Destroying Brennan And Clapper’s Desperate Op-Ed

Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,

In the face of recent revelations concerning intelligence abuses that took place at the end of the Obama Administration, former CIA Director James Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper took to The New York Times to defend themselves and their legacies.

The title is one for the ages: “Brennan and Clapper: Let’s Set the Record Straight on Russia and 2016.”

There’s a bit of audacity in that effort – those who twisted and manipulated the evidence to help manufacture the Trump/Russia hoax are now here to speak truth to power. And their piece deserves review.

First, their claim about the use of the Steele Dossier in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (which we addressed here and here), in which Brennan and Clapper state:

“We have testified under oath, and the reviews of the assessment have confirmed, that the dossier was not used as a source or taken into account for any of its analysis or conclusions.”

This is absolutely false. As DNI Gabbard’s recent release showed, the ICA’s conclusion that “We assess the [Russian] influence campaign aspired to help [Trump’s] chances of victory” was supported by four bullet points of “evidence.” One of those bullet points referred the reader to the Steele Dossier, stating “For additional reporting on Russian plans and intentions, please see Annex A: Additional Reporting from an FBI Source on Russian Influence Efforts.”

The Steele Dossier had been summarized in the ICA’s Annex and was classified, shielding it from public scrutiny and keeping the public (and some government officials) in the dark about that “FBI Source” who was reporting on Russia’s alleged influence operation. At the time, most anyone (save for the skeptics) reading the ICA would have concluded that there was legitimate and well-sourced information proving the ICA’s conclusion.

In reality, as we all know, it ended up being lies purchased by the Clinton Campaign. And by the time the ICA had been drafted, Director Brennan knew that Hillary Clinton had approved of a plan to link Trump to Russia. And even when confronted by CIA senior officers with the flaws of the Steele Dossier, Brennan shrugged them off, stating “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”

Second is their claim that “multiple, thorough, yearslong reviews of the assessment [ICA] have validated its findings and the rigor of its analysis.”

Of course, this ignores the obvious: that the memo released by DNI Gabbard damns both the ICA’s material findings (at least some of them) and the rigor of the ICA’s analysis. Citing to old “reviews” doesn’t change the most recent disclosures. But failing to address the substance of these July 2025 releases does indicate an effort by Brennan and Clapper to avoid a serious discussion of their own intelligence abuses.

After all, the Gabbard release establishes the following:

• In making its conclusion that there was a Russian plan to engage and assist Trump, the ICA relied “an email with no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification.”

• Reliable reporting indicated that Russia was concerned that Trump would take a hard line to Russia. Other intelligence suggested that Russia did not plan to target Democrats because they were easier to work with.

• Brennan overruled CIA officers who wanted to omit an “unclear fragment of a sentence” from the ICA because it was unreliable and subject to multiple interpretations. This “fragment” was used to conclude that Putin “aspired” to help Trump.

Third, Brennan and Clapper write:

“Despite claims by Trump administration officials of a nefarious political conspiracy, we did everything we could at the time to prevent leaks of intelligence reports, including Russia’s preference for Mr. Trump, a requirement that President Obama regularly emphasized.”

With respect to the nefarious political conspiracy and the leaks, the evidence is overwhelming and includes:

• The use of Clinton-funded opposition research to fuel the counter-intelligence investigation of the President-elect and his team.

• The use of Clinton-funded opposition research, and fraudulent and unreliable intelligence (see examples above), to support the conclusions of the ICA that harmed Trump.

• By December 2016 there were leaks to the press (most notably to The New York Times and the Washington Post) by senior Obama Administration officials concerning the intelligence community’s findings that Russia sought to harm Clinton’s campaign and help Trump. These leaks continued into January 2017.

• The fact that the Steele Dossier was bolstered by being presented as part of the ICA before its leak to the press.

And finally, Brennan and Clapper dispute the Trump Administration’s claim that that the Obama Administration “silenced intelligence professionals.”

Yet as we have learned in the last couple weeks, one ODNI official was pressured by top-level intelligence officials in late December 2016/early January 2017 to accept “that the Russian government had a preference for President Trump.”

When this ODNI official refused to accept that conclusion based on the evidence and questioned leadership “about why an IC assessment was being created that contradicted multiple IC assessments”, he was shut-out and “immediately removed from emails regarding the drafting of the Obama-ordered IC assessment.”

Brennan and Clapper can play semantics – “silenced” isn’t exactly “removed” and “sidelined” – but it’s close enough. Others, like the CIA officers who tried to persuade Brennan about the feeble intelligence and the failings of the Steele Dossier, were just ignored.

The sad reality is that not many in the intelligence community had to be silenced because they were willing to go along with leadership’s objective to damage Trump.