NTK：为何特朗普团队再次试图掩盖俄罗斯干预选举的真相

佳得乐是经科学验证的头号电解质配方，补水效果优于纯水。让你挥洒更多汗水，提升竞技表现。佳得乐，你准备好了吗？

Gatorade is the number one proven electrolyte blend designed to hydrate better than water. So you can lose more sweat and raise your game. Gatorade, is it in you?

大家好，我是Mint Mobile的瑞安·雷诺兹。现在我想用有趣的方式告诉大家，Mint每月15美元无限优质无线套餐优惠又回来了。我本想制作15美元钞票来宣传，结果发现这违法。所以我的广告创意就这么泡汤了。

Hey. It's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial.

欢迎访问mintmobile.com/switch试用。

Give it a try at mintmobile.com/switch.

需预付45美元购买三个月套餐（相当于每月15美元）。仅限新用户前三个月享受此优惠。网络繁忙时35GB后降速。另收税费。详情见mintmobile.com。

Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. New customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

(912) 102-8223

(912), 102-8223.

这里是Deep State Radio，从华盛顿特区Snark部第三地下室的超级秘密演播室，以及美国各地和全球其他未公开地点为您直播。

This is Deep State Radio coming to you direct from our super secret studio in the Third Sub Basement of the Ministry of Snark in Washington DC and from other undisclosed locations across America and around the world.

正值三伏酷暑，新闻淡季依然炎热难耐。为助您度过这段时光并获取重要资讯，DSR网络推出特别优惠：立即使用优惠码DOGDAYS在thedsrnetworkd.com/buy注册，即可享受会员五折优惠，包括加入Discord社区、专属播客内容及提前观看节目。八月限时优惠，速来注册。

It's the dog days of summer, and that means it's still too hot and we're in the silly season of news. But to help you get through this time and bring you the news you need to know, we have a special offer at the DSR Network. Right now, using code dog days at the dsrnetwork.com/buy, you can get a DSR membership for 50% off. That means access to our Discord community, members only sections of your favorite pods, and early access to episodes, all for half off. Sign up today using code DOGDAYS DOGDAYS at the thedsrnetworkd.com/buy.

本优惠仅限八月有效，欲购从速。感谢您的支持，祝收听愉快。

This offer is only available for August, so act fast. Thank you for your support and enjoy the show.

欢迎收听DSR网络《须知》节目，我是大卫·罗斯科普夫。每周我们都会邀请顶尖专家探讨重要议题。本周有幸请到乔治城大学麦考特公共政策学院副教授、前斯坦福互联网观察站技术研究主管蕾妮·迪雷斯塔。她六月出版的新书《隐形统治者：将谎言变为现实的人》恰逢虚假信息泛滥的新时代——蕾妮，不仅欢迎你到来，我还要'怪罪'你，因为每当有人出版这类著作，新型虚假信息就会应验般地涌现。面对当前多形态的虚假信息，我猜你已经在筹备修订版了吧？

Hello, and welcome to Need to Know here on the DSR Network. I'm David Rothkopf, and this week is every week we try to talk to somebody really smart who knows a lot about something you want to know a lot about. And this week, we are really fortunate to have with us as a guest our friend Renee DiResta, who is an associate research professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy in Georgetown and previously worked as the technical research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory. She published Invisible Rulers, the People Who Turn Lies into Reality in June, and of course Renee, not only welcome, but I blame you, because here you are, you wrote a book on disinformation, and as inevitably happens when somebody writes a book in it, you enter a brand new era of new kinds of disinformation, that's where we are now. We see it in so many forms, I assume you're working on a second edition.

说实话，我确实需要为平装版增补新章节，但面对海量素材实在难以取舍。所以没错。

You know, I got to write Actually, yeah, I'm supposed to turn in a new chapter for the paperback, and I've actually been overwhelmed by what to focus on. So yes.

嗯，他们在虚假信息领域开辟了如此多的新路径，我想我们可以讨论其中一些，因为有些内容人们并不认为是虚假信息。他们可能会说，哦，这是司法部在行动，或是劳工统计局的问题，诸如此类，但这一切，你知道，或者他们试图压制这类记者或这类大学，都是相互关联的。但我想从一个具体案例开始，这涉及特别检察官办公室据称对杰克·史密斯展开的调查，以及审查特朗普是否与俄罗斯有牵连、俄罗斯是否干预2016年和2020年选举的努力。我看到你在Substack上发表了理查德·哈纳尼亚的文章，是这么发音吗？是的。

Well, they're blazing so many trails disinformation and I thought we could talk about a few of them because some of them, you know, some of them people do not think of as disinformation. They may say, Oh, this the Justice Department doing something, or this is an issue with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or whatever, but it's all, you know, or they're trying to silence these kind of journalists or these kind of universities, and it's all connected. But where I'd like to start is with a particular case, which has to do with the investigation that is allegedly being launched by the special counsel's office into Jack Smith and the efforts to look into you know, whether Trump was involved in in in, you know, ties with the Russians and and the Russians were involved in in in meddling in the twenty sixteen and twenty twenty elections. And I saw that you did at substack of Richard Hanania, is that how you pronounce it? Yep.

那篇文章名为《2016年真相：揭穿俄罗斯门神话》。我觉得如果你能从这里开始会非常好。

Which was called What Really Happened in the 2016 Debunking Russiagate Myths. And I thought it would be really good if you could start us there.

是的。其实我读过一篇很长的深度报道，好吧。事情是这样的。我和理查德是通过网络认识的，多年来他一直属于右翼。所以我们在许多政治议题上存在广泛分歧。

Yeah. So I I read a long long form actually, okay. So here's what happened. So Richard and I know each other through the Internet just over the years, and he has always been on the right. And so we have many, many areas of political disagreement across the spectrum.

