Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the origin of the counterintelligence operation, that began in July 2016, against the Trump campaign.
Last week the FBI released the original “electronic communication” (EC) documents that underpinned the origin of the FBI counterintelligence operation. The first half of this interview contains some stunning information: the raw intelligence product within the EC did not come through official intelligence channels.
Meaning, 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. 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.
The questions, many of which are rhetorical against the backdrop of political motives, become: if the EC is not based on official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the ‘five-eyes’ partners, then what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created it? And why?
As we begin to ponder the ramifications and answers to the questions in the first half of this interview, we must remember that CIA Director John Brennan gave congressional testimony last year where he explained how he delivered the raw intelligence product itself. We spotted this issue, and Brennan’s obfuscation therein, a year ago, when Brennan first gave his testimony.
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.
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, remember Brennan is describing the creation of the Clinton-Steele dossier and how it was used to generate a fraudulent October 21st, 2016 FISA Title-1 Surveillance Warrant against U.S. Person Carter Page. In hindsight, and against the known facts from research, we can clearly identify the need for the FISA warrant. The FBI and larger team of co-conspirators needed to have a retroactive legal basis for the political surveillance that was happening long before the warrant was issued.
That 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 raw intelligence that began the July 2016 counterintelligence op, the FISA(702) abuse was simply more ‘unofficial’ use of the intelligence apparatus.
It was the FBI (Comey) and ODNI (Clapper) generating the intel reports, including the Presidents’ Daily Briefing (PDB).
The CIA provided raw intel, 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 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. 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”.
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“.
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 would leave James Comey, Andrew McCabe and the small group within the DOJ-NSD and FBI. The CIA and DNI wanted all fingerprints to be from DOJ and FBI.
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 intelligence assessments published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA (intelligence community).
That January reference was the infamous 17 agencies report, from CIA (Brennan), DNI (Clapper), FBI (Comey) and NSA (Rogers), all who had confidence -except Rogers- according to the report, that Russia was attempting to interfere in the 2016 election. The intelligence report was finished January 4, 2017, the day before the White House meeting with Comey, Brennan, Clapper, etc. and documented by Susan Rice.
Now, a critic might think that Brennan is informing congress on one thing (Russian investigation), and Comey due to his March 20th admissions (Trump investigation), is NOT INFORMING congress on another. However, that angle is rebuked by Brennan’s own testimony that his specific intelligence product (CIA) was given to the FBI who were exclusively in charge of the “counter-intelligence investigation“.
What’s happening here in May 2017 is actually John Brennan creating his defense, and positioning James Comey as the primary person who is to blame for any outcome therein. In May 2017, deploying the “insurance policy” was still plausible – but it was becoming less likely to succeed. Reader Dan encapsulated what Brennan was trying to do nicely in this paragraph: [Note, this is from Brennan’s perspective as he attempts to exit liability]
[…] Brennan gave Comey the investigative product -which had nothing to do with the Trump team- and Comey used it to carry out Obama, Hillary, and Susan Rice’s dirty work for them. Of course Brennan was in on the whole thing and is now saving his own skin by saying ” I briefed ya’ll on everything I had with regards to Russia, anything additional that arose please talk to my buddy Comey”.
CIA Director John Brennan was making James Comey own the “Counter-Intelligence ‘Muh Russia’” claims about the Trump campaign. As a consequence, Brennan was trying to make Comey the fall-guy for a Robert Mueller investigative outcome in case everything fell apart and their deployment of the “insurance policy” failed.
Brennan knows there’s no ‘there’ there.
The entire construct of the “Russian Investigation” was the political use of manufactured intelligence, used to create an investigation in order to weaken, perhaps eliminate, President-Elect Trump or President Trump. This was their “insurance policy”.
However, there simply was no ‘there’ there because there’s no substantive evidence to support a “Trump Campaign Collusion Narrative”. Eventually, all avenues to prove the existence of something, that doesn’t exist, hit a dead end.
Knowing this was a likely outcome, in May 2017 John Brennan realized that someone has focused attention on Comey’s March 20th 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. That’s the benefit to keeping any oversight away while creating the politically useful narrative.
In May 2017, CIA Director John Brennan, facing the looming reality the underlying Russian ‘collusion evidence’ being non-existent, was trying to give the appearance that he briefed congress on larger Russian election interference issues. However , the trouble for Brennan is his own admission that these issues were the underlying principle for the FBI counter-intelligence investigation. Brennan specifically says he gave his intelligence product to the FBI.
Brennan was attempting to create plausible deniability for his role in a constructing a political narrative; a false narrative.
Again, May 23rd, 2017, WATCH THE RETREAT:
It’s not accidental this Brennan retreat is being facilitated by a member of congress John Brennan admits to briefing last year. Gang-of-Eight member, Adam Schiff.
Now keep in mind, with this interview by Chairman Devin Nunes highlighting there was no official intelligence apparatus used in the creation of the “raw intelligence” passed on by CIA Director John Brennan; and understanding the HPSCI is directing investigative inquiry toward the State Department; and knowing that President Trump has just nominated his own head of the CIA to become Secretary of State; …is it a surprise to see the political leadership of the Democrat Party attempting to block Pompeo?