Back in 1980, a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin noticed a CIA advertisement on a bus. John Brennan, feeling a pull of adventure, decided to apply for a position there, thinking it would fulfill his curiosity about the world.
This month, however, Brennan’s journey took a sharp turn with his involvement in an investigation surrounding allegations of false testimony linked to Russian conspiracy theories.
Ironically, he was initially selected for the CIA partly because of his integrity. During his initial polygraph test, he openly admitted to voting for a Communist Party candidate in 1976—something that seemed to impress the interviewers, as they hired him anyway.
The honest young man from the past feels like a distant memory compared to the Brennan of today. When President Obama appointed him as CIA director, he transformed into a quintessential insider. Unfortunately, it appears that loyalty may have overshadowed honesty during his time.
Recently released documents challenge Brennan’s prior testimony about the origins of the now-well-worn Russian conspiracy theory. This centers around an intelligence assessment commissioned by Barack Obama in December 2016, which indicated that Russia interfered in the presidential election to favor Donald Trump.
Obama ordered this assessment after it became clear there was no evidence of any conspiracy benefiting Trump. However, it seems his administration disregarded insights from seasoned CIA analysts. Instead, Brennan appeared to recruit newer analysts, effectively twisting their conclusions without a solid basis.
This new assessment leaned heavily on Steele’s documents—often deemed unreliable—that were financially backed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, featuring unsubstantiated claims about Trump.
During his testimony on May 23, 2017, Brennan claimed these Steele documents were “not part of the corpus of intelligence information we had” and were never used to inform evaluations made by the intelligence community. In short, he disavowed reliance on those documents.
However, the newly declassified materials reveal that Brennan not only acknowledged these documents; he confidently asserted their inclusion in the revised evaluation prompted by Obama. He even dismissed critiques from senior CIA Russian specialists who warned that it undermined critical evaluation standards.
Analysts expressed discontent over Brennan’s use of Steele’s documents, stating it violated fundamental trade principles and could skew important decisions. One CIA analyst recounted a conversation with an investigator, highlighting Brennan’s insistence on keeping flawed documents in the assessment.
The timeline is worth noting. In July 2016, during a briefing with Obama, Brennan spoke of Clinton’s “plan” to link Trump to Russia, suggesting it was intended to distract from her private email server scandal. Shortly after, the Russian investigation funded by Clinton’s campaign was set into motion, with the funding for the Steele documents concealed as legal fees through the campaign’s legal counsel.
This indicates that Brennan and the Obama administration were aware of the impending political maneuvering. Yet, months later, Brennan advocated for the inclusion of these questionable documents in the assessment update. Subsequently, unnamed officials leaked misleading information suggesting unfounded intelligence connections between Trump and Russia.
It’s important to note that Obama’s directive for this new assessment came near the end of his presidency. After Clinton’s loss to Trump, there was a rush to finalize the report before Trump took office, seeding the very conspiracy narrative that would dominate much of Trump’s initial term.
In essence, it worked—thanks to Brennan’s involvement and the efforts of then-FBI director James Comey.
As time passed, Brennan maintained his stance that he had no prior knowledge of the Steele documents, eventually becoming a paid contributor at MSNBC. There, he accused Trump of “treason,” which was met with approval by the network’s audience—although he later clarified his statements, contending he didn’t mean Trump was formally charged with treason.
Moreover, he joined over 50 former intelligence officers in signing a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian misinformation” prior to the 2020 election. This letter included James Clapper, the former intelligence chief under Obama, who expressed concerns about possible legal repercussions. Of course, the legitimacy of the laptop later came to light, revealing troubling details about Hunter Biden.
For Brennan, the years following 2016 might have felt like yet another CIA maneuver characterized by “plausible deniability.” Given that he had the Biden administration and media backing him, it seemed he had little to worry about. Ultimately, the public rejected these political assaults, as Trump was re-elected and Republicans regained control of Congress.
While Brennan may be shielded from perjury charges due to a five-year limit on such claims, he will likely find himself testifying before Congress again, addressing the same queries. Even without criminal charges, his statements remain under scrutiny regarding his historical role.
What’s clear is that high-ranking officials opted to disregard evidence to disseminate the Russian conspiracy theory as widely as possible. The manipulation of intelligence for political gain was fundamentally wrong. Yet it was effective, with a coordinated effort involving the Obama White House, the CIA, the FBI, and the media.
Brennan’s narrative is a cautionary tale of Washington D.C.—a familiar tragedy of lost ideals amidst grand corruption. It starts with a minor deception that gradually erodes one’s moral compass until even the largest falsehood feels acceptable. This self-deception can become a morally justified choice for perceived greater gains.
In “The Man for All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More tells his daughter Meg that taking an oath is akin to holding water in one’s hands; if you let it slip away, you may never regain it.
In Washington, power can loosen its grip, leading to an erosion of principles until the remnants barely resemble their original form. It’s a poignant tragedy.
For Brennan, what began as youthful wanderlust culminated in a tangled web of contradictions and deceit.
