On October 7, 2016, following months of tense interactions between the United States and Russia regarding hacks of high-profile U.S. political organizations, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued a joint statement formally accusing Russia of using cyberattacks to influence the U.S. election process.Footnote 1 Reports suggest that Russia intended to use the hacks and subsequent information dump to help then-candidate Donald Trump win the presidential election.Footnote 2 In response to the cyberattacks, the United States took steps against several Russian individuals and entities.Footnote 3 The Obama administration also initiated an extensive review of Russian involvement in the election, which eventually reaffirmed key intelligence conclusions regarding the scope of Russian interference.Footnote 4 Several congressional committees have also initiated investigations, all of which are still ongoing as of the date of publication.Footnote 5
Several incidents appeared to trigger the U.S. accusation. The first, reported in June 2016, occurred when hackers breached the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network and gained access to its entire database of research on Donald Trump, who was by that time the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.Footnote 6 A private cybersecurity incident response group, CrowdStrike, investigated the breach at the DNC's request. CrowdStrike concluded that the hacks were perpetrated by two entities—known as “Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear”Footnote 7 —each working independently on behalf of a different Russian intelligence service.Footnote 8 Later that day, an entity named “Guccifer 2.0”—later identified by U.S. intelligence officials as an agent of Russia's Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU)Footnote 9 —declared itself to be the “lone hacker” of the DNC's network, posting several of the purportedly stolen documents.Footnote 10 In response, CrowdStrike asserted that “these claims do nothing to lessen our findings relating to the Russian government's involvement.”Footnote 11
The White House and State Department both declined to provide details about any investigation.Footnote 12 In contrast, the Kremlin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said: “I completely rule out a possibility that the [Russian] government or the government bodies have been involved in this.”Footnote 13 An adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Internet issues added:
Usually these kinds of leaks take place not because hackers broke in, but … because someone simply forgot the password or set the simple password 123456. … [I]t's always simpler to explain this away as the intrigues of enemies, rather than one's own incompetence.Footnote 14
The next incident occurred in July 2016, when WikiLeaks released nearly twenty thousand emails from the DNC, many of them including embarrassing information about the inner workings of the DNC.Footnote 15 It was unclear how WikiLeaks had obtained the emails, but some of them had earlier been published by Guccifer 2.0.Footnote 16 According to press reports, U.S. intelligence agencies had “high confidence” that the Russian government was responsible for the DNC breach,Footnote 17 although they were less certain whether the exploit was designed to influence the election or was more routine cyberespionage.Footnote 18
When asked whether Russia wanted to interfere with the election, President Obama acknowledged in July that “experts have attributed [the DNC hack] to the Russians,” but then noted that “[a]nything's possible.”Footnote 19 Secretary Kerry stated that he had “raise[d] the issue of the DNC” when meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, but said that “before we draw any conclusions in terms of what happened or who is behind it it's very important that whatever public information is put out is based on fact. … [A]nd we will continue to work to see precisely what those facts are.”Footnote 20 White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest reiterated that the White House had not yet adopted an official position:
There's plenty of speculation out there. I recognize there's been an analysis done that has indicated that the Russians are likely to blame, but that is not a conclusion that the FBI has chosen to publicize at this point. They're conducting an ongoing investigation, and so I'll let them speak to whether or not they've made such a determination, and I'll let them speak to whether they believe it's appropriate to go public with such a determination.Footnote 21
Press Secretary Earnest later emphasized, in September 2016, that the FBI was
cognizant of the fact that as soon as they make a declaration like that most people are going to understandably be interested in seeing that evidence. And some of that evidence may not be something that we want to show. We don't necessarily want to reveal sources and methods that the FBI uses to conduct these kinds of investigations. …
The other thing … that's relevant here is the United States also may be in a position where we want to respond but not announce it in advance, or maybe not announce it ever.Footnote 22
