Earlier, I published a post on a new report released by CIA Director John Ratcliffe on Wednesday that reviewed the agency's intelligence collection during the Russian collusion hoax. Catherine Herridge was good enough to highlight some sections of the eight-page report, which said that then-CIA Director John Brennan dismissed concerns that the Steele dossier didn't meet intelligence collection standards and risked the agency's credibility.
On page 4: "...two senior leaders of the CIA mission center responsible for Russia—strongly opposed including the Dossier, asserting that it did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards."
On page 5: "Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness....Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing, stating that “my bottom line is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report."
Herridge is an ace investigative reporter, so imagine my shock when I read in POLITICO that the CIA's review of its 2016 Russia election probe found "no major flaws."
CIA review of 2016 Russia election probe finds no major flaws https://t.co/z9jL5o0B5b
— POLITICO (@politico) July 3, 2025
Let's hear what POLITICO has to say:
Recommended
A CIA review released Wednesday is critical of how the agency arrived at the assessment that Russia sought to sway the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump — but finds the overall conclusion was sound.
…
Still, the review largely vindicated the 2016 assessment — and many former U.S. officials involved in its production cast it as a vote of confidence in their work.
“People have been asking whether they can trust Intelligence Community analysis given the politicized environment,” said Beth Sanner, former deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration. “This is a fair question, and there should not be a timestamp on asking it. But this report suggests that the answer, for now, remains yes.”
Even Ratcliffe didn't say that:
All the world can now see the truth: Brennan, Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals — all to get Trump. Thank you to the career @CIA officers who conducted this review and exposed the facts. https://t.co/S7Mxz6xA6P
— CIA Director John Ratcliffe (@CIADirector) July 2, 2025
But the overall conclusion was sound.
C'mon, man.
Q: Why is @politico now a fully discredited joke?
— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) July 3, 2025
A: Because they just can't help themselves.
CIA review of 2016 Russia election probe finds no major flaws https://t.co/HQMOhcQe26 via @politico
It’s the biggest scandal in American history. The FBI was that bad. Imagine how bad the CIA is.
— Colorado Native🇺🇸🇸🇻 (@Colorado14er22) July 3, 2025
It's a toss-up now between this and the media's cover-up of Joe Biden's cognitive and physical decline.
Fake news.
— Texan4life🇺🇲 (@TraceyF94801358) July 3, 2025
DELETE this account.
— RP 🇺🇲 (@RealRPinNYC) July 3, 2025
This headline is a joke and not supported by the actual report that was released today.
— MizDonna (@MizDonna69) July 3, 2025
You are going to hold onto the Russia collusion delusion until you go bankrupt.
I'll bet they lost a big chunk of cash when USAID stopped paying for subscriptions to POLITICO Pro for every member of Congress.
The gaslighting of this @politico rag is absurd. Eff off
— SuperDuper (@JavierE44139868) July 3, 2025
What in the living Satanic pond scum is this headline?
— BeefySausageWrangler (@DustinClouse9) July 3, 2025
You dolts never quit.
— Chris Manning (@Manning4USCong) July 3, 2025
This headline is the exact reason why Americans do not trust the media, you are useless propaganda fools for the deep state.
— @TherealLIEddie (@LIEddie1776) July 3, 2025
Why are you lying? Rhetorical question.
— Raz ✞ (@Razkolni) July 3, 2025
"No major flaws" — besides relying on made-up opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign's law firm.
I don't know what to believe … the report itself, or POLITICO's interpretation of the report.
***
