Dead Drop: September 4

THE THREAT BRIEFING IS IN THE MAIL:  On the last Saturday of August, the Senate and House intelligence committees found out that the administration decided to forgo planned closed hearings about foreign threats to disrupt the November election and instead, decided to submit their views in writing. The decision did not go down well. Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, put the news in a letter that reached CNN and other media outlets hours before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got a copy – but you know how fickle the mail can be these days. Shortly thereafter, Ratcliffe and his acting predecessor, Ric Grenell, separately appeared on Fox News explaining that the decision was made because the last time the Intelligence Community briefed the Hill on election threats – members of Congress quickly leaked sensitive information to the media. Former senior CIA officer (and Cipher Brief expert) John Sipher wrote an OPED for the New York Times arguing that “intelligence professionals write to be easily understood, but also write to be interrogated. They know that in-person briefings are necessary because a document can be misread no matter how precise.”  Former CIA Director John Brennan wrote in The Washington Post that he believes the decision to limit communication with the Hill on electoral interference suggests Ratcliffe “is bowing to White House pressure to stifle the flow of intelligence to Congress that might be detrimental to Trump.”  Far be it from us to follow the logic trail, but if leaking is the reason for the change, why couldn’t Members of Congress just as easily leak material they receive in writing versus in person?  Cipher Brief expert, Admiral Jim Stavridis said in a tweet: “This is not about fear of leaks. It is about fear that those testifying might commit truth.”

THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW: Moving a little further down the logic trail, we’re wondering if the DNI filed a “crimes report” about any leaks allegedly made by Members of Congress? There are long-standing procedures requiring notification of the Department of Justice when classified information spills into the public domain. So, if the Administration filed a report, would they tell us about it? When word hit the media about the Russians allegedly offering bounties to target U.S. troops in Afghanistan in June, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien said the information came from “Some leaker, whoever it is, and I understand that there has been a crimes report filed by the CIA with the Department of Justice…” There are many other examples that have us doing some head scratching. For instance, in 2002, classified information about al Qai’da communications intercepts was provided to CNN during a closed-door Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11. In that case, The Washington Post later reported that federal investigators concluded that Senator Richard Shelby (R, AL) was the source, but then the trail went cold.  If the administration didn’t bother to file a crimes report over this latest allegation of leaky lips on foreign election interference – would that mean there’s not a case?

“The Cipher Brief has become the most popular outlet for former intelligence officers; no media outlet is even a close second to The Cipher Brief in terms of the number of articles published by formers.” —Sept. 2018, Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 62

Access all of The Cipher Brief’s national security-focused expert insight by becoming a Cipher Brief Subscriber+ Member.

Subscriber+

Search

Close