Russian officials continued to deny any role in releasing the DNC's emails. Asked what he had told Secretary Kerry, Foreign Minister Lavrov replied: “Well, I don't want to use four-letter words.”Footnote 23 Likewise, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov asserted: “Only spin doctors who see conspiracy theories everywhere could imagine that Russia is trying to push this election to any specific candidate by hacking into some servers. In reality, this is simply impossible.”Footnote 24 Putin made a similar statement regarding the DNC incident:
I know absolutely nothing about it, and Russia has never done anything like this at the State level. Frankly speaking, I could never even imagine that such information would be of interest to the American public or that the campaign headquarters of one of the candidates—in this case, Mrs. Clinton—apparently worked for her, rather than for all the Democratic Party candidates in an equal manner. I could never assume that anybody would find it interesting. Thus, in view of what I have said, we could not officially hack it.Footnote 25
Shortly thereafter, media reports indicated that the FBI was also investigating a cyberattack against the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).Footnote 26 The intrusion was reportedly initiated by Fancy Bear, which was apparently working for the GRU.Footnote 27 Given that entity's alleged role in the prior DNC breach,Footnote 28 one administration official stated that the FBI was treating the DNC and DCCC breaches as a single investigation.Footnote 29 As with the DNC breach, however, Kremlin spokesman Peskov denied that the Russian government was involved, stating that “[w]e don't see the point any more in repeating yet again that this is silliness.”Footnote 30
A third incident heightened U.S. fears that Russia was attempting to influence the presidential election directly. On August 29, a media report stated that hackers had targeted voter registration systems in Illinois and Arizona.Footnote 31 In addition, the FBI alerted Arizona state officials in June that Russian individuals were responsible for the hack in that state.Footnote 32 However, a spokesperson for Arizona's secretary of state noted that the FBI had not said whether the perpetrators were working for the Russian government.Footnote 33
The various incidents and investigations finally led to an unusual joint statement on October 7 by the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the DNI, in which they formally accused Russia of using cyberattacks to interfere with the U.S. election process. They said:
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.Footnote 34
The statement noted that the United States was not yet prepared to accuse Russia of hacking state voter registration systems:
Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security … assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.Footnote 35
The timing of the announcement was understood to be politically delicate. A senior administration official stated that President Obama was “under pressure to act” soon because a statement closer to Election Day might appear too political.Footnote 36 A media report claimed, however, that FBI Director James B. Comey advised the administration against publishing the October 7 statement, since he was concerned about the propriety of what some might view as a politically motivated intervention into the late stages of the presidential campaign.Footnote 37 Consequently, the statement was released without the FBI's name on it, despite the fact that the FBI had taken the lead in investigating the DNC and DCCC hacks.Footnote 38
Russian officials dismissed the claims in the statement. A Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “[t]he US side has failed to provide any facts or arguments to corroborate its allegations.”Footnote 39 Similarly, Putin criticized
the hysteria the USA has whipped up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election. The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police.
You would think that the election debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.
I have to ask myself and ask you too: Does anyone seriously imagine that Russia can somehow influence the American people's choice?Footnote 40
Press Secretary Earnest, in response, said that Putin's statement was “not surprising,” and did not “undermine our confidence in the analysis that's been put forward by the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security.”Footnote 41
In the wake of the October accusation, it was not immediately clear what measures the United States might take in response. Earlier in the year, responding to inquiries about how the United States would respond if the FBI concluded that the Russian government was involved in the hacks, a White House deputy press secretary had said:
[G]enerally speaking, if you look at how the United States has responded to intrusions by state actors into cyber infrastructure within the United States, there's a whole host of options available to us. That includes economic sanctions that would be housed at the Department of Treasury, and that does include law enforcement measures that could be taken out of the Department of Justice.Footnote 42
Elaborating after the October 7 statement was issued, Earnest asserted that the United States would
ensure that [its] response is proportional. It is unlikely that our response would be announced in advance. It's certainly possible that the President could choose response options that we never announce. The President has talked before about the significant capabilities that the U.S. government has to both defend our systems in the United States, but also carry out offensive operations in other countries. So there are a range of responses that are available to the President, and he will consider a response that's proportional.Footnote 43
