The CIA recently released a damning Tradecraft Review that shreds the credibility of the Obama-ordered Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — the report that famously concluded Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. Much of the attention has focused on the discrepancy between the findings of this new review and what former CIA Director John Brennan told Congress in 2017. Indeed, multiple credible reports suggest Brennan is now under investigation for perjury.

One of the most glaring examples is Brennan’s sworn testimony that the Steele dossier — a collection of fabricated claims about Donald Trump funded by the Clinton campaign — “was not in any way used as a basis for the ICA.” The new review makes clear this was false. It was Brennan himself who pushed to include the dossier in the assessment, despite its complete lack of credibility. Brennan’s apparent goal was to launder Clinton campaign lies into the bloodstream of U.S. intelligence and, from there, into the media.

And it worked. The moment it was leaked in January 2017 that the dossier had made it into the ICA, it was treated as gospel. The media, which had previously hesitated to touch it, now embraced it with both hands, claiming that if it was good enough for the CIA and part of an official intelligence assessment, it must be legitimate. From that point forward, the Steele dossier became central to the Russia collusion narrative, despite being a complete fabrication. So it’s no wonder Brennan tried to cover his tracks by lying to Congress about his role in elevating it.

However, there’s a major problem — one that most reporting has completely missed. Under federal law, there is a five-year statute of limitations for perjury. That means anything Brennan said under oath in 2017 cannot be charged. Legally, it is categorically impossible to prosecute Brennan for lying to Congress about the ICA or the Steele dossier.

There are at least two plausible candidates that fall within the statute of limitations. First, Brennan’s interview with Special Counsel John Durham on August 21, 2020. Second, his sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2023.

Let’s begin with the Durham interview. Very little is known about it, other than that Brennan voluntarily appeared on August 21, 2020. What is also known is that then-Attorney General Bill Barr subsequently cleared Brennan of wrongdoing by claiming the CIA had “stayed in its lane.” That statement, which directly contradicts later revelations, remains inexplicable to this day.

The final Durham report is vague on Brennan and mentions him only 19 times, compared to hundreds of mentions for Christopher Steele. In fact, it includes only two direct quotes from Brennan’s interview with Durham, the full transcript of which remains concealed to this day. One is that Mueller “found no conspiracy,” which is irrelevant in terms of perjury. The other is Brennan’s statement that “[t]here was no effort at the CIA to restrict information because it was potentially embarrassing for Hillary Clinton…. Obama just wanted the right people involved.” That claim is false but vague enough to be legally defensible, making it difficult to charge.

The real problem is that we simply don’t know what else Brennan told Durham. To bring perjury charges, someone with deep knowledge of the Russiagate saga would need to carefully analyze the full interview, identify contradictions with established facts, and build a prosecutable case. Given the dismal track record of accountability so far, it’s hard to believe that kind of detailed work has been done. But if it has, it would need to result in charges very soon. Brennan’s interview with Durham took place on August 21, 2020, meaning the clock runs out in just over six weeks.

There is also a second avenue: Brennan’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2023. That hearing was supposed to focus on Brennan’s role in organizing the infamous October 2020 “Intel Letter,” in which 51 former intelligence officials falsely claimed that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation. That letter was used by Joe Biden during the second presidential debate to deflect from serious corruption allegations and was instrumental in shaping the media narrative just days before the election. At the time, the FBI had already verified the laptop as authentic, making the letter and Brennan’s role in it a clear act of election interference.

During the hearing, then-Congressman Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., went off-script and questioned Brennan not only about the laptop letter but also about Russiagate. Brennan responded by saying, “the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment.” This claim is now demonstrably false, as shown by the newly released Tradecraft Review. That statement alone could be grounds for perjury if someone follows through.

There’s also another thread that could be relevant: Brennan’s July 28, 2016 briefing of President Obama, in which he informed the president of intelligence suggesting that the Clinton campaign had devised a plan to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.” Rather than act on this explosive information, Brennan launched a “fusion cell” to synthesize intelligence on Russian election interference. According to Durham’s report, multiple CIA officials believed this fusion cell was created in direct response to the Clinton Plan. In other words, Brennan had every reason to suspect the Russia hoax originated with Clinton, but instead of investigating her, he built a framework to spread her narrative. If Brennan lied to Durham about this decision-making process or concealed his intentions, that too could be grounds for perjury.

For those of us who’ve followed this saga for years, cynicism is well-earned. Accountability has been almost entirely nonexistent. Just recently, bombshell revelations confirmed that Nellie Ohr — wife of a high-ranking DOJ official — played a central role in the Russia collusion hoax. She served as a key conduit between Clinton operatives, the DOJ, and the FBI. Predictably, those revelations emerged just after the five-year statute of limitations expired. That kind of timing has become the norm. So the idea that someone is finally doing the work needed to charge Brennan feels almost too good to be true.

And yet, the timing is interesting. Reports of Brennan being under investigation are surfacing just weeks before the statute of limitations on his Durham interview expires. That, more than anything, is what makes this moment so unexpected. After years of delay, misdirection, and dereliction, we may finally be nearing a real moment of truth.