The January 2017 intelligence community assessment, which was supposed to cover meddling in U.S. elections, surprisingly left out China’s known cyber activities in 2008 and 2012. This was despite President Barack Obama’s directive to include details on China’s interference during these years. The focus of the assessment was almost entirely on Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election, leaving many questions unanswered.
It’s well-documented that Chinese hackers targeted both Obama and McCain in 2008 and returned to target Obama and Romney in 2012. Yet, when the assessment was made public, there was not a single mention of China’s cyber efforts. This omission is puzzling, especially considering the internal communication that clearly showed Obama’s orders to include such information.
In December 2016, James Clapper’s executive assistant emailed about Obama’s directive, confirming that the assessment would look at China’s influence operations. There were repeated assurances from the Obama administration that the assessment would cover all malicious foreign cyber activities since 2008. But these promises were left unfulfilled, raising eyebrows about the assessment’s completeness.
While the ICA mainly highlighted Russia’s alleged efforts, it completely ignored China’s known cyber campaigns. A declassified House Intelligence Committee report from last month showed no indication that the highly classified ICA versions addressed Chinese activities. This omission suggests a selective focus that might have been politically motivated.
Meanwhile, former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were pushing to include the discredited Steele Dossier in the assessment. This document, funded by the Clinton campaign, was widely criticized for its lack of credibility. The CIA’s recent “lessons learned” review criticized agency heads for including the dossier, which undermined the assessment’s credibility.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the review, pointing out that the decision violated fundamental tradecraft principles. The inclusion of the dossier created a politically charged environment around an essential democratic issue. This move was seen as aligning with anti-Trump forces within the FBI, further muddying the waters.
Despite Obama’s public promises, the intelligence community failed to deliver a comprehensive assessment. Emails from Clapper’s office indicated a task to explore not just Russian interference but also China’s role in previous elections. Still, the final product did not reflect this broader investigation.
The assessment was supposed to include a section on China’s actions in the 2008 election, as reiterated in multiple internal communications. Even the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia echoed this in emails, but the public ICA lacked this crucial information. These gaps raise concerns about the transparency and objectivity of the intelligence process.
Eric Schultz, a key spokesperson for the Obama administration, emphasized that the assessment would contextualize foreign interference since 2008. Schultz confirmed it would look beyond Russia, to other state and non-state actors. However, when the report was released, these assurances seemed to evaporate.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest also repeatedly assured that the assessment would include details from past elections. He stated that the President wanted information on malicious cyber activity from 2008 onward. Yet, the final assessment failed to meet these expectations.
Earnest reiterated that the intelligence community was working to reflect a consensus view of cyber threats over the years. He assured the public that the report would cover the 2016, 2012, and 2008 elections. The absence of such coverage left many questioning the integrity of the report.
The omission of China’s activities from the ICA has led to significant criticism and speculation. The expectation was for a balanced assessment covering all foreign threats, not just a narrow focus on Russia. This selective reporting has fueled debates about potential political motivations behind the assessment.
Overall, the handling of the January 2017 ICA has been contentious. The failure to deliver on promises of a comprehensive review of foreign cyber interference points to possible biases within the intelligence community. This situation highlights the need for transparency and accountability in such critical assessments.
The controversy over the ICA continues to spark discussions on the importance of impartiality in intelligence evaluations. Ensuring that all foreign threats are thoroughly investigated is crucial for protecting democratic processes. It is essential for future assessments to provide a complete and unbiased picture of all potential interference.
