Sperry: Brennan 'Juiced' The ICA For Political Purposes

Did you ever doubt that John Brennan juiced the Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) for political--i.e., anti-Trump--purposes? Me neither.

But just in case you had any doubts, Paul Sperry is here to tell you that it's true--and he has anonymous sources to confirm that it's true: Secret Report: How CIA's Brennan Overruled Dissenting Analysts Who Concluded Russia Favored Hillary.

So, this article isn't exactly man-bites-dog stuff. On the other hand, Sperry adds a fair amount of interesting detail. For example, he provides names for some of the handful of Brennan's collaborators in writing the ICA. The significance of that is that, as we learn, Brennan only had a handful of collaborators--the other analysts who would ordinarily have participated in the full ICA process were essentially shut out when it came to writing the ICA. So, if you know the names of just a handful then you pretty much know most of Brennan's team. And, anyway, Brennan himself did the final edit.

All that is interesting and useful knowledge, even if most of it isn't really new. The potentially important portion of the article is quite brief. Sperry asserts that John Durham remains focused on the ICA and is using a secret House report that debunks the ICA as a "road map" for his investigation:

Ratcliffe's Coming Declassification May Mean No Prosecution Of Brennan

That's the main theme of John Solomon's latest article:

CIA conduct during Russia assessment may be next boomerang in probe of investigators 

DNI hints new declassification coming soon. Some want it to be a congressional complaint to the CIA inspector general questioning the Obama intelligence assessment on Russian intentions.

Back in May I quoted a 25 year national security specialist, Fred Fleitz:

... CIA has been concealing a House Intelligence report that provides evidence that Putin and Russia wanted Hillary to win. This evidence was considered "strong" by CIA analysts but was excluded from the ICA over their objections by John Brennan. "Weak" evidence that maybe Russia wanted Trump to win was included by Brennan over the objections of the same CIA analysts.

This is what Solomon is talking about, and it boils down to what Bill Barr has said about prosecutions and wrongdoing: Not every abuse of power is a crime.

Clearly there are those--including myself--who strongly believe that Brennan abused his power outrageously. However, if Solomon is right, then it could mean that Brennan is out of the woods:

If Ratcliffe declassifies the House intelligence panel's complaint to the CIA inspector general, it will signal that Durham does not believe the release would impact any prosecution and could mean no charges are forthcoming concerning the assessment. 

But the release of the report would be significant nonetheless, since both Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee have sided with Brennan and agreed Russia was trying to help Trump win. 

The belated emergence of evidence — such as dissenting analysts — that calls into question a three-year-old finding would be jarring, especially if it occurred before the election.

The timing of this declassification is probably tied to Durham's interview of Brennan. Presumably Durham now has a fixed account from Brennan for what Brennan did. If, as Joe diGenova recently maintained, Brennan will be required to testify against Comey, this could play a role.

John Ratcliffe: Durham's Investigation Is About Predication

Maria Bartiromo had Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on her show this morning for a fairly wide ranging interview. All the topics were of interest, but one that especially caught my attention was the segment dealing with the John Durham investigation. We've been hearing rumors about Durham nearing, if not the end of his whole investigation, then the end of a certain phase of it. The Clinesmith guilty plea has whet our appetites for more information, but it's been slow in coming--despite promises that we'll be hearing more before the end of the summer. Before we get into that, however, a few remarks.

As we know, as a Congressman, Ratcliffe was a key part of the investigation into the Russia Hoax--as an experienced former prosecutor he showed himself to be a skilled questioner who knew the value of careful preparation. Trump's decision to replace veteran Deep State operative and former senator Dan Coats with Ratcliffe as the head of the Intelligence Community was a shrewd pick. Coming at a time when the Barr/Durham investigation was picking up momentum, there was an obvious need for a DNI who could break through the bureaucratic logjams that Coats and others had constructed to protect the Deep State. The fact that Ratcliffe was an experienced former prosecutor who would understand what was involved in such a major investigation and, especially the legal issues involved in coordinating with a grand jury investigation was an important plus. When you add to that he years of experience in Congress investigating the Russia Hoax, his knowledge of the all the players both in Congress and the Deep State as they overlapped, it came as little surprise that the Deep State and GOP senators closed ranks against Ratcliffe. In the end, however, Trump (and probably Barr) persisted and won the day.