Vice President Biden followed up on October 15, saying:
We're sending a message. We have the capacity to do it. … [President Putin wi]ll know it. And it will be at the time of our choosing. And under the circumstances that have the greatest impact. … And … to the extent that they [fundamentally alter the election], we will be proportional in what we do.Footnote 44
Vice President Biden further stated that he “hope[d]” the public would not know it when the “message [wa]s … sent.”Footnote 45 In response, Putin said that “[t]here [wa]s nothing surprising about that [statement]. … You can expect anything from our US friends. But was there anything new in what he said? As if we didn't know that US government bodies snoop on and wiretap everyone?”Footnote 46
According to media reports, Obama contacted Putin privately in October to warn him about using cyberattacks to disrupt the election.Footnote 47 The White House also sent a message directly to the Russian government on October 31 regarding “malicious cyberactivity” that was “targeting U.S. state election-related systems.”Footnote 48 It did so using a special channel created as part of the Nuclear Risk Reduction Center, using a template intended for crisis communication; use of this particular channel “was part of the messaging,” according to a senior administration official.Footnote 49
Following the election, legislators called for further investigation into Russia's influence on the election. Senator Lindsey Graham demanded Senate hearings to determine if the Russian government interfered with the election, asserting that “Putin should be punished” if that was the case.Footnote 50 Similarly, Representative Elijah Cummings, a member of the House Oversight Committee, wrote to the committee's chairman to ask for a “bipartisan” look at Russia's involvement in the election.Footnote 51 However, neither the Senate nor the House of the Representatives appeared to take any immediate steps in response to these requests.
On November 26, in response to questions regarding an investigation into the integrity of the presidential election, a senior administration official stated:
The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian Government-directed compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the President-elect. Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people.
The Federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day. … [W]e remained confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out on election day. As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective.
That said, since we do not know if the Russians had planned any malicious cyber activity for election day, we don't know if they were deterred from further activity by the various warnings the U.S. government conveyed.Footnote 52
Nonetheless, on December 9, it was reported that the CIA and other intelligence agencies had determined with “high confidence” that the Russian government conducted the cyberattacks in order to benefit Donald Trump in the election and to harm Hillary Clinton's candidacy.Footnote 53 Those agencies had previously indicated that they believed Russia had sought to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system.Footnote 54 However, the agencies reached a different conclusion—that Russia also acted with the goal of electing Mr. Trump—based on significant circumstantial evidence supporting that inference.Footnote 55 That evidence included another intelligence finding, reached with high confidence, that the Russian government had also hacked the computer systems of the Republican National Committee (RNC) but, according to a senior administration official, “conspicuously released no documents.”Footnote 56 One report indicated that intelligence officials believed that President Putin was personally involved in the Russian interference with the election, in part because of a “vendetta” against Mrs. Clinton.Footnote 57 Putin had previously accused Mrs. Clinton, as secretary of state, of personally inciting protests against him following Russia's parliamentary elections.Footnote 58
President-elect Trump immediately denounced the agencies’ conclusion and the quality of the underlying evidence. The same day the reports emerged, Trump's transition office released a statement criticizing the agencies:
These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’Footnote 59
Addressing the reports a few days later, Trump reiterated his concerns:
I think it's ridiculous. I think it's just another excuse. …
[I]f you look at the story and you take a look at what they said, there's great confusion. Nobody really knows.
And hacking is very interesting. Once they hack, if you don't catch them in the act, you're not going to catch them. They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place. I mean, they have no idea. …
I think the Democrats are putting [these reports] out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country. … It's ridiculous.Footnote 60
Putin's response was similar. Questioning the strength of the agencies’ evidence, he said:
The defeated party always tries to blame somebody on the outside. They should be looking for these problems closer to home.
