The Russia watchTruth-testing Trump’s attacks on the Russia inquiry; Steele wins court case; KGB recruitment manual, and more

Truth-testing Trump’s 250-plus attacks on the Russia inquiry (Linda Qiu, New York Times)
We assessed President Trump’s claims about Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and the ensuing federal investigation of his campaign.

Author of Trump-Russia dossier wins libel case in U.S. court (Luke Harding, Guardian)
Suit against Christopher Steele by three Russian oligarchs thrown out by judge

Florida election officials seek info as support builds for Bill Nelson’s Russian-hack claim (Tampa Bay Times)
No one has publicly confirmed or denied Nelson’s claims made 10 days ago. If Nelson’s claims have merit, elections officials say the federal government must take immediate action to inform all 67 Florida counties.

Revealed: The secret KGB manual for recruiting spies (Michael Weiss, Daily Beast)
The document is from the Cold War. But the material it teaches is still being used today by Vladimir Putin’s clandestine cadres.

Election exercise pairs states with intelligence community in unprecedented opportunity (Sean Lyngaas, Cyberscoop)
Forty-four states took part in an unprecedented election-security exercise last week that offered a crucial opportunity for electoral officials to interact with federal agencies with some of the most vaunted cyber capabilities in the government. This elaborate a security exercise simply didn’t happen in 2016: before the Russian government’s sweeping intervention in the U.S. election, it was hard to imagine the need for local and state officials to drill with the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. But with 2016 fresh in their minds, those officials have warmed to the idea.

A look at Maria Butina’s spy career: Cyber, seduction, and bumbling (Adam Rawnsley, Daily Beast)
It turns out you can coast pretty far on charm in the spy world.

The dangers in the Trump-Brennan confrontation (Jack Goldsmith, Lawfare)
The big loser in all of this is intelligence community trust, on which we all depend for our safety. And the main cause is our institution-destroying president, who sees political advantage in attacking the intelligence community. Trump seems to realize that the more vile his personal attacks and the more norm-defying his actions, the more likely he is to invite a norm-defying response that lends credibility to the basis of his original attacks. He also seems to realize that in pursuing his goal of crushing these institutions, he wins if the objects of his attack are silent or if they respond—a point that applies as well (as I noted last year) to the media. 
In this light, it is hard to know precisely what the former senior intelligence officials who wish to defend the intelligence community should be doing. I think that the decision is personal and contextual and that silence (like that of William McRaven and Robert Gates, until recently, and President Obama’s) is an appropriate option. But for those who feel that speaking out is best, my modest advice would be as follows. First, avoid appearing on television in a panel of other senior former intelligence professionals for group criticism of the president. Second, be scrupulous in maintaining a temperate, sober tone. Third, if you worked on Russian election meddling during the Obama administration, avoid stating any conclusions about the president and that meddling, and always be unambiguously clear that whatever judgments you make are not based on information you saw in government. Fourth, avoid attacking the president on substantive matters outside your expertise.