The media PR firm for the FBI and DOJ objectives is the New York Times. The media PR firm for the State Department is CNN. The media PR firm for the CIA is The Washington Post. This pattern has existed for several years.

The Washington Post is very concerned about a growing possibility the investigation into the origin of intelligence community work may expose the fraudulent nature of the entire ‘Russian Election Interference Collusion-Conspiracy‘ narrative. Very concerned.

The WaPo/CIA express concern by stating that President Trump is attempting to “rewrite history”; disingenuously skipping the part where Trump isn’t attempting anything. For more than three years President Trump has simply pointed out the obvious. It is is the media and the intelligence apparatus that set up a fictitious narrative for political needs.

WASHINGTON POST – […] As his reelection campaign intensifies, Trump is using the powers of his office to manipulate the facts and settle the score. Advisers say the president is determined to protect his associates ensnared in the expansive Russia investigation, punish the prosecutors and investigators he believes betrayed him, and convince the public that the probe was exactly as he sees it: an illegal witch hunt.

[…] Last week alone, Trump called the Russia investigation “tainted,” “dirty,” “rotten,” “illegal,” “phony,” a “disgrace,” a “shakedown,” a “scam,” “a fixed hoax” and “the biggest political crime in American History, by far.” He argued that the probe into Russian election interference was based on false pretenses, despite a recent report from the Justice Department’s inspector general stating the opposite even as it criticized the FBI’s surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide. And he claimed, again without evidence, that Mueller, a former FBI director regarded for his precision with facts, lied to Congress — which happens to be one of the charges Stone was convicted of by a jury last November. (read more)

The Washington Post/CIA are very worried about where John Durham’s investigation is going. Simultaneously they are worried about President Trump being proven right (he was); and by extension the entirety of the media narrative around Russia will be shown as a political effort by the U.S. intelligence apparatus (it was). This is the real motive for their current defensive narrative.

CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking; assembled in the aftermath of the November election to undermine the incoming administration.

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump. In its most essential form the ICA was the justification for “Spygate” ie. Crossfire Hurricane and all of the preceding intelligence surveillance upon the Trump campaign. Intel ass-covering on steroids.

The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.

(JUNE 2019 – New York Times) […] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.

During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (read more)

Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a Durham review or investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, Durham could cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.

Apparently, if media reports are to be believed, John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?

The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA.

If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?

Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]

(Read ICA via pdf)

When you understand this operation, you understand exactly why actors within the DOJ, FBI and Intelligence Community needed to throw a bag over Julian Assange.

Assange would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and a host of political interests who created a fraudulent Russia-collusion conspiracy with the central component of Russia “hacking” the DNC.

If Assange were not controlled he might show he received the DNC emails from a leaker, and not from a hack, the central component of the Russia interference narrative would collapse. The DOJ decision to target Assange protected multiple U.S. agencies and Robert Mueller.

As soon as Robert Mueller was going to release his Russia report, the EDVA shut down Assange with the DOJ indictment; in a similar way the same DOJ shut down James Wolfe with a weak plea agreement.

What took place then, and where we are now, is all connected to the original decisions by corrupt government officials.