The Intelligence Agency from the Obama era has taken steps to respond to the National Intelligence Director’s (ODNI) recent op-ed discussing the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.
A guest piece in the New York Times by John Brennan, who was the former Director of the CIA, along with James Clapper, the former DNI, poses some lingering questions about how the intelligence community’s conclusions were reached.
Brennan and Clapper are reflecting on the initial findings of the ICA, which stated that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election and that Vladimir Putin had a “clear preference” for Donald Trump.
Recently, DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified a 2020 Congressional investigation that concluded Putin had indeed favored Trump and sought to aid his electoral success.
Past reports from the Intelligence Agency pointed to findings from the Senate Intelligence Committee that suggested analysts weren’t pressured politically to arrive at a specific conclusion.
However, a report released on Thursday claimed that a senior intelligence official at ODNI threatened to deny a promotion to an officer unless they endorsed the 2017 ICA.
The op-ed also discussed the controversial Steele documents and their inclusion in the ICA.
Brennan and Clapper maintain that these Steele documents were “not used as a source or considered in the analysis or conclusions.”
The Steele Dossier, a series of unverified memos funded privately, alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Both Brennan and Clapper acknowledged the “little trust” in these documents and noted that the ICA explicitly detailed why they weren’t part of the assessment’s value.
A former official from the Obama administration mentioned that the ICA did not evaluate the direct impact of Russia on the election outcome. It was stated that while Russian influence operations may have swayed American opinions before voting, there was no evidence showing that actual votes were changed.
Brennan and Clapper argued that the ICA did not involve any claims of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, emphasizing their focus solely on Russian actions rather than their interactions within the U.S.
Interestingly, the op-ed didn’t tackle recent allegations that have raised questions about their intentions behind drafting the ICA, even as some documents related to this were released on Thursday.
In a comment on social media, Senator Marsha Blackburn questioned why the mainstream media seemed less interested in reporting on these new developments than they had been with previous allegations of conspiracy involving Russia.
The original 2016 evaluation was meant to assess potential Russian interference in the election. It noted that while Russia hacked the Democratic National Convention and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, foreign entities lacked the capability to execute significant cyberattacks on election infrastructure.
Findings from this evaluation were supposed to be included in the President’s Daily Briefing but were reportedly removed at the last minute, as then-President Trump would have had access to them.
Instead, there was a meeting held between Obama and his cabinet officials to address Russian interference on December 9, 2016, with the email regarding this matter becoming a directive for the President.
Allegations have also surfaced about intelligence community officials leaking false information to the media, specifically to the Washington Post.
While the ICA was created via email, there were disputes regarding the inclusion of the Steele Dossier in the final report. Brennan and Clapper suggested that the FBI was behind the inclusion in the ICA, while a subsequent CIA review indicated that Brennan had pushed for its inclusion.
It was reported that certain intelligence officials resisted efforts to include FBI documentation, deeming it too unreliable.
Ultimately, the ICA included a summary of the Steele Dossier, which was presented to Obama in early January. A whistleblower report from Thursday indicated that analysts faced threats regarding their promotions should they refuse to endorse the ICA.
Brennan and Clapper clarified that while the ICA did not accuse Trump of directly colluding with Russia, the assessment, along with the Steele Dossier, played a key role in the broader investigation into allegations of Russian interference.
This inquiry led by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that there was no evidence supporting claims of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia to influence the election.
