Inside the CIA Narrative War: Brennan, the Steele Dossier, and the 2017 Intelligence Rewrite
Aug 08, 2025, 04:55 PM
Share
Subscribe
An ex-CIA operations officer alleges that John Brennan helped launder the Steele dossier into U.S. intelligence assessments. This podcast-exclusive investigation examines insider testimony, the Durham Report, and FOIA records to uncover how intelligence may have been used as a narrative weapon.
This episode is produced exclusively for the Divergent Files Podcast.
What if the most damaging interference in American democracy didn’t come from overseas…
but from inside the intelligence system itself?
This episode investigates explosive claims that former CIA Director John Brennan played a central role in inserting politically funded opposition research—the Steele dossier—into the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, giving it the appearance of high-confidence intelligence despite internal objections.
At the center of this investigation is testimony from former CIA operations officer Brian Dean Wright, who alleges that dissenting analysts were sidelined while narrative alignment was prioritized over analytic rigor. His claims are examined alongside the Durham Report, Office of the Director of National Intelligence FOIA emails, Senate Intelligence findings, and House Oversight documentation.
We trace how opposition research originating outside government channels became embedded in official intelligence products—and how media coordination and strategic briefings amplified those conclusions before they could be meaningfully challenged.
This episode places the events of 2016–2017 into a larger historical pattern. We connect them to documented U.S. psychological and narrative operations such as COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird, and examine how modern tools—from think tanks to defense-funded perception research—may represent an evolution of those tactics rather than a departure from them.
We also explore:
• How dissent inside the intelligence community was reportedly discouraged
• Why the Steele dossier was elevated despite known sourcing issues
• The role of briefings to political leaders and media outlets before inauguration
• How confidence language can be used to shape belief rather than reflect certainty
• Why this case matters beyond party politics
This investigation is not about defending or attacking any political faction.
It’s about accountability.
When intelligence assessments are used to shape public belief rather than inform decision-makers, democracy doesn’t fail because people disagree—it fails because truth becomes secondary to narrative control.
This episode doesn’t ask you to pick a side.
It asks you to read the documents.
Because once intelligence becomes a storytelling tool, the question isn’t who wins an election.
It’s who decides what’s real.
Stay curious. Stay grounded.
And remember… no matter what they tell you, the truth is still out there.
What if the most damaging interference in American democracy didn’t come from overseas…
but from inside the intelligence system itself?
This episode investigates explosive claims that former CIA Director John Brennan played a central role in inserting politically funded opposition research—the Steele dossier—into the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, giving it the appearance of high-confidence intelligence despite internal objections.
At the center of this investigation is testimony from former CIA operations officer Brian Dean Wright, who alleges that dissenting analysts were sidelined while narrative alignment was prioritized over analytic rigor. His claims are examined alongside the Durham Report, Office of the Director of National Intelligence FOIA emails, Senate Intelligence findings, and House Oversight documentation.
We trace how opposition research originating outside government channels became embedded in official intelligence products—and how media coordination and strategic briefings amplified those conclusions before they could be meaningfully challenged.
This episode places the events of 2016–2017 into a larger historical pattern. We connect them to documented U.S. psychological and narrative operations such as COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird, and examine how modern tools—from think tanks to defense-funded perception research—may represent an evolution of those tactics rather than a departure from them.
We also explore:
• How dissent inside the intelligence community was reportedly discouraged
• Why the Steele dossier was elevated despite known sourcing issues
• The role of briefings to political leaders and media outlets before inauguration
• How confidence language can be used to shape belief rather than reflect certainty
• Why this case matters beyond party politics
This investigation is not about defending or attacking any political faction.
It’s about accountability.
When intelligence assessments are used to shape public belief rather than inform decision-makers, democracy doesn’t fail because people disagree—it fails because truth becomes secondary to narrative control.
This episode doesn’t ask you to pick a side.
It asks you to read the documents.
Because once intelligence becomes a storytelling tool, the question isn’t who wins an election.
It’s who decides what’s real.
Stay curious. Stay grounded.
And remember… no matter what they tell you, the truth is still out there.