Obama Administration Failed At Combatting Russian Election Interference, New Bipartisan Report Shows

The Obama Administration Was ‘Caught Flat-Footed’ by Russian Attempts To Interfere In The U.S. Election

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA), Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman, 2018: “As we examine the policy questions faced by the Obama administration and this Congress during the 2016 campaign, it’s evident that in many ways we were caught flat-footed at the outset and our collective response was inadequate to meet Russia’s escalation. At the end of the day, it’s hard to see the Russian influence campaign as anything but a success for Vladimir Putin.” (U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing, 6/20/2018)

BIPARTISAN SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT: “The Committee found that the U.S. Government was not well-postured to counter Russian election interference activity with a full range of readily-available policy options.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

• “Most administration officials the Committee interviewed recalled first learning about the Russian cyber penetration of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) from the news media. In fact, had the DNC not approached and cooperated with the Washington Post to publish a June 14, 2016, article, senior administration leadership probably would not have been aware of the issue until later …” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

“Despite Moscow's history of leaking politically damaging information, and the increasingly significant publication of illicitly obtained information by coopted third parties, such as WikiLeaks, which historically had published information harmful to the United States, previous use of weaponized information alone was not sufficient for the administration to take immediate action on the DNC breach. The administration was not fully engaged until some key intelligence insights were provided by the [Intelligence Community], which shifted how the administration viewed the issue.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

• “Witnesses interviewed by the Committee consistently said that Russian cyber activity was a well-known issue within the administration, however hardly any administration officials had considered the threat of information collected through cyber espionage being weaponized when assessing the consequences of the Russian cyber intrusions into the DNC and DCCC networks.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

• “Despite the unprecedented scale and sophistication of the 2016 Russian active measures campaign, Moscow has a decades-long history of conducting active measures campaigns against the United States. Among these efforts, Russia previously conducted active measures operations to discredit U.S. diplomatic personnel, as well as officials in allied nations, using leaked information.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

After Obama Administration Officials Were Alerted To Russian Interference Attempts, They Were Paralyzed By Indecision And Did Little To Respond

SEN. RICHARD BURR (R-NC), Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman: “After discovering the existence, if not the full scope, of Russia’s election interference efforts in late-2016, the Obama Administration struggled to determine the appropriate response. Frozen by ‘paralysis of analysis,’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived, Obama officials debated courses of action without truly taking one.” (“Senate Report Faults Obama Administration’s Paralysis On Russian Election Interference,” Politico, 2/06/2020)

“Widespread paralysis in the Obama administration prevented the U.S. from developing an effective response to combat Russian hacking in the 2016 election, according to a new, bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee.” (“Senate Report Faults Obama Administration’s Paralysis On Russian Election Interference,” Politico, 2/06/2020)

BIPARTISAN SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT: “While some policy options were ready to execute on short notice--in part because they had been developed, but not used, in response to earlier acts of Russian aggression--a more comprehensive set of options took time to formulate and prepare. The extremely restricted nature of the discussions by cabinet level officials hampered the administration's ability to prepare complex response options. Policymakers were also concerned about escalation and believed their options for sending a nuanced message to Moscow prior to the election were limited.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

‘It Was A Decision To Not Act Before The Election’ In Response

“Secretary [of Homeland Security Jeh] Johnson recalled that, as of October 1, 2016, ‘[a]s an administration we had not reached the conclusion, yes, we will attribute to Russia, and who’s going to do it.’” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

“[White House Chief of Staff Denis] McDonough stated that he did not recall any specific proposals for pre-election response actions though he noted that ‘it was a decision to not act before the election ... although there was work that we had to do, which obviously informed then the timing of when we do take the steps we take in December.’” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

• “According to [National Security Adviser Susan] Rice, the restricted [Principals Committee] group did discuss taking punitive action prior to the election, regardless of whether additional Russian cyber activity was detected. The administration decided, however, to not proceed out of concern about provoking the Russians to undertake additional activity.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

“Several administration officials told the Committee that they believed they had exhausted the non-escalatory actions they could take prior to the election …” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

Instead, Obama Officials Repeatedly Issued Ineffective Warnings To The Russians

BIPARTISAN SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT: “Actions undertaken prior to the November 8, 2016, presidential election were limited to admonishing the Russians at various levels, providing federal assistance to secure state election infrastructure, and issuing a public statement attributing the penetration of the DNC and the disclosure of illicitly obtained information to Moscow.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

“The Committee found that after the warnings, Russia continued its cyber activity, to include further public dissemination of stolen emails, clandestine social media-based influence operations, and penetration of state voting infrastructure through Election Day 2016.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

