The FBI and DOJ: Election Interference Disguised as Counterintelligence?

As the 2024 U.S. federal election approaches, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have dropped a bombshell affidavit accusing Russian actors of interfering in American politics through disinformation and influence campaigns. On the surface, it appears to be a legitimate attempt to safeguard U.S. democracy. However, a closer inspection reveals a document riddled with subjective language, speculative claims, and vague conclusions, raising suspicions that the FBI and DOJ may be engaging in political interference rather than simply protecting the electoral process.

This affidavit, available for review here, seems to be designed not only to target foreign actors but also to discredit political narratives critical of the Democratic Party. By making sweeping claims based on little more than opinion and interpretation, the FBI and DOJ appear to be setting the stage for election interference under the guise of counterintelligence.

Subjective Language: Weak Evidence, Strong Political Utility

One of the most glaring issues with the affidavit is its reliance on subjective language like “I believe” or “based on my training and experience” in place of concrete evidence. This sort of language allows the FBI to present unproven accusations as though they are factual, leaving much room for interpretation and narrative control.

For example, on page 37, the affidavit states, “I believe there is probable cause to believe the funds used to lease the SUBJECT DOMAINS by the four personas… originated from outside the United States” (source). This assertion lacks the hard evidence that one would expect, such as financial records tracing the origins of the funds. Instead, the agent’s belief is used to justify government action, opening the door for conclusions based on subjective interpretation rather than concrete proof.

Similarly, on page 52, the agent declares, “I believe Doppelganger distributes its propaganda in this manner in order to obscure… the fact that they are not visiting a legitimate news outlet” (source). This assertion, too, is based on nothing more than the agent’s belief, without providing concrete data, such as traffic analytics or communications linking the accused to this particular disinformation campaign.

Even on page 2, at the outset of the document, the agent admits, “This affidavit is intended to show merely that there is sufficient probable cause for the requested warrant and does not set forth all of my knowledge about this matter” (source). While this is standard legal language, it preemptively signals that the evidence presented might be incomplete or insufficient. The phrase “sufficient probable cause” based on incomplete information allows the FBI and DOJ to justify intrusive actions, such as domain seizures, even if full evidence is lacking or vague.

This over-reliance on subjective opinion is even more apparent in the document’s discussions of virtual private servers (VPS) and virtual private networks (VPNs). On page 38, the agent writes, “Based on my training and experience, this layering of VPS services… is indicative of a high level of technical sophistication” and potentially points to state-sanctioned actions (source). This, again, is mere opinion — VPNs and VPS services are commonly used by millions of privacy-conscious individuals and businesses. The lack of tangible evidence to tie this activity directly to state-sponsored malicious acts raises concerns about the objectivity of the affidavit.

Similarly, on page 40, the agent concludes, “Based on my training and experience, I know criminal cyber actors frequently use VPS companies to obfuscate their location” (source). While this is certainly true for some criminal actors, the affidavit does not provide clear proof that the individuals in question were using these services for illegal purposes. The agent’s opinion fills the gap left by the lack of concrete evidence, leaving the door wide open for interpretation.

Conjecture About Russian Government Involvement

The affidavit goes to great lengths to tie this alleged disinformation campaign to high-level Russian officials, but the connections are based more on conjecture than on hard evidence. On page 15, the affidavit claims that Doppelganger, under the direction of Russian government official Sergei Kiriyenko, worked to “reduce international support for Ukraine, bolster pro-Russian policies, and influence voters in U.S. and foreign elections” (source). Yet, the document fails to present any direct communications or orders linking Kiriyenko or other officials to these actions. Instead, much of the case is built on interpretations of strategy documents and notes from meetings.

For example, on page 21, the affidavit references notes taken by Ilya Gambashidze, a key figure in the alleged campaign, from a meeting with “SVK,” believed to be Kiriyenko. These notes reportedly discuss propaganda strategies for bolstering support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the document does not include verbatim transcripts or recordings of these meetings, leaving the interpretation entirely up to the agent’s reading of handwritten notes (source). The reliance on second-hand notes raises serious doubts about the validity of these claims.

