Exclusive: Former DNI James Clapper Allegedly Directed Rush to Rush 2017 ICA Despite Concerns
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper allegedly directed officials to compromise standard procedures to expedite the production of a 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), according to declassified emails obtained by Fox News Digital. The emails, released by Tulsi Gabbard, suggest that Clapper prioritized speed over rigorous review, despite concerns raised by then-NSA Director Mike Rogers about insufficient time for thorough analysis. Rogers reportedly expressed worries that his team did not have enough time to review intelligence to be ‘absolutely confident’ that Russia was involved in the 2016 election. The ICA, which was released in 2017, ultimately concluded that Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and DCCC, but an insider revealed that the ICA failed to mention that the FBI and NSA previously expressed low confidence in this attribution.
The issue has sparked accusations that the ICA was ‘politicized’ and ‘manufactured’ to support a narrative about Russian election interference. The assessment has since been criticized as ‘politicized’ and ‘manufactured’ to support a narrative about Russian election interference. The issue has also led to criminal investigations of former officials such as John Brennan and James Comey, who are now under investigation for their roles in the process. The emails suggest that the ICA was produced under an accelerated timeline, with Clapper expressing that ‘we may have to compromise on our ‘normal’ modalities, since we must do this on such a compressed schedule.’ The assessment ultimately concluded that Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and DCCC, but an insider revealed that the ICA failed to mention that the FBI and NSA previously expressed low confidence in this attribution.
The emails, obtained by Fox News Digital, reveal that Clapper was aware of the concerns raised by Rogers, who emphasized the need for a process that allows all agencies to be comfortable with the final assessment. Rogers reportedly warned that the expedited nature of the project might compromise the integrity of the final product. Despite these concerns, Clapper allegedly proceeded with the project, stating that it was essential that all agencies be ‘on the same page’ and ‘supportive of the report.’ The ICA ultimately concluded that Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and DCCC, but an insider revealed that the ICA failed to mention that the FBI and NSA previously expressed low confidence in this attribution.
The email exchange highlights the tensions within the intelligence community as they attempted to balance the need for speed with the necessity of maintaining rigorous standards. Rogers’ concerns were echoed by other officials, who questioned the viability of the final assessment given the timeframe. The declassified emails suggest that the decision to expedite the ICA was a deliberate choice, with Clapper implying that ‘we may have to compromise on our ‘normal’ modalities, since we must do this on such a compressed schedule.’ The ICA has since been criticized for its potential politicization and for failing to accurately represent the intelligence community’s earlier findings.
The issue has also led to criminal investigations of former officials such as John Brennan and James Comey, who are now under investigation for their roles in the process. The emails suggest that the ICA was produced under an accelerated timeline, with Clapper expressing that ‘we may have to compromise on our ‘normal’ modalities, since we must do this on such a compressed schedule.’ The assessment ultimately concluded that Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and DCCC, but an insider revealed that the ICA failed to mention that the FBI and NSA previously expressed low confidence in this attribution.
These developments have raised questions about the integrity of the intelligence process and the potential for political influence in the production of classified assessments. The controversy surrounding the 2017 ICA has sparked calls for greater transparency and accountability in the intelligence community, as well as continued scrutiny of the roles played by key officials in the process. As the Justice Department continues to investigate allegations of conspiracy to tie Trump to Russia in the 2016 election, the implications of these events remain significant for both national security and the broader political landscape.