N※N

Brennan directed publication of ''implausible'' reports claiming Putin preferred Trump in 2016, House found

House Report Accuses Former CIA Director Brennan of Pushing Dubious Claim on Russian Preference for Trump in 2016 Election

In a scathing new report released by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, former CIA Director John Brennan has been accused of personally directing the inclusion of what investigators describe as "implausible" intelligence assessments claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The findings, part of a broader examination into the origins and handling of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference, paint a picture of alleged bias and manipulation within the highest echelons of the U.S. intelligence apparatus. The report suggests that Brennan's actions may have contributed to a politicized narrative that fueled years of controversy, investigations, and public distrust in American institutions.

The ICA, published in January 2017 just days before Trump's inauguration, was a pivotal document that concluded Russia had interfered in the election to help Trump win. Central to its findings was the assertion that Putin and the Russian government "developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." However, according to the House committee's investigation, this key judgment was not the product of unanimous agreement among intelligence analysts but rather the result of top-down pressure from Brennan. The report details how Brennan, appointed by President Barack Obama, allegedly overrode concerns from career analysts who viewed the evidence as thin or contradictory, insisting on the publication of a narrative that aligned with broader Democratic criticisms of Trump's Russia ties.

Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, emphasized in the report's release that the investigation uncovered "troubling evidence of politicization" in the intelligence process. "The American people deserve to know when their intelligence agencies are being used to push partisan agendas," Turner stated. The probe, which involved reviewing thousands of pages of classified documents, interviewing former officials, and analyzing internal communications, concludes that Brennan's involvement went beyond standard oversight, veering into directive interference. Specifically, the report alleges that Brennan convened meetings where he explicitly pushed for the inclusion of the Putin-preference claim, even as some CIA analysts rated their confidence in it as low or moderate.

To understand the gravity of these accusations, it's essential to revisit the context of the 2016 election and its aftermath. The U.S. intelligence community had been monitoring Russian activities, including hacking into Democratic National Committee emails and disseminating disinformation through outlets like WikiLeaks. The ICA was intended to provide a comprehensive, declassified overview of these efforts, attributing them to a Kremlin-directed campaign. However, the report's most controversial element was not the interference itself—which was widely accepted—but the motivation behind it. Why would Putin, known for his animosity toward Clinton due to her hawkish stance on Russia during her time as Secretary of State, supposedly prefer Trump, a political novice with no prior foreign policy experience?

The House investigation delves into the evidentiary basis for this claim, finding it lacking. Analysts reportedly relied on a mix of human intelligence sources, signals intelligence, and open-source reporting, but much of it was deemed circumstantial or unreliable. For instance, some sources suggested that Russian officials expressed private glee at Trump's primary victories, interpreting his "America First" rhetoric as potentially isolationist and less confrontational toward Moscow. Yet, other intelligence indicated the opposite: that Russia might have viewed Trump as unpredictable and thus a riskier bet compared to the more predictable Clinton. The report highlights internal CIA memos where analysts expressed skepticism, with one noting that the preference judgment "stretches the available intelligence beyond plausibility."

Brennan's role, as outlined in the report, appears to have been pivotal in resolving these debates in favor of the pro-Trump preference narrative. Witnesses interviewed by the committee described Brennan as "hands-on" in the ICA's drafting process, unusual for a director-level official. He allegedly instructed the team to emphasize Russia's alleged favoritism toward Trump, framing it as a high-confidence assessment despite dissenting views. This directive, the report argues, was influenced by the political climate of late 2016, with the Obama administration eager to underscore the threat of Russian meddling amid Trump's unexpected victory and his campaign's public overtures to Moscow.

The implications of these findings extend far beyond Brennan himself, touching on the integrity of the entire intelligence community. The ICA's conclusions helped lay the groundwork for subsequent investigations, including the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane probe into Trump campaign-Russia links and Special Counsel Robert Mueller's exhaustive inquiry. Mueller's report, released in 2019, ultimately found insufficient evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia but confirmed the interference efforts. Critics of the House report, including some Democrats on the committee, have dismissed it as a partisan effort to rewrite history and exonerate Trump retroactively. Ranking Member Jim Himes, D-Conn., argued in a dissenting statement that the investigation ignores the consensus among intelligence professionals and risks undermining faith in U.S. agencies at a time when foreign threats are escalating.

Brennan, who has been a vocal critic of Trump since leaving office, has not yet responded directly to the report's allegations. In past statements, he has defended the ICA as a necessary response to clear Russian aggression, accusing Trump of being soft on Putin. However, the House findings align with previous criticisms from Trump allies, who have long claimed the Russia narrative was a "hoax" manufactured to delegitimize his presidency. Figures like former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe have echoed these sentiments, pointing to declassified documents that suggest the preference claim was overstated.

The report also scrutinizes the broader process of declassifying and releasing the ICA. It notes that Brennan pushed for a public version to be expedited, potentially to influence public opinion ahead of Trump's swearing-in. This haste, investigators argue, led to the inclusion of unvetted or weakly supported assertions. One particularly damning section details how alternative viewpoints—such as the possibility that Russia aimed to sow chaos regardless of the winner—were downplayed or omitted to strengthen the anti-Trump angle.

Beyond the specifics of 2016, the House report raises broader questions about accountability in intelligence work. It recommends reforms, including greater congressional oversight of assessment processes and protections for analysts to voice dissent without fear of reprisal. "When directors like Brennan insert themselves into analytical judgments, it erodes the objectivity that is the cornerstone of our intelligence community," the report states. This echoes concerns from intelligence veterans who worry that politicization could deter talented professionals from the field.

As the 2024 election cycle heats up, with Russia again accused of interference attempts, the timing of this report is noteworthy. It serves as a reminder of how intelligence assessments can become weapons in partisan battles, potentially eroding public trust. For Trump supporters, it validates long-held suspicions of a "deep state" conspiracy. For others, it's a selective retelling that ignores the very real threats posed by foreign actors.

In sum, the House investigation portrays Brennan's leadership during the ICA's creation as a case study in overreach, where personal or political biases allegedly trumped empirical rigor. Whether this leads to further inquiries or policy changes remains to be seen, but it undeniably adds another layer to the ongoing saga of the 2016 election's shadowy undercurrents. As America grapples with evolving geopolitical challenges, ensuring the apolitical nature of its intelligence apparatus has never been more critical. The report, while divisive, underscores the delicate balance between national security and democratic accountability, urging a reevaluation of how such vital assessments are crafted and disseminated. (Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full Fox News Article at:
[ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/brennan-directed-publication-implausible-reports-claiming-putin-preferred-trump-2016-house-found ]