Decrying Russian Disinformation, Lindsey Graham Cites Alleged Russian Disinformation

GOP lawmakers are still talking about Hillary’s emails.

Sen. Lindsey Graham questions former FBI Director James Comey on September 30, 2020.Ken Cedeno/Pool via AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

With barely a month to go before the 2020 presidential election, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee spent Wednesday attacking Democrats’ 2016 nominee using alleged Russian disinformation. The GOP senators did so even as they blasted former FBI Director James Comey—who was testifying before the panel—for what they claimed was the bureau’s possible use of Russian disinformation.

In other words, Republicans spent a five-hour hearing Wednesday haranguing the FBI for advancing possible Russian disinformation, while busily doing the same thing themselves. 

This might seem hypocritical, but it’s consistent with an overt bid by the committee’s chair, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and other GOP senators to aid President Trump’s efforts to discredit the federal investigation into the Trump-Russia scandal.

Wednesday’s hearing was nominally part of a review of the launch of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, the one that started before special counsel Robert Mueller’s May 2017 appointment. Republicans on the panel repeatedly asked Comey about the FBI’s reliance in 2016 on information compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele regarding contacts between Carter Page and Russian agents while Page was working as an adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign. (Steele gathered this information as a subcontractor for an opposition research firm Democrats hired to investigate Trump; he then turned findings over to the FBI.) Republicans focused on a September 24 letter in which Attorney General Bill Barr told Graham that a key sub-source for Steele “was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his/her documented contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers.” 

Never mind that Steele was hired to get information from people in contact with Russian intelligence. And Page, who was never charged with a crime, has admitted to secretly meeting with a Russian official during a July 2016 trip to Moscow that occurred while he was advising the Trump campaign. Still, Republicans at the hearing blasted Comey for the FBI’s inclusion of Steele’s findings in its successful applications for a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to investigate Page. 

But even as they complained that the FBI had put alleged Russian disinformation in a FISA application, Graham, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa.), and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) pressed Comey about “an investigative referral” that US intelligence agents apparently sent to Comey and other FBI officials in September 2016 regarding “allegations that the Clinton campaign was going to create a scandal about Trump and Russia.”

The senators based this on a letter Graham received on Tuesday—on the eve of a presidential debate—from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, a Trump loyalist and prominent critic of the Russia probe. Ratcliffe’s letter, which was sent at Graham’s request, states that “in late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that…Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against…Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.” This means that Russian spies apparently claimed, in a forum monitored by US spies, that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was going to criticize Trump’s openness to Russian meddling in the US election, “as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.” 

This is a weird claim to emphasize. It has never been a secret that the Clinton campaign hoped to highlight Trump’s embrace of Russian aid. Clinton attacked Trump publicly on that front. And she was right: Trump’s campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” Mueller found.

In addition, the Ratcliffe letter and the GOP emphasis on it amounts to a far more public promotion of suspected Russian disinformation than the Page FISA application. Ratcliffe admits in his letter that US intelligence cannot vouch for the accuracy of the Russian analysis about Clinton, noting that it may “reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” This line seems to acknowledge that Russian intelligence agents may have deliberately tried to confuse Americans by planting the idea that their country’s well-documented interference in the 2016 election in support of Trump was actually a conspiracy theory concocted by his opponent. 

Trump, for his part, was all too happy to boost this allegation during Tuesday night’s debate, albeit in a line largely overwhelmed by his other lies and boorish conduct. “You saw what happened today with Hillary Clinton,” he said. “It was a whole big con job.” 

Having helped Trump level that charge, Graham said Wednesday that he did not “know how accurate the underlying information” Ratcliffe cited is. But Graham claimed his concern was that the allegations were ignored. “Apparently, nobody looked at this,” he said. 

That too is false. The intelligence community and both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee have known of the information for years but discounted it as bogus, a Senate aide told Mother Jones Tuesday.

In a follow-up statement, Ratcliffe insisted that his letter was not based on Russian disinformation and vowed to share more information with Congress. A Graham spokesperson did not respond to an inquiry.

Comey said Wednesday he didn’t recall receiving a referral about the supposed intelligence in 2016 and expressed confusion about why Ratcliffe shared a finding he acknowledged could be bogus. “I don’t fully understand what he’s doing there,” Comey said.

Of all Comey’s many statements on Wednesday, that may be the hardest to believe. It is pretty clear what Ratcliffe, Graham, and Trump are up to.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate