https://anonfilesPlease use archive.today/n1O4i7Q9o8/full_pdf From the Findings section put forth at the beginning of the document. >The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process. From relevant section regarding these findings, page 170 (184 of pdf). >(U) Beginning in March 2016 officers of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate, the GRU, successfully hacked computer networks belonging to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and the email accounts of Clinton Campaign officials and employees, including Campaign Chairman John Podesta. Over the following months, these hackers carefully established persistent access in confidential areas of the victims' systems and stole massive amounts of politically sensitive data and personal communications. The data was subsequently leaked by GRU personas and WikiLeaks at strategic moments during the 2016 election, as part of a coordinated hack-and-leak operation intended to damage the Clinton Campaign, help the Trump Campaign (the "Campaign"), and undermine the U.S. democratic process. >The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed the hack-and-leak campaign targeting the DNC, DCCC, and the Clinton Campaign. Moscow's intent was to damage the Clinton Campaign and tarnish what it expected might be a Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and generally undermine the U.S. democratic process. The Committee's findings are based on a variety of information, including raw intelligence reporting. >Trump publicly requested that Russia find and release the “missing" emails from Clinton's server, and hours later, GRU hackers attempted new spearphishing attacks against the Clinton Campaign. >The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia, and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort. >The ICA states, with high confidence, that Putin ordered the 2016 influence campaign against the U.S. presidential election. <Lots of fucking redacted out text before and after the above line TL;DR >Russia hacked the DNC to help Trump likely due to his investments in Russia and positive views of Russia >Trump and his campaign exploited this, something for which they can't be blamed >But also requested further hacks/leaks from a foreign power, that is asking for more foreign election interference in their favor And TL;DR on the document in general from what I've read. >Paul Manafort, chair of Trump's 2016 campaign, is extremely suspsicious, almost certainly working to Russia's benefit more than to the US and retroactively registered as a foreign agent in 2017 >US identification and precautions against foreign agents are fucked >Many of those in Trump's campaign team and the Transition [to the white house team] were courted by likely Russian agents wishing to influence the election and the US government >Most of these attempts appear unsuccessful, but a bunch easily may have been with many suspects having deleted communications <Though similar attempts by other nations could have been just as common, but were not the subject this investigation From the Recommendations section, starting on page 931 (945 of pdf). >Foreign Agents Registration Act(FARA) >(U) Congresss hould amend FARA to mandate, or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other relevant authorities should impose a requirement, that FARA-registered news agencies operating in the United States provide clear, prominent, and regular notifications to audiences regarding the outlet's FARA-registered status. Transparency should be affirmatively provided to audiences on a regular basis so that the American public is able to make informed decisions about information consumption. >(U) In addition, all U.S. media outlets should clearly label or otherwise identify content that appears in connection with FARA-registered work, even if it comes in the form of an opinion column. It is the ultimate responsibility of the editorial staff at U.S. media outlets to understand the origins of the information that their journalists and outside contributors are promoting, and to inform their audiences when that information is in some way sponsored or influenced by a foreign agent. >(U) More broadly, all U.S. media outlets should clearly label opinion content as such, in particular when opinion content, in tone or in format, could be mistaken for journalistic reporting. Oh boy. This could spell bad news for (((them))) if properly implemented. This whole section on recommendations regarding FARA and foreign influence, while being recommended because of Russian interference, would apply broadly to all kinds of foreign interference, including China's current varying attempts through Chinese owned companies and Israel's various fuckery. From the Additional Views section from several Democrats >the Committee's investigation found that Kremlin-directed influence efforts worked to undermine Republican candidates who ran against Trump in the U.S. presidential primary. However, upon searching the document for "primary" and "primaries", I didn't find significant evidence to support this claim, though it could be [redacted] and I wouldn't be surprised if Manafort was involved, if this claim is true. >98% of a page of the at the end of Democrat group Additional Views is redacted >None of the Republican group Additional Views was redacted >Senator Wyden, Democrat, gets a singular Additional Views section after the group Democrat one in which he complains about redactions and has a sentence redacted. I encourage other to read the document for themselves, share what they find of relevance and their opinions on it.