Dan Proft spoke with former federal prosecutor and National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy about the latest developments in the ongoing controversy over the 2016 intelligence community assessment on Russian interference. The documents, recently declassified and released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, have renewed allegations of misconduct by Obama-era intelligence officials.
Proft opened the conversation by referencing journalist Matt Taibbi’s analysis, which suggested that conclusions from the 2016 intelligence report were leaked to media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post before any actual investigative work had begun. McCarthy responded by saying that while the process was clearly political, it likely doesn’t meet the legal threshold for a criminal case.
“I don’t think any of these revelations are new,” said McCarthy, who authored Ball of Collusion, a 2019 book on the topic. “This was the worst political dirty trick in American history… but that doesn’t mean it was a crime.”
McCarthy stressed the need to differentiate between unethical political behavior and prosecutable offenses. He dismissed claims of “treason” as inaccurate and instead pointed to the more plausible—though still legally tenuous—option of a civil rights conspiracy. Even then, he noted, prosecutors would need to prove that a specific constitutional right was knowingly violated under the color of law, a high bar that hasn’t yet been met by evidence.
Proft raised the possibility of a conspiracy involving former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, including claims of perjury. McCarthy acknowledged that while there are indications Brennan may have misrepresented his personal views on the Steele Dossier, his public statements about the CIA’s institutional position remain factually accurate, making a perjury case difficult.
As for any criminal exposure for former President Obama, McCarthy was skeptical. Even if Obama had directed intelligence officials to write a biased assessment, McCarthy argued that it would likely fall within the scope of presidential immunity, especially under the Supreme Court’s recent guidance on executive authority.
“There’s not a court in the world that would go near that,” McCarthy said, adding that actions taken under the umbrella of national security are almost certainly shielded from prosecution.
While McCarthy agreed that the intelligence community’s conduct during the transition from Obama to Trump was “disgraceful,” he emphasized that disreputable political maneuvers are not always illegal. He urged caution about relying on “vague” notions like “subverting the will of the people” without corresponding statutory violations.
McCarthy concluded that while renewed public scrutiny may serve a historical or political purpose, legal accountability for those involved in the intelligence assessment is unlikely.
The conversation reflects a broader conservative narrative that questions the integrity of federal agencies during the 2016 election cycle but stops short of calling for criminal charges—at least based on current evidence and legal standards.