CIA Bombshell Exposes Russiagate Lies

After years of sworn denials from top Obama-era officials, the CIA’s own newly released review blows the lid off Russiagate—confirming the infamous Steele dossier was, in fact, used in the core intelligence assessment about so-called “Russian interference” in 2016, exposing a saga of deception that should outrage every American who cares about truth and the rule of law.

CIA Review Contradicts Obama Officials’ Russiagate Narrative

The CIA has now officially confirmed what many suspected for years: the so-called “Steele dossier”—a collection of unverified opposition research memos funded by the Clinton campaign—wasn’t just an afterthought, but was referenced in the main body of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference. This directly contradicts repeated sworn statements by former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI Director James Comey, all of whom insisted under oath that the dossier didn’t inform their analytic conclusions. The CIA’s newly declassified “lessons-learned” review, released June 2025, lays bare the internal controversy: multiple analysts and managers objected to including the dossier, warning it violated basic tradecraft and risked undermining the entire report. Their warnings were overruled by top leadership determined to weave the dossier’s unsubstantiated claims into the intelligence narrative.

For years, the American public was told that the ICA’s “high confidence” judgment—that Putin sought to help Trump win—rested on solid, objective intelligence. But the newly released review shows that, behind closed doors, there was fierce internal dissent over the use of the Steele dossier. The report reveals that the FBI pushed hard for the dossier’s inclusion, and despite the objections of career CIA officers, senior leadership caved, referencing the dossier throughout the assessment. The public version of the ICA, released in January 2017, omitted the dossier material entirely, keeping the electorate in the dark about its influence on the classified assessment that shaped years of political warfare, FBI investigations, and impeachment drama.

Obama-Era Intelligence Chiefs Face Scrutiny for Sworn Testimony

The new CIA review is a direct challenge to sworn testimony by Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, and Comey. Each claimed, both publicly and before Congress, that the Steele dossier was not used to draw analytic conclusions in the ICA. Now, with the CIA’s own documentation showing otherwise, their denials look less like honest mistakes and more like calculated obfuscation. Congressional committees are actively considering whether to refer these former officials for perjury investigations. The Justice Department, under the new administration, has acknowledged that investigations into the actions of former FBI and CIA leaders are ongoing. The implications are profound—not just for the reputations of these men, but for the very integrity of the intelligence community and its claims to be above partisan politics.

Critics have long argued that the Russiagate scandal was driven by a desire to delegitimize Trump both before and after his election. The revelation that the Clinton-funded Steele dossier—widely derided as a political hit job—was elevated by U.S. intelligence agencies, despite internal warnings, only strengthens the view that the “witch hunt” was a predetermined political operation masquerading as a neutral intelligence assessment. Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz summed it up: Brennan and his crew used the dossier to prop up a weak case, reaching a foregone conclusion that fit a partisan agenda. The fact that this was done over the objection of career professionals is a damning indictment of Obama-era leadership.

Institutional Trust and America’s Intelligence Community in Crisis

The fallout from these revelations extends far beyond the Beltway. Public trust in the intelligence community, already battered by years of leaks, partisan accusations, and media spin, has taken another major hit. The use of unverified, politically sourced material in an official assessment about the integrity of a U.S. presidential election is a breach of analytic tradecraft that would get any junior analyst fired. Yet, under the Obama administration, this behavior was not only tolerated—it was embraced at the highest levels. The CIA has now adopted new protocols for handling election-related intelligence, but for millions of Americans, the damage is done.

Political polarization has only deepened, with Trump and his supporters feeling vindicated in their long-standing claim that the Russia investigation was a politically motivated sham. Meanwhile, the same media outlets and political figures who pushed the original narrative are now forced to grapple with the uncomfortable truth that their heroes in the intelligence community weren’t just mistaken—they were misleading the public. The broader consequences for our democracy and the rule of law are severe. If the intelligence community can be weaponized for political ends, and its leaders can lie under oath without consequence, what’s left to defend?

Sources:

CIA Lessons-Learned Review (June 2025)

Wikipedia: Steele Dossier

Politico: CIA review of 2016 Russia election probe finds no major flaws

ABC News: Years later, key figures in Russia investigation face new scrutiny

Recent

Weekly Wrap

Trending

You may also like...

RELATED ARTICLES

Breaking News