Obama-era intelligence agency directors insisted on including the now-discredited Steele Dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russia’s influence over the 2016 election despite their analysts’ warnings, according to a June review of the ICA from the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Directorate of Analysis (DA).
Then CIA-head John Brennan was integral in shoehorning the now-discredited Steele Dossier into the ICA, according to the review.
“The decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment,” the review stated.
The Steele Dossier, which accused the 2016 Trump campaign of conspiring with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, relied heavily on open sources like news articles rather than deep intel. Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele compiled it on behalf of Fusion GPS, an intelligence and research company, which was indirectly hired by the Hilary Clinton campaign through the law firm Perkins Coie.
Authors of the ICA and multiple high level CIA personnel “strongly opposed” the inclusion of the Steele Dossier, claiming it didn’t meet basic tradecraft standards, according to the review. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Dossier Author Christopher Steele Had Previously Undisclosed Meetings With Lawyers For DNC, Clinton Campaign)
“CIA’s Deputy Director for Analysis (DDA) warned in an email to Brennan on 29 December that including it in any form ‘risked the entire credibility of the paper,’” according to the review.
“Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness,” the review stated.
When two high level operatives tried to warn Brennan of the unsound nature of the dossier “he appeared more swayed by the Dossier’s general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns,” the review stated.
Other highly unusual elements in the ICA included a truncated timeline and a siloed approach to information sharing, according to the review.
“The DA Review identified multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA. These included a highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentation, and excessive involvement of agency heads, all of which led to departures from standard practices in the drafting, coordination, and reviewing of the ICA,” the review said.
The 2017 ICA concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought “to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability” and had a “clear preference for President-elect Trump.”
The review of the ICA was commissioned by current CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who claimed that it painted a clear picture that Obama-appointed intel heads were trying to damage President Trump.
“This was [President Barack] Obama, [FBI Director James] Comey, [Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper and Brennan deciding ‘We’re going to screw Trump,’” Ratcliffe told the New York Post. “It was, ‘We’re going to create this and put the imprimatur of an IC assessment in a way that nobody can question it.’”
While the Ratcliffe review was highly critical of the past agency leaders, some argued it didn’t go far enough.
“The CIA’s self-review of its 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Election Interference falls FAR SHORT of the full truth. It is abysmal CIA would put out a memo with half-truths, inaccuracies, and blatant omissions about the full extent of the Russia hoax and the deep state’s role,” Republican Arkansas Rep. Rick Crawford tweeted Thursday.
Crawford, who chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, also claimed the CIA has been holding his committee’s report on the ICA “hostage” for seven years.
