There was once a time, not that long ago, when the mainstream left was highly critical of the CIA, and scrutiny of dubious claims by U.S. intelligence was a common occurrence. Of course all of that changed when those same intelligence agencies were weaponized to target a political enemy that was also the enemy of the left, namely Donald Trump.

Now, in the era of modern political narratives, no intelligence claim against the Trump administration is too outlandish. Regardless of dubious sourcing, it’s all pushed as fact so long as the target of the claim is President Donald Trump.

As a result it is not a surprise how targeted weaponization became the cornerstone of the Russian narrative, and sketchy intelligence claims of Russian involvement in elections became the mortar that binds the bricks. The end product is tenuous at best; and if anyone starts to scrutinize the instability of the construct they too become a target.

Last year U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr were reported to be spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. That CIA activity is directly related to the construction of the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report (JAR), and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). Both constructs are so critical to the Russia narrative that anyone who dare question the information becomes an immediate risk and target.

Using information from U.K. media, and looking closer at yesterday’s New York Times report about investigations of the CIA, in this outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge; what specific action was taken, & why the mortar is crumbling.

2019 – “One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)

The U.K. Independent ran the above quote last year based on British intelligence officials who were concerned about scrutiny on their aligned activity with the U.S. CIA during the 2016 election. More recently, yesterday the New York Times ran an article breathless with concern about DOJ inquiry and Attorney John Durham questioning the CIA directly.

2020 […] The Justice Department has declined to talk about Mr. Durham’s work in meaningful detail, but he has been said to be interested in how the intelligence community came up with its analytical judgments — including its assessment that Russia was not merely sowing discord, but specifically sought to help Mr. Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. […] The analysts could have been engaged in standard bureaucratic behavior like obeying the filtering process or hoarding sensitive information. Or perhaps they were trying to cover something up. The questions asked by Mr. Durham and his team suggest they are looking for any potential basis to support making the latter reading, officials said. […] Mr. Durham has interviewed F.B.I. officials and agents who worked on the bureau’s Russia investigation, called Crossfire Hurricane, and for the special counsel who took over the inquiry, Robert S. Mueller III. They have also interviewed C.I.A. analysts. Mr. Durham and his team also interviewed around a half-dozen current and former officials and analysts at the National Security Agency, including its former director, the retired Adm. Michael S. Rogers, last summer and again last fall. The Intercept first reported the interviews of Admiral Rogers. But Mr. Durham has not interviewed the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, his onetime deputy Andrew G. McCabe or Mr. Brennan. Mr. Durham has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A. to learn what he told other officials, including Mr. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates. (NYT Link)

It is important to remember how critical the Russian interference narrative is to the activity that took place in 2016. If you take away the mortar, the building collapses. If the concrete evidence is not there to support the intelligence claims of 2016/2017, then all justification for the downstream “investigations” is lost.

Without the Russia narrative, those who weaponized intelligence for political surveillance are naked to the world. The Russia narrative is essential for their justification of everything. In a world with a functioning media the high importance of a key detail would mean even more scrutiny on that detail was warranted. Alas, in the world of orange-man-bad, the concept of a functioning media is as visible as a rotary phone.

The two-year investigation that generated the Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the 2016 U.S. election. This claim is perhaps the sketchiest.

It is also important to remember just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016; because it is within the network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is noted as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.

By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as some kind of a western intelligence operative who was tasked to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Mr. Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes CIA exploitation of assets and targets much easier. However, there is an aspect to the domestic operation also bearing fingerprints of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts to become important.

In their text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, CIA Director Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative.

Also late July “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI originating FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane” was party authored from the CIA by Strzok. The fast moving Strzok immediately used that EC, to initiate Crossfire Hurricane as authorized by his boss FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap. Then Strzok traveled to London to debrief intelligence officials there about the Australian Ambassador to the U.K, Alexander Downer and his contacts with George Papadopoulos.

Peter Strzok appears as a very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who enjoyed a role acting as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons.

It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan unfortunately died in a helicopter crash.

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA and FBI were openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit. Much of this overlapping operation was seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Thus we see the importance of the Russian Conspiracy-Interference Narrative. Without that baseline all of the aforementioned operations have no justification. Again, this Russia narrative is the critical mortar that binds the investigative and political surveillance bricks.

All of this engagement was admittedly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this was intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently reviewing.

The key background point is to see how committed the CIA/FBI were to the narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling.

John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA.

From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

On Tuesday April 15th, 2019, more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

♦The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where current FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time, while also holding jobs in Main Justice.

♦The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

Why did the DOJ wait?

What was the DOJ waiting for?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years. Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill. “Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.” Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative; and knowing how absolutely critical it was to justify all the surveillance that had taken place prior to the 2016 election; it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this three year fiasco including: the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking and interference narrative; the “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; the timing against Julian Assange was far too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned U.S/U.K motive to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central evidence to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

Now Watch This Brief Interview:

.

The predicate for Crossfire Hurricane was Russia interfering in the 2016 election.

The predicate for the FISA warrant against U.S. Carter Page was a Russia investigation, that included the Steele Dossier as evidence, and the use therein was contingent on Russia interfering in the 2016 election.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election; and the possibility of Trump-Russia collusion.

All of these predicate claims are demonstrably false or wildly overstated using the most tenuous of stretched interpretations. This is what John Durham is looking at.

The fulcrum for the media to push the Russia interference narrative is the Intelligence Community Assessment; and the primary factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers. A claim that is only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.

When it comes to reviewing all of the predication aspects, the CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. Thus we see members of the CIA and intelligence apparatus within media stories outraged over being questioned.

Without the initiation by the CIA, the FBI also is exposed. Thus the FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining the Russia hacking (Crowdstrike) claim.

Additionally, all of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with John Brennan and Peter Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining the Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Most worrisome, Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack – but rather from a leak by a source inside the DNC.

This Russian “hacking” claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus; and right there is the most transparently obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon as U.S. and U.K. intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be made public.