N※N

Fox News Politics Newsletter: Brennan pushed reports Putin preferred Trump in 2016

Fox News Politics Newsletter: Brennan Pushed Reports That Putin Preferred Trump in 2016

In a revealing development shedding new light on the origins of the Russia investigation, newly declassified documents and testimonies indicate that former CIA Director John Brennan played a pivotal role in promoting intelligence reports suggesting Russian President Vladimir Putin favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election. This narrative, which became a cornerstone of the U.S. intelligence community's assessment on Russian interference, is now under scrutiny amid allegations that it may have been influenced by partisan motivations or incomplete information. The revelations come from a combination of declassified notes, congressional testimonies, and statements from key figures involved in the events of that tumultuous election year.

The story begins in the summer of 2016, a period marked by escalating tensions over alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. electoral process. According to declassified handwritten notes from Brennan himself, obtained through efforts by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, Brennan briefed then-President Barack Obama and other top officials on July 28, 2016. These notes detail Russian intelligence allegedly indicating that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan on July 26 to vilify Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services. The purported goal was to distract public attention from Clinton's own email controversies, which had been a persistent thorn in her campaign's side.

Brennan's notes describe this as a proposal from one of Clinton's foreign policy advisers to tie Trump to Putin and the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). This intelligence, reportedly gathered from Russian sources, suggested that Clinton was personally involved in approving this strategy. However, the declassification has sparked debate over its accuracy and context. Critics argue that this Russian-sourced information could itself be disinformation, designed to sow discord within the U.S. political system. Nonetheless, it raises questions about why this potentially exculpatory information regarding Trump was not more prominently featured in subsequent intelligence assessments.

Fast forward to January 2017, when the U.S. intelligence community released its unclassified assessment titled "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections." This report, jointly produced by the CIA, FBI, and NSA, concluded that Putin and the Russian government "developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump" and sought to help his election chances while denigrating Clinton. The assessment cited Russia's use of cyberattacks, leaks through WikiLeaks, and propaganda efforts as evidence of this preference. Brennan, as CIA director, was instrumental in shaping this document, pushing for the inclusion of the narrative that Putin wanted Trump to win.

However, recent testimonies and declassifications suggest that Brennan may have selectively emphasized certain intelligence while downplaying contradictory reports. For instance, during a closed-door briefing with congressional leaders in September 2016, Brennan reportedly shared details about Russian efforts to boost Trump, but omitted the Russian intelligence about Clinton's alleged plan. This omission has fueled accusations from Trump allies that the intelligence community, under Brennan's influence, was biased against the Republican candidate.

Adding layers to this controversy is the role of the infamous Steele dossier, a collection of opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged deep ties between Trump and Russia, including salacious claims of kompromat. While the FBI used parts of the dossier to obtain surveillance warrants on Trump campaign associate Carter Page, subsequent investigations, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Inspector General Michael Horowitz, found significant flaws in its credibility and the FBI's handling of it. Brennan has maintained that the CIA did not rely heavily on the Steele dossier for its assessments, but critics point to overlaps in the narratives pushed by both.

In a 2020 interview with the House Intelligence Committee, as part of the investigation into the Russia probe's origins, Brennan defended his actions, stating that the intelligence on Russian preferences was based on multiple sources and analytic judgments. He emphasized that the CIA's role was to provide objective analysis, not to influence domestic politics. However, former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, who served under Trump, has accused Brennan of politicizing intelligence, claiming that the 2017 assessment was "cherry-picked" to fit a predetermined narrative.

The timing of these declassifications is noteworthy, coming amid ongoing partisan battles over the integrity of the 2016 election and its aftermath. Ratcliffe, appointed by Trump, released the Brennan notes in October 2020, just weeks before the presidential election, prompting Democrats to label it as an election-year stunt. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a Republican, has used these documents to argue for further investigations into what he calls the "corrupt" origins of the Russia probe, including the Crossfire Hurricane investigation launched by the FBI.

Broader implications extend to the Mueller investigation, which ultimately found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, though it detailed numerous contacts and instances of obstruction efforts. The Durham probe, led by U.S. Attorney John Durham and tasked with examining the Russia investigation's beginnings, has reportedly scrutinized Brennan's role. In fact, Durham's team interviewed Brennan for eight hours in August 2020, after which Brennan stated he was not a target of the investigation.

This saga also intersects with other figures from the Obama administration. Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by Trump in 2017, has faced criticism for the FBI's reliance on questionable sources. Comey's memos and testimonies reveal internal debates about the veracity of the intelligence on Russian preferences. Meanwhile, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice's "by the book" email, written on Inauguration Day 2017, has been interpreted by some as an attempt to document that the Obama team handled the Russia matters appropriately.

Public reaction to these revelations has been polarized. Trump supporters view them as vindication, proof that the Russia narrative was a hoax perpetrated by the "deep state" to undermine his presidency. On social media platforms, hashtags like #ObamaGate have trended, amplifying calls for accountability. Conversely, Democrats and intelligence veterans argue that the declassifications are selective and misleading, ignoring the broader context of confirmed Russian interference, including the hacking of DNC emails and social media manipulation campaigns.

Experts in intelligence analysis have weighed in, noting the challenges of assessing foreign leaders' preferences based on espionage. "Intelligence is often probabilistic, not definitive," said one former CIA analyst who spoke anonymously. "Brennan's push for the 'Putin prefers Trump' conclusion might have been driven by genuine analytic consensus, but the omission of countervailing intel raises red flags."

As the 2024 election cycle heats up, these historical controversies continue to reverberate. President Joe Biden, who served as Obama's vice president during these events, has largely avoided direct commentary, focusing instead on current threats from Russia, such as its invasion of Ukraine. Yet, with Trump hinting at another run, the specter of 2016 looms large, reminding voters of the deep divisions over election integrity and foreign influence.

In summary, the declassified materials paint a picture of a high-stakes intelligence environment where Brennan aggressively advanced reports of Putin's pro-Trump leanings, even as other intelligence suggested alternative motives involving Clinton. Whether this was a case of biased analysis or sound judgment remains a matter of fierce debate, but it underscores the fragility of trust in America's intelligence institutions. As more documents potentially emerge from ongoing probes, the full story of 2016's intelligence battles may yet unfold, offering lessons for safeguarding future elections from both foreign meddling and domestic politicization.

This newsletter also touches on related political developments, including updates from Capitol Hill. For instance, House Republicans are pushing for reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), citing abuses in the Carter Page warrant process. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are advocating for stronger cybersecurity measures to counter Russian threats. In the White House, Biden's team is navigating diplomatic tensions with Moscow, balancing support for Ukraine with efforts to prevent escalation.

On the campaign trail, potential 2024 contenders are invoking these issues. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has criticized the "weaponization" of federal agencies, echoing Trump's rhetoric. Vice President Kamala Harris, positioning herself for a possible presidential bid, has emphasized the need for bipartisan election security.

Finally, a lighter note: Amid these serious matters, Washington insiders are buzzing about the latest congressional softball game, where Democrats edged out Republicans in a nail-biter, proving that bipartisanship can still thrive on the diamond if not always in the chambers.

(Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full Fox News Article at:
[ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-politics-newsletter-brennan-pushed-reports-putin-preferred-trump-2016 ]