Brennan and Clapper Defend Their Intelligence Role Amid Controversy
Destroying Brennan And Clapper's Desperate Op-Ed 🔗
Former CIA Director James Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper attempted to defend their actions and legacy in a New York Times op-ed amid allegations of intelligence abuses during the Obama Administration. They claimed that the Steele Dossier was not used in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which is disputed by evidence showing that the dossier influenced the ICA's conclusions. Their assertion that multiple reviews validated the ICA's findings is challenged by recent disclosures that highlight significant flaws in the assessment. Additionally, they deny allegations of political conspiracy and leaks but evidence suggests that senior officials from the Obama Administration leaked information to the press, undermining their credibility.
- Brennan and Clapper's op-ed aims to clarify their roles during the 2016 election.
- They falsely claim the Steele Dossier was not considered in the ICA.
- Recent evidence raises doubts about the validity of the ICA and its conclusions.
- Allegations of political leaks by Obama Administration officials are confirmed, contradicting their defense.
What was the main purpose of Brennan and Clapper's op-ed?
They aimed to defend their actions and clarify their roles regarding the intelligence assessments during the 2016 election.
What evidence challenges Brennan and Clapper's claims about the Steele Dossier?
Evidence shows that the Steele Dossier was referenced in the ICA and influenced its conclusions, contradicting their assertion that it was not considered.
Were there any leaks from the Obama Administration during the investigation?
Yes, there were confirmed leaks to the press by senior officials regarding intelligence findings that suggested Russia was trying to help Trump, undermining their claims of preventing leaks.