Listen to the article
The Justice Department has escalated its investigation into former FBI Director James Comey by issuing a subpoena related to his involvement in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The subpoena, served last week from the Southern District of Florida, marks a significant development in the DOJ’s criminal investigation of both Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan. The investigation centers on allegations of potential wrongdoing in the creation of the controversial 2017 assessment and possible false statements to Congress.
Sources close to the investigation described the FBI’s view of the duo’s interactions as a “conspiracy,” potentially opening a wide range of prosecutorial options. The investigation began after then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe sent a criminal referral regarding Brennan to the FBI.
At issue is the 2017 ICA, which concluded that Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election to help candidate Donald Trump. However, a subsequent review found that the process was rushed and contained “procedural anomalies” that diverged from standard intelligence practices.
The controversy centers partly on the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the assessment. This anti-Trump document, commissioned by Fusion GPS and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, contained unverified claims that have since been widely discredited.
Declassified records reveal that Brennan pushed for the dossier’s inclusion in the 2017 ICA despite the CIA’s own assessment that it was filled with “internet rumor.” The review concluded that “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.”
Documents obtained exclusively by Fox News Digital last year suggest the Obama administration may have “manufactured and politicized intelligence” to create a narrative about Russian election interference, despite contrary information from the intelligence community. In the months leading up to the November 2016 election, intelligence assessments consistently indicated that Russia was “probably not trying to influence the election by using cyber means.”
A Presidential Daily Brief prepared for President Obama on December 8, 2016, stated: “We assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.” The brief noted that any Russian activities “probably were intended to cause psychological effects, such as undermining the credibility of the election process and candidates” rather than actually altering vote results.
Despite this assessment, on December 9, 2016, a meeting convened in the White House Situation Room with top officials including Clapper, Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Following this meeting, Clapper tasked intelligence community leaders with creating a new assessment “per the president’s request” about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
By January 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that “directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months,” according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Intelligence officials have described this assessment as “politicized” for suppressing information that “showed Russia lacked intent and capability to hack the 2016 election.”
Critics argue this politicized intelligence was subsequently used to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, fuel the Mueller investigation, support congressional impeachment efforts, and justify investigations of high-level officials.
FBI Director Kash Patel received the criminal referral regarding Brennan and subsequently opened criminal investigations into both Brennan and Comey. The full scope of these investigations remains unclear, but the subpoena of Comey indicates the Justice Department is actively pursuing the matter.
The investigation represents one of the most significant probes into the actions of intelligence community leaders during the tumultuous 2016 election period and its aftermath, with potential implications for how intelligence was gathered, assessed, and presented to both government officials and the American public during a critical moment in U.S. political history.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
The DOJ appears to be digging deeper into the circumstances around the 2017 intelligence assessment on Russian interference. I’m curious to learn more about the alleged ‘conspiracy’ between Comey and Brennan and whether there is evidence of improper conduct in how that assessment was developed.
You raise a fair point. Allegations of a ‘conspiracy’ are quite serious, so the investigation will need to present solid evidence to support any such claims. The integrity of the intelligence process is crucial, so this merits a thorough and impartial review.
This seems like a significant escalation in the DOJ’s investigation into the 2017 Russia assessment. It will be interesting to see what the subpoena uncovers about Comey’s role and any potential wrongdoing. A thorough review of the process behind that assessment is warranted given the reported ‘procedural anomalies’.
The DOJ’s subpoena of Comey is an important development in their probe of the 2017 Russia intelligence assessment. Given the significance of that assessment, any concerns about how it was conducted must be addressed transparently and objectively.
Allegations of a ‘conspiracy’ between Comey and Brennan are serious. However, the DOJ’s investigation needs to be rigorous and impartial to determine if there is credible evidence to support such claims. The integrity of the intelligence process is paramount.
This seems like a politically-charged investigation, but the questions around the 2017 Russia assessment do deserve scrutiny. Procedural issues and potential false statements need to be fully examined, regardless of the political implications.