Out of curiosity, does anyone know how the letter was obtained? Was it a leak by a whistleblower?
Also:
the director of national intelligence said some analysts were reluctant to describe China’s actions as election interference because they disagreed with the policies of President Donald Trump.
Absolutely. Just look at these quotes from the letter:
China analysts were hesitant to assess Chinese actions as undue influence or interference. These analysts appeared reluctant to have their analysis on China brought forward because they tend to disagree with the administration's policies, saying in effect, I don't want our intelligence used to support those policies.
Additionally, the Ombudsman found that CIA Management took actions "pressuring [analysts] to withdraw their support" from the alternative viewpoint on China "in an attempt to suppress it. This was seen by Nation Intelligence Officers (NIO) as politicization," and I agree.
Tradecraft Standard 1 requires the analytic community to be consistent in the definitions applied to certain terminology, and to ensure that the definitions are properly explained. Having consumed election influence intelligence across various analytic communities, it is clear to me that different groups of analysts who focus on election threats from different countries are using different terminology to communicate the same malign actions. (they basically make sure to use the word INTERFERENCE when talking about Russia, but when it's about Chyna it's "INFLUENCE."
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how the letter was obtained? Was it a leak by a whistleblower?
Also:
What. The. Fuck.
Goes to show you how the Deep State >>> evidence.
Absolutely. Just look at these quotes from the letter:
This is so fucking infuriating.
BEYOND FUCKING INCOMPETENT FUCKERS