A redacted email chain forwards FBI objections to the sourcing, framing, and inclusion of a minority view in an updated Intelligence Community Assessment concerning China and the 2020 election.
The forwarding official said the issues had already been discussed repeatedly and was unsure whether the new FBI comments represented backtracking or comments for the record.
“Most of this we’ve been over numerous times already. So it’s not clear to me if they’re backtracking or just commenting for the record.”
The FBI sender accepted including a minority-view text box only if it met the same analytic standards as the rest of the assessment. The sender also opposed presenting the minority view in the key judgments without appropriate source descriptions and context.
“while we are fine with the inclusion of the minority view textbox, we firmly believe the analysis in said text box must comport to the same analytic standards as the rest of the ICA.”
“we do not support the inclusion of the minority view in the KJs; without proper context and source descriptions”
The FBI sender argued that available intelligence did not show Chinese leaders intended their efforts to indirectly affect U.S. candidates, although the sender acknowledged awareness that such an effect was possible. The sender characterized a more categorical statement of intent as misleading.
“The IC has repeatedly stated, based on a body of intelligence, there is no evidence of said intention, though we note there was an awareness of this potential effect.”
The sender argued that minimizing source descriptions improperly gave reporting of dubious credibility the same weight as signals intelligence and clandestine reporting from sources with established records of general reliability.
“clandestine reporting from US or liaison sources of dubious credibility, poorly identified sourcing chains, and minimal track records of reporting is given the same weight as signals intelligence”
“sources with established records of reporting that is generally reliable.”
The sender said the reporting and cited material did not support an assessment that China may have encouraged protests. The sender also regarded reliance on hypothetical collection gaps to sustain the dissent as inconsistent with intelligence that, in the sender’s account, showed Chinese leaders exercised restraint.
“There is no evidence of this in the reporting, and the citations associated with this tic certainly do not support this assessment.”
“This point appears to acknowledge that IC collection demonstrated that China’s leaders practiced restraint and did not intend to influence the outcome of the election”
“citing the absence of evidence is an absolute red line for us.”