但他一直关注这个故事。这也是我长期研究的领域。对于不了解的人，我曾在2017年协助领导对社交媒体平台提交给参议院情报委员会的数据集调查。这些数据集在2018年移交，我花了近一年时间为SISI（参议院情报委员会）进行分析。

But he has followed this story. And it's an area that I have studied for a very long time. For those who don't know, I helped lead an investigation into the data sets that the social media platforms turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee back in 2017. The data sets were turned over in 2018. I spent almost a full year doing an analysis for SISI.

当时我被参议员沃纳和伯尔（时任联合主席）任命为委员会技术顾问，负责组建外部分析师团队，审查脸书、推特和谷歌提交给情报委员会的数百GB资料。我的工作重点是干预手段——俄罗斯如何通过社交媒体平台开展与美国受众相关的宣传行动？这就是有时被称为'巨魔工厂'的互联网研究机构。

So I was appointed a technical advisor to the committee by senators Warner and Burr at the time were the co chairs. I was asked to field a team of outside analysts and to go through these several 100 gigs worth of material that Facebook, Twitter, and Google had turned over to Intelligence Committee. So my work was focused on this aspect of interference. How had Russia interfered on social media platforms in the propaganda campaign connecting with American audiences? This is the troll factory, as it's sometimes called the Internet Research Agency.

这就是我了解干预事件的窗口。当时我在做这些时，穆勒调查也正在同步进行。我与那项调查毫无关联，也看不到内情。但观察这项调查让我很感兴趣——它既涉及俄罗斯如何干预大选的'干预'部分，也调查特朗普团队是否知情的'共谋'问题。这是两个独立的问题。

So that was my window into interference. Now, as I was doing that, of course, the Mueller investigation was happening concurrently. I had nothing to do with that, no visibility. But it was very interesting to me to see how that investigation, which was into both interference, which is how Russia interfered in the election, and then collusion, which was did the Trump team or campaign know about it? So these are two separate questions.

当穆勒同时调查这两项时，我对他发现的干预证据非常关注。实际上我个人几乎没怎么留意共谋问题，除了看看报纸，因为这超出了我2018年全身心投入的工作范畴。理查德当时立场偏右翼，所以收到这个邀请来讨论此事很有意思——对方是从政治光谱另一端追踪事件的人。要知道我当时更倾向左翼立场。

As Mueller is investigating both of these, I was very interested in what he was finding on the interference front. And I actually paid personally very little attention to collusion short of reading the newspaper because it was outside of my, you know, what I was very much immersed in in 2018. So Richard had been very much on the right. And so it was interesting to get this this ask to come on and discuss it from somebody who had had a very different experience of following that story from somebody kind of on the other side of the political spectrum at the time. You know, I was much more on the left.

他属于右翼。所以他邀请我来梳理当前加巴德和国家情报总监拉特克利夫的所作所为——也就是特朗普第二届政府任命官员如何审查那些调查。最初有三项调查，后来又出现三项针对调查的调查。现在突然出现了我喜欢称为'剧情改写'的现象，就是直接否定不喜欢的剧情线，假装某些事从未发生或虚构某些事来达成想要的结果。

He was on the right. And so he asked if I would come on and just go over the facts around what Gabbard is doing now, what DNI Ratcliffe is doing. So the appointees of the second Trump administration and how they are trying to look at those investigations that happened. There were three investigations, then there were three investigations into the investigations. And now all of a sudden, we have what I I like to use the term retcon, which is basically just taking a a plot line that you don't like and just going back and pretending that a bunch of things never happened or a bunch of things did happen to try to achieve the outcome that you want.

这是科幻叙事常用的手法。而我们现在目睹的，是政府机构正在进行的大型剧情改写——试图制造虚假认知，污名化调查参与者：奥巴马总统本人、最早发现干预证据的人员、初期调查共谋问题的人士，指控这一切都是蓄意危害特朗普总统的叛国阴谋。这就是我们讨论的内容，也是我现在在《法律论坛》撰写的内容。我愿与任何政治立场的人讨论，只为澄清事实。

It's a tool commonly used in science fiction narratives. And what we're seeing is a great retcon by our own government agencies now to try to create this false perception that the people who were involved in the investigations, President Obama himself, some of the people who had made the initial findings of interference, had done the initial investigations collusion. They are alleging that all of that was done as a treasonous conspiracy intentionally to harm president Trump. So that was what we were discussing, and that's what I've been writing about now over at law fair as well. And speaking with anybody across the political spectrum who wants to discuss it, just trying to get the facts out.

确实。在我看来，这和他们否认气候变化的行径如出一辙。关于俄罗斯干预大选或特朗普竞选团队与俄情报人员接触的证据浩如烟海。就像气候变化问题一样——99%的科学家都认同，美国所有17个情报机构都确认的事实。

Yeah. It seems to me that this is not that different from their efforts to pretend that climate change isn't happening. I mean, the amount of data that is out there that says the Russians interfered or that says that people in the Trump campaign had contact with people in the Russian intelligence orbit is overwhelming. As in the case of climate change, 99 x percent of scientists believe in it. All 17 US intelligence agencies believed in it.

你所提及的调查之一是由参议院情报委员会进行的，当时该委员会主席是现任国务卿马可·鲁比奥。因此我认为关键在于，或者说核心问题是，你对事实的审查是否表明这些调查背后的动机存在任何值得怀疑的空间？

One of the investigations that you make reference to was the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation when the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was Marco Rubio, the current Secretary of State. So I think the important thing here is that, or the important question is, does your examination of the facts suggest that, you know, there is any room to doubt the motivations behind the people who undertook these investigations?

