CIA Finds That Trump-Russia Collusion Investigation Was Corrupt

Original article here

A CIA review of the US intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election found that the process suffered from procedural problems, an unusually compressed timeline and extensive involvement by senior intelligence officials.

The “Tradecraft Review of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Election Interference” was conducted by career professionals within the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis and commissioned by CIA Director John Ratcliffe in May 2025.

The review examined the production of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, or ICA, ordered by then-President Barack Obama in December 2016.

That assessment concluded, among other findings, that Russian President Vladimir Putin “aspired” to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election.

The CIA review identified “multiple procedural anomalies” in the preparation of the assessment, including a highly compressed timeline, strict compartmentation and what it described as excessive involvement by agency leaders.

The review found that then-CIA Director John Brennan directed the compilation of the assessment and that Brennan, then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were unusually involved in its development.

Their direct engagement was “highly unusual in both scope and intensity” and risked suppressing analytical debate, according to the review.

Brennan also selected the CIA analysts involved in compiling the assessment, while participation was limited to the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, excluding other intelligence agencies.

The review found that the assessment’s production timeline was considerably shorter than what would ordinarily be expected for an intelligence product dealing with a politically sensitive and complicated issue.

CIA authors had less than one week to prepare the assessment and less than two days to formally coordinate their work with intelligence community counterparts before the document entered the CIA’s formal review process.

Multiple intelligence officials told reviewers that they felt “jammed” by the schedule, according to the report.

Many received their first opportunity to examine the draft and underlying intelligence immediately before or during the only in-person coordination meeting, which was held Dec. 19, 2016.

The review also raised concerns about the direct involvement of Brennan, Comey and Clapper.

It concluded that their participation “likely influenced participants, altered normal review processes, and ultimately compromised analytic rigor.”

One CIA analytic manager said other managers who would ordinarily have participated in the review process declined to do so because of the politically charged environment and unusually prominent involvement of agency leadership, per the New York Post.

The review separately criticized the handling of the Steele dossier, an opposition-research document containing allegations about Trump and Russia.

According to the review, the ICA’s authors and multiple senior CIA managers opposed including the dossier, arguing that it failed to meet basic intelligence tradecraft standards.

Two senior officials from the CIA mission center responsible for Russia were among those who objected.

The CIA’s deputy director for analysis warned Brennan in a Dec. 29 email that including the material could risk “the credibility of the entire paper.”

Brennan nevertheless maintained that the information warranted inclusion.

The review concluded that Brennan demonstrated “a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness” when confronted with concerns about the dossier.

It also found that FBI leadership pushed for the dossier to be incorporated and made its participation in the assessment dependent on its inclusion.

The intelligence chiefs ultimately included a two-page summary of the dossier as an annex to the assessment, accompanied by a disclaimer that it was not used to reach the ICA’s analytical conclusions.

However, the CIA review found that referencing the annex in the main assessment as supporting material for the conclusion that Putin “aspired” to help Trump elevated unsubstantiated allegations and compromised the analytical integrity of that judgment.

The review also criticized the decision to marginalize the National Intelligence Council, which ordinarily plays an important role in coordinating formal intelligence assessments.

The NIC did not receive the final draft until hours before the assessment was scheduled for publication.

The review found that the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research were also excluded from the process, describing their exclusion as a significant departure from normal intelligence community practices.

The CIA review ultimately concluded that the unusual process affected the rigor of portions of the assessment.

“With analysts operating under severe time constraints, limited information sharing, and heightened senior-level scrutiny, several aspects of tradecraft rigor were compromised — particularly in supporting the judgment that Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win,” the review stated.

Two senior CIA officials responsible for Russia had argued against including that judgment, saying it was weakly supported and unnecessary given the assessment’s stronger findings concerning Russia’s broader intentions.

They warned Brennan that including it would “open up a line of very politicized inquiry.”

Ratcliffe argued that the findings showed the assessment process had become politicized and accused Brennan, Comey and Clapper of manipulating the process to damage Trump.

The CIA review itself focused on tradecraft and procedural shortcomings, finding that departures from normal intelligence practices compromised analytical rigor surrounding key portions of the 2017 assessment.