Election Document Index
Source guide

Email Questioning Intelligence Characterizations of Chinese Election Influence

This partially redacted National Intelligence Council cyber officer’s email critiques what the author views as inconsistent intelligence-community characterizations of Chinese activity as either issue influence or election influence.

Open full source PDF ↗ 1 page Image source text
01

Claimed inconsistency with 2020 analysis

The author asks recipients to review a report and alleges that it uses intelligence and reasoning similar to material used in 2020 to characterize the same units as issue-focused rather than engaged in election influence. The specific later election under discussion is redacted.

“It cites some of the same intel and logic used in 2020 to say that these same units were NOT engaged in election influence but were instead only issue-focused”
Analyst email
Source: page 1 ↗
“They literally cite as support for their argument some of the same reporting used in the mainline assessment in our minority report.”
Analyst email
Source: page 1 ↗
02

Attribution concern

As an example, the author says the report attributes redacted activity to “the Chinese military” even though the intelligence community had said in 2020 that it did not know who was responsible. The author further says the report now attributes the unit to the Chinese government.

“activity as being “the Chinese military” even though in 2020 the IC said we didn’t know who it was.”
Analyst email
Source: page 1 ↗
“now characterizes it as an election-influence unit and attributes it to the Chinese Government.”
Analyst email
Source: page 1 ↗
03

Issue influence versus election influence

The author asks for the logical, nonpartisan basis on which the intelligence community distinguishes election influence abroad from issue influence in the United States. The author’s assessment is that the same personnel conducted the same type of activity, although redactions conceal the foreign election and another compared entity.

“We should consider how this looks and on what logical, non-partisan basis the IC makes calls one way or the other.”
Analyst assessment
Source: page 1 ↗
“It’s the same personnel doing the same kind of activity.”
Analyst assessment
Source: page 1 ↗
04

Oversight recommendation

The author recommends highlighting the perceived analytical inconsistency for oversight; the page does not record any resulting investigative step or final finding.

“That’s a weird coincidence, and one we should highlight for oversight.”
Analyst recommendation
Source: page 1 ↗