Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

John Brennan Buried Reliable Intelligence that Putin Favored Clinton Over Trump, Says Former NSC Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz


Turns out that Russian President Vladimir Putin may have actually wanted Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 presidential election!

After 3 years of investigations alleging that Russia helped President Trump win, a new testimony from Fred Fleitz suggests that it may have been the other way around.

Yes, you read that right: Russia wanted Clinton to win, Fleitz claims.

Fleitz is a former CIA offer and former Chief of Staff of the National Security Council (NSC).

In a written op ed piece published on Fox News, Fleitz accuses Brennan of being “the most politicized intelligence chief in American history.”

Fleitz claims that Brennan had reliable evidence that Putin believed he would benefit more from President Clinton and therefore wanted her to win.

However, Brennan allegedly buried that reliable intel. 

More details on this breaking new bombshell below:

On Tuesday, the Senate Selecte Committee on Intelligence released a report suggesting that Russia did interfere in the 2016 elections.

Many Democrats have used the report to support the theory that the Russians attempted to support and promote then-candidate Donald Trump.

However, in his op-ed, Fleitz, a former high ranking CIA agent, stated that the released document does not include any reference to declassified files.

These declassified files suggest that the Russian disinformation campaign was actually against Trump and was used to help Clinton.

More from Fleitz's Fox News op-ed:

The report released Tuesday was the second Senate Intelligence Committee report contradicting the findings of the House and other intelligence experts. The first Senate report was issued in July 2018.

Naturally, the political establishment and anti-Trump journalists gloated about the new Senate Intelligence Committee report as bolstering their biases. NBC reporter Ken Dilanian breathlessly tweeted that it “confirmed the accuracy of the 2017 US intelligence assessment on Russian election interference, undercutting far right conspiracy theories.”

According to the latest Senate Intelligence Committee report, proper procedures were dutifully followed in drafting the intelligence community assessment.


House Intelligence Committee staff members found the opposite. They told me there was conflicting intelligence evidence on Russian motivations for meddling in the 2016 election.

More gravely, they said that CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts.

House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election.

Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.

So why did the Senate and House Intelligence Committees come to such starkly different conclusions? Why would professional intelligence officers give different accounts to these committees?

Democrats and their left-wing media allies claim the House Intelligence Committee’s findings are not credible because they were solely the work of what was then the Republican majority under then-Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

On the other hand, the Democrats and their media allies contend that the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings must be believed because they are bipartisan and endorsed by the committee’s Republican Chairman Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina.

I strongly disagree for several reasons.

The lengthy op-ed goes into great detail into the reports supporting the theory that the Russians were attempting to help Hillary Clinton.

Fleitz also explains how Brennan's team violated intelligence community rules by purposefully allowing "no dissenting views or even an annex with reviews by outside experts."

Will the media cover Fleitz's claims as closely as they breathlessly followed anything related to the Russia investigation?

This revelation comes days after Trump shared a social media post saying that John Durham indictments could come as early as "this week."

Attorney General Bill Barr said, "My own view is that the evidence shows that we’re not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness. There is something far more troubling here, and we’re going to get to the bottom of it. And if people broke the law, and we can establish that with the evidence, they will be prosecuted."

According to the Washington Examiner:

President Trump shared a report that said indictments could be coming this week in U.S. Attorney John Durham's review of the Russia investigation.

Part of a flurry of retweets late Monday evening, Trump's verified Twitter account, which has 77.8 million followers, shared a post from Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett's personal website with the headline: "More Russia Spygate Indictments Coming ‘This Week.’"

The post, authored by "staff" and shared by Jarrett's verified Twitter account, focused on a recent interview conducted by Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, during which investigative reporter John Solomon said "this week — the last couple weeks" — that "some criminal investigative activity" indicated there "could be a handful of indictments and much more information."

Solomon, who recently founded the new outlet, issued on Wednesday a denial that he ever said indictments were imminent.

He became mired in controversy last year when his reporting on Ukraine for the Hill got swept up into the impeachment investigation and became subject to a review that found he "failed" to identify "important details about key Ukrainian sources."

The truth always makes itself known.

It may take a while, but the truth eventually trumps the lies.

With Fleitz's latest op-ed, we now have more insight into the politicized disputes between the Senate and House reports on Russian meddling in 2016.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Hey, Noah here!

Wondering where we went?

Read this and bookmark our new site!

See you over there!

Thanks for sharing!