不，完全没有。或许我可以详细说明——先梳理他们提出的指控可能更有帮助。重要的是要让人们明白（毕竟现在距离2016年已过去多年，事实上快十年了），他们反复引用的是一份名为《2017年1月情报界评估报告》（简称ICA）的文件。这份ICA是所有不同情报机构共同协作完成的文件。

No. Not at all. And so I can walk through maybe it's helpful to go over what the allegations that they're making are. So it's very important, I think, for people who now now that we're many years out from twenty sixteen, almost a decade out, in fact, from 2016, to understand that there is a document that they keep referencing, the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, the ICA for short. And the ICA is a document where all of the different intelligence agencies will come together.

在这份特定报告中，他们评估的是俄罗斯对2016年大选的干预行为。文件没有提及特朗普，也没有提到共谋，更没有讨论特朗普团队是否知情。它完全聚焦于俄罗斯做了什么以及如何操作的。

And in this particular case, they were writing an assessment of Russian interference into the twenty sixteen election. They did not mention Trump. This document does not mention collusion. You should they're not mentioning whether anybody in the Trump orbit is aware. This is solely focused on what did Russia do and how did it do it.

报告详细阐述了已知的三种干预形式：第一种是我提到的网络水军和宣传攻势，也就是我后来研究的数据集。但在2017年1月时，我们尚未获得这些数据集，不知道它们的存在。我们仅知道俄罗斯在这方面有所动作，但还不掌握完整数据规模。

And so it walks through the three forms of interference that we know happened. The first is what I mentioned, the sort of trolling and propaganda campaign, the data sets that I in turn would go on to study. In January 2017, we didn't have those data sets. We didn't know that they existed. We knew that the Russians were doing something on that front, but we didn't have the full scope of the data yet.

相关调查在此之后启动并持续了近两年。第二种是黑客行动，人们可能还记得波德斯塔邮件和克林顿邮件事件——俄罗斯军事情报部门入侵了这些竞选团队，还黑了一批智库机构。他们会分批选择性泄露文件，试图操控美国新闻周期。这些被泄露的克林顿和波德斯塔竞选团队文件是真实的，但俄罗斯会精心安排发布时间。

That investigation would begin after this and continue for almost a full year, two years after. Then there was the hack operations, which people may recall the Podesta emails, the Clinton emails, where Russian military intelligence went and hacked these campaigns. They hacked a bunch of think tanks and they would selectively release in tranches, these dumps of documents to try to change the American news cycle. So they weren't making up documents in this case. The documents that they were releasing from the Clinton and Podesta campaigns were real, but they would time them.

因此在特朗普《走进好莱坞》录音带曝光后——就是那段‘抓她们下体’的录音——大约一小时后，他们便抛出了波德斯塔的邮件。这就是你开始看到的干预手段之一。第三种干预形式是他们试图入侵投票机，开始测试存有选民数据和登记信息的投票设备。

So after the Trump Access Hollywood tape came out, the sort of grab them by the, you know, what tape comes out. About an hour later, they go and they dump Podesta's email. So that's the sort of thing that you start to see happening there. And then the third form of interference is they start trying to hack voting machines. They start testing voting machines and machines that have voter data, voter rolls.

需要重点强调的是，他们并未成功实施这些操作，实际上并未通过改变选票或选民数据来真正操控选举结果。这一点至关重要，报告中也反复强调了这一点。情报界评估报告（ICA）讨论的正是这三种干预形式。

Now they don't do that successfully, and it's very important to emphasize that. They do not actually hack the election in terms of changing any votes or voter data. So that's very important to note. And they do note that repeatedly. And so those are the three forms of interference that the ICA is discussing.

关于提及特朗普的部分，ICA探讨了俄罗斯的动机。情报界评估对动机进行了分析，其中明确指出俄罗斯意图制造混乱、损害希拉里·克林顿的选情——所有情报机构对此判断都具有极高信心度。

And one of the things that the ICA discusses, as far as mentioning Trump, is why is Russia doing this? So the intelligence community assessment gives some consideration to motivation. And here you see a sentence where there's a phrasing that says Russia wanted to create chaos. They wanted to hurt Hillary Clinton. All of the agencies have very high confidence in that assessment.

随后报告指出他们‘渴望帮助唐纳德·特朗普’。再次说明，这并不意味着特朗普知情，此处不涉及共谋问题，只是表明由于所有干预都指向同一方向——打击某位候选人，加之初选期间数据显示他们曾助推特朗普超越马可·鲁比奥和泰德·克鲁兹。

And then there is a sentence that says they aspired to help Donald Trump. And again, this does not mean that Donald Trump knew about it. We're not talking about collusion here, just that they aspired to help Donald Trump because all of the interference is going in one direction. It's all hurting one candidate. And then as as we start to see in some of the data that comes out later, during the primary, they are boosting Donald Trump over Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

此时他们不仅打击希拉里，更在抬升特朗普。于是情报机构间出现分歧：是否有足够证据高度确信俄方意图帮助特朗普？中情局和联邦调查局持肯定态度，国安局则仅持中度信心。图尔西·加巴德和约翰·拉特克利夫特别强调这一点，他们指控中情局和联邦调查局的高度信心评估部分依赖于后来曝光的斯蒂尔档案。

So they're not just hurting Hillary at that point, they're boosting Trump. So what you start to see is the quibbling between the intelligence agencies about whether at that point there is enough evidence to say with high confidence that they aspire to help Trump. The CIA and the FBI say yes. The NSA says only with moderate confidence. And this becomes the thing that Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe really kind of hang a lot of emphasis on because they allege that that high confidence assessment from the FBI, from the CIA relied in part on the Steele dossier, which was the dossier that came out.

