CIA report reveals alarming concerns about Obama-era Trump-Russia findings

Brace yourself for a bureaucratic bombshell that could shake the foundations of trust in our intelligence community.

A recent CIA review has exposed troubling decisions made by Obama-era intelligence leaders to push a questionable dossier into a critical 2017 report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, despite stark warnings from analysts about its lack of credibility, as the Daily Caller reports.

Let’s rewind to 2016 when the Steele dossier — crafted by a former British spy for a firm indirectly tied to the Clinton campaign — alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. This document, heavy on news clippings and light on solid intel, became a lightning rod of controversy.

Procedural missteps in 2017 assessment revealed

Fast forward to 2017, when the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election meddling was being drafted under a suspiciously tight timeline. Agency heads, including then-CIA Director John Brennan, insisted on including the Steele dossier, even as analysts waved red flags about its shaky foundation.

“The decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles,” noted the June 2025 CIA review. Well, no kidding — turns out ignoring your own experts isn’t a recipe for credibility.

Even the CIA’s deputy director for analysis sounded the alarm in a 2016 email, cautioning Brennan that tacking on this dossier “risked the entire credibility of the paper.” Yet, Brennan seemed more enamored with a tidy narrative than with hard evidence. Sometimes, sticking to the story isn’t the same as sticking to the truth.

Brennan’s narrative over sound analysis

The review paints a damning picture of Brennan’s priorities, stating he “appeared more swayed by the Dossier’s general conformity with existing theories.” Call it confirmation bias with a side of political agenda — it’s a bitter pill for those who expect impartiality from our top spies.

Meanwhile, the ICA’s preparation was riddled with oddities, from rushed deadlines to overbearing involvement by agency brass, straying far from standard protocol. “These included a highly compressed production timeline,” the review noted, hinting at a process more about optics than accuracy.

The 2017 ICA ultimately claimed Russia’s Vladimir Putin aimed to tarnish Clinton’s image while favoring Trump, a conclusion now tainted by the dossier debacle. If the foundation is flawed, how can we trust the house built on it?

Current CIA director issues sharp critique

Enter current CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who commissioned this June 2025 review and isn’t mincing words about what he uncovered. “This was Obama, Comey, Clapper and Brennan deciding ‘We’re going to screw Trump,’” Ratcliffe told the New York Post. That’s a bold accusation, but it sure aligns with the stench of political gamesmanship wafting from this mess.

Ratcliffe doubled down, saying, “It was, ‘We’re going to create this and put the imprimatur of an IC assessment.’” If true, that’s not just a misstep; it’s a calculated jab at democratic trust, dressed up as intelligence work.

But not everyone’s buying the CIA’s self-examination as the full story. Rep. Rick Crawford, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, slammed the review as falling “FAR SHORT of the full truth” in a recent letter. Half-measures won’t cut it when the stakes are this high.

Congressional push for hidden report

Crawford’s frustration boils over as he claims the CIA has stonewalled a congressional report on the ICA for seven years, produced under Devin Nunes’ leadership despite severe restrictions. “It documents efforts within the CIA to manufacture the Trump-Russia collusion narrative,” he wrote. Sounds like a cover-up might be the dessert after this bitter main course.

Since taking the chair, Crawford has demanded access, penning a letter to Ratcliffe on March 6, 2025, for the report’s transfer — yet it remains out of reach despite ongoing talks. When even Congress can’t get the goods, you have to wonder who’s guarding the henhouse.

This saga isn’t just a history lesson; it’s a warning about the dangers of letting narrative trump evidence in our most sensitive institutions. If we can’t trust the process behind critical assessments, we’re left with little more than polished guesswork. Let’s hope this review sparks real reform, because trust, once broken, isn’t easily rebuilt.