Deep State vs. Trump!

Leave a CommentDeep State vs. Trump!Commentary, Corruption, Government, Politics

Unveiling the CIA’s Internal Review of the 2016 Russia Collusion Narrative: Findings and Implications

The internal CIA review of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, finalized in June 2025, has reignited debate over the so-called “Russia collusion hoax.” Ordered by then-CIA Director John Ratcliffe in 2023, the investigation scrutinized the process behind the ICA’s claim that Russia, under Vladimir Putin’s direction, sought to help Donald Trump win the 2016 election. The review’s findings, detailed in a declassified summary released on July 1, 2025, cast significant doubt on the ICA’s credibility, pointing to procedural irregularities and the controversial inclusion of the Steele dossier. This article examines the review’s conclusions, the roles of high-level officials, including former President Barack Obama, and the broader implications for public trust in intelligence agencies.

The CIA’s Findings: A Flawed Assessment

The CIA’s after-action review, spanning over 200 pages, concluded that the 2017 ICA was marred by a “chaotic and atypical process” driven by excessive involvement from senior officials, including then-CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The report found that the ICA’s assertion—that Russia aimed to boost Trump’s campaign while undermining Hillary Clinton—was rushed and lacked rigorous vetting. Specifically, the review highlighted the inclusion of the Steele dossier, a collection of unverified reports alleging ties between Trump and Russia, as a critical misstep. Over the objections of the CIA’s top Russia analysts, Brennan insisted on referencing the dossier in the ICA’s main body and attaching a summary as an annex, despite its uncorroborated nature. This decision, the review noted, “undermined the credibility” of the assessment.

The investigation revealed that the ICA’s drafting process deviated from standard protocols. Typically, intelligence assessments involve broad input from career analysts and undergo multiple rounds of review. In this case, the process was compressed, with Brennan, Comey, and Clapper personally shaping the narrative. The review documented that several career CIA officers, including senior Russia experts, were sidelined or pressured to align with the leadership’s conclusions. One analyst, quoted anonymously in the report, described the process as “unprecedented” and said they were instructed to prioritize speed over accuracy. The review also noted discrepancies in confidence levels among agencies: the CIA and FBI expressed “high confidence” in Russia’s pro-Trump intent, while the NSA held only “moderate confidence,” a split that was downplayed in the final report.

The Steele Dossier’s Role

Central to the review’s critique was the Steele dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The dossier, which alleged compromising ties between Trump and Russia, was first shared with the FBI in July 2016 and later briefed to senior officials, including Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, on January 5, 2017. The CIA review found that its inclusion in the ICA, despite warnings from analysts about its unreliability, was driven by Brennan’s insistence. Declassified notes from Brennan, dated July 2016, indicate he briefed Obama and Biden on intelligence suggesting Clinton’s campaign approved a plan to “stir up a scandal” tying Trump to Russia. The review suggests this intelligence, though unverified, was ignored in favor of the dossier’s narrative, raising questions about political bias.

Involvement of High-Level Officials

The review implicates several senior officials in the mishandling of the ICA:

  • John Brennan: As CIA Director, Brennan played a pivotal role in shaping the ICA. The review criticizes his decision to override objections from Russia experts and include the Steele dossier. Brennan’s handwritten notes, declassified in 2020, show he briefed Obama and Biden on July 28, 2016, about alleged Clinton campaign efforts to link Trump to Russia, yet this information was not pursued or disclosed publicly at the time.
  • James Comey: The FBI Director’s involvement in the ICA process was marked by his failure to critically evaluate the dossier’s claims. The review notes that Comey’s FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump-Russia ties in July 2016 based on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated” intelligence, such as comments from Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos. Comey also briefed Obama and congressional leaders on the dossier in early 2017, despite its unverified status.
  • James Clapper: As Director of National Intelligence, Clapper oversaw the ICA’s finalization. The review faults him for not ensuring a balanced representation of agency views and for endorsing the dossier’s inclusion despite its questionable sourcing. Clapper later stated in 2017 that the ICA did not find evidence of collusion at the time, a nuance absent from public messaging.
  • Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The review confirms that Obama and Biden were briefed on the Russia investigation and the Steele dossier in January 2017, alongside President-elect Trump. Brennan’s July 2016 briefing to Obama and Biden included unverified intelligence about Clinton’s campaign strategy, but the review found no evidence that either Obama or Biden directly ordered the ICA’s conclusions or suppressed exculpatory information. However, their awareness of the investigation and failure to demand further scrutiny of the dossier’s use have fueled criticism. The review notes that Obama’s Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, attended a July 2016 Situation Room meeting discussing the Russia probe, but his role was described as peripheral.

Broader Context and Investigations

The CIA’s findings align with the 2023 Durham report, which criticized the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation, particularly its reliance on the Steele dossier and failure to pursue exculpatory evidence. The Durham report, released on May 15, 2023, found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Obama or Biden but highlighted a “dual system of justice” in the FBI’s treatment of Trump versus Clinton. It noted that the FBI quashed investigations into Clinton’s potential violations, such as mishandling classified emails, while aggressively pursuing Trump’s associates.The Mueller investigation (2017–2019) concluded that Russia’s interference was “sweeping and systematic” and indicted 34 individuals, including Russian operatives, but found no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2020 report acknowledged Russian interference but rejected claims that Russia favored Trump, with some Republican members distancing themselves from this conclusion. These investigations, combined with the CIA’s review, paint a picture of a politicized intelligence process that amplified unverified claims while sidelining dissenting voices.

Implications and Public Reaction

The CIA review, reported on July 1, 2025, by outlets like the New York Post, has intensified conservative criticism of the Obama administration and intelligence leadership. It has also renewed calls for accountability, with some Republican lawmakers demanding further declassification of documents related to the ICA. The review does not recommend criminal charges but urges reforms to prevent future politicization of intelligence assessments. Public sentiment, as reflected in recent polls, shows declining trust in intelligence agencies: a Rasmussen Reports survey from June 2025 found 62% of Americans believe the FBI and CIA acted with political bias in 2016.
For conservatives, the review validates long-standing claims that the Russia collusion narrative was a politically motivated effort to undermine Trump’s presidency. Critics argue that Obama, while not directly implicated in wrongdoing, bears responsibility for failing to curb his administration’s overreach. Democrats, however, contend that the review does not negate Russia’s documented interference, pointing to the Mueller report’s findings and the Senate’s bipartisan acknowledgment of Moscow’s actions.

Our Conclusion

The CIA’s internal review exposes significant flaws in the 2017 ICA, particularly the undue influence of Brennan, Comey, and Clapper and the reliance on the unverified Steele dossier. While Obama and Biden were briefed on the investigation, no evidence suggests they orchestrated a conspiracy against Trump. The findings underscore the need for transparency and rigor in intelligence processes to restore public confidence. As the 2026 midterms approach, the review’s revelations will likely fuel partisan debates, with Republicans leveraging it to critique Democratic overreach and Democrats emphasizing Russia’s undeniable role in 2016 election interference. The truth, as always, lies in navigating the complex interplay of evidence and accountability.
Guest Contributor

Self-Reliance Central publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of SRC. Reproduced with permission.