Thread by @sam_vinograd

@KenDilanianNBC Some thoughts on the @ODNIgov @POTUS relationship: 1) @ODNIgov appearance at @AspenSecurity was likely cleared by @WhiteHouse as were his TPs. So no one should have been surprised

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse 2) Typically you would want to ask the DNI for analysis on how Putin would assess an invite based on his leader profile + based on collection and intel analysis to date.

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse 3) Plus, before making the policy decision to invite Putin, would have thought @POTUS would want @ODNIgov analysis of how Putin viewed the #helsinkisummit

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse 4) Many are shocked by Coats' statements that he wasn’t consulted about the 1:1 and hasn’t been debriefed. It’s another example of the President failing to ask his team for advice in the first instance, and to listen to it in the second. But

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse 5) there are real reasons why a President has historically worked with his intelligence community both before and after a high stakes meeting to maximize the chances for success going in and then to leverage the actual meeting content to shape our next moves.

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse 5) Let’s start with the pre-meeting role that the IC can play -- the DNI can provide feedback on what kinds of situations the foreign leader typically seeks out, feels comfortable in, and what settings make him / her feel like he has the advantage and is in control.

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse 6) in this case you could have imagine Coats flagging that Putin would consider a 1:1 a win because he thinks he has more experience that the President, can catch him off guard, and Putin knows he could play up the narrative that a dirty deal was done behind closed doors

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse 7) once the meeting ended i.e. Putin would view a 1:1 as another opportunity to sow divisions and conspiracy theories in the US.

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse 8) DNI wouldn’t have offered a policy judgment on what kind of meeting to schedule, but they could have shared analysis on how Putin would view a 1:1 set up.

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse 8) Moving to the lack of a post-op (and i use the word operation here purposefully because we have to view the 1:1 between Putin and Trump as part of Putin’s ongoing operation against the United States), the failure to debrief the DNI

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse 9) Coats told @mitchellreports yesterday that he hadn’t been debriefed - is a big counterintelligence risk and also knowingly disadvantages our national security team (and our national security)

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse @mitchellreports 10) On the CI risk: A foreign hostile power - Russia - now has information on the President and what he discussed with Putin that the US government does. This is unto itself a CI risk - the Russians can manipulate this information and, if anything was discussed that @POTUS

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse @mitchellreports 11) doesn’t want coming out, the Russians can use this as a manipulation or bribery point. That’s why part of basic security clearance investigations is to ask about foreign meetings/ contacts - you never want a foreign government to know more about you than your own.

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse @mitchellreports 12) Typically after such a sensitive meeting, the President would share a readout with a very small group of people but the DNI would definitely be included because he would want to look out for any intel on how the Russians viewed the meeting/ but in this case he doesn't know

@KenDilanianNBC @ODNIgov @POTUS @AspenSecurity @WhiteHouse @mitchellreports 13) what actually happened. So he may be hearing pieces of intel on the meeting without having a baseline to assess whether it's accurate or not