“Agency heads at the time created a politically charged environment that triggered an atypical analytic process around an issue essential to our democracy.”
CIA Director John Ratcliffe
(July 2, 2025)
July 6, 2025 — This week, the CIA concluded a critical internal review casting serious doubts on the integrity of past intelligence narratives—highlighting strong circumstantial evidence that former CIA Director John Brennan played a central role in shaping, and possibly fabricating, key political allegations. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY
RELATED POST: The Russiagate Debacle — Bob Woodward : “Role Of Steele Dossier In Russia Probe Needs To Be Investigated”
RELATED POST: Two Years Ago — The Trump Dossier : Raw Intelligence or Clever Fabrication? — POLL [UPDATE — Chris Steele Gets Cold Feet]
RELATED POST: Intel Report Suspiciously Anachronistic
RELATED POST : Spygate — Will Former CIA Director John Brennan Go to Prison? [UPDATE : Brennan is in the cross-hairs of Durham’s investigation]
“More time is not negotiable… We’re stickin’ to our story… This is a team sport, and we may have to compromise on our normal modalities.”
DNI James Clapper
Dec. 22, 2016
UPDATE (August 14, 2025) — Newly declassified top-secret emails from December 22, 2016 show then-DNI James Clapper pressing U.S. intelligence chiefs to rally behind a unified narrative in the run-up to the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference.
In response to concerns from NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers—whose staff was “not comfortable” with some of the allegations—Clapper insisted the effort was a “team sport,” that “more time is not negotiable,” and that agencies needed to “compromise on our normal modalities” to get the job done.
He also emphasized “we’re stickin’ to our story,” underscoring the pressure to present a single, cohesive position despite internal reservations.
Critics say these exchanges raise serious questions about whether the ICA process was rushed and politicized. Supporters argue that the core findings remain valid and that tight deadlines are common in high-stakes intelligence work.
This story calls to mind the 1983 tragedy of Korean Air Lines Flight 007. After the airliner was shot down by a Soviet fighter, the Reagan White House advanced a hardline narrative portraying the USSR as a “criminal gang” bent on murdering civilians.
RELATED POST : 40 Years Ago — Korean Airliner Flight 007 Shot Down (September 1 1983) [UPDATE : Truth Is the First Casualty in War]
Yet NSA intercepts and analysis at the time indicated that the Soviets genuinely believed they were intercepting a military aircraft, and concluded that the Russian pilot had followed proper procedures. However, those NSA findings were completely ignored in favor of a politically advantageous storyline.
In both cases, the rush to craft and defend a single, simplified narrative took precedence over a careful and transparent assessment of the full intelligence picture.
This is the politicization of intelligence at its worst.
END of UPDATE
“The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government… Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years‑long coup.”
DNI Tulsi Gabbard
July 18, 2025
UPDATE (July 20, 2025) — In a bombshell revelation, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released declassified documents showing that in late 2016, the U.S. intelligence community — under the direction of officials like CIA Director John Brennan — overrode internal analysis to promote a narrative of Russian election interference, heavily relying on the now-discredited Steele dossier.
According to Gabbard, a December 7, 2016 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) concluded that Russia had not attempted to alter the outcome of the election. Yet just two days later, top Obama-era intelligence leaders met at the White House and initiated a new assessment that reversed those findings.
Gabbard alleges this shift laid the foundation for a “years-long coup” aimed at delegitimizing President-elect Trump, calling it a “treasonous conspiracy” and urging the Department of Justice to prosecute those responsible.
The Case Against John Brennan
At this point, the case against former CIA Director John Brennan appears less like speculation and more like a pattern of deliberate misjudgment, politicization, and manipulation. Here are the undisputed facts:
John Brennan was aware of the Steele dossier—a collection of unverified, opposition-funded allegations—by mid-2016. Despite repeated warnings from intelligence analysts that the dossier was uncorroborated and potentially tainted by disinformation, Brennan pushed to incorporate its contents into high-level briefings and assessments. In particular, he advocated for its inclusion in the intelligence community’s official analysis of Russian interference, known as the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).