Everybody keeps forgetting the most important point. For example, some hackers breached email accounts of the US Democratic Party leadership. Some hackers did that. But, as the President-elect rightly noted, does anyone know who those hackers were? Maybe they came from another country, not Russia. Maybe somebody just did it from their couch or bed. These days, it is very easy to designate a random country as the source of attack while being in a completely different location.Footnote 61
Despite the reports, the Obama administration declined to blame the results of the election on the Russian government's interference. Obama acknowledged that
[t]here's no doubt that [the Russian hack of the DNC] contributed to an atmosphere in which the only focus for … months at a time … were Hillary's e-mails … [and] political gossip surrounding the DNC. And that whole swirl that ended up dominating the news meant that … issues weren't talked about a lot in the coverage. Huge policy differences were not debated and vetted. … And I think in that scrum, in that swirl, … Donald Trump and his celebrity and his ability to garner attention and obviously tap into a lot of the anxieties and fears that some voters … definitely made a difference.Footnote 62
However, he pointed out that “elections can always turn out differently. You never know which factors are [going to] make a difference.”Footnote 63 Likewise, the White House press secretary did not elaborate on the administration's position regarding the agencies’ determination.Footnote 64 Nonetheless, he added that
you didn't need a security clearance to figure out who benefitted from malicious Russian cyber activity. The President-elect didn't call it into question. He called on Russia to hack his opponent. He called on Russia to hack Secretary Clinton.Footnote 65 So he certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this activity was coming down on. The last several weeks of the election were focused on a discussion of emails that had been hacked and leaked by the Russians. These were emails from the DNC and John Podesta—not from the RNC and Steve Bannon.Footnote 66
At the same time as the reports were published, a White House deputy press secretary announced that Obama had “instructed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of the pattern of malicious cyber activity related to our presidential election cycle,” and to ensure that the subsequent “report be completed and submitted to him before the end of his term.”Footnote 67 The review was ordered with a comprehensive scope: “to look at malicious activity timed to our presidential election cycle. And so it will be broader than just looking at this past election.”Footnote 68 In fact, the review would “put [malicious cyber activity] in a greater context. … dating all the way back to 2008.”Footnote 69 As a result, the press secretary confirmed, the review would not “be looking [just] at Russia,” but would instead “follow the facts wherever they may lead[,] if that includes other either state actors or non-state actors.”Footnote 70 Given that the 2008 election cycle, for example, involved cyber intrusions by Chinese actors, the review would “be looking at all foreign actors and any attempt to interfere with the elections.”Footnote 71 After the report was completed, the administration would
make public as much as we can. Obviously, … a report like this is going to contain highly sensitive and even classified information, perhaps, so when that report is submitted we're going to take a look. We want to make sure we brief Congress and relevant stakeholders, like possibly state administrators who actually operationalize the elections.Footnote 72
In addition, several congressional committees announced that they would conduct their own investigations into Russia's interference with the 2016 election. Senator Mitch McConnell stated on December 12 that a panel of senators from the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Senator Richard Burr, would pursue a bipartisan investigation of Russia's interference in the election.Footnote 73 That inquiry would examine, among other things,
-
• [T]he intelligence that informed the Intelligence Community Assessment [ordered by the White House];
-
• Counterintelligence concerns related to Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, including any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns;
-
• Russian cyber activity and other “active measures” directed against the U.S., both as it regards the 2016 election and more broadly.Footnote 74
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan also said that he supported an ongoing investigation by Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.Footnote 75 That investigation would address:
-
• Russian cyber activity and other “active measures” directed against the U.S. and its allies;
-
• Counterintelligence concerns related to Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, including any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns;
-
• The United States Government response to these Russian active measures and any impact they may have on intelligence relationships and traditional alliances; and
-
• Possible leaks of classified information related to the Intelligence Community's assessments of these matters.Footnote 76
Finally, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee indicated that the committee would conduct a bipartisan inquiry regarding Russia's cyberthreats to the military, which could shed light on its interference with the election.Footnote 77 Discussing these investigations, Press Secretary Earnest noted that the White House had “long supported the principle of congressional review of” Russian interference in the election.Footnote 78 He further stated that the Obama administration would “[a]bsolutely” cooperate in sharing information with the investigations, since “the [A]dministration and national security professionals, both high-ranking officials and those farther down the chain, have been in regular touch with members of Congress on this matter.”Footnote 79
In addition, in an unusual step, a bipartisan group of electors from the Electoral College wrote an open letter to DNI Clapper on December 12.Footnote 80 The letter stated:
The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations. We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.
