Latest news with #IntelligenceCommunityAssessment
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The rise and fall of John Brennan
In 1980, a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin saw an ad for the Central Intelligence Agency on a bus. John Brennan decided to apply, thinking that such a job would satisfy his 'wanderlust.' This month, the 'wanderlust' of John Brennan came to an end, as the former CIA director stands accused of false testimony regarding the Russian collusion investigation. Ironically, Brennan was first selected for his honesty — at least in part. During his entry polygraph, Brennan admitted that he had voted for the communist party candidate for president in 1976. He was impressed that the agency took him anyway. That honest young man seems like a faint and tragic echo of the man today. When Obama picked Brennan to be the CIA director, he had become the ultimate Democratic insider and loyalist. And it would be choosing loyalty over honesty that would prove Brennan's undoing. Newly declassified information contradicts Brennan's testimony before Congress on the origins of the now-debunked Russian collusion conspiracy theory. There is a particular focus on the intelligence community assessment commissioned by President Barack Obama in December 2016, which suggested that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump. Obama ordered the assessment after a prior assessment found no evidence of collusion or influence on the election in Trump's favor. But Obama's White House effectively quashed that finding from seasoned CIA analysts. To create a new version, Brennan handpicked new analysts, who effectively flipped the earlier finding on its head without any credible basis in the record. The new assessment relied, to a significant degree, on the Steele dossier, a widely discredited report paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign that contained unfounded allegations about Trump. In testimony on May 23, 2017, Brennan claimed that the Steele dossier 'wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done.' In short, Brennan dismissed any reliance on the dossier. Yet in the material now declassified, Brennan is shown not just discussing the dossier but insisting upon its inclusion in the new assessment Obama had requested. Indeed, he expressly overruled the CIA's two most senior Russia experts, who said it 'did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards.' Analysts were appalled by the use of the Steele dossier and complained that it 'ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.' One CIA analyst told investigators that '[Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier's main flaws, [Brennan] responded, 'Yes, but doesn't it ring true?''Brennan expressly ordered its inclusion in the assessment. It would appear not just in an annex but in the main body of the assessment. The timeline here is important. In July 2016, Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton's 'plan' to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as 'a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.' The original Russia investigation — funded by Clinton's campaign — was launched days after this briefing. The resulting Steele Dossier's funding was hidden as a legal expense by the Clinton campaign's general counsel, Marc Elias. So Brennan and the Obama Administration knew in advance about the planned political hit job. Yet, only months later, Brennan would intervene to force the dossier's inclusion in version 2.0 of the intelligence assessment. Unnamed officials then leaked false information to the media about non-existent intelligence implicating Trump. Keep in mind that Obama's ordering of the new assessment was occurring at the very end of his term. There was a rush to complete the report before Trump took office after defeating Hillary Clinton. The effort seeded the Russian collusion hoax that would consume much of Trump's first term. In other words, it worked. However, it required the involvement of John Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey. As time went on, Brennan continued to deny prior knowledge of the dossier. He would later become a paid contributor for MSNBC and, in 2018, insisted that he first heard 'just snippets about' the dossier in the 'late summer of 2016.' As an MSNBC regular, Brennan accused Trump of 'treason,' to the delight of the network hosts and viewers. (He later tried to insist that, when he called Trump's actions 'nothing short of treasonous,' he did not actually mean that Trump had 'committed treason.') Whatever professional integrity Brennan had left after that, he set it aside in joining more than 50 former intelligence officials in signing a now-infamous letter dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 presidential election as likely 'Russian disinformation.' Joining him on the letter was former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who says that he has now ' lawyered up ' in anticipation of potential criminal allegations. The laptop, of course, was later found to be authentic and incriminating for Hunter Biden. Back in 2016 and in the years that followed, this must have seemed to Brennan like just another CIA operation with 'plausible deniability.' After all, he knew that he had the Biden administration and the media watching his back. Of course, the public would ultimately reject these hit jobs, not only reelecting Trump but also giving Republicans full control of Congress. Brennan may be protected from perjury charges by the five-year statute of limitations. However, he