CIA flags issues with 2016 Russian election interference probe

CIA Director John Ratcliffe released a declassified procedure review on Wednesday, citing several oddities with the Obama administration's 2016 intelligence probe into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The declassified assessment cited several of what it characterized as procedural anomalies around the drafting of the 2016 report that it said may have compromised the report’s sound analysis.

Ratcliffe accused then-CIA Director John Brennan and other agency leaders of creating a politically charged environment resulting in deviations from traditional analytical processes. He emphasized the importance of fostering a nonpolitical environment so CIA analysts can deliver unvarnished assessments, according to a Wednesday statement.

A bipartisan Senate panel that met for three years concluded in 2020 that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election.

What kind of anomalies? The audit cited a number of procedural anomalies and departures from standard practice which it said likely impacted the 2016 report’s findings.

Officials noted that the Obama administration gave CIA analysts an unusually compressed timeline to review allegations of Russian election interference. CIA analysts had less than a week to draft the initial report, which would normally have taken months to prepare given the length, complexity, and political sensitivity of the assessment, according to the audit. Ratcliffe’s review cited a possible political motive behind the rushed timeline, specifically the goal of releasing the election report before the presidential transition. Without a clear operational need for urgency, the cramped timeline created vulnerabilities and possible bias in the report, according to the Wednesday review.

The uneven access to compartmentalized information shared across analysts complicated attempts at a coordinated review and ultimately bred analytical differences across the report, according to the probe. One CIA manager described the uneven compartmentalization of information as causing chaos among analysts. Some of the report’s key authors were not cleared to review controversial information and were only given portions of information out of context, according to the declassified audit.

Ratcliffe’s report also described the involvement of high-level agency leaders in the 2016 assessment as odd. The unusually high level of senior involvement likely altered the normal review processes and probably compromised the analytic rigor of the report, the review found. One CIA analytic manager said some managers who would normally be part of the review chain opted out of working on the report due to the politically charged environment and the unusual involvement from superiors. Given the severe time constraints, limited information sharing, and heightened senior-level scrutiny, several areas of analytical practice were compromised, according to the report. Agency leaders also held the report authors to a level of confidence higher than justified, and analysts insufficiently explored alternative scenarios, according to the review.

Overall, the report found that the departure from established processes may have diminished the fairness of the fundamental analysis.

Dig deeper: Read Kyle Ziemnick’s report on how impactful foreign election interference actually is.