Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
EXCLUSIVE Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are now facing criminal investigations for alleged misconduct related to the Trump-Russia probe. The inquiries center on potential false statements made to Congress, as reported by sources within the Justice Department.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe recently referred evidence concerning Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel, prompting FBI scrutiny and the initiation of a formal investigation. However, DOJ sources remained tight-lipped about the details, leaving it uncertain whether the investigation could extend beyond his disputed statements to Congress.
Regarding Comey, while an investigation is underway, specific details about the allegations against him have yet to be disclosed to the public.
The overall scope of these investigations remains ambiguous. Yet, two sources described the FBI’s perspective on Brennan and Comey’s interactions as a “conspiracy,” which may broaden the range of prosecutorial possibilities.
The FBI and CIA have opted not to comment on the unfolding investigations.
Neither Brennan nor Comey has provided immediate responses to inquiries from news agencies seeking their comments or statements regarding these allegations.
The investigation surrounding Brennan emerged after Ratcliffe declassified a review assessing the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which accused Russia of attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. Findings from this review indicated that the process of creating the assessment was significantly rushed and marked by “procedural anomalies,” revealing a severe deviation from established intelligence standards.
Moreover, the review judged that including the Steele Dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment ran counter to crucial tradecraft principles, undermining the authority of a fundamental conclusion in that report.
The Steele Dossier, composed of unfounded and often inaccurate claims, was financed by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. Its credibility has since been widely questioned. This marks a significant acknowledgment by career CIA officials of the political influence that shaped the assessment’s composition, particularly by individuals appointed during the Obama administration.
Additional records released during this review also proved that Brennan actively advocated for the dossier’s inclusion in the 2017 assessment.
In May 2023, Brennan testified before the House Judiciary Committee, asserting that he did not support the dossier’s inclusion in that intelligence product despite previous indications to the contrary.
The review further noted that Brennan appeared to prioritize narrative consistency over analytical integrity when confronted with valid critiques regarding the dossier’s reliability.
The emerging scrutiny stems from a newly declassified email received by Brennan from a former deputy CIA director in December 2016, which warned that incorporating the dossier into the assessment would jeopardize the entirety of the report’s credibility.
While the statistical weight of both investigations remains close to the public’s eye, Brennan’s insistence on the dossier’s credibility has come under increasing fire in light of substantial evidence to the opposite effect.
Ratcliffe, who has openly criticized Brennan’s actions, expressed that he felt pressured to refer aspects of Brennan’s involvement to the FBI for further examination. According to sources familiar with the investigations, Brennan’s actions have been characterized as violations of the public’s trust.
Within the newly released CIA review, officials detailed that not only did Brennan prioritize the dossier’s inclusion in the assessment, but his decision-making was influenced by maintaining consistency with pre-existing theories, which were challenged by seasoned agents within the organization.
Brennan’s testimonies contradict earlier claims. He testified that the CIA expressed strong opposition to the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment. Yet, the reviewed documents echoed a different sentiment, signaling an internal conflict within the CIA and FBI regarding the document’s credibility.
During the dossier’s creation, CIA officials raised objections against the FBI’s motives and highlighted concerns about its veracity by deeming the claims as mere “internet rumor.” Despite these warnings, the dossier was briefly noted in a footnote prepared for then-President Obama, at the insistence of senior FBI officials.
Furthermore, a footnote included in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment acknowledged Steele’s reporting was backed by “limited corroboration” regarding key allegations against Trump, further questioning the document’s integrity.
The assessment’s creation and the reliance on the Steele dossier for the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against former Trump advisor Carter Page were thoroughly criticized in subsequent reports reviewing the legitimacy of the entire process.
Despite critiques, the dossier and its allegations fueled a two-year investigation by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who ultimately found no evidence suggesting that the Trump campaign conspired with Russian operatives during the election.
Following Mueller’s investigation, John Durham was appointed to probe the origins of the investigation. Durham concluded that the FBI had neglected clear indications that the agency was the target of a Clinton-led scheme aimed at manipulating the political landscape during the election cycle.
The failures highlighted by Durham’s report point towards a need for accountability among those involved in the investigations.
The White House has expressed a desire for justice. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that those engaged in perceived political malfeasance against Trump must be made accountable for their actions.
As these investigations progress, the political implications could stretch far beyond the individuals under scrutiny, potentially altering the landscape of U.S. intelligence operations and their intersection with political agendas.
Expect ongoing developments as further details may arise in what is increasingly being viewed as a significant chapter in the history of American political intelligence.