• “[I]t is now clear that at least some aspects of Russian activity continued through the fall of 2016 and after the election; notably, Russia’s use of social media and its attempts to penetrate vulnerable state and local election infrastructure.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

After Each Warning, The Russians Simply Denied Their Involvement And Continued In Their Malign Activity

BIPARTISAN SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT: “The administration delivered at least five direct warnings to various levels of the Russian government…. In responding, Moscow denied any connection between the activities raised in the U.S. messages and Russia, adding that it too had been victim to some of the same cyber activity.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

• “[CIA] Director [John] Brennan stated that [FSB head Alexander] Bortnikov denied that Russia was doing anything to influence the election and also accused Washington of conducting similar activities against elections in Russia.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

• “Ambassador [Susan] Rice stated that, ‘[t]he President characterized Putin as being dishonest and obfuscating, denying any Russian involvement, criticizing the United States for interfering in Russian electoral processes and fomenting Orange revolutions in their territory.’” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

• “Approximately a week after the October 7. 2016 meeting, [Russian] Ambassador [Sergey] Kislyak asked to meet with Ambassador Rice to deliver Putin’s response. The response, as characterized by Ambassador Rice, was ‘denial and obfuscation’ …” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

“Subsequent to the 2016 election, however, intelligence and other information has revealed that Russian cyber actors did in fact engage in significant additional cyber activity following the warning delivered by President Obama to President Putin during the G20 summit in early September and prior to the election.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

• “As late as October, GRU cyber actors conducted penetration testing on state and county election infrastructure. For example, GRU cyber actors visited the websites of counties in Georgia, Iowa, and Florida to identify vulnerabilities.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

• “Days before the election, GRU cyber actors sent over 100 spearphishing emails to election officials and organizations in numerous Florida counties. These emails contained malware designed to look like a legitimate election infrastructure vendor.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

President Obama’s Weakness Towards Russia Emboldened Vladimir Putin

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “A foreign adversary like Russia didn’t just wake up one day in 2016 and decide to interfere in American democracy. The meddling was the outgrowth of a long pattern of weakness and naivete that permeated all eight years of the Obama administration.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 7/11/2019)

• SEN. McCONNELL: “The consequences of American weakness toward Russia were numerous. The more Obama gave, the more Putin took. Among those consequences, as we all know, was that Putin felt sufficiently emboldened to seek to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. Through efforts to divide Americans on social media and to hack a political party, agents of a foreign government sought to inject division, doubt, and chaos into our democracy. A sad and embarrassing episode.” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 7/10/2019)

BIPARTISAN SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT: “[U]nderstanding the broader geopolitical context is important. In 2013, about four years after President Obama gave a speech at Moscow's New Economic School announcing his intent to ‘reset’ relations with Russia, Moscow granted political asylum to Edward Snowden after he illegally stole and disclosed classified U.S. Government information. In 2014, Russia unlawfully invaded and occupied the Crimean Peninsula and parts of eastern Ukraine. In 2015, Russian troops landed on the ground in Syria, propping up a struggling Assad regime that had perpetuated widespread human rights violations and used unconscionable force against its own population. In 2016, Russian security forces harassed numerous U.S. diplomats in Russia, including assaulting an American diplomat in front of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. As the administration was engaging Russia to deescalate the conflict in Syria and calm tensions in Ukraine, Russia was directing its well-honed cyber capabilities and influence operations in a multi-front campaign to interfere in the elections of the United States and a number of allied nations.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

As Far Back As 2014, ‘A New World Of Misinformation’ Was Emerging And ‘The Russians Were Using It In Increasingly Aggressive Ways’

BIPARTISAN SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT: “Special Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes told the Committee that he was involved with the response to the 2014 incident when the Russians captured a January 28, 2014, phone call between Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. A recording of that conversation was posted on YouTube one week later…. Mr. Rhodes also told the Committee that, ‘t]he Russians also engaged in influence operations against our Ambassador [to Russia], Mike McFaul, where YouTube videos would be posted or innuendo would be spread on social media.’” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)

OBAMA ADMININSTRATION DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN: “[I]t sort of fed the larger concern that we had that we were in a new world of misinformation ... a new world where information warfare was really the new front line, and that the Russians were using it in increasingly aggressive ways. And it was one of the ways where they could have an asymmetric advantage.” (Report Of The Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, On Russian Active Measures Campaigns And Interference In The 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 3: U.S. Government Response To Russian Activities, 2/06/2020)