Former Director for 2016 Russiagate Gets Slammed by CIA

The Central Intelligence Agency has released a declassified internal review of its 2016 election intelligence assessment, and the findings are significant. Director John Ratcliffe has made public an eight-page document that raises serious questions about the agency’s practices during that crucial period.

The review criticizes former CIA Director John Brennan for insisting on the use of the controversial Steele Dossier, despite objections from senior analysts. The document suggests that agency heads created a “politically charged environment” that deviated from standard analytical procedures.

The review points to several procedural anomalies in the preparation of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment, including a compressed timeline and what it calls “excessive involvement of agency heads.” Of particular note is the assertion that the FBI, under then-Director James Comey, pushed for the inclusion of the Steele Dossier, a move that the review claims “undermined the credibility of a key judgment.”

The assessment in question dealt with allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, specifically examining whether Russia sought to aid Donald Trump’s campaign. The review suggests that the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin “aspired” to help Trump was not fully supported by the available intelligence.

This development follows earlier reports of tension between intelligence agencies during the transition period following the 2016 election. The review alleges that leaks to major newspapers occurred before the assessment was completed, potentially creating what it terms an “anchoring bias” in the final analysis.

Supporters of the original assessment may argue that the conclusions were based on the best available information at the time. Critics, including Director Ratcliffe, contend that established processes were bypassed, potentially compromising the objectivity of the intelligence community.

The review emphasizes the importance of adhering to rigorous analytical standards, especially when dealing with politically sensitive topics. It serves as a reminder of the critical role that unbiased intelligence plays in our democratic processes.