Ever since the sketchy “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report” was originally released late December 2016 we identified the construct as a mostly political intelligence document which seemed to be created to justify a Russian narrative.
As time went on, and as the Clinton-Steele dossier was revealed, the 17 agency Intelligence Community Assessment (another name for the JAR) grew even weaker. In late October 2017 former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted the Clinton-Steele dossier was part of the Joint Analysis Report. Eventually, our research indicated the dossier and the intelligence report were likely the underlying evidence behind the FISA Title-1 application for surveillance on Carter Page and by extension the Trump campaign.
Well, our independent suspicions appears to be exactly what House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes is currently investigating.
(Via New York Post) […] After learning Obama Justice and FBI officials relied heavily on unsubstantiated rumors in the dossier to wiretap a Trump adviser during the election, congressional leaders now suspect the dossier also informed Obama intelligence officials who compiled the ICA.
The report was released Jan. 6, 2017 — the same day intelligence officials attached a written summary of the dossier to a highly classified Russia briefing they gave Obama about the dossier, and the day after Obama held a secret White House meeting to discuss the dossier with his national-security adviser and FBI director.
Staff investigators for GOP Rep. Devin Nunes’ intelligence committee, for one, are now going over “every word” of the ICA — including classified footnotes — to see if any of the analysis was pre-cooked based on the dossier.
[…] The Defense Intelligence Agency, Homeland Security, State Department’s intelligence bureau and other agencies with relevant expertise on Russia were excluded, in violation of normal rules for drafting such assessments. And in another departure from custom, the report is missing any dissenting views or an annex with evaluations of the conclusions from outside reviewers.
US intel veterans suspect the administration “manipulated” the process to reach a “predetermined political conclusion” in order to delegitimize Trump. (read more)
The “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report” (full pdf below) is pure nonsense. It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor.
This report might as well be blaming Nigerian fraud phone solicitors for targeting U.S. phone numbers. Just because your grandma didn’t actually win that Nigerian national lottery doesn’t mean the Nigerian government, or representative of the Nigerian government were targeting grandma.
This FBI report is, well, quite simply, pure nonsense, that’s why NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers refused to endorse it.
[…] “And then you hear it’s 17 agencies. Well, it’s three. And one is Brennan and one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They’re political hacks.”
“So you look at it — I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper, and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he’s proven to be a leaker.”
“So you look at that, and you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with that. Now, you’re not going to get into an argument. You’re going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.”
That quote was from President Trump in November 2017 and he’s entirely correct. James Clapper (ODNI), John Brennan (CIA) and James Comey (FBI) were indeed political hacks.
The proof is in their own action: ♦Remember CIA Director John Brennan got caught, and later apologized, for using his agency to spy on congress (SEE HERE), for political purposes. ♦Then there’s the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who admitted to lying to congress (SEE HERE) for political purposes. ♦Lastly, FBI Director James Comey who admitted to leaking his memo content to the New York Times for political purposes.
Their admitted behavior.
Their admitted use of their intelligence positions for political reasons.
So it doesn’t really come as a shock that this FBI report is pure nonsense. But don’t take my word for it, read it yourself.
This entire FBI report is nothing more than a generalized, albeit techno-worded, explanation for how Nigerians, Indians, or in this case Russians, attempt to gain your email passwords etc., nothing more.
However, what was alarming to consider was how far the various radical political ideologues, and the media, were willing to go to create a straw-man crisis for political benefit. Secondly how terribly diminished the integrity of the executive office of the U.S. presidency actually became amid this level of ridiculous propaganda.
There’s no doubt the intended outcome was to create internal confusion and begin selling a narrative to undermine the incoming President-elect Trump administration. No-one expected him to win; Trump’s victory sent a shock-wave through the DC system the professional political class were reacting to.
Trump was a threat, an existential threat to their entire livelihood, and Trump won. Now the outgoing administration was in a state of panic; and the outlier co-dependent agents from that administration were similarly apoplectic with fear.
The outgoing administration needed to create something, some narrative, to block Trump from upending their entire political system. They sold this ridiculous Russian Narrative to a gullible U.S. left-wing electorate, because the Obama administration -writ large- knew media would help them and millions of people who will buy into these fabrications.
Consider the December 2016 example from a Yahoo News article:
[…] The US intelligence community has concluded that a hack-and-release of Democratic Party and Clinton staff emails was designed to put Trump — a political neophyte who has praised Putin — into the Oval Office. (link)
There was, and still is, absolutely no evidence the DNC was “hacked” (WikiLeaks claims the information was an inside job of “leaking”), and even John Podesta admitted himself he was a victim of an ordinary “phishing” password change scam.
Does hacking exist, of course it does. Do hackers exist in every country connected by the internet, of course they do. Do state governments participate in hacking offense and defense, again – yes, of course they do. And yes, the FBI and U.S. intelligence community act purposefully against all participants they can catch.
But what does that reality have to do with allegations that hostile Russian hackers attempted to gain entry into the DNC or John Podesta? Those were, and are, two entirely different issues which the Obama administration conflated simply for political and ideological purposes.