BuzzFeed泄露了这份文件。就在这份ICA报告撰写后不久，该文件遭到泄露。其中充斥着关于唐纳德·特朗普与妓女交往等各种耸人听闻的虚假指控。这是一份原始情报文件，同时也是份劣质情报文件。而现在有人声称这份档案是ICA报告中极具影响力、至关重要的组成部分。

BuzzFeed leaked it. It's shortly after this ICA is written, this document leaks. And it's full of these sensational and false allegations about Donald Trump doing things with prostitutes and all sorts of other things. So this is a kind of a raw intelligence document, but also a bad intelligence document. And that is where now the allegation is being made that that dossier was a huge, impactful, important piece of this ICA.

问题在于，已有三项其他调查对ICA报告及其公正性进行过核查。现在我们算是第四次重审此事。这正是图尔西和拉特克利夫重新翻出的主要争议点之一。必须特别强调的是——这一点极其关键——关于通俄门的调查比ICA报告的撰写早了六个月。FBI在2016年7月就对特朗普竞选团队展开反间谍调查，当时根本没有斯蒂尔档案，而是因为澳大利亚情报部门提供的线索称特朗普竞选团队成员曾吹嘘知晓俄罗斯持有与希拉里·克林顿相关的电子邮件。

The problem is that has been investigated now three times by three other investigations that have looked at the ICA and whether it was fairly conducted. So now we're kind of doing it for a fourth time. So that's that's one of the main areas that is that Tulsi and and Ratcliffe are kind of dredging up again. It's important to note also, and this is very, very, very key, that the investigation into collusion began six months before that ICA was written. The FBI began its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016, not because of the Steele dossier, they didn't even have it at that point, but because of a tip from Australian intelligence that members of the Trump campaign had been talking about, bragging about knowledge that Hillary Clinton that Russia had emails related to Hillary Clinton.

这直接引发了代号'交叉飓风'的调查行动。因此调查起源与斯蒂尔档案毫无关联。ICA报告也非通俄门调查的起点，所有这些都发生在这份文件撰写前半年。

That is what triggers the investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane. So it has nothing to do with the Steele dossier. That is not the origin of the investigation. The ICA is not the origin of the Collision Investigation. All of that happens six months prior to this document being written.

所以我们看到有人刻意纠缠ICA报告的细节，指控存在质疑特朗普总统合法性的叛国阴谋。但这些指控本身站不住脚，因为通俄调查在ICA撰写前就已启动。ICA报告内容根本没有诋毁特朗普的表述，而所有关于俄罗斯意图帮助特朗普的证据都在2017年ICA报告后续的多项调查中得到证实。我知道这非常错综复杂。

So we're seeing this effort to quibble about the specifics of the ICA and to allege that there was a treasonous conspiracy to to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's presidency. But the allegations themselves make no sense because the collusion investigation had already begun prior to the ICA being written. And nothing in the ICA is casting aspersions on Trump whatsoever. And all of the data that Russia you know, all the evidence that Russia aspired to help Trump is then backed up by multiple investigations that happen subsequent to the 2017 ICA. So I know that this is very convoluted.

问题在于，我认为我们的情报官员正在通过暗示后续调查从未发生来欺骗美国民众。他们执意将焦点锚定在'Aspired'措辞是否准确这个狭隘问题上，抛出数百份解密文件试图制造某种假象，心知人们根本不会全部阅读。

The problem is that basically our intelligence appointees are, in my opinion, deceiving the American people by implying that the investigations that happened subsequently just never happened at all. They they really wanna anchor them to this one narrow question of was the Aspired language accurate? And so they're tossing out hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of declassified documents, trying to create a perception that, you know, that something has happened knowing that people aren't going to read them all.

是的，我注意到你始终谨慎避免直接断言是否存在通俄行为。大量证据表明存在符合广义（即便非法律定义）通俄的行为——无论是特朗普主动接触俄方，还是保罗·马纳福特与俄方互动，或是俄罗斯代表造访特朗普竞选团队等。但事实在此已无关紧要，正如你所说，左右两派和情报界都已反复分析过这些明确事实并达成广泛共识。

Yeah, I think, you know, you've been very careful here not to say that collusion happened or not. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that something that could fit a broad definition of collusion, if not a legal definition of collusion happened, whether it's Trump reaching out to them or Paul Manafort interacting with them or visits from Russian representatives to the Trump campaign, etc. But I don't think the facts matter here. They don't. Because as you've said, the facts are clear, they've been analyzed, they've been analyzed by people on the right, by people on the left, by the intelligence community, and there's a broad consensus here.

我认为（稍后还有问题要问，但你可以先回应这点）这是场虚假的法律操弄——特别检察官办公室并无实权，他们声称要启动大陪审团调查，但这与陪审团达成结论截然不同。鉴于你指出的所有原因，这些人绝对不愿进入存在证据开示程序的庭审阶段让旧事重提。在我看来，其目标正如你所说的'剧情修正'——抹黑相关人士，混淆公众认知，并利用职权以斯大林式手段改写历史。过去六个月里，任何涉及俄罗斯干预调查的政府部门都遭到关闭、削弱或破坏。

I also think and I'm going to ask you another question in a minute, but you can address this if you like that this is a fake legal maneuver because goes to office of special counsel, doesn't really have a lot of legal power. They say, well, let's begin a grand jury investigation, which is not the same as saying a grand jury has reached any conclusions, but under no circumstances, for all the reasons that you just pointed out, do these people want to go to a trial where there is discovery on the other side and all of this stuff gets rehashed publicly? It seems to me that the objective here is what you call the retcon. The objective here is to discredit people who are associated with this, to muddle the issue in the minds of people, and to, as best as possible, use their positions to rewrite history in a kind of Stalinesque way. I would add just that as part of this, what we've seen also is that any part of the government that had anything to do with Russian interference has been shut down or gutted or otherwise compromised in the course of the past six months.

