logo
#

Latest news with #2020Election

FBI blocked probe into alleged Chinese 2020 election meddling to protect Wray from fallout, documents show
FBI blocked probe into alleged Chinese 2020 election meddling to protect Wray from fallout, documents show

Fox News

timea day ago

  • Politics
  • Fox News

FBI blocked probe into alleged Chinese 2020 election meddling to protect Wray from fallout, documents show

EXCLUSIVE: The FBI blocked an investigation into allegations that the Chinese Communist Party manufactured fake driver's licenses and shipped them to the U.S. in a scheme to influence the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joe Biden because it would "contradict" then-FBI Director Christopher Wray's congressional testimony, newly declassified FBI documents obtained by Fox News Digital reveal. The records, which include communications between FBI officials ahead of the 2020 election, were recently declassified by FBI Director Kash Patel and transmitted to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Fox News Digital reported in June that Patel located and declassified the original reporting document alleging the Chinese Communist Party sought to deliver fake driver's licenses to Chinese sympathizers in the U.S. who would cast a vote for Biden in the 2020 election. The document did not say whether any ballots were cast as part of the scheme. The FBI recalled that reporting, though, Sept. 25, 2020 — just a day after Wray testified before Congress that the FBI had not seen any coordinated voter fraud ahead of the 2020 election. The FBI, at the time, had recalled that report "in order to re-interview the source." It also directed "recipients" of the original report to "destroy all copies of the original report and remove the original report from all computer holdings." But Patel, this week, declassified additional documents, including records relating to the re-interview of the source, and communications between FBI officials at the time discussing the decision-making behind the recall and its decision not to republish the intelligence reporting. The records were sent to Grassley and Fox News Digital has reviewed the records. "Although the source was reengaged and provided additional context to support the initial IIR, FBI Headquarters maintained its position not to republish the report," Assistant FBI Director Marshall Yates wrote in a letter to Grassley, obtained by Fox News Digital. "One reason cited for not releasing the IIR was because 'the reporting will contradict Director Wray's testimony.'" Fox News Digital was unable to reach Wray for comment. During a Senate hearing Sept. 24, 2020, Wray said he had not seen any widespread fraud by mail, and said that if he had, it would be something that we would investigate seriously … and aggressively." "We have not seen historically any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it is by mail or otherwise," Wray testified. But "people should make no mistake we are vigilant as to the threat and watching it carefully, because we are in uncharted new territory." But Wray also testified that the Chinese had been "expanding their influence efforts," saying they had been "looking for different ways to take a page out of the malign foreign influence playbook that they have seen elsewhere." But Yates, in his letter to Grassley, explained that the recall of the original reporting document was "abnormal." "The rationale provided to Albany staff for the recall was that Headquarters deemed the report not 'authoritative,' but this characterization was met with disagreement by those in the Albany office," Yates explained. Grassley told Fox News Digital: "These records smack of political decision-making and prove the Wray-led FBI to be a deeply broken institution. Ahead of a high-stakes election happening amid an unprecedented global pandemic, the FBI turned its back on its national security mission." "One way or the other, intelligence must be fully investigated to determine whether it's true or, or if it's just smoke and mirrors." Grassley said. The report was recalled at the direction of Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Nikki Floris and Tonya Ugoretz from the cyber division. Fox News Digital first reported that Floris was the FBI official to deliver a "defensive briefing" to Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., in August 2020, claiming that their Hunter Biden investigation advanced Russian disinformation. The FBI declassified internal emails among Albany staff, obtained by Fox News Digital, reflecting concerns that suppressing the document would be "dangerous if we cite potential political implications as reasons for not putting out our information." Yates explained that it "was not the role of analysts to align intelligence with public testimony." "Albany staff further warned against FBI assuming the role of sole gatekeeper for the Intelligence Community (IC), emphasizing that suppressing field-generated reporting could deprive other IC elements of the opportunity to corroborate or discredit intelligence," Yates said. In an email on Sept. 30, 2020, reviewed by Fox News Digital, agents questioned why the report could not be released, to which another replied: "Again, the reporting will contradict Director