Additionally, the Electors will separately require from Donald Trump conclusive evidence that he and his staff and advisors did not accept Russian interference, or otherwise collaborate during the campaign, and conclusive disavowal and repudiation of such collaboration and interference going forward.Footnote 81
Nonetheless, it does not appear that the Obama administration, the intelligence community, or Trump himself disclosed any information in response to this request.
On December 29, the administration took several public actions to respond to Russian interference with the election.Footnote 82 First, Obama issued Executive Order 13,757, which amended Executive Order 13,694 in order to allow sanctions against foreign actors engaging in “cyber-enabled malicious activities that … . [t]amper with, alter, or cause a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions.”Footnote 83 Second, pursuant to the new executive order, Obama “sanctioned nine entities and individuals: two Russian intelligence services (the GRU and the FSB); four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU's cyber operations.”Footnote 84 Third, the Office of Foreign Assets Control imposed sanctions on two individuals pursuant to Executive Order 13,694 for “engag[ing] in significant malicious cyber-enabled misappropriation of financial information” or “personal identifiers” for private financial gain.Footnote 85
Fourth, the State Department “declared persona non grata 35 Russian officials operating in the United States who were acting in a manner inconsistent with their diplomatic or consular status.”Footnote 86 The State Department “also informed the Russian Government that it would deny Russian personnel access to two recreational compounds in the United States owned by the Russian Government.”Footnote 87 A deputy spokesperson specified that the Department
took these actions as part of a comprehensive response to Russia's interference in the U.S. election and to a pattern of harassment of our diplomats overseas that has increased over the last four years, including a significant increase in the last 12 months. This harassment has involved arbitrary police stops, physical assault, and the broadcast on State TV of personal details about our personnel that put them at risk. In addition, the Russian Government has impeded our diplomatic operations by, among other actions: forcing the closure of 28 American corners which hosted cultural programs and English-language teaching; blocking our efforts to begin the construction of a new, safer facility for our Consulate General in St. Petersburg; and rejecting requests to improve perimeter security at the current, outdated facility in St. Petersburg.Footnote 88
Finally, the Department of Homeland Security and FBI released a Joint Analysis Report (the JAR) that expanded on the Obama administration's October 7 statement accusing the Russian government of interfering in the election.Footnote 89 The JAR
provide[d] technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities.Footnote 90
As a summary in the JAR explained further, “[t]his activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens.” Consequently, “[t]his JAR provide[d] technical indicators related to many of these operations, recommended mitigations, suggested actions to take in response to the indicators provided, and information on how to report such incidents to the U.S. Government.”Footnote 91
Moreover, Obama asserted that “[t]hese actions are not the sum total of our response to Russia's aggressive activities. We will continue to take a variety of actions at a time and place of our choosing, some of which will not be publicized.”Footnote 92 As a result, as a senior administration official said,
there may be things that commence while we're in office in addition to what we're saying today. When the [Trump] [A]dministration takes office, it's entirely their judgment as to whether or not they continue down the course that we have set in a number of different areas.Footnote 93
Russia's planned response was not immediately clear. The Russian foreign minister initially said that Russia would
definitely respond to these actions. Reciprocity is a basic tenet of international diplomacy and international relations. Therefore, the Russian Foreign Ministry and colleagues from other agencies have submitted a proposal to the President of Russia to declare “persona non grata” 31 diplomats from the US Embassy in Moscow and four diplomats from the US Consulate General in St Petersburg. Furthermore, we have proposed shutting down the US dacha (recreation facility) in Serebryanny Bor and the US Embassy warehouse on Dorozhnaya Street. We hope these proposals will be considered as a priority.Footnote 94
Less than two hours later, however, Putin issued a statement that seemed to take a softer line:
We regard the recent unfriendly steps taken by the outgoing US administration as provocative and aimed at further weakening the Russia-US relationship. This runs contrary to the fundamental interests of both the Russian and American people. Considering the global security responsibilities of Russia and the United States, this is also damaging to international relations as a whole.
