A report from The Washington Post discusses comments made by National Intelligence Director Tarsi Gabbard, who alleges that Russia aimed to help elect President Donald Trump. This claim comes amidst concerns raised by the CIA and other agencies regarding the potential exposure of sensitive “sources and methods.” Some unnamed individuals close to the situation indicated their awareness, and two former CIA officials have reiterated their 2017 assessment that Russia supported Trump.
The CIA has not responded promptly to requests for comments on the matter.
Gabbard criticized former President Barack Obama and intelligence heads like John Brennan and James Clapper, suggesting they conspired against the wishes of American voters during the 2016 election.
A comprehensive September 2020 report, based on extensive surveys and interviews at CIA Headquarters, revealed complexities in how intelligence reports were handled. The report indicates that higher-ups in the CIA previously restricted its distribution until recent developments. This included interventions from CIA directors John Ratcliffe and Trump.
The House of Representatives’ Intelligence Committee has detailed that some intelligence reports have been manipulated or even fabricated to present a narrative that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton. The report critiqued the so-called “high confidence” conclusion that Putin sought to influence the election, pointing out that it stemmed from ambiguous interpretations of limited data.
However, the Congressional report highlighted that former CIA chief Brennan personally influenced the creation of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, attempting to steer conclusions to fit specific narratives.
Shortly before the Congressional investigation was made public, the CIA undertook a unique self-evaluation, although it was found to be affected by various procedural irregularities associated with Brennan’s tenure. The assessment did assert that the Intelligence Community Assessment possessed a level of analytical rigor beyond typical standards.
HPSCI Chair Rick Crawford described the released findings as a “whitewash,” urging Ratcliffe to take action to safeguard sensitive information involved.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into allegations of a criminal conspiracy involving Obama’s officials, part of the actions taken by a designated task force.
Senator Mark R. Warner, a notable Democratic figure on the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized the disclosures as reckless, suggesting that they jeopardize key intelligence methods used to monitor Russia.
In the midst of these developments, a whistleblower claimed to have faced pressure from superiors regarding the integrity of the intelligence reports, while expressing that the evidence lacked robustness.
Concerns linger about how these revelations may affect officials within the CIA and other related agencies. Gabbard noted that while key figures in the Russiagate situation have left, the culture fostered by Brennan and Clapper persists.
She pointed out that both Brennan and Clapper have mentored others who occupy significant roles within the intelligence community, suggesting a pattern of their approach endures.
Experts have indicated that Brennan’s influence remains through a network of analysts cultivated over the years, with at least two individuals from the 2017 assessment still active in the CIA.
The newspaper itself is under scrutiny following the declassification of previous reports. It shared a Pulitzer Prize for a significant investigation into the connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, which lies at the core of ongoing litigation brought forth by Trump against the award committee.
