John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence under President Donald Trump, announced yesterday that not only was the Iranian government behind threatening emails recently sent to voters in the United States but also, counterintuitively, this was being done in order to “damage President Trump” in the election.
Ratcliffe had recently selectively declassified allegations against Hillary Clinton, which had previously been dismissed as Russian disinformation, in what was apparently part of the continued effect to rewrite the narrative of Russia’s interference on behalf of Trump in the 2016 election.
The threatening emails to voters were made to look like they came from the far-right street gang the Proud Boys, whom Trump endorsed at the first presidential debate. According to Ratcliffe’s logic, however, this is really a sort of reverse psychology to make Trump supporters look bad, with a singular purpose of hurting Trump in the election.
But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) appeared Wednesday night on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, and strongly suggested that Ratcliffe and intelligence professionals had told something different to members of Congress about the Iranian interference: that the country’s goal was to sow chaos and lack of confidence for its own sake, rather than to help or hurt specific candidates.
While it might be expected for Schumer, as a leading Democrat, to offer up such an interpretation, one argument in his favor is that The Washington Post noted Ratcliffe had “confirmed that Iran was also distributing a video ‘that implies that individuals could cast fraudulent ballots, even from overseas.’” The video in question used clips of Trump himself, making the kind of false statements that he has been using to try to discredit mail-in voting and the credibility of any potential Biden victory among his own supporters. When adding in this sort of disinformation spreading — similar to what we’ve seen from right-wing media — the overall pattern seems more like an all-of-the-above approach to fomenting uncertainty and doubt, rather than a targeted campaign against just one side.
While there are restrictions on what can be shared in such closed-door briefings, Schumer seemed to come as close as possible to declaring that what senators were told in the briefing was quite different from what Ratcliffe had told the public.