这是特朗普政府系统性改写历史并压制反对声音的行动。这是我的解读，你也这么认为吗？

So this is a systematic effort across the Trump administration to effectively rewrite history and to chill anybody who is going to speak out against it. That's my interpretation. Is that your interpretation?

今夏渴望更多精彩时刻？截至2025年5月，马自达荣获的2025年度IIHS顶级安全+奖项超越所有品牌。您还能奢求什么？立即探索马自达如何以更多方式打动您。登录iihs.org了解更多。

For those who want more out of every moment this summer, Mazda has more 2025 IIHS top safety pick plus awards than any other brand as of May 2025. What more could you ask for? Discover how Mazda has more to move you today. Visit iihs.org to learn more.

每款马自达SUV都为您提供卓越驾驶体验与精致性能。欢迎莅临檀香山卡特马自达展厅亲身体验。

Every Mazda SUV offers you an elevated driving experience and refined performance. Discover it at Cutter Mazda of Honolulu.

确实如此。就我们讨论范围而言，我已经多次在《法律战》上撰文谈及能力削弱问题——这其实早于当前所有事件就发生了。这种能力削弱通过两种方式被构建：一是将其包装成审查制度，即那些关于虚假信息的研究、追踪外国账户、调查选举干预的行为被曲解为审查。坦白说，像我这样的人就被如此定性。

That is very true. So as far as, we we can talk about, I've written for Law Fair several times now about the capacity gutting, which which happened prior to any of this actually. The capacity gutting was framed through the in two ways, right? It was framed as like, oh, the censorship, That disinformation research that tracking foreign accounts that looking at election interference was really censorship. I mean, people like me, just to be blunt about it, right?

我在斯坦福互联网观察站工作时，我们追踪2020年选举干预的工作——当时政府由特朗普任命者执掌——被那些人重新定义。我们原以为会看到大量俄罗斯干预，结果发现大部分声称选举被窃取的操纵性内容竟来自特朗普竞选团队本身。当我们报道此事时，反被指控开展大规模审查运动，删除了2200万条推文以窃取特朗普的选举——纯属无稽之谈。这就是被扭曲的叙事。

When I was at Stanford Internet Observatory, the work that we did tracking election interference in 2020 when Trump appointees ran the government, just to be clear on that, was reframed by those people. We thought we were gonna see a lot of Russians actually. Instead, we saw most of the kind of manipulative content alleging that the election was stolen coming from the Trump campaign itself. And when we wrote about that, we were accused of running a vast censorship campaign that censored 22,000,000 tweets, complete bullshit, to steal the election from Trump. That was how that was reframed.

吉姆·乔丹用传票追查我们，斯蒂芬·米勒起诉我。这个案子拖了两年至今仍在审理，完全是恶意骚扰。

Jim Jordan came after us with subpoenas. Stephen Miller sued me. I'm two years into that case still. It is still winding its way through. Vexatious nonsense.

斯坦福关闭了实验室。是的，这种事确实在发生。政府内部机构如网络安全与基础设施安全局（CISA）、FBI外国影响力工作组、国家情报总监办公室下属部门等研究选举干预和外国干涉的部门也遭到削弱。我可能还漏掉了一些机构。

And Stanford shut down the lab. So yes, absolutely this happens. Within the government, the agencies that also were working on studying election interference and tracking foreign interference within the government. CISA, FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force, ODNI has an office that looks at this sort of stuff over in the intelligence community. I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple of them.

国土安全部资助的《选举诚信信息共享环境法案》本意只是让州和地方选举官员通过邮件列表交流，结果被撤销资金。所有用于发现这类问题的能力建设都被断供，相关工作者都被污名化为审查者或其他莫须有的罪名。说实话我现在只觉得可笑，因为这种事我已经历两年了。

The election integrity ICE Act that DHS funded, was just getting the state and local election officials on a mailing list to talk to each other. That got defunded, right? So yes, all the capacity for finding this stuff has been defunded. Anybody who works on it gets smeared as either a, you know, sensor or God knows what at this point. And now though, now I would say, I mean, I kind of laugh about it because for me this has been going on for two years.

对其他人可能是新闻，对我却是漫长煎熬。但看到他们将其转化为司法部转介案件，声称通过解密文件佐证——我认为这向提供情报的线人和五眼联盟等盟友机构释放了极其恶劣的信号。

It's maybe new to other people. For me, it's a long process. But watching them turn it into DOJ referrals and alleging that the, you know, they're declassifying documents to support this and that I think also creates, I think that that creates some really, really terrible signals for the assets who provided us with that information, right? For the intelligence allies in Five Eyes and other agencies that provided us with that material. There are a few, you know, there's

容我插一句，本周有报道称情报界和执法界内部人员反对她解密这些材料，原因是...

I would just add there, sorry to interrupt, but that there were reports this week that the people within the intelligence community and the law enforcement community objected to her declassifying this for just I'm

我完全相信。说真的，某些解密内容让我震惊。我年轻时在CIA技术行动处实习过——虽然我不是分析师，但偶尔能接触相关文件。当年我有安全许可，现在看到这些信息被如此操纵性地公开，实在想不通动机何在。

sure they did. I'm sure they did. Yeah, because some of it, I was amazed actually at, I I worked for the CIA as an intern when I was a kid, and I was not an analyst. I was in technical operations over in the DS and T. But we could read these things every now and then as they related to aspects of our work.

