Something has become increasingly weird about the DOJ and FBI intransigence at releasing the two-page “Electronic Communication” (“EC”) that was written by CIA Director John Brennan to initiate the July 2016 FBI Counterintelligence operation against the campaign of presidential candidate Donald Trump.
The weird something is: According to CIA Director John Brennan’s May 2017 testimony he personally briefed the Gang of Eight members, including Devin Nunes, “individually” in 2016, on that origination document. As such, in 2018 Devin Nunes would only be seeking a review of a document he was already briefed on.
Now think about this.
Why would the U.S. intelligence apparatus be withholding physical documents from Devin Nunes that supposedly would contain the same information previously briefed?
It just doesn’t make sense….. unless. Well, unless, the Brennan origination document and the briefing Brennan gave to House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, don’t match.
Which leads to another reconciliation of behavior by the administrative state. If it is indeed true the Brennan EC doesn’t match the briefing, there would have been a specific motive for entities within the usurping enterprise to remove Nunes from the origin of the ‘insurance policy‘ execution phase. Which, factually, is exactly what happened.
Removing Nunes allows the placement of a control agent. The DC process of putting a strategic political person at the center of the known risk is very familiar. Accepting the latest developments against the known activity within the ‘Spygate’ issue, it is likely that control agent was/is Trey Gowdy for all the aforementioned reasons.
Additionally, accepting U.S. Person Carter Page was used to gain a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance upon the Trump campaign, and post-election the Trump transition team, the fact that HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes was on the transition team beginning around November 11th, 2016, likely means Nunes was under FBI and DOJ surveillance for the duration of the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant until it expired late October 2017.
Again, think about it. Chairman Devin Nunes was presumably briefed in August/September, 2016, by the CIA Director who was facilitating the origination of contact with all foreign agents and operatives assisting in the Spygate endeavor.
A few months ago (April 2018), Chairman Devin Nunes, speaking about the origination of the counterintelligence operation, stated: “There Were No Official Intelligence Channels Used To Start Trump Investigation”. Watch:
The origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation, which was specifically started by CIA Director John Brennan sharing his ‘raw intelligence product’ with the FBI, was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. According to Devin Nunes information Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence -as an outcome of those relationships- to the FBI.
QUESTION: Then what exactly did John Brennan brief the Gang-of-Eight on?
On May 23rd, 2017, Former CIA Director John Brennan gave very specific testimony to congress where he noted he provided the raw intelligence to FBI Director Comey – FULLSTOP. We now know Stefan Halper was part of the group assembling that raw intelligence. All of it was, as Nunes outlined, “through unofficial channels”.
Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan May 23rd, 2017, during his testimony to congress. Pay very close attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video of Brennan’s testimony:
Brennan: [13:35] “Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them.”
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September , I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”…
In the last paragraph of the testimony above Brennan is describing raw intelligence gathered prior to the Carter Page FISA Application/Warrant (October 21st, 2016).
In hindsight, and against the known facts from research, we can clearly identify two central motives surrounding why the intelligence apparatus needed the FISA warrant. First, the FBI and larger team of co-conspirators needed to have a retroactive legal basis for political surveillance that was happening long before the warrant was issued. Second, this was all part of an insurance policy to create the illusion of a Russian Conspiracy – that would later be used -if needed- in an effort to eliminate President Trump.
The unlawful foundational FBI surveillance, which happened prior to October 2016, included the use of unauthorized FISA-702 queries of the NSA and FBI database for political opposition research by contractors. Again, much like the unofficial origin of the Stefan Halper raw intelligence that began the July 2016 counterintelligence op, the FISA(702) abuse was simply more ‘unofficial’ use of the intelligence apparatus.
Once the FBI Counterintelligence operation began, it was the FBI (Comey) and ODNI (Clapper) generating intel reports, likely included in the Presidents’ Daily Briefing(PDB), as evidenced by Page and Strzok messages saying: “POTUS wants to know what we’re doing”.
The CIA provided the false raw intel, via Stefan Halper, to start the operation, and the FBI and DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) generated the raw monitoring intelligence from the characters identified by the CIA, FBI, DOJ-NSD and approved by FBI FISA-Title 1 warrant submissions.
The FBI were running the counter-intelligence operation and generating the actual reports that were eventually shared with the White House, Susan Rice and the Dept of Justice. That’s why all the unmasking requests. Those reports, or interpretations of the report content, were leaked to the media by political operatives in the IC (and specifically FBI) throughout the deployment of the “insurance policy”, by Lisa Page, Mike Kortan, James Baker and Peter Strzok – with the guiding hand of Andy McCabe.
During the time James Comey’s FBI was generating the intelligence reports, Comey admitted he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: “because of the sensitivity of the matter“.
In his congressional testimony John Brennan was smartly (and intentionally) positioning himself out of the picture from the perspective of the illegal acts within the entire process. ODNI James Clapper while rubbing his face and scratching his head had taken the same route earlier. That approach would leave James Comey, Andrew McCabe and the small group within the DOJ-NSD and FBI.
The CIA and DNI wanted all traceable fingerprints to be from DOJ and FBI. And that’s exactly what happened…. so far.
In his May 2017 testimony, Director Brennan goes on to say the main substance of those Gang of Eight briefings (2016) was the same as the main judgements of the January 2017 classified and unclassified Russian intelligence assessments published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA (intelligence community).
FBI Director James Comey Comey made a March 20th, 2017, admission to congress that the FBI intentionally kept congress in the dark during the construct of the counter-intel narrative.
Congress was kept in the dark during this phase because the narrative can only thrive with innuendo, rumor, gossip etc. The appearance of the investigation itself was the political need; the substance was non-existent and immaterial to the creation of the narrative.
If Comey notified congress, via the Gang of Eight oversight, the counter-intel narrative would have been harder to manufacture as details would have to be consistent; and people like Devin Nunes would know what was going on. That was the benefit to keeping any oversight away while creating the politically useful narrative.