National Intelligence insisted on putting in material about the CCP, also aware of the objections of the intelligence analysts.”
The ombudsman revealed that two national intelligence officers wrote a “National Intelligence Alternative Analysis Memorandum” in October that “expressed alternative views of potential CCP influence on election activities” and emphasized that “these alternative alternative views face considerable, organized opposition pressure.” The ombudsman added, “In my discussions with Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Ratcliffe agreed with the concerns expressed in the alternative analysis memo about CCP interference in the election.”
Ratcliffe Finds Report’s Assessment of CCP Influence Fails to Meet Standard
A senior intelligence official told the Washington Examiner, “The analysis inspector believes Ratcliffe is not a political figure, and Ratcliffe was honest enough to say that intelligence on Chinese Communist influence in the U.S. election was suppressed for political reasons.”
Ratcliffe said that “most of the points in this intelligence assessment of the CCP’s influence on the election fall short of the mark” and that “other points about the CCP’s election interference efforts were not accepted to the extent they should have been.” The intelligence assessment, which is still classified, “gives the false impression” that cyber national intelligence officials “are the only analysts who hold a minority view of the CCP.
Ratcliffe continued, “A 1962 national intelligence assessment stated that it was unlikely that the Soviet Union would drop missiles on Cuba. John McCone, then director of the CIA, strongly disagreed with the analysts and ordered a reconnaissance by U-2 aircraft, which found that missiles had in fact been deployed. Based on all available intelligence resources, applying consistent definitions, independent of political considerations or undue pressure, and in the same spirit, I want to make my voice heard and support the minority view that the Chinese Communist Party influenced the 2020 U.S. federal election.”
The Trump intelligence director, in a December interview with Washington Watch, revealed the debate within the intelligence community, “Some intelligence analysts are from a Cold War era perspective, used to analyzing Russia, or have experience in counterterrorism over the last 20 years. Now it’s not that they don’t have experience, it’s that the biggest threat we face is the Chinese Communist Party. We need to put more focus on the Chinese Communist Party.”
Recent Comments