As it proceeds from international practice, Russia has reasons to respond in kind. Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.Footnote 95
Some legislators sought to impose greater sanctions on Russia. Senators McCain and Graham stated that these “retaliatory measures … [we]re a small price for Russia to pay.”Footnote 96 Consistent with this statement, on January 11, 2017, they cosponsored a bill with several other senators that would, among other things, impose certain sanctions on “persons engaging in significant activities undermining cybersecurity and democratic institutions,” as well as “persons engaging in transactions with the intelligence or defense sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation,” and would codify Executive Order 13694.Footnote 97 In addition, on February 8, Senator Graham introduced the Russia Sanctions Review Act of 2017.Footnote 98 That bill would require the Trump administration to submit two items to Congress before relaxing sanctions: (1) a description of any proposed sanctions relief; and (2) a certification that Moscow had stopped supporting actions to undermine the government of Ukraine and ceased cyberattacks against the United States.Footnote 99 Congress would then have 120 days either to pass a joint resolution of disapproval or to decline to act on the sanctions relief.Footnote 100
During this period, President-elect Trump's position on Russian interference in the election remained unclear. Responding to the Obama administration's sanctions, President-elect Trump simply stated that the “country [should] … move on to bigger and better things.”Footnote 101 He then agreed to meet with intelligence officials so he could “be updated on the facts” of the hacking.Footnote 102 Before then, however, Julian Assange repeated his claim “that [WikiLeaks’] source [wa]s not the Russian government and it [wa]s not a state party.”Footnote 103 In response, Trump noted that “Julian Assange … said Russians did not give him the info!”Footnote 104 He later clarified: “The dishonest media likes saying that I am in Agreement with Julian Assange - wrong. I simply state what he states, it is for the people …Footnote 105 to make up their own minds as to the truth.”Footnote 106 That same day, however, Trump again questioned the attribution of the election hacking to Russia: “The D[NC] would not allow the FBI to study or see its computer info after it was supposedly hacked by Russia … .Footnote 107 So how and why are they so sure about hacking if they never even requested an examination of the computer servers? What is going on?”Footnote 108 Vice President-elect Mike Pence claimed that Trump had “expressed his very sincere and healthy American skepticism about intelligence conclusions.”Footnote 109 However, DNI Clapper subsequently asserted that “there is an important distinction here between healthy skepticism, which policymakers … should always have for intelligence, … and disparagement.”Footnote 110
At the January 6 briefing, intelligence officials presented Trump with the original, classified version of the report that the CIA, FBI, and NSA had prepared based on the comprehensive review ordered by President Obama.Footnote 111 The declassified version of the report, released later that day, stated:
We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.
-
• We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. …Footnote 112
-
• In trying to influence the US election, we assess the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, the promotion of which Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as a threat to Russia and Putin's regime.
-
• Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal as US-directed efforts to defame Russia, suggesting he sought to use disclosures to discredit the image of the United States and cast it as hypocritical.
-
• Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
We assess Putin, his advisers, and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump over Secretary Clinton.
-
• Beginning in June, Putin's public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump, probably because Kremlin officials thought that any praise from Putin personally would backfire in the United States. Nonetheless, Putin publicly indicated a preference for President-elect Trump's stated policy to work with Russia, and pro-Kremlin figures spoke highly about what they saw as his Russia-friendly positions on Syria and Ukraine. Putin publicly contrasted the President-elect's approach to Russia with Secretary Clinton's “aggressive rhetoric.”
-
• Moscow also saw the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant … .
-
• Putin, Russian officials, and other pro-Kremlin pundits stopped publicly criticizing the US election process as unfair almost immediately after the election because Moscow probably assessed it would be counterproductive to building positive relations.