In the transcript of the relevant portion of the interview, note that Maria has focused on some key issues that we've been discussing in recent days. First, of course, she located the tape of then Congressman Ratcliffe clearly referring to disgraced former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith's "changing evidence." Maria astutely relates the Clinesmith guilty plea to the entire three year investigation--and Ratcliffe picks up on that.

Note that Ratcliffe relates what Clinesmith did--"changing evidence"--not just to the final FISA application but to the origination of the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation. As he puts it, what Clinesmith did had to do with continuing the entire investigation. What's left unsaid, however, is that the continued focus of Durham--and Ratcliffe!--on the predication for Crossfire Hurricane also relates directly to the predication for Team Mueller witchhunt--the two are one and the same. Further, at the heart of his is Joe Pientka, who was the supervisor for the Crossfire Hurricane team and who wrote the EC recommending its closing. Also note that Ratcliffe, without being prompted, brings up the topic of the Intelligence Community Assessment--that can't be a coincidence.

Place Pientka into this context when you read about the ongoing coordination between Ratcliffe and Durham. The willingness of Durham to allow Ratcliffe to declassify some of the Pientka related documents and to allow Pientka to talk to Senate investigators in a tightly controlled setting suggests that Durham is still very much focused on the big picture conspiracy. Things appear to be coming to a head.

Brennan's Interview

Disgraced former CIA Director John Brennan was interviewed for 8 hours at CIA Headquarters today. The interview was led by USA John Durham. We're told by Brennan's team:

Brennan was informed by Mr. Durham that he is not a subject or a target of a criminal investigation and that he is only a witness to events that are under review.

Of course, if as a witness Brennan attempts to obstruct Durham's investigation ...

Brennan also confirmed, indirectly, that Durham remains focused on the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA):

What To Take From The Senate's ICA Report

Yesterday during the Dem House's theater of the absurd involving AG Bill Barr, the Senate Intel Committee released a heavily redacted version of their report on the origination of the notorious Obama administration Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian "meddling" in US elections. What this report focuses on is the inclusion of the Steele "dossier" as "Annex A" to the ICA.

I think we can take this report as a starting point for John Durham's investigation--at least as regards the ICA and its relevance to the rest of the Russia Hoax and Mueller witchhunt. We've heard at regular intervals that Durham is very much focused on the ICA, that he has been busily interviewing all the analysts involved, and--most pointedly--that he has been gathering all communications between disgraced former FBI Director James Comey and John Brennan. Naturally, the new revelations surrounding the FBI's three-day interview of Christopher Steele's notional "Primary Subsource", Igor Danchenko, make anything we can glean from this report of special interest.

Here's what struck me in reading even this heavily redacted version. You can assess my impressions while reading the excerpts I provide, below.

1. It's clear that the ICA was special ordered from the highest levels. Obama ordered it, but one assumes that there had to have been high level discussions before the decision was made. Those discussions probably involved both the Obama camp as well as the Clinton camp. After all, the Steele "dossier" was Clinton property--they had contracted for it, paid for it, and had already been putting it to use by the time the ICA was written. Getting it into the ICA, mainstreaming it as somehow an intel product rather than a political campaign product, was a big deal. And that was true no matter what caveats CIA analysts may have added.

2. Despite his testimony to the Senate, it seems clear that Comey was the driving force behind getting the dossier into the ICA. Certainly that comes across as the CIA's  understanding of the dynamics. There are hints that the FBI's Bill Priestap--its top CI official--wasn't totally committed, but Comey and disgraced former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe come across as determined. The question, then, is: Was Comey acting strictly on his own, or was he colluding with political operatives, whether from the Obama or Clinton camps, or both? Durham has surely been exploring that angle.

