The Lie That Shaped a Presidency

What the CIA Now Admits About 2016

The Lie That Shaped a Presidency: What the CIA Now Admits About 2016

Who Wrote This—and Why It Matters

In June 2025, the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis—at the request of Director John Ratcliffe—completed a classified internal review of the infamous 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that accused Russia of helping elect Donald Trump. This was no partisan leak. It was a sober, retrospective audit conducted by career analysts inside Langley.

Their conclusion? The ICA’s most explosive judgment—that Putin aspired to help Trump win—was based on thin sourcing, politicized pressure, and procedural violations that broke every rule of serious intelligence work. Uneven access to data, a rushed timeline, and senior-level interference (including John Brennan’s obsessive hand) led to an assessment riddled with bias and bolstered by the now-discredited Steele Dossier.

This wasn’t just bad analysis. It was weaponized narrative laundering, disguised as fact. And now, years later, the CIA itself admits it.

The Memo that Should Shake the Republic

The CIA’s own after-action report doesn’t mince words. It confirms what many suspected:

• The “assessment” that Putin wanted Trump to win rested on a single highly classified report seen by only a few.

• Brennan and Clapper personally controlled access, timing, and language.

• Analysts were given just days—during the holidays—to slap together the ICA.

• Brennan insisted on including the Steele Dossier. The CIA’s own analysts said it would destroy the credibility of the whole report. He did it anyway.

This wasn’t just a fast job. It was a hit job.

And the damage wasn’t limited to 2016. That judgment lit the fuse for Crossfire Hurricane. It justified secret surveillance of Trump associates. It launched Mueller. It consumed years of American political life. And it was built on sand.

Bob says, “They told the world Trump was a traitor. And now it turns out—maybe they were.”

Treason is Not a Talking Point

Let’s say this plainly: if you knowingly use false intelligence to accuse a presidential candidate of colluding with a foreign power—and you do it from the perch of government authority—that is not “opposition research.” That is not “mistaken analysis.” That is a form of treason.

According to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, treason is defined as levying war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

We don’t need to stretch that language to ask the real question: What is the political equivalent of war if not this?

And what is the punishment for treason under U.S. law?

“Shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years… and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” (18 U.S. Code § 2381)

We’re not calling for blood. But we are calling for consequences. Permanent ones. Consequences that echo. Because this lie destroyed public trust, shredded norms, and justified illegal surveillance. It dragged half the country through a fantasy for years, all so Brennan and Clapper could install their preferred puppet.

Bob again: “You don’t forgive this. You prosecute it. Or it happens again.”

The Grook

They launched a lie and called it truth,
Then praised themselves for proof of proof.
They wrapped their plot in flag and seal,
And swore the wound they made could heal.
But trust, once stabbed, won’t soon return—
Not while the guilty watch it burn.

Let it burn no more. Start the trials. Let justice come.