ShareThis Page
Senate panel backs up intelligence agencies, says Russia aimed to help Trump in election |

Senate panel backs up intelligence agencies, says Russia aimed to help Trump in election

The Los Angeles Times
| Tuesday, July 3, 2018 5:57 p.m
J. Scott Applewhite | AP
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., left, confers with Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., on Capitol Hill in Washington.

WASHINGTON — The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday backed up conclusions from U.S. intelligence agencies that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election with the aim of helping President Trump win, releasing an unclassified report that called the intelligence assessment solid.

“The Committee has spent the last 16 months reviewing the sources, tradecraft and analytic work underpinning the Intelligence Community Assessment and sees no reason to dispute the conclusions,” said a statement from Sen. Richard M. Burr, R-N.C., the panel’s chairman.

The committee’s statement is not a surprise — Burr and the panel’s Democratic vice chairman, Sen. Mark R. Warner of Virginia — have both made previous statements supporting the intelligence community’s assessment. But the strong endorsement nonetheless marks a significant milestone in the continued debate over Russia’s role in the 2016 campaign.

The report puts the panel at odds with Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, who issued their own report this year, and the president, who has continued to denigrate the intelligence agencies’ assessment. Just last week, he did so once again, on Twitter.

“Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!” Trump tweeted, then questioned whether law enforcement had adequately investigated the issue. “So many questions, so much corruption!”

The Senate committee’s bipartisan conclusion comes at a potentially awkward time for Trump, who is scheduled to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 16 in Helsinki, Finland.

The report not only backs up intelligence officials’ assessment that Russia acted deliberately to help Trump, but also that Putin personally ordered the efforts to meddle in the U.S. campaign. Putin last week met with Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, and told him that there had been no interference “by the Russian state,” Bolton said in a Fox News interview over the weekend.

The Senate committee, however, said the scope of Russian interference has only become clearer in the years since the campaign.

“Further details have come to light that bolster the assessment,” the report said.

The Senate report diverges from an earlier one released in March by House Intelligence Committee Republicans, who said officials were mistaken to conclude that Moscow wanted Trump to win. The House Republicans’ report also emphasized the lack of public evidence that Trump’s allies conspired with Russians, something that remains under investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

The new Senate committee report does not address the issue of collusion. It did say, however, that intelligence agencies were on solid ground by saying Moscow developed a “clear preference” for Trump.

Officials relied on “public Russian leadership commentary, Russian state media reports, public examples of where Russian interests would have aligned with candidates’ policy statements, and a body of intelligence reporting,” the Senate report said.

In addition, the report said there were no signs that President Obama’s administration improperly tried to interfere with intelligence agencies’ analysis.

“The Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach any conclusions,” the report said.

The report is another example of how the Senate Intelligence Committee has diverged from its House counterpart.

The House Intelligence Committee has been split along partisan lines, releasing Republican and Democratic versions of various reports. Democrats rejected its March report on Russia’s activities.

The House panel’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has also proven to be much more willing to jump to Trump’s defense, dedicating significant time to examining how the Justice Department has handled the Russian probe.

Meanwhile, the Senate committee has maintained bipartisan cooperation and expressed little interest in Nunes’ theories about allegations of investigator misconduct.

Categories: Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.