What Are Our 'Allies' Afraid Of?

We've all read by now that President Trump's recent declassification order regarding key documents in the Russia Hoax led not only to mad scrambling in the hallways of DoJ and the FBI, but also to frantic phone calls from "close allies" of the United States, begging Trump not to declassify those documents. Which naturally leads to the question, What are those "allies" (the UK and Australia) so afraid of? Once again I want to point to Jeff Carlson's excellent work at The UK and Australia Have Reason to be Concerned About Declassification. Carlson goes into great detail, but for our purposes I'll focus simply on the UK and the role of GCHQ--their counterpart of our NSA.

The role of GCHQ is an aspect of the Russia Hoax that I've alluded to to one degree or another in at least four separate blogs. Let's review those references quickly:



UPDATED: Christopher Steele As Frontman - 2/7/18

As a sidenote to these British connections, it's interesting still to watch the interactions between Trump and Theresa May. Public consciousness of the precipitate resignation of the head of GCHQ has receded (he resigned for "personal reasons" giving only three days notice, not at all coincidentally, immediately after the inauguration of President Trump). Perhaps the Brits will think better of "meddling" in US politics the next time the likes of a John Brennan comes calling.

Of London, Rome, And Christopher Steele - 2/8/18

I believe it's a well established fact that British Intelligence (GCHQ) as well as the Intelligence Services of several other European countries (including, really, Estonia!) colluded with US Government agencies (presumably the CIA) in the effort to avert a Trump presidency. Perhaps they feared Trump, or perhaps they naively believed the MSM narrative that President Hillary was inevitable and thought this was a smart way to curry favor with the incoming administration. It backfired and, in the case of the British, in a very public way: GCHQ boss Robert Hannigan quits for 'personal reasons' after just two years. Right--who wanted that job anyway? And what was that date? January 23, 2017, giving only three days notice? Surely this had nothing to do with Trump being inaugurated, when was that? January 20, 2017, the very same day Hannigan gave his notice? Yes, very messy, and we can probably trace PM May's rocky relationship with Trump to this, oh, misunderstanding.

UPDATED: The Central Scandal of the Russia Hoax--and Our Constitutional Crisis - 9/15/18

This conspiracy that I've referred to was a conspiracy that involved the core institutions of the Executive Branch of government: the Department of Justice--including the FBI--the "Intelligence Community" generally, including the CIA and DNI, and the Department of State. But if all this weren't appalling enough, this conspiracy against the integrity of our fundamental institutions and our courts--even our electoral processes--extended to enlisting the cooperation of the intelligence agencies of a foreign power--Great Britain (GCHQ and MI6), not Russia!--against our own government.
...
This may be speculative, but there is a possibility that those FD-302s may contain references to Steele's relations with British intelligence agencies--MI6 and GCHQ in particular. If so, they could be explosive in providing further light on collusion of American intelligence with the intelligence services of a foreign power against the US government. 

Really? Rosenstein Wanted To Wear A Wire Against Trump? - 9/21/18

In a comment, dated 9/24/18:

I was certainly very struck by Nunes' interview on Fox yesterday (I watched it linked from CTH--it advances the storyline past what was in the presentation you sent) in which he expressed frank skepticism re the common narrative that UK concerns on declassification focus on Steele--a knucklehead if ever there was one. Nunes found that narrative frankly non-credible. CTH commented briefly without discussion that the real concern is re GCHQ involvement--which, I'm sure you've noticed, is also my view.

Carlson has now been able to add a significant bit of circumstantial evidence. Bear in mind, as Carlson points out, the anomaly of GCHQ's Hannigan traveling to Washington, DC, to confer not with his counterpart--Admiral Mike Rogers at NSA--but with John Brennan at the CIA. That appears to me to be an extraordinary breach of protocol:

So why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to Trump.

...

A good point to start is in late 2015. Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was involved in collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and transmitting it to the United States.

As Luke Harding of The Guardian reported, “The precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public, but according to sources in the US and the UK, they formed a suspicious pattern. They continued through the first half of 2016. The intelligence was handed to the US as part of a routine sharing of information.”

In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, flew from London to meet personally with then-CIA Director John Brennan.

Hannigan’s meeting was somewhat noteworthy as Brennan was not Hannigan’s counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers. Hannigan abruptly announced his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017—three days after President Trump’s Jan. 20, 2017, inauguration.

The Guardian reported on speculation that Hannigan’s resignation was directly related to UK Intelligence sharing.

But read it all.