3. John Brennan comes across as rather clever in pointing the finger at Comey in his Senate testimony. This explains why Durham was so eager to get his hands on communications between Comey and Brennan, rather than having to rely on their testimony. What seems clear to me is that if Brennan had insisted, had really gone to the mat in support of the CIA analysts, the dossier could have been excluded from the ICA. Brennan was positioning himself.

4. While the ICA was presented as the assessment of the Intel Community as a whole, it's more clear than ever from this report that the matter of the dossier was strictly between the FBI and CIA--no other agency was truly involved--and Brennan positioned the FBI to shoulder any responsibility.

5. While the CIA analysts may not have been aware of the political provenance of the dossier material, the people at the FBI pushing for its inclusion in the ICA most certainly were fully aware that this was Clinton campaign material. They were also aware of just how unreliable it probably was and the FBI's failure to vet the material was raised insistently by the CIA analysts. Not only was this political provenance concealed from anyone reading the ICA as well as from the CIA analysts, but the fact that the FBI made no attempt to amend or revise the ICA after the Danchenko interview--just three weeks after the ICA came out--is damning evidence of Comey's conspiratorial intent against the president.

Now, here's the major portion of the redacted version of the report. What I've done is to insert an asterisk "*" to indicate redactions in the selected text. My own insertions are in brackets.

Key FBI Lies

The revelation of the FBI's interview of Igor Danchenko--the notional primary subsource for the Steele dossier--has also highlighted the FBI's mendacity in important respects. Stephen McIntyre is all over this. For example.

McIntyre points out that, given that they FBI interviewed Danchenko in January, 2017, that means that the FBI knew that Danchenko was NOT "Russia-based", as Steele falsely claimed and as the FBI falsely claimed in their Carter Page FISA application. Granted that the FBI could have been deceived by Steele--or, far more likely, handled Steele's material under a 'don't ask don't tell' policy--the FBI adopted the lie as its own by incorporating it in the subsequent two FISA renewal applications. That's very bad:

2/ NYT admits that Carter Page FISA falsely stated that Danchenko was "Russian-based". The falsehood (and FBI/DOJ efforts to conceal through redactions) was previously deduced some months ago here and in our twitter circle ... 

Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 

in original FISA, Primary Sub-Source was said to be "Russian-based" when (almost certain) US-based. By January, FBI knew falseness, but kept it in renewal.  Supervisory Intel Analyst notified Clinesmith to correct, but Clinesmith kept false information in 2 more renewals.

CORRECTION: The Supervisory Intel Analyst (SIA) did not "notif[y] Clinesmith to correct" the falsehood. Per the Horowitz Report, footnote 389, the SIA merely "ask[ed] whether a correction should be made." No correction was made, so I think that tells us what Clinesmith's response was. So, in addition to forgery, we have another criminal act by Clinesmith.

The importance of this falsehood lies in the impression that it likely made on the FISC judges: If it was true that the FBI was relying on information provided by super-secret "Russia-based" sources, that would inevitably convey the impression that the information itself must have been thoroughly vetted and highly reliable. To retain that falsehood in the renewal applications was not a result of carelessness but of calculation--as the action of the Supervisory Intel Analyst (Brian Auten) makes clear. The question then becomes, Who else knew of the inclusion of this falsehood in the two FISA renewal applications? We all know by now that FISA applications go through seemingly endless levels of review. Knowledge that Steele's characterization of the "PSS" was false could not have been confined to just those two--Clinesmith and Brian Auten--I refuse to believe that.

Like me, McIntyre believes that the Danchenko interview impacts heavily on the Intel Community Assessment (ICA) that we know Barr and Durham have focused on from the very beginning (I discuss McIntyre's view in Perspective On The Intel Community Assessment (ICA)--and James Comey). The point is very straightforward, but illustrates how the Steele "dossier's" fraudulent use was NOT confined solely to the FISA process--and that the role of the dossier in FISA may not have even been its most serious abuse. It's worth rereading from that linked post:

===============================

Moreover, the FBI knew this was material developed and paid for by the Clinton campaign, but concealed that known fact from the FISA court.

