In 2016, we know from great work that Trey Gowdy did at the time … that the CIA gave information over to the FBI in 2016. We now are laser-focused on that. We need to know: Exactly what did the CIA give to the FBI in 2016?
That's it--no other explanation. Fortunately, J. E. Dyer is on the case and, thanks to emailer Todd, I've finally finished reading her lastest. As we'll see, what Nunes said actually ties in to his main point about the Three Dossiers. Here's the link:
The article is long and somewhat complex. Here's what I take to be the 25 words or less (well ...) version of it.
Dyer begins by noting two things that Brennan said in testimony before the House in May, 2017:
I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons…and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation.
I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign was shared with the bureau [FBI].
Dyer boils that down to these bullet points:
Brennan stated [that]
1. he gave information to the FBI about Russia-U.S. person contacts;
2.  some of the information involved the Trump campaign;
Dyer's contention--and she makes a strong case, one that I agree with--is that Brennan's claims are actually a bunch of nonsense. The only Russia-Trump "information" there ever was was in the Steele Dossier. Dyer's further contention is that, because the Steele Dossier was the only material that could claim to represent "information" about Russia-Trump, Brennan was insistent about getting the Steele material into his own dossier--the Brennan Dossier, or Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which served as the underpinning for the whole Witchhunt that led to the third dossier, the Mueller Dossier, and the fake impeachment of President Trump. Without the inclusion of the Steele material in the Brennan Dossier/ICA, the complete lack of substance in the Brennan Dossier would have been quickly spotted and the entire house of cards would have collapsed long before any Special Counsel.
You may recall some time ago that there was a lot of talk about Barr and Durham wanting the entire email exchanges between Brennan and Comey. That's why. They had learned that Brennan was pushing the FBI--the nominal "owner" or custodian of the Steele Dossier--to include that material in the product that was supposed to be an Intel Community Assessment, but was really a phone Brennan Dossier.
Dyer goes through all the details that support her argument but that, I believe, is the substance of it. The importance of this--why Nunes raised the issue and why Dyer spends so much effort analyzing it--is that exposing this fraud tears down all the defenses against prosecution, including the nonsense claim that 'we wuz fooled by Russian disinformation'. Any semblance of credibility for the Steele Dossier has long since been exposed as a hoax, and that means that at some point Brennan will have to put up or shut up. Information or disinformation--show it to us. Nunes wants to press the point home.
Here are a few excerpts:
Why is it important to revisit these things we have known for a long time, in light of what Nunes said on 19 April?
Because time has demonstrated that, outside of the Steele dossier, there was nothing else there to base the FBI investigation on.
That’s Nunes’s ultimate point, when he refers to the deficiencies of the ICA and the Mueller report. Aside from the boilerplate in the ICA about Russia’s historical patterns and practices, it’s all a bunch of hooey, ...
The point matters not just because there was nothing else there, but because everything that went into the Steele dossier, the ICA, and even the Mueller report was nevertheless designed to bolster the same story. The same story spawned all three documents, yet was based on nothing that can be documented.
See--there it is. The Three Dossiers! When Barr says what happened after the election is actually more disturbing than what happened before the election, he's on the same page with Nunes: it's a Tale of Three Dossiers.
That means it had an author, but it means something beyond that. It means it was the narrative of an offensive strategy – not a defensive reaction.
There was no long string of bits and pieces of “intelligence” that anyone “found.” They were all concocted somewhere, by someone, and deployed or withheld depending on the venue and priorities.
The Steele dossier, in 2016, was a device. It was the method of inserting “data points” about material “facts” to create a theoretically actionable situation for the DOJ and FBI.
And it is the only publicly accountable collection we have of any supposed “material facts.”
John Brennan, for his part, as CIA Director, referred to being separately “aware of intelligence and information,” implicitly from U.S. national intelligence sources (which would include intelligence sharing from foreign partners). But there has never been any verifiable accountability regarding what that “intelligence” was.
It is 100% guaranteed that if it truly existed, we would know that by now.
Intelligence that dispositive would have been made available first-hand to the Gang of Eight principals, if no one else. They would have assured us they had seen it. Leakers from the intel community would have given the media assurances about it.
But these tokens of fidelity have never been offered, in spite of the roaring freight train of doubt about the entire story. The “intelligence” doesn’t exist.
And that’s why Brennan would have needed to get the Steele dossier into the ICA too. Without the Steele dossier, there is no written record or semblance of evidence for any of the Russiagate narrative.
Is it early days to conclude that Brennan wrote or at least orchestrated the writing of the whole screenplay, on both sides of the feed? You decide. I don’t actually see him as the prime mover. I suspect that’s a consortium of which he would have been a part. But when all roads lead back to the CIA, we can certainly see why Brennan has become John Durham’s investigative focus.