Back in 2016, the narrative of Russian interference in the U.S. election took center stage, but a newly declassified report suggests the story was built on shaky ground. The House Intelligence Committee uncovered evidence that raises serious questions about the integrity of intelligence pushed by then-CIA Director John Brennan.

According to Fox News, the report, originally drafted in 2020 by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence under Devin Nunes, was kept under wraps until declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

It details how Brennan, under what the committee calls "unusual" directives from then-President Barack Obama, orchestrated the release of "implausible" and "potentially biased" intelligence suggesting Vladimir Putin favored Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

The report, stored in a restricted CIA vault until now, zeroes in on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, a document crafted by just five CIA analysts and one principal drafter. It claims the assessment was rushed to publication two weeks before Trump’s inauguration, with limited coordination within the intelligence community to avoid challenges to its conclusions.

Unpacking the Flawed Intelligence Assessment

The committee found that Brennan ordered the post-election release of 15 intelligence reports, three of which were deemed substandard, filled with unclear or unverifiable information. These flawed reports became the backbone of the assessment’s judgment that Putin sought to aid Trump over Hillary Clinton.

Shockingly, the assessment relied on a single vague fragment of a sentence from one of these questionable reports to imply Putin’s aspirations for Trump’s victory. The report also notes that reliable intelligence, which contradicted this narrative, was either ignored or selectively quoted to prop up the desired conclusion.

Even more telling, two senior CIA officers warned Brennan directly that there was no concrete evidence of Putin’s preference for Trump. Yet, the push to publish moved forward, casting doubt on whether the goal was truth or a crafted storyline.

Contradictory Evidence Suppressed by Design

The report reveals that the assessment failed to explore plausible alternative explanations for Putin’s actions, despite intelligence suggesting other motives. A longtime Putin confidant told investigators that the Russian leader expressed indifference about the election outcome, even highlighting weaknesses in both major candidates.

Further, intelligence indicated Russia was actually preparing for a Clinton victory, believing they could work with her more effectively. The assessment conveniently sidestepped why Putin didn’t release more damaging material on Clinton, even as polls tightened late in the race.

Perhaps most damning, the report states that suppressed intelligence showed Putin not only lacked concern for Trump’s chances but may have preferred Clinton as a more vulnerable leader. This omission paints a picture of an assessment more focused on narrative than fact.

Obama-Era Officials Under Scrutiny

Declassified transcripts from 2017 and 2018 House Intelligence Committee interviews with top Obama-era officials add fuel to the fire. Figures like James Clapper, Loretta Lynch, and Susan Rice admitted under oath they saw no direct empirical evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, yet the public narrative persisted.

Clapper himself testified, “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Hearing this, one can’t help but wonder why the storyline of collusion was pushed so aggressively when the evidence was so thin.

Lynch echoed this, stating she did not recall being briefed on such evidence, while Rice noted she saw nothing she’d consider proof of coordination or conspiracy. These admissions clash starkly with the tone of the 2017 assessment, suggesting a disconnect between private knowledge and public messaging.

Legacy of a Manufactured Narrative

The declassification of this report, alongside documents showing Obama’s national security team laying groundwork for the Trump-Russia probe post-2016, points to a troubling politicization of intelligence. Criminal referrals for Brennan and James Comey to the FBI underscore the gravity of these findings, as does Gabbard’s push for accountability at the Department of Justice.

A spokesman for Obama recently dismissed these revelations as “bizarre allegations” and a “weak attempt at distraction,” insisting Russia’s interference in 2016 is a settled matter. But when the foundation of that claim rests on cherry-picked, implausible reports, it’s hard to see this as anything but a dodge of deeper scrutiny.