is likely to be called again before Congress and asked the same questions. Even if he is not criminally charged, his past statements will remain an indictment of his role in history. What is now clear is that high-level officials dismissed intelligence and evidence in order to create and spread the Russian collusion conspiracy as widely as they could. Their politicization of intelligence was raw and wrong. It succeeded only because it was an 'all-hands-on-deck' effort, from the Obama White House to the CIA, the FBI, and the media. The rise and fall of John Brennan is an all-too-familiar Beltway tragedy. People do not lose their idealism in this city in grand moments of corruption. It starts with small lies that steadily reduce your resistance until the biggest lies become happenstance. It can create a type of self-deception as one treats lies as a moral option for the sake of the greater good. In 'A Man for All Seasons,' Sir Thomas More is asked by his loving daughter Meg to sign a false affidavit to save his own life. More tells her, 'When a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again.' In Washington, power tends to loosen fingers over time, and the truth drips out to the point that little recognizable remains. That is the true tragedy. For Brennan, what began as a young man's wanderlust ended in a quagmire of contradictions and deceit. .'
Int'l Business Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Int'l Business Times
'Delusional' Tulsi Gabbard Declares Obama Discouraged 'Peaceful Transition of Power' During 2016 Election: 'Someone Let Her Know About J6'
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was mocked on social media after insinuating that the Obama administration discouraged a peaceful transition of power by sharing reports on Russian interference in the 2016 election. During a Thursday interview on Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's radio show "The Charlie Kirk Show," Gabbard defended her claim that the Obama administration releasing reports on attempts by Russian President Vladimir Putin to influence the 2016 election amounted to "treasonous conspiracy" because it affected the "peaceful transition of power." "In this system, there is to be a peaceful transition of power. What we saw play out here was President Trump was elected by the American people in 2016, shocking most people in the United States," Gabbard said. The top intelligence official went on to allege that "instead of accepting that this is the will of the people," former President Barack Obama convened his national security team to create "this contrived, false narrative through the production of this Intelligence Community Assessment in January 2017 with the specific intent of subverting the will of the American people." "So yes, this is a treasonous conspiracy that subverts the will of the American people," she continued, citing what she called the dissemination of a "hoax" that prompted years-long investigations. However, several social media users said that they found Gabbard's statements "hypocritical" given the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots where MAGA supporters stormed a federal building. President Donald Trump pardoned all those involved shortly after starting his second-term earlier this year. "Someone better let her know about January 6th," one user said . Another wrote , "Didn't Hillary Clinton call Trump the evening of the election to concede and congratulate him?" One person simply called Gabbard "delusional," while others shared clips and images from the Capitol riots to as evidence of what they believed a non-peaceful transition of power looked like. "Silly us. We thought 'peaceful transfer of power' meant something else entirely," a user chided with a video of rioters pushing back against Capitol police. "Wasn't Trump the one they did that," one user questioned , as another jabbed , "I think she is calling out her Boss!!" Gabbard's office published a press release Friday claiming to have uncovered evidence of a "treasonous conspiracy" by the Obama administration, alleging that they fabricated the Russian election interference reports. Obama's office has pushed back against Gabbard's release, calling the allegations a "ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction." Originally published on Latin Times
Fox News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
GREGG JARRETT: Newly declassified documents destroy Russian collusion hoax
Lies and lying people comprise the sorry epitaph of Barack Obama's presidency. The Big Lie was that then-candidate Donald Trump colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 presidential election. It derived from a phony dossier commissioned and financed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Obama's national security team happily peddled to destroy his successor. It begat an even bigger whopper that "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump" and "aspired to help" his election chances. This notorious deceit was inserted in the official Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was ordered by Obama himself and conjured up by his CIA Director John Brennan. None of it was true. The bogus dossier was exploited to justify the ICA. Conversely, the ICA was used to legitimize the dossier. The circular faux verification was a clever ruse. And it worked splendidly. When both documents were leaked to the gullible Trump-hating media, journalists adopted them without question as sacred gospel from the Holy Book of Obama. The Russia hoax took off like a rocket. It