With that in mind, let's pivot to the ICA and its FBI "Annex". That Annex simply amounted to a two page summary of the Steele "dossier". Remember--the FBI knew that the "dossier" was done for and paid for by the Clinton campaign, yet they pushed hard to get the "dossier" material included in the ICA. And that was about three weeks before they even had interviewed Danchenko, the "PSS". Here's how McIntyre paints that (edited to correct spelling and punctuation and to provide a continous read):

What a load of absolute crap in annex to Intel Assessment of Jan 6, 2017! It's even worse and stupider than we could possibly have imagined. Aside from whatever J. Edgar Hoover stunt that Comey, Clapper and Brennan may have been pulling, that US intel agencies were apparently taking such fabrications seriously indicates that they, not local police, need to be de-funded. And why would Trump be expected to have any confidence in conclusions of these agencies on their attribution of hacking, when they were so easily and willingly duped about a supposed longstanding conspiracy between Trump and Russia? If only Barr had been beside Trump in these early days!

Also, bad as it was to not clearly disclose to FISA court that dossier had been paid for by Clinton campaign, it was 100 times worse to not disclose this to President-elect (and outgoing President) in intel assessment. This seems far more serious to me than FISA issues.The Carter Page FISA was regrettable, but hardly a core issue. However, shoddy, deceptive and fraudulent intel assessments both to incoming and outgoing administrations are entirely different level of seriousness.

OK, now do you see why it's been reported that Durham is so interested in that ICA, and why he's said to be particularly interested in the email exchanges between Comey and Brennan? It's because Comey wanted the "Annex" included in the ICA. So now ask yourself, what would you, as an FBI director, do if you discovered inside a month that that Annex was a fraud? Because that's what the FBI found out for sure from Danchenko--it wasn't just the fraud on the FISA court (bad as that was), it was also the fraud on the entire country that the ICA represented. Here's Catherine Herridge summarizing what Comey had presented to the country:

NEW: First obtained @CBSNews declassified “Annex A”Intellligence Community Assessment 2016 Russian election interference cites Steele dossier. Alleges “President-elect and his top campaign advisers knowingly worked with Russian officials to bolster his chances and were offered financial compensation.” Mueller did not substantiate. Not credible enough for Intel Community to use in body of report, but FBI still used dossier 3 more times to renew @carterwpage surveillance warrant.

But, again, it wasn't just about FISA. The ICA was trotted out regularly to justify the FBI's continuing investigation that morphed into the Team Mueller witchhunt, to justify the "Resistance," all the BS that Dems in Congress and there moles in the NSC got up to. Shouldn't Comey have admitted the fraud to Trump before it ever got to that stage? Shouldn't he have shut down Crossfire Hurricane, and its fraudulent predication? Of course. But he didn't, because he was a key part of a conspiracy to defraud the government of the honest services of its intelligence and counterintelligence agencies--as well as, through Team Mueller, of honest enforcement of the criminal laws of the United States.

=============================

McIntyre returns to this topic today:

Rather than the impact of the fraudulent claims in the Steele dossier being limited to the troubling, but somewhat esoteric, issue of Carter Page FISA, it had an important and essential role in the crucial ICA, which severely constrained policy options of the incoming [Trump] administration. 

Imagine the impact of these revelations on departing Obama admin officials, presented with such concerns by the most senior officials of the Intel Community. For example, Sally Yates, who does not appear to have been aware of the backstory, must have had her hair on fire. 

The Intel Assessment (Annex A) also repeated three of the most disturbing and damages claims of the Steele dossier: long term cultivation, an unholy bargain on Wikileaks and sanctions, secret meetings and kompromat. 

The Assessment directly quoted from Steele report 2016/95, which purported to explain events on the grounds that Putin "feared and hated" Hillary Clinton.

The crucial Intel Assessment presented to Obama admin on Jan 5, 2017 and incoming Trump team on Jan 6, 2017, cited Steele, not as a Democrat Party contractor, but as "former employee of friendly foreign intelligence service" with a "layered network" 

In fact, Steele is characterized as an "FBI source". Imagine if instead Steele had been accurately characterized in the ICA as "a contractor for the Hillary Clinton campaign who has been terminated as an FBI source due to unreliability"! And that was actually before the Danchenko interview.