On page 22, the agent states that Kiriyenko “provided his opinion” during strategy discussions, but the affidavit does not make clear whether his suggestions were acted upon or if they were even intended for use in U.S. disinformation campaigns (source). The speculative nature of this claim weakens the case, leaving it unclear whether these strategies were actually tied to specific actions affecting the U.S. election.

Targeting Swing States: A Strategic Focus?

The affidavit doesn’t just make speculative claims — it also reveals a deliberate strategy to influence key voter demographics in critical battleground states. This is evident in the document’s discussion of the “Good Old U.S.A. Project,” a campaign purportedly designed to spread “bogus stories disguised as newsworthy events” to influence American voters (source). Notably, this project focuses on swing states, aiming to sway public opinion on hot-button issues such as aid to Ukraine and domestic spending priorities.

On page 31, the affidavit outlines the FBI’s plans to monitor and influence voters in these swing states by spreading disinformation, using psychological analysis to gauge real-time voter reactions. The affidavit states that these “commentary campaigns” would rely on bots and social media advertisements, which are crafted to look like authentic opinions from American citizens (source).

This deliberate focus on key electoral battlegrounds raises serious concerns about the FBI’s impartiality. Could this campaign be an attempt to influence voters in a way that benefits the Democratic Party? Given the speculative nature of many of the claims in the affidavit, the timing and target of the campaign certainly seem politically motivated.

Weaponizing Intelligence: A Political Tool

The affidavit’s reliance on subjective opinions and the strategic focus on swing states suggests that this operation may not be entirely about safeguarding democracy. Instead, it appears the FBI and DOJ may be weaponizing intelligence to shape the electoral conversation in favor of the Democratic Party.

On page 32, the affidavit discusses the “Guerrilla Media Campaign,” another disinformation project aimed at disseminating pro-Democratic narratives while stifling opposition (source). This campaign involved the creation of multiple “perishable” social media accounts, designed to distribute pro-Democratic content without being detected by social media platforms. This level of coordination to influence U.S. politics suggests that the FBI’s actions go beyond counterintelligence — they may be actively interfering in the political process.

Moreover, the affidavit acknowledges on page 33 that the use of influencers and “fake personas” is a core part of this strategy, but the evidence tying these personas to specific state actors is weak at best (source). Without concrete links between these online personas and Russian operatives, the FBI’s case hinges on assumptions rather than proof. This lack of direct evidence weakens the FBI’s argument and casts doubt on their true motivations.

Historical Precedents: Political Bias in FBI and DOJ Actions

This is far from the first time that the FBI and DOJ have faced accusations of political bias. The FBI’s handling of the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation was widely criticized after the Steele Dossier, which served as a central piece of evidence, was discredited. Similarly, the FBI’s slow response to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal in 2020 raised suspicions that the agency was protecting Democratic interests.

In the current affidavit, the FBI appears to be using the same playbook, casting any opposition to Democratic policies — such as skepticism of U.S. involvement in Ukraine — as Russian propaganda. By doing so, they are shaping the 2024 election narrative to discredit dissenting opinions, portraying them as foreign interference rather than legitimate political discourse.

Election Interference in Disguise?

The FBI and DOJ’s affidavit does more than target Russian actors — it works to control the U.S. election narrative. Through speculative conclusions, subjective interpretations, and a clear focus on swing states, the agencies appear to be steering the 2024 election in favor of the Democratic Party. This isn’t just about countering foreign influence — it’s about manipulating the conversation in ways that favor one political party over others.

Given the historical precedents of bias within these agencies and the timing of the affidavit, it’s hard to ignore the possibility that this document represents a form of election interference. By using unsubstantiated claims to delegitimize critical viewpoints, the FBI and DOJ are engaging in a dangerous game, one that could undermine the integrity of the U.S. electoral process.

Conclusion

The FBI and DOJ’s affidavit is a deeply flawed document, filled with conjecture, speculation, and subjective opinion. By focusing on swing states and using vague, unproven connections to Russian actors, the agencies are influencing the 2024 election in favor of the Democratic Party. If these tactics go unchecked, the future of free and fair elections in the United States could be in jeopardy.

For a full view of the document, you can read the affidavit here.