crash-landed on Wednesday, July 23, when Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence, accused Obama, Brennan and others of engineering the false intelligence. "They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn't," she added. Newly declassified documents show that a December 8, 2016, draft of Obama's Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) debunked the notion of Russian electoral meddling to help Trump. But wait … that was problematic because it did not conform to the preferred narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. So, FBI Director James Comey and his cohorts reportedly scuttled it. That way, Trump, as president-elect, could not be briefed on its contents. The next day Obama convened a highly confidential meeting at the White House. The president ordered his intelligence cronies to expedite a new ICA that would reverse the PDB's conclusion and energize the collusion fiction. With his marching orders in hand, Brennan immediately went to work on it. His challenge was devising a way to contort the known evidence and contradict the consensus of nearly everyone else in the intelligence community. No problem. CIA experts on Russia who strenuously objected were sidelined and silenced. Brennan ignored their warning that there was no direct evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to elect Trump. Other intel agencies that typically contribute to the assessment were deliberately excluded to stifle dissent. Evidence shows that Brennan then selected a handful of sycophants — with only one principal drafter — to craft the entire ICA that bore little resemblance to the truth and established facts. On January 6, 2017, the rushed-to-completion ICA was produced. It offered a remarkable transformation from the earlier PDB: "Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-Elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him." (Page 7 of ICA) The head-spinning about-face of intel conclusions was an immaculate conception of corrupt handicraft that belongs in the Intelligence Hall of Shame. Although Brennan denied it, numerous delusions drawn from the fake dossier were placed in the formal intelligence assessment to give it the sustenance that it otherwise lacked. Armed with both fallacious documents, Comey then met with Trump later that day in a devious but misbegotten scheme to entrap him. It failed miserably because the newly elected president had no idea what the FBI director was talking about. Obama's dirty fingerprints were all over the cooked-up intelligence claiming that Moscow helped Trump in some grand collusion conspiracy. On Wednesday, Gabbard held a news conference to lift the veil of secrecy and malevolence. She leveled the following broadside: "President Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and others, including their mouthpieces in the media, knowingly lied as they repeated the contrived narrative that was created in this January 2017 intelligence community assessment with high confidence, as though it were fact." Mincing no words, Gabbard accused Brennan of lying about his use of the dossier even though he knew it was a discredited and politically manufactured document. "He directed senior CIA officials to use it anyway," she said. Other intel agencies that typically contribute to the assessment were deliberately excluded to stifle dissent. As "irrefutable proof," she unlocked the 2020 report of the House Intelligence Committee that had never before been seen publicly, thanks to the machinations of then-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who buried it as classified in a limited-access vault at CIA headquarters. The report outlined in detail the events that I summarized above. It was easy to do so because many of them are contained in the book I wrote six years ago, "Witch Hunt:" "John Brennan was instrumental in proliferating the dossier. But even before the Clinton campaign and Democrats funded Christopher Steele's project to smear Trump with the collusion hoax, the seeds of the collusion narrative were germinated by none other than Brennan." (Pages 66-67) I recounted how Brennan boasted to the House Intel Committee in May of 2017 that he had been the first to alert the FBI about collusion. "As he exerted uncommon pressure on the FBI to pursue a counterintelligence probe on Trump, he resolved to help spread the false allegations to Congress and the media. He politicized phony intelligence and instigated the fraudulent case against Clinton's opponent." (Page 68) The Russians never had "Kompromat" (compromising material) on Trump, as the dossier falsely accused. But they apparently did have it on Hillary. And that proved quite a stunner on Wednesday. The heretofore hidden House Intelligence report reveals how Russian intelligence "possessed DNC communications that in 2016 Clinton was suffering from 'intensified psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.' Clinton was placed on a daily regimen of 'heavy tranquilizers' and while afraid of losing, she remained 'obsessed with a thirst for power.'" Obama and Democrat Party bosses apparently knew all about Clinton's mental instability and found it "extraordinarily alarming." So much so, they worried it might have a "serious negative impact" on the November election. Unlike the dossier, those shocking discoveries were not just idle gossip. The committee reviewed reams of source material and obtained corroboration during some 20 interviews with FBI agents and intelligence officers. How did the Russians get their hands on the damaging material? The report explains that Putin ordered hacking operations on the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It seems that since Putin believed Hillary would win the election, he held the "Kompromat" in his back pocket to use as potential blackmail for later use. His challenge was devising a way to contort the known evidence and contradict the consensus of nearly everyone else in the intelligence community. No problem. CIA experts on Russia who strenuously objected were sidelined and silenced. In sending a criminal referral for possible prosecution to the Justice Department, Gabbard stated, "The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment." In response, the DOJ announced that it had formed a "strike force" to fully assess all the evidence and to investigate the next legal steps. Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to "leave no stone unturned to deliver justice." Obama denies any wrongdoing. But he should thank Trump for winning the recent landmark Supreme Court decision that provides all presidents with immunity. Ironically, the former president can now hide behind its broad protections. However, no such shield extends to others involved. It is folly to predict at this stage what prosecutions, if any, the future may hold. But the stain of corruption is already embedded in the epitaph of Obama's presidency.
Fox News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump-foe Adam Schiff dismisses Tulsi Gabbard's declassified Russia collusion intelligence as 'dishonest'
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is throwing cold water on Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's assertion about the Obama administration's role in pushing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative during the 2016 presidential election. Gabbard has declassified documents, including a House Intelligence Committee memo, alleging that former President Barack Obama and his national security team "manufactured an Intelligence Community Assessment they knew was false." "I think what Gabbard and her staff are doing is dishonest and misstated, and I'll leave it at that," Schiff told Fox News Digital on Capitol Hill. But White House Spokesman Davis Ingle was quick to fire back in a statement to Fox News Digital. "Pencil neck, watermelon head Adam 'Shifty' Schiff was one of the chief propagandists behind the Russia collusion hoax," he said. "He's now trying to desperately cover his tracks as this entire lie is being exposed to the world." Schiff was elected to the Senate last year but served in the House while Congress investigated whether Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. And as a ranking member and then chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff was directly involved in the congressional investigation and became a leading Democratic voice accusing Trump's 2016 presidential campaign of colluding with Russia. "Should Obama and his team be held responsible in some way for pushing the Russia collusion narrative that was proven false to take down Trump?" Fox News Digital asked Schiff. "Well, if you read the well-reported intelligence community report, you know they documented Russia's efforts to help denigrate Hillary Clinton, which gave a boost to the Trump campaign," Schiff responded. Schiff was referring to an Intelligence Community Assessment report from 2017 that asserted that Russia's goals were to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process and to "denigrate" former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin "developed a clear preference" for Trump. Gabbard's office alleged in a press release outlining the unearthed documents that Putin did not favor a candidate in 2016. It also said, "There is irrefutable evidence detailing how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false." When asked if he should apologize, Schiff told Fox News Digital, "It's been proven accurate." And as he walked away, Schiff seemed to nod in agreement and say, "Yes," when asked if everything he had said about the Russia collusion was accurate. The Justice Department, however, has formed a "strike force" to assess the evidence publicized by Gabbard into the Obama administration's role in the Trump–Russia collusion narrative. Trump and Schiff have long been political foes, as the president often evoked Schiff's nickname on the presidential campaign trail in 2024 while Trump weaved through a range of topics, including what he has come to refer to as the "Russia, Russia, Russia hoax." "Adam 'Shifty' Schiff is in BIG TROUBLE!" Trump said on Truth Social on Sunday. "He falsified Loan Documents. He once said my son would go to prison on a SCAM that Schiff, along with other Crooked Dems, illegally 'manufactured' in order to stage an actual coup." "My son did nothing wrong, knew nothing about the fictional story," he added. "It was an American Tragedy! Now Shifty should pay the price of prison for a real crime, not one made up by the corrupt accusers!" The U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) sent a letter to the Department of Justice in May alleging that Schiff has "falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, impacting payments from 2003-2019 for a Potomac, Maryland-based property." "Since I led his first impeachment, Trump has repeatedly called for me to be arrested for treason," Schiff said after Trump first accused Schiff of mortgage fraud. "So in a way, I guess this is a bit of a letdown. And this baseless attempt at political retribution won't stop me from holding him accountable. Not by a long shot."
