John Brennan faces potential perjury charges after revelations in internal CIA review

Former CIA Director John Brennan may be facing legal challenges for alleged perjury due to revelations from a recent internal review by current CIA Director John Ratcliffe. The review has cast new light on Brennan’s decision to include the Steele Dossier in the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment.

This newfound information contradicts Brennan’s previous statements to Congress and could lead to legal ramifications, Breitbart reported.

The Steele Dossier’s inclusion in the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) has long been a subject of controversy. Commissioned by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, the dossier was incorporated into the assessment led by Brennan. Republican lawmakers and supporters of Donald Trump have criticized the ICA as flawed for years, a claim that seemingly finds support in Ratcliffe’s report.

Alignment With Previous Republican Claims

Ratcliffe’s internal review indicates that Brennan decided to integrate the contentious dossier into the ICA despite advice to the contrary from several senior officials within the intelligence community. This contradicts Brennan’s earlier congressional testimony, where he denied supporting the dossier’s incorporation.

Brennan had previously told lawmakers that he had not endorsed the information or its inclusion, but Ratcliffe’s findings suggest otherwise, complicating Brennan’s assertions. The Steele Dossier has been criticized because of its political origins and the Federal Election Commission fines levied on the Democratic Party for improper disclosures associated with it.

Ratcliffe took to social media to highlight his role in bringing these developments to light. He stated that the report demonstrates how the 2016 ICA process became “atypical & corrupt” under Brennan’s and former FBI Director James Comey’s oversight.

Potential Legal Implications for Brennan

Reactions to Ratcliffe’s review indicate that the Department of Justice may now have greater interest in pursuing legal action against Brennan. One congressional source hailed Ratcliffe’s strategic moves, suggesting that Brennan could face accountability for his actions. “John Ratcliffe is a genius,” the source remarked, drawing attention to the internal admissions by career officers about the ICA’s questionable integrity.

The source further stated, “The DOJ could have a field day with this,” alluding to potential legal consequences for Brennan arising from the new evidence. Critics argue that Brennan’s alleged manipulation of intelligence matters underscores broader issues of governmental misconduct during the Obama administration, especially concerning Trump’s early presidency.

Another individual familiar with the situation commented to Breitbart News about Brennan’s actions, emphasizing how the revelations might finally bring him closer to legal accountability. “Ratcliffe just brought him closer than he’s ever been to being held accountable, though,” the source asserted.

Reactions From Various Stakeholders

These developments are likely to impact the ongoing political discourse surrounding the 2016 election and the role of intelligence agencies. Critics of Brennan argue that his alleged attempts to undermine Trump’s presidency could signify deeper systemic issues within the intelligence structure at the time.

On the contrary, Brennan’s defense has maintained that he never actively recognized or supported the dossier, with a Wall Street Journal piece from January 2017 quoting him stating he “gave it no particular credence.”

In response to these allegations, however, Brennan refuted offering the Steele Dossier any additional visibility, as he conveyed previously through the media. These statements seem to stand at odds with the implications of Ratcliffe’s review.

Ongoing Examination and Public Interest

The revelation of these discrepancies in the intelligence community’s actions during the 2016 election continues to fuel public discourse and political debate. The review’s findings may influence future assessments of intelligence practices and oversight.

Moving forward, how the Department of Justice navigates these developments will play a critical role in determining the extent of potential legal ramifications for Brennan. It remains to be seen how this situation will impact both political narratives and operational policies within the intelligence community.

For Brennan, the unfolding scenario suggests increased scrutiny over past actions, which could reshape the narrative of his tenure as CIA Director. Sources suggest that as more details are revealed, the implications of this investigation could further complicate the political and legal landscape surrounding this issue.