Wray's testimony." On Oct. 1, 2020, an agent in the Albany Field Office replied: "I'm not trying to be a pain on this, but after taking some time thinking this over I just want to voice my opinion and concerns on this issue and make it clear I do not agree with the reasoning for not putting this out," the FBI agent from the Albany Field Office wrote. "I'm not satisfied with the reasoning of needing a new 1023 and HQ review as these things are everyday operational and administrative requirements," the agent continued. "Most concerning to me, is stating the reporting would contradict with Director Wray's testimony. I found this troubling because it implied to me that one of the reasons we aren't putting this out is for a political reason, which goes directly against our organizations mission to remain apolitical and simply state what we know." FBI DIRECTOR KASH PATEL VOWS TO RESTORE TRUST IN BUREAU, HUNT DOWN BAD ACTORS 'IN EVERY CORNER OF THIS PLANET'The agent added: "Likewise, at the field operational level, I do not feel it is our job to assess whether or not our intelligence aligns with the Director, rather we provide intelligence for people way above our pay grade (like the director) to make the call of what the FBI is seeing as a whole." The agent agreed that the FBI had "an obligation to not put out reckless information where we know something to be false or will cause undue harm." "However, we are also not in a sole position to determine a reporting's validity, as we only make up one USIC agency, and an incredibly small fraction of all USIC, and other FBI Sources that could report on this matter," the agent wrote. "My concern is that I think it gets dangerous if we cite potential political implications as reasons for not putting out information." The agent also stressed that with the decision to keep the report recalled, the FBI is "starting to drift too far into being the sole decider for the USIC regarding when information we gather is, or is not valid, or of interest to the intelligence community because it takes away the crucial opportunity from the rest of the USIC to potentially corroborate or discredit our intelligence." "Chris Wray's FBI wasn't looking out for the American people – it was looking to save its own image," Grassley told Fox News Digital. "Now's the time to rebuild the FBI's trust." He added: "Director Patel's willingness to work with me to establish renewed transparency and accountability is a critical part of that process, and I applaud him for his efforts." Meanwhile, Yates explained that even though an intelligence analyst "requested further research and re-engagement with the source, Headquarters ultimately decided not to issue a new IIR, citing a lack of additional substantiating information, even after the source was reinterviewed." Yates said that the FBI believed that source "appeared to be reliable," and said that the FBI "did not close the source for cause or lack of credible information." According to the declassified documents, the source was a China-based individual who was not a member of the Chinese Communist Party. In the re-interview, according to the documents, an Albany officer "was able to partially corroborate some of the information s/he provided." "The case agent believes the source is competent and is authentic in his/her reporting," a declassified FBI record states. When asked how "confident" was the source in the information, an agent wrote: "very, very confident." "Additional emails show that the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) did not approve reissuance of the IIR, citing concerns about authoritativeness and potential for disinformation by foreign actors," Yates explained. "However, other than a request for information to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, we have found no information to indicate that FITF-China aggressively investigated the reported information, despite corroborating intergovernmental reporting and logical investigative leads." The original FBI reporting document came just a month after U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at the International Mail Facility at Chicago O'Hare International Airport seized nearly 20,000 fraudulent driver's licenses. From January 2020 through June 30, 2020, CBP officers at that location reported seizing 1,513 shipments of fraudulent documents that included a total of 19,888 counterfeit US driver's licenses. "The majority of these shipments were arriving from China and Hong Kong," CBP posted in a July press release. It was not immediately clear if the seizure had any relation to the document's allegations. "Finally, because of this episode, FBI Headquarters set a new requirement on the field for the 2020 election; 'all raw reporting concerning the election will now require HQ coordination, which was not required' before," Yates explained to Grassley. The FBI said the records reflect "the broader sentiment within the Albany Field Office that the recall decision and resulting suppression of the IIR raised serious questions about the integrity of the intelligence reporting process and its susceptibility to perceived political pressures. The FBI is continuing to investigate the matter, and noted that records have been preserved within the bureau's systems.