We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the presidency the Russian influence campaign focused more on undercutting Secretary Clinton's legitimacy and crippling her presidency from its start, including by impugning the fairness of the election.
-
• Before the election, Russian diplomats had publicly denounced the US electoral process and were prepared to publicly call into question the validity of the results. Pro-Kremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night in anticipation of Secretary Clinton's victory, judging from their social media activity.Footnote 113
The report also addressed the scope of the Russian government's intrusion into election-related activities:
We assess Russian intelligence services collected against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape future US policies. In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.
-
• The General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) probably began cyber operations aimed at the US election by March 2016. We assess that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.Footnote 114
Finally, it detailed the methods that the Russian government used to interfere:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
-
• Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists.
-
• Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in June.
We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.
-
• In early September, Putin said publicly it was important the DNC data was exposed to WikiLeaks, calling the search for the source of the leaks a distraction and denying Russian “state-level” involvement.Footnote 115
-
• The Kremlin's principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks. RT's editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media. Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become “the only Russian media company” to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to “new leaks of secret information.” RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States.Footnote 116
The report also indicated that, although “Russian intelligence accessed elements of multiple state or local electoral boards,” the Department of Homeland Security “assesses that the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying.”Footnote 117 Beyond that finding, however, the agencies
did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.Footnote 118
A significant amount of classified evidence was omitted from the public version of the report.Footnote 119 The agencies noted that the declassified report's “conclusions [we]re identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document d[id] not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign.”Footnote 120 The intelligence community “rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.”Footnote 121
Russian officials denounced the declassified report. A Kremlin spokesman said that “[t]hese are baseless allegations substantiated with nothing, done on a rather amateurish, emotional level.”Footnote 122 The Foreign Ministry's spokeswoman added: “If ‘Russian hackers’ managed to hack anything in America, it's two things: Obama's brain and, of course, the report itself.”Footnote 123
After the briefing, President-elect Trump released a brief statement that did not address the report in any detail. It said, in relevant part:
While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the D[NC], there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election[,] including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines. There were attempts to hack the R[NC], but the RNC had strong hacking defenses and the hackers were unsuccessful.Footnote 124
Nonetheless, a few days later, Trump acknowledged that Russia might have been responsible: “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia, but I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people.”Footnote 125
In the wake of new material reported by media outlets after the January 6 briefing, members of Congress called for investigation of links between Trump's campaign and the Russian government.Footnote 126 The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian hacking indicated that they would also investigate those connections.Footnote 127 In addition, media reports stated that both law enforcement and intelligence agencies were examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into ties between Russian officials and Trump's campaign associates, including Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone.Footnote 128 However, during a closed-door meeting with House leaders, FBI Director Comey reportedly refused to confirm whether the FBI was investigating the alleged links.Footnote 129 Similarly, when asked by the Senate Intelligence Committee about an FBI investigation of possible connections, Mr. Comey said that he “would never comment on investigations, whether we have one or not, in an open forum like this.”Footnote 130
The new administration's National Security Advisor, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, resigned on February 13 following allegations that he improperly discussed certain issues with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, before President Trump took office.Footnote 131 The press had previously reported that Gen. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak spoke on the phone several times on December 29, when President Obama announced sanctions against Russia for its election interference.Footnote 132 Then, in early February, U.S. officials reportedly said that Gen. Flynn's statements might have suggested that the Russian government could expect relief from those sanctions, even if his statements did not convey an explicit promise.Footnote 133
After these reports emerged, according to President Trump, he “asked for [Gen. Flynn's] resignation” because Gen. Flynn “didn't tell … Vice President [Pence] … the facts [about his discussions with Mr. Kislyak], and then he didn't remember,” which “just wasn't acceptable to me.”Footnote 134 But he said that Gen. Flynn “didn't have to [resign], because what he [discussed] wasn't wrong.”Footnote 135 Nonetheless, both congressional intelligence committees indicated that they would likely examine the nature of Gen. Flynn's discussions with Mr. Kislyak in the course of their broader investigations into Russian election interference.Footnote 136
