The 'Russia Gate' scandal, which alleged that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, is shaking up American politics again after eight years.
Tulsi Gabbard, the Director General of National Intelligence (DNI) under the Trump administration, publicly released a report on the 22nd (local time) that had been classified for the past five years, prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in 2020. This report raised questions about the possibility that the Joint Assessment (ICA) report led by John Brennan, then Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in January 2017 was a manipulated narrative. The HPSCI report contained testimonies suggesting that it was driven by weak evidence and ignored expert opposition to reach the conclusion that 'Russian President Vladimir Putin helped Trump's election victory.'
According to the recently declassified House report, U.S. intelligence agencies during the Obama administration had granted unreasonable trust (high confidence) to extremely vague and uncertain intelligence for years. The report stated that the CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concluded that 'whose victory Putin was counting on' meant 'Putin was trying to help Trump win the election' based on a single sentence from intelligence obtained from Russian assets.
However, a senior operations officer from the CIA who participated in the ICA report creation testified during the House Intelligence Committee investigation that, 'I couldn't precisely understand what it meant,' and 'It could be interpreted in five different ways by five different people.' The phrase interpreted by the CIA as 'counting on' was found to be unclear, whether it indicated simply 'expected' or meant 'preferred Trump's victory.'
The 2017 ICA report was the first document to conclude that 'Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win.' It is viewed as 'the starting point of all controversies' that affected the entire landscape of American politics, including the Russia Gate investigation and subsequent presidential election dynamics. This report was collaboratively prepared and evaluated by elite U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency (NSA). Additionally, according to the newly released House report, President Barack Obama directly instructed the creation of the ICA report. It was a high-profile result created with the involvement of heads of each intelligence agency for presidential reporting purposes.
Typically, intelligence agencies conclude based on reliable opinions compiled from multiple cross-verified sources when dealing with politically and security-sensitive high-level information. If there is uncertainty in a high-profile report, it is a principle to clearly indicate that as well. However, Director General Brennan formed the actual report writing team with five CIA analysts despite it being a joint report from intelligence agencies. The House Intelligence Committee interpreted this as a move to block dissenting opinions from the outset. The House report pointed out that Brennan minimized external reviews and coordination, selectively choosing information that suited his preferences.
The House Intelligence Committee stated, 'CIA personnel who participated in the ICA report creation raised concerns about the report's credibility, based on scant intelligence, and refused to publish it, but Director General Brennan pushed for its release instead.' It added, 'Several senior officers urged Brennan that there was no direct information that Putin wanted Trump to win, but their requests were dismissed.'
It also became evident that Director General Brennan prioritized a plausible narrative over objectivity while drafting the ICA report. In the run-up to the 2016 election, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired former British MI6 agent Christopher Steele to create the 'Trump dossier.' Known as the 'Steele Dossier,' this document was funded by the Clinton campaign to attack Trump. It reportedly contains unverified allegations primarily concerning Trump as a person. The House Intelligence Committee stated, 'Many of the claims in the Steele Dossier were either unproven or proved false, and some merely repeated what had already been reported in the media.'
Even veteran experts within the CIA argued that the Steele Dossier 'fails to meet basic informational standards' and resembles 'amateur conspiracy theories and political propaganda,' suggesting its exclusion from the ICA report. However, Director General Brennan dismissed opposing views, stating, 'Still, doesn't it ring true?' Ultimately, the Steele Dossier made it into the ICA as the highest-level classified material. A two-page summary was separately included at the back of the report for reference.
The Democrats and the Obama camp have fiercely criticized the release of this classified report as a political retaliation led by the Republicans. An Obama spokesperson rebutted to The New York Times, calling it 'absurd claims and a poor attempt to divert attention (from the Epstein case).' Currently, Trump is under fire from his supporters for not releasing the customer list file of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which allegedly includes high-profile individuals from U.S. politics and business.
Within the United States, there is a general acknowledgment that Russia did directly or indirectly intervene in the presidential election in 2016. According to another report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee with bipartisan agreement in 2020, the Republicans reaffirmed the ICA conclusion that 'Russia preferred Trump' without any dissent. However, the key issue is whether Russia truly intended to elect Trump or merely aimed to foster distrust and confusion about the American democratic system by intervening in the election. The declassified HPSCI report lent weight to the latter possibility. In contrast, the conclusion that 'Russia supported the Trump campaign' was viewed as exaggerated for political purposes.
The Washington Post expressed concern that 'this revelation could deepen citizens' mistrust in intelligence agencies.'