A report released on Tuesday discusses the co-authors of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which connected Donald Trump to allegations regarding Russian interference in the presidential election. The whistleblower, who prefers to remain anonymous, unveiled some background details about the controversial “Russiagate” document during an interview with Michael Schellenberger and Alex Gtentag.
The whistleblower asserts that Susan Miller, a former CIA officer who claimed involvement in the ICA, actually had no role in it. “Members of Miller’s analytics team were part of the ICA, but she had no involvement,” a senior analyst remarked.
According to the whistleblower, John Brennan played a significant role in creating the ICA. The whistleblower noted, “Brennan’s controlling nature was a major flaw in the ICA process and the fusion cells.” The term “Fusion Cell” refers to a group of analysts from different intelligence agencies.
However, a senior CIA figure reportedly limited access to the team’s data and blocked external analytics experts from checking the ICA or its foundational report. “This neglects important checks that are typically part of the analytical process,” the whistleblower argued.
Due to the isolation of the fusion cells, there was no means to rigorously evaluate the report and ensure its validity, analysts explained. The whistleblower highlighted that the ICA falsely claimed that Russia favored Trump, suggesting that the document lacked a proper review.
After drafting the ICA, the CIA received an email from the FBI requesting the Steele dossier, which was accused of being a major reference for the ICA. Reports indicated that CIA analysts had strong objections, but their concerns were disregarded. It was disclosed that if key documents were omitted, the FBI would withdraw from the ICA, and Brennan made it clear that the FBI would be involved in the ICA regardless.
Analysts noted that under pressure, the team reluctantly agreed to draft an annex to keep some information out of the main text.
The whistleblower claimed that the FBI asked for alterations to the CIA draft language to enhance the appearance of the Steele dossier’s reliability. Brennan had reportedly assured analysts that they would only see the most restricted version of the ICA, but a leak suggested otherwise, indicating that Brennan was deceptive about the limited access.
The whistleblower claimed, “Brennan personally controlled the dissemination of all CIA reports referenced in the ICA.” It was said that Brennan’s viewpoint on the ICA revealed a lack of integrity.
Despite Brennan’s assertions, the whistleblower argued that there is reason to question his integrity, especially given his political connections during the Clinton campaign. In a guest essay for the New York Times, both Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper noted their initial conclusions indicating Russia’s preference for Trump, contending that the Steele dossier had no bearing on their analysis.
According to Liz Lyons, recent evaluations from the CIA demonstrate that political appointees in the Obama administration often overlooked the insights of long-serving officials and pressured them into violating standards. As of the article’s publication, the FBI had not provided any comments in response to requests.
The public narrative follows reports of senior intelligence officials allegedly facing threats of promotions being withheld for refusing to endorse the ICA.