Just days before that ICA was produced, the December 7, 2016 PDB had concluded that Russia “probably did not” alter any part of the election outcome, including through psychological operations. Yet on December 9, 2016, Brennan and other senior intelligence leaders met at the White House and, at President Obama’s direction, began work on a new assessment that reversed that conclusion. The result was a report that declared—without caveats—that Russia interfered in the election specifically to help Donald Trump win.
Simultaneously, Brennan shared Steele-related material with lawmakers such as Senator Harry Reid, triggering letters and leaks that laid the groundwork for a sweeping media narrative of “Trump-Russia collusion.” Shortly after the ICA was delivered, the Steele dossier itself was leaked, amplifying a politically explosive storyline based on material that intelligence officials had not verified.
Though Brennan later testified that the dossier was not central to the ICA, declassified records and oversight reports show that it influenced the framing of intelligence judgments at the most senior levels. Furthermore, that same dossier became a key piece of evidence in the FBI’s application for FISA surveillance of Trump advisor Carter Page—a process later deemed misleading and improper by the Department of Justice Inspector General.
While Brennan continues to defend his actions as necessary in the face of possible foreign threats, the factual record paints a starkly different picture: the CIA Director elevated unverified political research, ignored dissent within the intelligence community, and helped shape a narrative that fueled years of political and institutional turmoil.
Summary Table:
Allegations Against John Brennan
This isn’t about politics — it’s about rebuilding trust in intelligence agencies whose credibility is broken and holding those who abused their power accountable.
—
P.S. If John Brennan played a central role in orchestrating the Russia Hoax, it stands to reason he also had a hand in promoting the Havana Syndrome conspiracy theory.
Timeline is everything. Havana Syndrome allegations began shortly after the 2016 election and effectively ended with Trump’s presidency.
This mysterious illness narrative conveniently served as another tool to undermine and discredit the Trump administration, continuing a pattern of using questionable intelligence to fuel political agendas.
END of UPDATE
“John Brennan should be facing a grand jury.”
Senator Rand Paul
UPDATE (July 9, 2025) — In a stunning development, the FBI has officially launched a criminal investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, following a referral from current Director John Ratcliffe.
This marks a significant escalation in the ongoing scrutiny surrounding the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and the broader Russiagate saga.
The investigation centers on Brennan’s alleged role in the ICA, focusing on potential false statements made to Congress and accusations of intelligence manipulation tied to the Trump-Russia narrative.
Former FBI Director James Comey is also reportedly in the crosshairs, as investigators examine the broader intelligence and investigative actions taken during that turbulent period.
–
This probe could reshape the public’s understanding of the politicization within U.S. intelligence agencies, shedding new light on actions taken during the Obama administration and the early days of the Trump presidency.
RELATED POST : 1975: The Year of Intelligence [What the Church and Pike Investigations Revealed — and Why Their Warnings Still Matter]
As this story unfolds, it underscores the lasting impact of intelligence on U.S. political dynamics and national security. On the 50th anniversary of the Year of Intelligence, it seems we’re heading for a remake.
END of UPDATE
“Either we need a new election or hang former CIA Director John Brennan for putting out disinformation.”
Robert Baer
Former CIA operative
Newsweek (January 2017)
When politics and intelligence mix, the truth becomes a battlefield. Brennan’s influence over the Russiagate narrative, particularly his push to include unverified elements such as the Steele dossier, has long drawn criticism.
The new review brings fresh clarity to just how deeply his actions may have distorted intelligence processes during a pivotal period. But one question remains: Did Brennan promote the Havana Syndrome hoax?
“The core of this conspiracy began with John Brennan and ends with John Brennan. This is very serious business and for the first time, I now believe that some of these guys [James Comey, John Brennan and James Clapper] are going to go to prison. (…) Brennan needs five lawyers.”