国家情报总监这么做无非是赚取政治资本，讨好上司，制造舆论剧场。推特上的基本盘现在全在叫嚣要把奥巴马关进关塔那摩，所有'通俄门骗局'制造者都要被起诉——但根本毫无实质内容。

And, you know, and I had a clearance back in the day. And I was amazed at what was put out candidly, just from the standpoint of it's being used so so manipulatively and why? What do we get out of doing this? It's a it's a DNI trying to score political points, trying to curry favor with her boss and to create this perception that as you know, it is going to it's almost legal theater. We're going but but it it rallies the base on Twitter who now all are screaming about how Obama's gonna wind up in Gitmo and, you know, all of the Russiagate hoaxers are gonna be prosecuted.

以未读过全部文件的人为例——我通读了所有公开文件，并据此为《法律战》写了长篇分析（按批次分解以便查阅）。其中有份所谓'达勒姆附件'的材料...

And there's just no there there. There's there's absolutely nothing Just as an example for people who have not read all of the files, I've read every file that's come out. That was what I tried to write for Lawfare. It's a very, very long article, but I did break it down according to the drop so you can just kind of go and pick and choose the sections that are relevant. There was this thing called the Durham Annex.

当约翰·达勒姆——这位曾参与调查‘调查行动’的检察官（对吧？）——被比尔·巴尔任命时，情况就很明显了。这是特朗普任命的人选，指派了一位亲特朗普、对特朗普抱有同情态度的人物来主导调查。他审查了‘交火飓风’通俄门调查是否正当启动，结论是完全正当，尽管其中某些环节确实依赖了斯蒂尔档案。部分外国情报监视法授权等程序本不该那么处理。

When John Durham, who was one of the investigators that investigated the investigation, right? And Durham was appointed by Bill Barr. So this is a Trump appointee, appointing a pro Trump, you know, Trump sympathetic figure to do this investigation. And he looks into whether Crossfire Hurricane was the collusion investigation was fairly launched, finds that yes, it was absolutely fairly launched, that there were aspects of it that, you know, that did rely on Steele dossier. Some of the FISA warrants and things like this probably shouldn't have been handled.

文书工作处理方式确实存在问题，存在某些确认偏误。达勒姆报告确实发现通俄门调查的部分操作不合规范，但调查启动本身完全合理。所以再次强调，2016年奥巴马时期官员披露此事的行为没有任何过错或反特朗普意图。达勒姆从未否认干预事实，各方百分百认同其真实性。

Paperwork, you know, the sort of way that that that paperwork was handled was bad, that there was some confirmation bias. You know, the Durham report does find that some of the collusion investigation was not handled the way that it should have been, but the launch of the investigation is completely reasonable. So again, this notion that the 2016, you know, Obama era figures who are putting out that this is happening are not in any way to have done something wrong or manipulative or anti Trump. Durham never at any point says that the interference didn't happen. They all agree a 100% that it did.

直到最近都没有报告试图反驳这点。而这份达勒姆附录披露的材料，是他认为不够格纳入主报告的——因为那些看似来自俄情报机构的邮件备忘录实属伪造。附录中所谓‘开放社会基金会’伦纳德·伯纳多与希拉里阵营人士的往来邮件，讨论如何给特朗普扣‘亲俄’帽子以及FBI是否会‘火上浇油’展开调查，其英语用语明显非母语者所为。

No report until recently has ever tried to make that argument. And what we see in this Durham annex is materials that Durham didn't consider legitimate enough to include in his report. And that's because it's a series of emails and memos that appear to come from Russian intelligence, and they appear to be fabrications. And as you read through the annex, they have these emails where it is emails that purport to be Leonard Bernardo, a figure at the Open Society Foundation, emailing with somebody tied to the Clinton campaign going back and forth, and they are discussing whether Clinton will try to, you know, sort of frame Trump as having close ties to Russia and whether the FBI will quote, put more oil into the fire by launching an investigation. And it's, you know, the language is not native English.

达勒姆调查发现这些邮件实为拼凑他人被黑邮件而成，经所谓‘俄方消息源’转交其接头人。附录第12页显示，达勒姆已认定其系伪造。但如今他们竟直接截图这些邮件作为‘证据’发布，完全无视附录后半部分调查官明确表示‘认定纯属胡扯故未采纳’的结论——这种做法简直无耻至极。

The the emails as they as you see Durham discover as he conducts his investigation are actually cobbled together from hacks of other people's emails. And they're just assembled into these documents that are then turned over, that's the supposed Russian source is turning over to his handler. And what you start to see is evidence that Durham becomes convinced by page 17 of the Durham Annex, or sorry, page 12 of the Durham Annex, he's in there saying like, yeah, this seems like a fabrication. And you can read it as you go through the report, but instead what they're doing is they're just screenshotting the emails themselves and releasing the emails as if that itself is evidence, leaving out the entire second half of the annex where the investigator himself says, yeah, I basically decided this was all BS and I didn't include it. What what's being done is actually extraordinarily dishonest.

这类材料的解密公布非但无法佐证其主张，反而负面暴露了当时特工的情报获取手段，可能危及消息源，还向盟友传递‘本届政府会干这种事’的信号——图什么？这实际上造成非常恶劣的影响。

And the fact that this kind of stuff was declassified and released does more to negatively expose the sort of sources and methods that the that the agents were using to get information at the time than it does to bolster any claim that they're making. It's it's it's revealing things and potentially hurting sources or indicating to our allies that we're gonna be the kind of, you know, administration that does this and and for what? It's it's very bad, actually.