TikTok could be making you more politically polarized. Here's how
TikTok could be making you more politically polarized. Here's how

Fast Company

timea day ago

  • Politics
  • Fast Company

TikTok could be making you more politically polarized. Here's how

People on TikTok tend to follow accounts that align with their own political beliefs, meaning the platform is creating political echo chambers among its users. These findings, from a study my collaborators, Yanlin Li and Homero Gil de Zúñiga, and I published in the academic journal New Media & Society, show that people mostly hear from voices they already agree with. We analyzed the structure of different political networks on TikTok and found that right-leaning communities are more isolated from other political groups and from mainstream news outlets. Looking at their internal structures, the right-leaning communities are more tightly connected than their left-leaning counterparts. In other words, conservative TikTok users tend to stick together. They rarely follow accounts with opposing views or mainstream media accounts. Liberal users, on the other hand, are more likely to follow a mix of accounts, including those they might disagree with. Our study is based on a massive dataset of over 16 million TikTok videos from more than 160,000 public accounts between 2019 and 2023. We saw a spike of political TikTok videos during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. More importantly, people aren't just passively watching political content; they're actively creating political content themselves. Some people are more outspoken about politics than others. We found that users with stronger political leanings and those who get more likes and comments on their videos are more motivated to keep posting. This shows the power of partisanship, but also the power of TikTok's social rewards system. Engagement signals—likes, shares, comments—are like a fuel, encouraging users to create even more. Why it matters People are turning to TikTok not just for a good laugh. A recent Pew Research Center survey shows that almost 40% of U.S. adults under 30 regularly get news on TikTok. The question becomes what kind of news are they watching, and what does that mean for how they engage with politics. The content on TikTok often comes from creators and influencers or digital-native media sources. The quality of this news content remains uncertain. Without access to balanced, fact-based information, people may struggle to make informed political decisions. TikTok is not unique; social media generally fosters polarization. Amid the debates over banning TikTok, our study highlights how TikTok can be a double-edged sword in political communication. It's encouraging to see people participate in politics through TikTok when that's their medium of choice. However, if a user's network is closed and homogeneous and their expression serves as in-group validation, it may further solidify the political echo chamber.

House Subpoenas Ex-Pfizer Scientist in Election Meddling Probe
House Subpoenas Ex-Pfizer Scientist in Election Meddling Probe

Bloomberg

time2 days ago

  • Politics
  • Bloomberg

House Subpoenas Ex-Pfizer Scientist in Election Meddling Probe

The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed a former Pfizer Inc. executive, demanding he address allegations of deliberately delaying positive news from the company's Covid vaccine study until after the 2020 election. The committee wants Philip Dormitzer, a former top official at Pfizer, to hand over documents and testify at a hearing slated for July 22. In a letter to Dormitzer on Monday, the committee claimed he admitted to slow-walking the results that Pfizer's vaccine for Covid succeeded in a key clinical trial, citing information provided by GSK Plc, where the scientist later worked.

Progressives and the Third-Party Question
Progressives and the Third-Party Question

New York Times

time3 days ago

  • Politics
  • New York Times

Progressives and the Third-Party Question

To the Editor: Re 'Viable Third Party in '28? Conditions Are Right, but Odds Are Still Long,' by Nate Cohn (The Upshot, June 15): The opening for a third party is not where Mr. Cohn thinks it is. It is not with his 'new neoliberals.' Most of the wealthy donors, professional politicians and party operatives who run the two major parties still promote the neoliberal policies that Mr. Cohn claims provide the recipe for a successful third party: 'deficit reduction, deregulation, free trade and high-skilled immigration.' Mr. Cohn promotes the trendy 'abundance agenda' that is simply rebranding the old nostrum of growth, not redistribution that neoliberals have been running on since they began displacing New Deal liberals in the 1970s. Mr. Cohn fantasizes that a third party could emerge from an 'establishment-friendly campaign' with 'the support of wealthy elites.' But disaffected voters are anti-establishment and disgusted at billionaires buying elections. Polling consistently shows majority support for progressive reforms that the major parties won't support, including Medicare for all, a Green New Deal, free public child care and education through college, and taxing the rich to fund such reforms. The opening is for a progressive third party. Howie HawkinsSyracuse, writer was the Green Party candidate for president in 2020. To the Editor: Nate Cohn argues that conditions for a third party could be coming into place. As the founder of the kind of party he describes, I can tell you this: Third parties don't work. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store