<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div><a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-aluminum-tube-footnote/" target="_blank">https://www.emptywheel.net/<wbr>2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-<wbr>leak-dont-ignore-aluminum-<wbr>tube-footnote/</a><br></div><div>
















<p class="MsoNormal"> <br></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:15.6pt;vertical-align:baseline"><b><span style="font-size:15pt;font-family:"helvetica neue";color:rgb(38,59,38);text-transform:uppercase"><a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-aluminum-tube-footnote/" title="Permanent Link: Unpacking the New CIA Leak: Don’t Ignore the Aluminum Tube Footnote" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue;border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">UNPACKING THE NEW CIA LEAK:
DON’T IGNORE THE ALUMINUM TUBE FOOTNOTE </span></a><span></span></span></b></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">December 9, 2016<span style="color:rgb(127,140,94)">/</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(127,140,94);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in"><a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-aluminum-tube-footnote/#comments" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94);text-decoration:none">52 Comments</span></a></span><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">/</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(127,140,94);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">in <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/category/2016-presidential-election/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94);text-decoration:none">2016
Presidential Election</span></a>, <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/category/cybersecurity/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94);text-decoration:none">Cybersecurity</span></a>, <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/category/russian-hacks/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94);text-decoration:none">Russi<wbr>an hacks</span></a> </span><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">/</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(127,140,94);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">by <span style="color:rgb(127,140,94);text-decoration:none"><a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/author/emptywheel/" title="Posts by emptywheel" target="_blank">emptywheel</a><br><br></span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:times"><span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(246,246,240);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:13pt;color:rgb(51,51,51)">This post will unpack <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.8148dfd4c448" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">the leak from the CIA published in the WaPo</span></a> tonight.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Before I
start with the substance of the story, consider this background. First, if
Trump comes into office on the current trajectory, the US will let Russia help
Bashar al-Assad stay in power, thwarting a 4-year effort on the part
of the Saudis to remove him from power. It will also restructure the
hierarchy of horrible human rights abusing allies the US has, with the Saudis
losing out to other human rights abusers, potentially up to and including that
other petrostate, Russia. It will also install a ton of people with ties to the
US oil industry in the cabinet, meaning the US will effectively subsidize oil
production in this country, which will have the perhaps inadvertent result of
ensuring the US remains oil-independent even though the market can’t justify
fracking right now.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">The CIA
is institutionally quite close with the Saudis right now, and has been in
charge of their covert war against Assad.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">This
story came 24 days after the White House released an <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/11/28/white-house-attempts-unring-election-integrity-fearmongering/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">anonymous statement</span></a> asserting, among other things,
“the Federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber
activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day,” suggesting
that the Russians may have been deterred.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">This
story was leaked within hours of the time the White House announced it was
calling for an all-intelligence community review of the Russia intelligence,
offered without much detail. Indeed, this story was leaked and
published <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.8148dfd4c448" target="_blank"><i><span style="color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">as an update to that story</span></i><span style="color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">.</span></a><span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Which is
to say, the CIA and/or people in Congress (this story seems primarily to come
from Democratic Senators) leaked this, apparently in response to President
Obama’s not terribly urgent call to have all intelligence agencies weigh in on
the subject of Russian influence, after weeks of Democrats pressuring him to
release more information. It was designed to both make the White
House-ordered review more urgent and influence the outcome.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">So here’s
what that story says.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">In
September, the spooks briefed “congressional leaders” (which for a variety of
reasons I wildarseguess is either a Gang of Four briefing including Paul
Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid or a briefing to SSCI
plus McConnell, Reid, Jack Reed, and John McCain). Apparently, the substance of
the briefing was that Russia’s intent in hacking Democratic entities was not to
increase distrust of institutions, but instead to elect Trump.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:18pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(245,246,242);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(127,140,94)">The CIA has concluded in
a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald
Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S.
electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">The
difference between this story and other public assessments is that it seems to
identify the people — who sound like people with ties to the Russian
government but not necessarily part of it — who funneled documents from
Russia’s GRU to Wikileaks.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.2pt;line-height:18pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(245,246,242);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(127,140,94)">Intelligence
agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government
who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National
Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according
to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to
the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump
and hurt Clinton’s chances.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;line-height:18pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(245,246,242);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(127,140,94)">[snip]<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;line-height:18pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(245,246,242);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(127,140,94)">[I]ntelligence agencies
do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing”
the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second
senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one
step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">This is
the part that has always been missing in the past: how the documents got from
GRU, which hacked the DNC and John Podesta, to Wikileaks, which released them.
It appears that CIA now thinks they know the answer: some people one step
removed from the Russian government, funneling the documents from GRU hackers
(presumably) to Wikileaks to be leaked, with the intent of electing Trump.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Not
everyone buys this story. Mitch McConnell doesn’t buy the intelligence.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:18pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(245,246,242);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(127,140,94)">In September, during a
secret briefing for congressional leaders, Senate Republican Leader Mitch
McConnell (Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according
to officials present.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">That’s
one doubt raised about CIA’s claim — though like you all, I assume
Mitch McConnell shouldn’t be trusted on this front.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">But
McConnell wasn’t the only one. One source for this story — which sounds
like someone like Harry Reid or Dianne Feinstein — claimed that this CIA
judgment is the “consensus” view of all the intelligence agencies, a term of
art.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:18pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(245,246,242);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(127,140,94)">“It is the assessment of
the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate
over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed
on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus
view.”<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Except
that in a briefing <i><span style="border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">this week</span></i> (which
may have been what impressed John McCain and Lindsey Graham to do their own
investigation), that’s not what this represented.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.2pt;line-height:18pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(245,246,242);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(127,140,94)">The CIA
shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on
Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of
intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was
now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the
officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence
matters.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:18pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(245,246,242);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(127,140,94)">The CIA presentation to
senators about Russia’s intentions <i><span style="border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">fell short of a formal U.S.
assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies</span></i>. A senior U.S.
official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about
the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered. [my
emphasis]<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">That’s a
conflict. Some senior US official (often code for senior member of Congress)
says this is the consensus view. Another senior US official (or maybe the very
same one) says there are “minor disagreements.”<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Remember:
we went to war against Iraq, which turned out to have no WMD, in part because
no one read the “minor disagreements” from a few agencies about some aluminum
tubes. A number of Senators who didn’t read that footnote closely (and at
least one that did) are involved in this story. What we’re being told is there
are some aluminum tube type disagreements.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Let’s
hear about those disagreements this time, shall we?<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Here’s
the big takeaway. The language “a formal US assessment produced by all 17
intelligence agencies” is, like “a consensus view,” a term of art. It’s an
opportunity for agencies which may have differing theories of what
happened here to submit their footnotes.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">That may
be what Obama called for today: the formal assessment from all agencies (though
admittedly, the White House purposely left the scope and intent of it vague).<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Whatever
that review is intended to be, what happened as soon as Obama announced it
is that the CIA and/or Democratic Senators started leaking their conclusion.
That’s what this story is.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Update:
One other really critical detail. When the White House announced the Obama
review today, <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/807296394750992384" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">Wikileaks</span></a> made what was a bizarre statement.
Linking to a <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/obama-orders-review-into-russian-hacking-of-2016-election/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">CNN story</span></a> on the Obama ordered review that <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/game-telephone-election-hacking-review/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">erred</span></a> on the side of blaming Russia for
everything, it said, “CNN: Obama orders report into WikiLeaks timed for release
just prior to Trump presidency.” Even though none of the statements on the
review focused on what this story does — that is, on the way that the DNC and
Podesta emails got to Wikileaks — Wikileaks nevertheless interpreted it as an
inquiry targeted at it.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Update:
And now David Sanger (whose story on the Obama-ordered review was particularly
bad) and Scott Shane <a href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?smid=tw-nytimes" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">reveal</span></a> the RNC also got hacked, and it is the
differential leaking that leads the spooks to believe the Russians wanted Trump
to win.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.2pt;line-height:18pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(245,246,242);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(127,140,94)">They
based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also
reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National
Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic
organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the
Republican networks.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;line-height:18pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(245,246,242);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(127,140,94)">In the months before the
election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were
leaked to the public.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">This may
be a fair assessment. But you would have to account for two things before
making it. <span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">NYT now
says the RNC hack was by GRU in the spring, so it is a fair question why the
DNC things got leaked but RNC did not.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10.2pt;margin-bottom:10.2pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Also,
Sanger and Shane say “largely documents” from Dems were leaked. That’s false.
There were two streams of non-Wikileaks releases, Guccifer, which did leak
all-Dem stuff, and DC Leaks, which leaked stuff that might be better qualified
as Ukrainian related. The most publicized of documents from the latter were
from Colin Powell, which didn’t help Trump at all.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Update:
It’s clear that Harry Reid (who of course is retiring and so can leak speech
and debate protected classified information without worrying he’ll be shut off
in the future) is one key driver of this story. Last night he <a href="https://twitter.com/fshakir/status/807577216712380416" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">was saying</span></a>, “”I was right. Comey was wrong. I hope he
can look in the mirror and see what he did to this country.” This morning he is
on the TV saying he believes Comey had information on this before the election.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt">Update,
12/10: This <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks/2016/12/10/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.6194e826f818" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">follow-up from WaPo</span></a> is instructive, as it compares
what CIA briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee about the current state of
evidence with what FBI briefed the House Intelligence Committee about the
current state of evidence. While the focus is on different Republican and
Democratic understandings of both, the story also makes it clear that FBI
definitely doesn’t back what WaPo’s sources from yesterday said was a consensus
view.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(144,158,110);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(246,246,240)">Tags:</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(127,140,94);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(246,246,240)"> <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/bashar-al-assad/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94)">Bashar
al-Assad</span></a>, <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/dianne-feinstein/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94)">Dianne Feinstein</span></a>, <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/donald-trump/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94)">Donald
Trump</span></a>, <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/harry-reid/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94)">Harry Reid</span></a>, <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/john-mccain/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94)">John
McCain</span></a>, <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/john-podesta/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94)">John Podesta</span></a>, <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/lindsey-graham/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94)">Lindsey
Graham</span></a>, <a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/mitch-mcconnell/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(127,140,94)">Mitch
McConnell</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:times"><span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(246,246,240);vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"helvetica neue";color:rgb(51,51,51)"><span> </span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>

</div><div><br></div><div>===</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_5115798915800748487gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Robert Naiman<br>Policy Director<br>Just Foreign Policy<br><a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org" target="_blank">www.justforeignpolicy.org</a><br><a href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" target="_blank">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br><div><span style="text-align:left"><a href="tel:(202)%20448-2898" value="+12024482898" target="_blank">(202) 448-2898 x1</a></span><br></div></div></div></div>
</div></font></span></div>
</div><br></div>