你基于事实的剖析令人钦佩，我建议大家去读你在《法律战》的文章。但退一步看，这根本不像在调查俄罗斯虚假信息活动，反倒像是这类活动的延续

Yeah, you know, I admire the way you break this down and everything is based in the facts and I encourage everybody to go and look at what you have written for lawfare on this. But you know, taking a step back, what this looks like very much is not an investigation about whether or not there was a Russian disinformation campaign. This looks very much like a continuation of a Russian disinformation

确实如此。

campaign. Yes, it does.

我想这就是关键——假设你是普京，想要掩盖痕迹并保留未来操作空间，眼前这一幕正是理想模板

You know, and, you know, I mean, you know, I think that's the punchline. If you were sitting there and you were Vladimir Putin and you said, I want to cover my tracks and I want to, you know, maintain my ability to do this in the future, it would look exactly like what they

我认同这观点，只是对‘高层授意’持保留态度。某种程度上我们是在自食其果，老天...

were I do think that. I am maybe a little bit more skeptical on, like, tasking from above. I just think that we've hit a point where, like, we do it to ourselves and, my god. It's.

不，我并非指普京直接操控，但特朗普政府确实在延续这种行径。这始终是‘特朗普通俄门’的争议核心：他究竟是受俄方指使，还是无意中助推了俄罗斯利益？

No. I'm not I'm not saying that he is doing it, but I am saying that the Trump administration is continuing this effort. They are serving the object. You know, and this has always been the debate about the Trump Russia. Was he doing it because Russia asked him or was he just doing stuff that helped Russia?

我不知道我们是否终将知晓答案，但我认为后一点毋庸置疑。他们处理此事的方式确实让俄罗斯获益。这周我还在讨论——特朗普是否改变了对乌克兰立场？会否对俄强硬？而让我不确定他立场转变的证据之一，正是他采取的所有这些削弱针对俄罗斯行动的举措，这些显然对俄方有利。确实如此。

And I don't know that we'll ever know the answer to that, but I I I don't think the latter point is arguable. The way they are handling this benefits the Russians. And I've had conversations this week about, you know, is Trump changing his position on Ukraine, and is he gonna get tough on Russians? And one of the pieces of evidence that I have that I'm not sure that he is changing it, is all of these steps he's taken to gut these Russia targeted operations and this kind of stuff, which helps the Russians. And Well, it helps.

好的，请继续。

Yeah. Go ahead.

不，这受益的是所有想针对我们的人。最令我困惑的是——2024年时，SIO其实早已关闭。

No. No. It helps it helps anybody who wants to target us. This is the the thing that's so baffling to me about it as we were okay. So in 2024, you know, I was not SIO had already been shut down.

无论斯坦福怎么说，实质工作都已停止。我们根本没参与任何选举相关研究——我的合约未续签，团队也被告知不会以那种方式研究2024大选。伊朗人曾入侵特朗普竞选团队，而现在我们竟...这简直是目光最短浅的做法。

Whatever Stanford says, was effectively done. And the so we weren't doing any election any election work. Like I had my contract wasn't renewed, but the team wasn't doing election work because they told Jim Jordan that Stanford wouldn't research the twenty twenty four election in that way. And the so that that question of, like, studying the twenty twenty four election, like, the Iranians hacked the Trump campaign. The idea that we are you know, it's it's the most shortsighted thing.

削弱的不仅是应对俄罗斯的能力——还包括研究外国干预、追踪恶意干涉、维持有效网络安全基建计划、让情报机构专注本土威胁而非九年前的奥巴马。2026、2028年还有大选，理论上每两年就有选举。我们却自废武功，丧失应对任何国家级别对手的能力。

The it is not just Russia that it helps by gutting our capacity to study foreign interference or to track malign interference or to have a functional cybersecurity and infrastructure security program or to have an intelligence community that spends more time finding threats to the American homeland versus, you know, tracking Obama from nine years ago. And so this is where we've hit this point where we've got elections in 2026. We've got elections in 2028, obviously, you know, theoretically, they happen every two years. And so it is it's incredibly shortsighted. And we have gutted the capacity that responds not only to Russia, to any state actor adversary that chooses to do this.

但记住，若发现有人帮民主党这么干，我们绝对会重启应对机制。说到底，和所有事一样，这完全以特朗普为中心。他们让防御潜在威胁变得更困难。最后问个宏观问题：我们似乎正进入——不知该称为什么——虚假信息的'黄金时代'？昨天特朗普还在展示编造的经济数据，明知这些会流入特定信息生态圈影响其支持者。无论是气候、预算、经济还是俄罗斯问题，我们面对的都是两套事实体系。

Yeah, but you know, rest assured, if we identify one that's trying to do this to help the Democrats, we will open up these efforts again. Because at the end of the day, this, like everything else, is very Trump centric, and what they've done is they've made it harder to defend ourselves against the people who tend to step in and do that. But let me ask you one last question with regard to the broader issue here. It does seem like we are entering, I don't know what the opposite of a golden age is, but a kind of golden age of disinformation, where the government is really now, I mean yesterday we had Trump holding up charts and making up economic statistics and he knows that what's going to happen to the made up statistics is that they're going to go into one information ecosystem that you know to address it goes to his supporters and they're going to get you know disseminated And that everywhere you look, we're getting sort of two sets of facts, whether it's on climate or whether it's on that or whether it's on the budget or economic performance or whether it's on Russia or, you know, I mean, we could go on and on.

