Former CIA Director John Brennan, who is now a regular contributor on MSNBC and NBC News, has come under scrutiny by the Department of Justice over his role in the 2016 Russia probe. Brennan played a significant role in promoting the Russiagate narrative, which posited that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian entities. This narrative, which has been widely retracted by the Special Counsel’s investigation, has had a significant impact on the political discourse in the United States.
Brennan, who served as CIA director from 2013 to 2017, was deeply involved in initiating the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ investigation into suspected Russian interference in the 2016 election. His tenure at the CIA was marked by a heightened focus on potential threats to U.S. national security, particularly in the aftermath of the 2016 election. Throughout 2017 and into 2018, Brennan became a prominent figure on cable news outlets, where he continued to push the idea that Trump’s actions were part of a coordinated effort to undermine the United States.
The DOJ’s investigation into Brennan focuses on his handling of the 2017 Russia collusion investigation and the sharing of intelligence regarding what was termed the ‘Clinton Plan’ with top officials, including former President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Despite the fact that the Mueller investigation ultimately concluded there was insufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy, Brennan has continued to publicly assert that the situation was more complex and involved elements of conspiracy.
In the wake of the DOJ’s announcement, Brennan has taken to MSNBC to distance himself from the allegations, claiming they are politically motivated. He has suggested that the investigations of Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are part of a larger effort to undermine political opponents, rather than a legitimate probe into their conduct.
Brennan’s role in the intelligence community and his continued presence in the media have led to questions about the credibility of the information he has contributed to public discourse. His actions have been seen as part of a broader pattern of political influence, where intelligence officials have become active participants in shaping public perception and political narratives.
Beyond his role in the Russia probe, Brennan’s credibility has faced further scrutiny in recent years. In October 2020, he was one of 51 former senior intelligence officials who signed a letter insisting that Hunter Biden’s scandal-plagued laptop had ‘all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.’ This claim, which has since been refuted as the laptop has been verified as authentic, underscores the challenges of maintaining objectivity in the aftermath of political scrutiny.
The Brennan investigation comes after CIA Director John Ratcliffe declassified a ‘lessons learned’ review of the creation of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) earlier this month. This review found that the process of the ICA’s creation was rushed with ‘procedural anomalies,’ and that officials deviated from intelligence standards. The review also determined that the decision to include the Steele dossier, a now-widely discredited anti-Trump document, ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.
Records declassified as part of that review revealed that Brennan did, in fact, push for the dossier to be included in the 2017 ICA, despite his later testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in May 2023 stating that he did not believe it should be included. The day after the investigation was reported, Brennan appeared on MSNBC’s ‘Deadline: White House’ with Nicolle Wallace to downplay the ordeal, suggesting that the allegations were part of an effort to undermine political opponents.
The ongoing scrutiny of Brennan’s actions has sparked a broader debate about the role of intelligence officials in shaping political narratives. While some argue that Brennan’s actions were driven by a genuine concern for national security, others view his continued advocacy for anti-Trump narratives as a form of political influence rather than an objective assessment of the facts. This case highlights the complex interplay between intelligence work, media influence, and political discourse in the United States.