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Did Vladimir Putin prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump in 2016? Declassified intelligence report makes startling claim
In a twist to the long-running Russiagate saga, newly declassified intelligence documents suggest that the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) may have misrepresented Russian President Vladimir Putin 's true preferences in the 2016 US election. Contrary to the widely accepted narrative that Russia aimed to boost Donald Trump 's chances, the reports show that key intelligence indicators suggesting Putin may have preferred Hillary Clinton were ignored or dismissed. The ICA's failure to explore alternative hypotheses has been called a "serious tradecraft mistake" with high-impact consequences, influencing top US government decisions across three branches. These revelations are shifting the focus of Russiagate from alleged collusion with Trump to overlooked intelligence about Clinton. Declassified reports: CIA ignored signs Putin may have wanted Clinton to win According to Finding #7 from the declassified oversight report, the ICA failed to perform a systematic evaluation of alternative explanations, a core requirement of intelligence tradecraft under ICD 203. Specifically, it dismissed the possibility that Putin did not care who won, or even had strategic reasons to prefer a Clinton presidency. The overlooked evidence suggests that: Putin might have viewed Clinton as a more vulnerable and predictable adversary, potentially easier to manipulate diplomatically. Russia held back more damaging kompromat on Clinton, suggesting a calculated move to retain leverage over a future Clinton administration, leverage that would not exist with Trump. The ICA authors' insistence on a 'single-track hypothesis' led them to ignore contrary intelligence and attempt to shape weak evidence to support the conclusion that Putin favored Trump. A 'high-impact' intelligence failure with political consequences The report criticizes the ICA's methodology, especially given its massive influence. The document was disseminated across 250 US officials, including members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and heavily influenced public opinion. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Understand The Importance Of Steam-Based Sterilization contentcuehub Search Now Undo Analysts argue that the ICA's failure to account for alternative theories misled US policymakers at a critical time. Furthermore: The ICA's narrow focus fueled years of partisan conflict and undermined public trust in democratic institutions. The claim that Putin 'aspired' to help Trump may have lacked solid grounding, while stronger evidence pointing to Clinton as the real strategic choice was sidelined. Intelligence insiders now admit the ICA 'glossed over' the possibility that Putin withheld pre-election operations for future use, particularly against Clinton. Revisiting the narrative, reconsidering the truth The recent declassification of intelligence documents has cast new light on the origins and direction of the Russiagate narrative. While Donald Trump faced years of scrutiny over alleged Russian ties, including investigations, public doubt, and political fallout, it now appears that some intelligence suggesting Vladimir Putin may have preferred Hillary Clinton was known but not given equal attention. If true, this raises difficult questions about the role of selective disclosure and political influence within intelligence channels. For Trump and his supporters, this serves as vindication, not just from the false collusion accusations, but from a broader establishment effort to delegitimize his presidency before it even began. The fact that this evidence was hidden until now suggests institutional bias at the highest levels. As the US enters another election cycle, the importance of transparency and trust in democratic institutions becomes even more urgent. Both sides of the political divide can agree that the public deserves a full accounting, not just of what happened, but of who decided what the American people were allowed to know.
