The New York Times on Feb. 20 published a shocking scoop: U.S. intelligence officials warned members of Congress recently that Russia is interfering in the 2020 U.S. election to “try to get President Trump re-elected,” according to anonymous sources.
The report also alleges that Trump “berated” outgoing acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire for briefing members of the House on the Kremlin’s reported interference efforts. Later, NBC News also cited anonymous sources to report that Maguire lost his job because he informed lawmakers of Russia’s meddling.
But on Feb. 21, CNN’s Jake Tapper reported that anonymous officials dispute the way the “story is being told.”
Whom do you believe? Who knows?
Because the New York Times, NBC, and CNN accounts are based entirely on nameless sources and the fact that there is no concrete evidence to back any version of events, the public is left with no other option than to pick whichever story sounds better.
We are living in a golden era of ‘chose your own adventure’ journalism.
The New York Times’s Feb. 20 report originally appeared with a headline that read, “Russia backs Trump’s re-election, and he fears Democrats will exploit its support.”
Its opening paragraphs read:
“The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump cited the presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who led the impeachment proceedings against him, as a particular irritant.
“During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he has been tough on Russia and strengthened European security.
…
“After asking about the briefing that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and other agencies gave to the House, Mr. Trump complained that Mr. Schiff would ‘weaponize’ the intelligence about Russia’s support for him, according to a person familiar with the briefing. And he was angry that no one had told him sooner about the briefing, the person said.”
However, on Feb. 21, Tapper reported contradictory information.
“A national security official I know and trust pushes back on the way the briefing/ODNI story is being told, and others with firsthand knowledge agree with his assessment,” he tweeted.
The official told Tapper: “What’s been articulated in the news is that the intelligence community has concluded that the Russians are trying to help Trump again. But the intelligence doesn’t say that. The problem is [Shelby Pierson, who led the briefing] said they developed a preference for Trump. A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference. It’s a step short of that. It’s more that they understand the president is someone they can work with. He’s a dealmaker.”
That is not to say that the Russians have a preference for Trump over, say, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg or Soviet superfan Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the official continued.
“So it may have been mischaracterized by Shelby [during the briefing],” the official told Tapper.
“And by the way,” the person added, “both Democrats and Republicans were challenging this at the briefing.”
As for Trump reportedly “berating” the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, Tapper reports that the president was “upset that he had to hear about an intelligence conclusion” from a Republican member of the House rather than directly from members of the intelligence community.
“So he was out of joint with Maguire on that process,” Tapper wrote.
A brief aside: Even if it is not true that Trump complained that Democrats would try to use the intelligence briefing against him, they are doing exactly that with the press’s coverage of Maguire’s exit.
“Putin’s Puppet is at it again,” tweeted twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, highlighting the NBC report about Maguire’s firing, “taking Russian help for himself. He knows he can’t win without it. And we can’t let it happen.”
As for whose reporting is likely more accurate, I agree with the Washington Examiner’s Tom Rogan when he says the New York Times’s framing of the issue does not quite add up. It is a long, steady process divining Russia’s intent, which is obviously well-guarded, and it seems unlikely at this point in the 2020 election that U.S. intelligence officials have already gathered enough information to make what sound like definitive determinations about the Kremlin’s election-year plans. What likely happened is that someone asked during the briefing whether Russia is trying to reelect Trump, and Pierson or one of her colleagues likely answered with a “hedged response in the affirmative” before returning to the main point that Russia is going to use the 2020 election to sow chaos and confusion in the United States.
As Rogan notes, “That’s very different from that which the New York Times report implies: a high-confidence national intelligence assessment that Russia is interfering to see Trump triumph over any and all of the Democratic presidential primary field.”
