Two Colleagues Contradict Brennan’s Denial of Reliance on File


Former CIA Director John Brennan’s insistence that the salacious and unverified Steele file was not a part of the official Intelligence Group Evaluation on Russian interference within the 2016 election is being contradicted by two high former officers.

Lately retired Nationwide Safety Company Director Michael Rogers acknowledged in a categorized letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded memos did issue into the ICA. And James Clapper, Director of Nationwide Intelligence beneath President Obama, conceded in a latest CNN interview that the evaluation was based mostly on “a number of the substantive content material of the file.” With out elaborating, he maintained that “we have been capable of corroborate” sure allegations.

These accounts are at odds with Brennan’s Could 2017 testimony earlier than the Home Intelligence Committee that the Steele file  was “not in any means used as the premise for the intelligence group’s evaluation” that Russia interfered within the election to assist elect Donald Trump. Brennan has repeated this declare quite a few instances, together with in February on “Meet the Press.”

In a March 5, 2018, letter to Home Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers knowledgeable the committee two-page abstract of the file — described as “the Christopher Steele info” — was “added” as an “appendix to the ICA draft,” and that consideration of that appendix was “a part of the general ICA evaluate/approval course of.”

His skepticism of the file could clarify why the NSA parted firm with different intelligence businesses and forged doubt on considered one of its essential conclusions: that Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyberattack on Hillary Clinton’s marketing campaign to assist Donald Trump win the White Home. 

Rogers has testified that whereas he was positive the Russians wished to harm Clinton, he wasn’t as assured as CIA and FBI officers that their actions have been designed to assist Trump, explaining that equivalent to evaluation “did not have the identical stage of sourcing and the identical stage of a number of sources.”

Right here and in picture at high, from left, the Nationwide Safety Company Director, Adm. Michael Rogers; FBI Director James Comey; Director of Nationwide Intelligence James Clapper; CIA Director John Brennan; and the Protection Intelligence Company Director, Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, testifying earlier than the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2016.

AP Picture/Alex Brandon

The file, which is made up of 16 opposition research-style memos on Trump underwritten by the Democratic Nationwide Committee and Clinton’s personal marketing campaign, is primarily based on uncorroborated third-hand sources. Nonetheless, the ICA has been considered by a lot of the Washington institution because the unimpeachable consensus of the U.S. intelligence group. Its conclusions that “Vladimir Putin ordered” the hacking and leaking of Clinton marketing campaign emails “to assist Trump’s possibilities of victory” have pushed the “Russia collusion” narrative and subsequent investigations besieging the Trump presidency.

Besides that the ICA didn’t replicate the consensus of the intelligence group. Clapper  broke with custom and determined to not put the evaluation out to all 17 U.S. intelligence businesses for evaluate. As an alternative, he restricted enter to a few dozen chosen analysts from simply three businesses — the CIA, NSA and FBI. Companies with related experience on Russia, such because the Division of Homeland Safety, Protection Intelligence Company and the State Division’s intelligence bureau, have been excluded from the method.

Whereas faulting Clapper for not following intelligence group tradecraft requirements that Clapper himself ordered in 2015, the Home Intelligence Committee’s 250-page report  additionally discovered that the ICA didn’t correctly describe the “high quality and credibility of underlying sources” and was not “unbiased of political concerns.”

In one other departure from customized, the report is lacking any dissenting views or an annex with evaluations of the conclusions from exterior reviewers. “Historically, controversial intelligence group assessments like this embrace dissenting views and the views of an out of doors evaluate group,” stated Fred Fleitz, who labored as a CIA analyst for 19 years and helped draft nationwide intelligence estimates at Langley. “It additionally ought to have been totally vetted with all related IC businesses,” he added. “Why have been DHS and DIA excluded?”

Fleitz means that the Obama administration restricted the variety of gamers concerned within the evaluation to skew the outcomes. He believes the method was “manipulated” to achieve a “predetermined political conclusion” that the incoming Republican president was compromised by the Russians.

