Two Obama-era intelligence giants are scrambling to protect themselves with a fresh op-ed in The New York Times.
John Brennan, former CIA Director, and James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, are pushing back against recent revelations that cast serious doubt on their 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
The Daily Caller reported that Brennan and Clapper are trying to salvage the credibility of a report that claimed Russia interfered in the 2016 election with a preference for Donald Trump, while new declassified documents and allegations suggest the process behind that conclusion was anything but pristine.
Let’s rewind to 2016, when initial assessments were drafted to probe potential Russian interference in the presidential race.
Those early findings pointed to hacks on the Democratic National Convention and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, painting a picture of foreign meddling in political operations.
But curiously, a briefing on these findings meant for President-elect Trump was yanked at the last minute, according to declassified files from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
On Dec. 9, 2016, a meeting between President Obama and cabinet officials sparked an email titled “POTUS Tasking on Russia Election Meddling,” per ODNI records.
Disturbingly, the same day allegedly saw Deep State players leaking questionable intelligence to the Washington Post, raising eyebrows about the motives behind the narrative being spun. It’s hard not to wonder if the public was being prepped for a specific story before the facts were fully vetted.
Fast forward to early 2017, when the final Intelligence Community Assessment was presented to President Obama. This report boldly stated Russia interfered in the election and that Vladimir Putin had a clear preference for Trump, aiming to boost his chances. Yet, it stopped short of claiming votes were altered or that any direct collusion occurred with the Trump campaign.
Brennan and Clapper insist in their op-ed, “Russian influence operations might have shaped views... before voting,” but admit no evidence shows actual votes were changed.
That’s a mighty thin line to walk—suggesting influence without proof of impact feels like a political jab dressed up as analysis. One has to question if this was more about perception than hard evidence.
Then there’s the infamous Steele dossier, a collection of unverified claims about Trump campaign ties to Russia, which became a lightning rod during the ICA’s drafting.
Despite fierce opposition from senior officials who called it “extremely sketchy,” per a CIA review, Brennan reportedly pushed for its inclusion, while the FBI demanded a summary be annexed to the most classified version of the report. Brennan and Clapper now concede it’s “largely discredited,” but back then, it was still tucked into the ICA’s annex.
“Not used as a source... for conclusions,” they claim in their op-ed about the dossier. If it was so irrelevant, why the fight to include it at all? This smells like a desperate attempt to bolster a narrative, even with flimsy material.
Adding fuel to the fire, recent declassified information from DNI Tulsi Gabbard reveals a 2020 congressional probe finding that the ICA’s conclusions about Putin’s preferences didn’t meet standard analytical rigor.
“Did not adhere to... analytical standards,” the probe bluntly stated. That’s not just a procedural oops—it’s a glaring crack in the foundation of a report meant to shape national discourse.
Even more troubling are fresh allegations from a Thursday report about coercion within the intelligence ranks. A whistleblower claims a senior official under Clapper’s watch threatened an analyst with a stalled promotion for refusing to sign off on the ICA. If true, this isn’t just pressure—it’s a betrayal of the integrity we expect from those guarding our nation’s secrets.
An April 2020 Senate report countered that analysts faced “no politically motivated pressure” to reach specific conclusions. That’s a nice soundbite, but when whispers of threats and withheld promotions emerge, it’s tough to take such assurances at face value. The contradiction begs for deeper scrutiny.
Brennan and Clapper’s op-ed also clarifies that their report made “no mention of ‘collusion’” between Trump’s team and Russia, focusing solely on Moscow’s actions.
Fair enough, but sidestepping that loaded term doesn’t erase the impression their assessment fueled years of speculation and investigations—like Robert Mueller’s 2019 probe, which ultimately found no evidence of such coordination.
Let’s not forget the ICA’s limits: it concluded foreign adversaries could not launch widespread, undetected cyberattacks on election infrastructure. That’s a reassuring note buried under layers of more sensational claims about influence operations. Why wasn’t this balance highlighted more at the time?
Recent documents and allegations from Thursday continue to raise doubts about the intentions behind the ICA’s drafting—doubts Brennan and Clapper’s op-ed conveniently skirts.
While they’re quick to defend their work, the specter of political agendas and internal arm-twisting lingers like a bad aftertaste. It’s a reminder that even intelligence assessments, supposedly above partisan games, can get mired in the swamp of Washington politics.