Joe diGenova
Former U.S. Attorney and Special Counsel
(May 15 2019)
CIA Tradecraft Review of the 2016 Election
In early 2025, CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered a comprehensive, lessons-learned review of the analytic tradecraft behind the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) issued shortly after the 2016 election. This week, the findings were declassified.
The review uncovered several procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA:
— A compressed timeline that undermined deliberative analysis
— Uneven access to compartmented intelligence
— Marginalization of the National Intelligence Council
— And unusual direct involvement of agency heads, including Brennan
The findings emphasize that adherence to tradecraft standards is critical to maintaining the credibility and objectivity of CIA assessments—both of which were seriously compromised.
Brennan’s Broader Role
In the shadow world of espionage, facts are currency — but sometimes the currency is counterfeit. Beyond Russiagate, Brennan also inserted himself into other politically sensitive narratives.
His endorsement of the claim that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian disinformation operation — later disproven—further exemplifies a pattern of politicized intelligence messaging.
Brennan had both the means and the motive to shape intelligence narratives in ways that could discredit political opponents, protect favored interests, and reinforce his influence.
Havana Syndrome in the Brennan Context
Enter Havana Syndrome — the unexplained neurological symptoms first reported by U.S. diplomats in Cuba shortly after Trump’s 2016 victory.
Suspicion originally stemmed from a CIA officer stationed in Havana, and the phenomenon escalated rapidly before fading almost entirely after the 2020 election.
This timeline is more than suspicious as it hints at a possible intelligence operation, not just a medical mystery.
The notion that Brennan’s network used Havana Syndrome as a psychological and political tool fits the “truth seeding” strategy long taught within intelligence circles: blending real-world anomalies with exaggeration to create a persuasive but misleading narrative. The effect? Greater funding, increased public alarm, and sustained political pressure.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
Stephen Hawking
The Wider Network
Figures such as attorney Mark Zaid and ex-CIA officer Michael Polymeropoulos appear at key junctions in both the Havana Syndrome and Hunter Biden narratives — suggesting coordination rather than coincidence.
Their roles in both shaping public perception and driving institutional action underscore a deeper entanglement between legal, media, and intelligence networks.
The problem with the truth is not that it is difficult to know, but that it is difficult to accept.
Conclusion
On the balance of evidence, it is far more plausible that Havana Syndrome reflects internal dysfunction and politicization within the CIA than the mythical powers of a Russian microwave death ray.
This case illustrates how intelligence agencies can weaponize narratives — blurring the lines between fact and fabrication.
RELATED POST : Fake News, Real Questions
In an era where trust in institutions is fragile, we must view official intelligence claims with critical scrutiny and demand accountability from those sworn to serve truth over politics.
RELATED POST : On This Day — President Truman Creates the Central Intelligence Group (January 22, 1946) [Gallup Poll : Americans’ rating of the CIA]
In January 2017, former CIA operative Robert Baer warned, “We need a new election or hang former CIA Director John Brennan for putting out disinformation.”
Well, we got the new election — and we know how that turned out.
But if IntelToday is right, and Havana Syndrome was in fact a CIA-driven hoax—seeded, politicized, and weaponized—then serious accountability must follow.
Brennan’s legacy won’t be salvaged by classified memos or cable news panels. It will be judged by history, and possibly by law.
Disinformation at the highest levels of the intelligence community is not just a scandal. It’s a threat to democracy.
REFERENCES
CIA Director John Ratcliffe Declassifies Internal Tradecraft Review of 2016 Election ICA to Promote Analytic Objectivity and Transparency — CIA website (July 2, 2025)
=
Revisiting Havana Syndrome: Moscow Death Ray vs. CIA Hoax [New Revelations on John Brennan & Russiagate]
Revisiting Havana Syndrome: Moscow Death Ray vs. CIA Hoax [UPDATE : Declassified Emails Reveal Clapper’s Push for “Team Sport” ICA on Russia]
Intel Today 