“I’ve by no means considered the ICA as credible,” the CIA veteran added.

A supply near the Home investigation stated Brennan himself chosen the CIA and FBI analysts who labored on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.

“Strzok was the middleman between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of many authors of the ICA,” in accordance with the supply.

Final yr, Strzok was reassigned to a different division and faraway from Particular Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation after anti-Trump and pro-Clinton textual content messages he wrote to a different investigator through the 2016 marketing campaign have been found by the Justice Division’s inspector normal. Strzok stays beneath IG investigation, together with different senior FBI officers, for attainable misconduct.

Strzok led the FBI’s investigation of Trump marketing campaign ties to Russia throughout 2016, together with acquiring digital surveillance warrants on Carter Web page and different marketing campaign advisers. The Web page warrant relied closely on unverified allegations contained within the Democratic Occasion-funded file.

Brennan has sworn the file was not “in any means” used as a foundation for the ICA. He explains he heard snippets of the file from the press in the summertime of 2016, however insists he didn’t see it or learn it for himself till late 2016. “Brennan’s claims are not possible to imagine,” Fleitz asserted.

“Brennan was pushing the Trump collusion line in mid-2016 and claimed to begin the FBI collusion investigation in August 2016,” he stated. “It is not possible to imagine Brennan was pushing for this investigation with out having learn the file.”

He additionally identified that the important thing findings of the ICA match the central allegations within the file. The Home Intelligence Committee concluded that  Brennan, who beforehand labored within the White Home as Obama’s deputy nationwide safety adviser, created a “fusion cell” on Russian election interference made up of analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, who produced a collection of associated papers for the White Home through the 2016 marketing campaign.

Lower than a month after Trump received the election, Obama directed Brennan to conduct a evaluate of all intelligence regarding Russian involvement within the 2016 election and produce a single, complete evaluation. Obama was briefed on the findings, together with President-elect Trump, in early January.

“Brennan put a number of the file materials into the PDB [presidential daily briefing] for Obama and described it as coming from a ‘credible supply,’ which is how they considered Steele,” stated the supply acquainted with the Home investigation. “However they by no means corroborated his sources.”

Makes an attempt to achieve Brennan for remark have been unsuccessful. A number of outstanding Washington information retailers had entry to the file through the 2016 marketing campaign – or not less than parts of it — but additionally couldn’t verify Steele’s allegations. So that they shied away from overlaying them. All that modified in early January 2017, after CNN and The Washington Publish realized by Obama administration leaks that the CIA had briefed the president and president-elect about them. Then the allegations grew to become a media feeding frenzy. On Jan. 11, 2017, inside days of the file briefings and launch of the declassified ICA report, BuzzFeed printed nearly all the file memos on its web site.

The Home committee discovered “important leaks” of categorized info across the time of the ICA — and “many of those leaks have been seemingly from senior officers throughout the IC.” Its lately launched report factors to Clapper as the primary supply of leaks in regards to the presidential briefings involving the file. It additionally suggests that in his July 17, 2017, testimony behind closed doorways in government session, he misled Home investigators.

When first requested about leaks associated to the ICA in July 2017, Clapper flatly denied “focus on[ing] the file or every other intelligence associated to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists.” However he subsequently acknowledged discussing the “file with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,” and admitted he may need spoken with different journalists about the identical problem.

On Jan. 10, 2017, CNN printed an article by Tapper and others in regards to the file briefings sourced to “a number of U.S. officers with direct information of the briefings.” Tapper shared a byline with lead author Evan Perez, a detailed good friend of the founders of Fusion GPS, which employed Steele as a subcontractor on the file undertaking.

The following day, Clapper expressed his “profound dismay on the leaks which have been showing within the press,” whereas stressing that “I don’t imagine the leaks got here from throughout the IC.” A month after his deceptive testimony to Home investigators, Clapper joined CNN as a “nationwide safety analyst.”

Makes an attempt to achieve Clapper for remark have been unsuccessful.