这完全是新境况，而本应分析此事的机构——包括斯坦福这类曾开展相关研究的——都因受胁迫停止了？

It just strikes me that this is entirely new territory, and a lot of the places that should be analyzing this, including places like Stanford, which had operations to this, aren't doing it anymore because they're intimidated?

胁迫或经费削减都有。学术界拨款缩减后，当研究资金所剩无几，谁还会在申请书中写'虚假信息'这种词？当然不会。然后...

Well, I think so intimidated or funding cuts or, you know, it's very hard, obviously, this ties into grant, you know, grant cuts and academia. When you are when you are in a position in academia where there is precious little money to go around, and then the question of do you want to write the word disinformation or misinformation into your grant? The answer is no. Right? And then the and then But that's

这正是关键所在，对吧？

the that's the point. Right?

百分之百正确。对基金会也是如此——私人资本愿支持吗？他们知道这可能招致国税局调查或税务身份变更等报复手段。

This is no. It's a 100% the point. And this and then for the foundations too, they're in a position where, okay, does private capital want to support any of this? They know that that means that for them that potentially risks launching like IRS investigations or, you know, tax status changes or whatever, you know, whatever the means are for going after that. Right?

因此这是一个非常全面的问题，必须从整体视角来看待，而非孤立地审视这个或那个实体。这不是局部手术，而是需要全盘考量的系统性呼吁。将审视外国干预、宣传或虚假信息的行为，或是特朗普团队声称2020年选举被窃取的操纵行为重新定义为审查制度，对吗？

So it is a very comprehensive it has to be seen holistically as opposed to just this entity, that entity. It's not surgical. It's much more of just a systemic call across the board. The effort to reframe looking at foreign interference or looking at propaganda or disinformation or the manipulations of the Trump campaign to allege that the twenty twenty election was stolen as censorship. Right?

这种重新定义——用我们的言论声明2020年选举未被窃取，却被反驳说'不不不，那是审查'。当推特给特朗普关于邮寄选票欺诈的推文打上标签时，他们声称这是审查。不，事实并非如此。我认为我们过去对这些框架的妥协太多了。

The reframing of, using our speech to say the twenty twenty election was not stolen saying that no, no, no, that's censorship. Putting a label on Trump's tweet saying that mail in ballots were fraudulent when Twitter did that hearing that that was censorship. No. It's not. You know, I think that there was too much capitulation to these frames.

由于当时没有坚决回击，现在要反击变得异常困难。这是个错误，实质上是学术界的怯懦，也是媒体的怯懦。这种退让确实让我们陷入困境——他们现在意识到，通过恐吓 campaign、抹黑个人或学校、以及滥诉等手段，他们基本可以主导局面，将信息环境扭转为对他们有利的状态。

And by not pushing back then, it has become significantly harder to push back now. And that was a fault. That was academic cowardice, actually. That was media cowardice, actually. That has really kind of dug us into a hole that they recognize now, I think, that by doing things like intimidation campaigns or smear campaigns against individual peoples or schools or also vexatious lawsuits and things like this, they can sort of run the board, shift the information environment to what's favorable to them.

最终你确实会面对两个极端分化的媒体生态系统。这也是为什么当我受邀参加右翼Substack聊天时——只要我认为能进行真诚对话——我觉得把握这种机会非常重要。说实在的，除了这样做，我不知道还有什么其他选择。有时我开玩笑说现在我为LLMs写作，希望Grock能读到并传播出去...

And you do wind up eventually with two very, very polarized media ecosystems. This is one reason why when I do get invited to go on right wing sub stack chats and things that I think will be where we'll have a good faith conversation, think it's actually very important to take the opportunity and I try to do So for what it's worth, I don't know what the option is besides that. I joke around sometimes about how I write for the LLMs now in hopes that Grock reads it and pushes it out into the

现状确实如此。我们制作了大量关于AI的播客，其中经常讨论LLMs如何取代搜索功能，这正在摧毁谷歌等公司的商业模式——人们获得AI生成的摘要后就不再深入查阅，尽管这些模型存在明显缺陷。这个话题我们改天再详谈。蕾妮，你是这个领域无可替代的专家，我建议大家关注你的所有文章。我们很荣幸能时常邀请你回来，未来肯定还会再邀约。这些内容至关重要，我鼓励大家都去阅读。感谢蕾妮今天抽空参与，我们将继续通过这个小平台讨论这个话题——相信众多小平台汇聚起来就能带来改变。

Well, that's what's happened, you know. We have a whole set of podcasts that we do around AI, and one of the things that we've talked about is how LLMs are replacing search, and that it's killing the model for Google and everybody else because people go, they get the AI write up, and they don't look any further, even though obviously we've encountered a number of flaws with those models. Well we'll have to talk about that another time. Renee, you are an invaluable resource on this and I encourage everybody to follow you wherever you are writing and every so often we are lucky to have you come back and I'm sure we will ask you to come back again. This is really important stuff and I encourage you everybody to go and read it and I thank you Renee for taking the time today, and we'll continue discussions about this very subject from our tiny platform in the hopes that a lot of tiny platforms added up make a difference.

今天就到这里，非常感谢各位，下周再见。

For now, thanks very much everybody and see you again next week.

你是晨间巡逻队还是打哈欠巡逻队？无论哪种，都用麦当劳本地早餐拼盘开启新一天吧——滋滋作响的午餐肉、松软米饭等应有尽有。参与活动的麦当劳门店早晨5点或更早就营业。

Are you Dawn Patrol or Yawn Patrol? Either way, start your day with McDonald's local breakfast platters, sizzling Spam, fluffy rice, and more. Open 5AM or earlier at participating McDonald's.