Speaking to Radio Sputnik about his explosive, detailed and documented but broadly overlooked investigation into how US intelligence agencies, not Russia, were the ones trying to meddle in the 2016 US presidential race, retired CIA officer-turned political activist Ray McGovern outlined why changing Americans' minds on the matter is so difficult.

McGovern's report, which came out last week, provided new, documented proof on some of the ways US intelligence officers attempted to interfere in the 2016 election, and on how pro-Clinton FBI staffers now involved in the alleged Trump-Russia collusion investigation worked to try to immunize former Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton from crimes including lying to the FBI and endangering state secrets.

Sputnik: Tell us a little about this report, and how you came about creating it.

Ray McGovern: Well, it was not very difficult. The fact that our report is unique is a symptom of the blanket coverage saying that Russia interfered in our election. Even most of my progressive colleagues believe that and so this is a counter-narrative, and it's really hard to change your mind around into believing something very different, even if, as in this case, it's based on documentary evidence.

So, just let me note at the outset that this is the first request, after several days of this article being up on the web in various places, for an interview, on this shocking news that it might not be Russia that intervened into our election, but rather the FBI in cooperation with the CIA and others who we call the deep state.

The story is simply this: the exchange of emails that was released by the Department of Justice inspector general shows that very top level FBI officials, including the head of counterintelligence, were plotting to make sure #1: that Trump did not win and #2: that if he did win, they would be able to push a narrative saying 'Aha, he didn't win fairly, and it was the Russians that helped him win.'

That is the narrative that prevails in our media right now; it's a really, really shameful thing because even my progressive friends believe it. Even the progressive website that used to automatically print my materials, like CommonDreams for example, or Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. I am shunned, like those dissidents in Russia way back when the Soviet Union existed.

© AP Photo / Andrew Harnik Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the special counsel probing Russian interference in the 2016 election, departs Capitol Hill following a closed door meeting in Washington. (File)

Ray McGovern: If it were true, it would make them incompetent. You're quite right; they're pushing a narrative that should be embarrassing, but the American people are not aware of what's really going on, because the media presents a one-sided view here.Sputnik: Why would the FBI and the CIA try to promote this Russian-hacking narrative, when implying that they could allow such a thing to happen makes them look incompetent?

The intelligence agencies were first and foremost determined [to ensure] that Trump could not win. You have not only this business coming out of the FBI – mainly documentary evidence in the form of text messages, but the…[forensically disproven] notion that Russia hacked into the DNC emails and gave them to WikiLeaks. When I say that's disproven, it all hinges on the forensic studies we have supervised, made and reported on, which show that this Guciffer 2.0 is a fraud…He's an entity that was invented, we think, by Bill Binney from the NSA, earlier. And I think that it was probably our own security services who invented Guciffer 2.0 and used this entity as a way of showing 'Oh, here are Russian templates on these messages!' and 'Oh, here's a little bit of Cyrillic!' They superimposed this 'evidence' on these messages to show that the Russians hacked. That is disproven by forensics now.

It's very important that people know this, but just as other things that show the faults of the narrative that prevails, it does not appear in the media, not even in the so-called progressive media.

Sputnik: Donald Trump is known for his difficult relationship with the security agencies. What do you make of that?

Ray McGovern: Well let me just give you one example. Right before he became president, that is on the 6th of January [2017]…the FBI, the CIA and the NSA gave him a scurrilous document that indicated that he had been guilty of all manner of profane and other activities captured by the [Russian FSB] when he visited Moscow many years ago. Why did they do that? They did it as an annex to another report that had no proof in real evidence, that is, that the Russians, under the direction of President Putin, interfered in our elections.

What happened was, three of them presented it, and one stayed behind, and that was James Comey of the FBI…[who] gave [Trump] what was called the dossier, the dossier about all of these terrible things. Now none of them are true. It's disproven and really conjured up. Why did they do it? It's an old tactic that the FBI uses. They say to an incoming president, 'we have this information on you, so just be aware.'…If I were Mr. Trump, I would react very, very negatively to that, because this is the old implicit trick of blackmail; that the security services have this information on a new president, and they can use it at any time if he does not do the bidding of the security services.

© AP Photo / Alex Brandon Vice President Mike Pence, second from left, and Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy stand as President Donald Trump shakes hands with FBI Director James Comey during a reception for inaugural law enforcement officers and first responders in the Blue Room of the White House, Sunday, Jan. 22, 2017 in Washington

*The views and opinions expressed by Ray McGovern are those of the expert and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.