A bombshell congressional report exposes a calculated move by former CIA Director John Brennan to skew a 2017 intelligence assessment, pushing a narrative that Vladimir Putin backed Donald Trump’s 2016 election bid.
The New York Post reported that the House Intelligence Committee’s findings, released Wednesday, paint a troubling picture of politicized intelligence. It’s a stark reminder of how far some will go to tilt the scales.
The report, compiled in 2020, reveals the CIA’s 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was riddled with errors, claiming Putin “aspired” to help Trump win.
Veteran CIA officers raised red flags, but Brennan allegedly ignored them. The stage was set for a years-long saga that fueled division.
In late 2016, President Obama ordered spy chiefs to produce the ICA, tasking them with assessing Moscow’s role in the election. An email from Clapper’s assistant on Dec. 9, 2016, demanded a quick report on Russia’s tools and actions. The rushed timeline laid the groundwork for a flawed product.
Brennan insisted on including the now-debunked Steele dossier, funded by the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, despite objections from senior CIA officers.
The dossier, crafted by an ex-MI6 spy, was called “fabricated” and failed basic tradecraft standards. Yet, Brennan and FBI Director James Comey championed its inclusion.
“Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?” Brennan reportedly quipped when challenged on the dossier’s shoddy quality. His flippant response dismissed decades of CIA rigor. It’s the kind of arrogance that erodes trust in institutions.
Senior officers warned the dossier’s claims were “unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, implausible, or odd.” Only a vague fragment of a sentence was used to prop up the ICA’s core claim about Putin’s motives. That’s not intelligence—it’s cherry-picking.
The report alleges Brennan buried intelligence suggesting Russia was ready for a Clinton victory. A longtime Putin confidant claimed the Kremlin leader was indifferent, noting weaknesses in both candidates. This nuance was sidelined to fit a narrative.
CIA officers said some information was withheld on Brennan’s direct orders. Other intelligence, deemed substandard by seasoned analysts, was also suppressed. The result was an ICA that skewed reality.
The 2017 ICA, released in January, sparked federal and congressional probes into Trump-Kremlin collusion. Special counsels Robert Mueller and John Durham later debunked these allegations. The report’s fallout was a political firestorm built on shaky ground.
“Not only did CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, DNI Clapper, and others include the Steele Dossier in the 2017 ICA, they overruled senior Intel officials who warned them it was fabricated,” said Tulsi Gabbard.
She called it “the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.” Her words cut deep, exposing a betrayal of public trust.
Gabbard further charged that Brennan and others “conspired to subvert the will of the American people” to undermine Trump’s legitimacy. The accusation of a “years-long coup” is bold but resonates with those skeptical of entrenched power. It’s a claim that demands scrutiny, not dismissal.
The report paints the ICA as a substandard product, published over veteran officers’ objections. Intelligence failing to meet longstanding CIA standards was included in Brennan’s orders. This wasn’t just sloppy—it was deliberate.
A 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio, confirmed Russia’s extensive activity against U.S. election infrastructure from 2014 to 2017. It noted Russia’s social media warfare was likely aimed to boost Trump. Yet, it admitted uncertainty about Moscow’s true intentions.
The Senate report found no evidence of manipulated votes or tampered machines. “Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 election,” said Obama’s spokesman, Patrick Rodenbush. His defense feels hollow against the House report’s revelations.