Does this give some idea of the enormity of this conspiracy against our constitutional order that was perpetrated by the Dem party and its willing accomplices in the Intel agencies? And, of course, this is just one snapshot.

Perspective On The Intel Community Assessment (ICA)--and James Comey

Stephen McIntyre makes a useful observation regarding the new revelations regarding the joint FBI/DoJ interview of Christopher Steele's "Primary Subsource" ("PSS", now known to be a Russian expat, think tank analyst in the US, Igor Danchenko). We now have confirmed that by late January, 2017, just days after the Trump inauguration, Danchenko over a three day period essentially debunked the entire Steele "dossier". And yet the FBI and DoJ--later including Team Mueller--continued to use an active FISA warrant nominally against Carter Page but in reality targeting President Trump. That FISA was originally obtained in October, 2016, by carefully failing to verify the Steele material that Danchenko debunked in January, 2017, but concealing that lack of verification from the FISA court. The same debunked material was used to twice renew that FISA after Danchenko had debunked it. As Andy McCarthy puts it this morning:

In each warrant, the court was told: “The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential campaign were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [Trump’s] campaign.” Moreover, the warrant applications painted a picture of a “conspiracy of cooperation” between Donald Trump and the Putin regime, with Manafort at the hub, using such underlings as Page and Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, as intermediaries.

It was complete nonsense, largely based on the so-called dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, working on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Moreover, the FBI knew this was material developed and paid for by the Clinton campaign, but concealed that known fact from the FISA court.

With that in mind, let's pivot to the ICA and its FBI "Annex". That Annex simply amounted to a two page summary of the Steele "dossier". Remember--the FBI knew that the "dossier" was done for and paid for by the Clinton campaign, yet they pushed hard to get the "dossier" material included in the ICA. And that was about three weeks before they even had interviewed Danchenko, the "PSS". Here's how McIntyre paints that (edited to correct spelling and punctuation and to provide a continous read):

The FBI 'Analyst' At The Heart Of The Russia Hoax

Paul Sperry has a very thorough, and lengthy, article out today that details the role of Brian J. Auten, a Supervisory Intelligence Analyst for the FBI, in enabling the Russia Hoax. Auten was a key player in getting the Carter Page FISA warrants approved as well as being a key contributor to the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). He was also targeted repeatedly by IG Horowitz' FISA Report. The Sperry article,

FBI Man at the Heart of Surveillance Abuses Is a Professor of Spying Ethics

is too long to attempt to summarize. I'll confine myself here to citing a few examples.

Auten's wrongdoing appears to have involved both failures to disclose necessary information as well as what appear to be outright misstatements:

By January 2017, the lead analyst had ample evidence the dossier was bogus. Auten could not get sources who provided information to Steele to support the dossier’s allegations during interviews. And collections from the wiretaps of Trump aide Carter Page failed to reveal any confirmation of the claims. Auten even came across exculpatory evidence indicating Page was not the Russian asset the dossier alleged, but was in fact a CIA asset helping the U.S. spy on Moscow. 

Nonetheless, he and the FBI continued to use the Steele material as a basis for renewing their FISA monitoring of Page, who was never charged with a crime.

That is very important. In order to renew a FISA, it's necessary to either demonstrate that the FISA has been "productive"--that is, has provided information that confirms the probable cause claims made in the original FISA application--or explain why the FISA had been unproductive to that point and why an renewal would lead to productive results. In addition, of course, a process of reviewing the reliability of past information that was relied upon in obtaining the FISA is also required. Obviously, none of the above occurred with regard to the Carter Page FISA applications, and Auten was a key player in that entire process:

Annex A

There's been a fair amount of comment regarding the soon to be famous "Annex A" to the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). The ICA, of course, was the brainchild of the Intel Triumvirate of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. Released in the first week of January, 2017, it sought to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration before Trump was even inaugurated by claiming that the Intel Community had "high confidence" that Russia had tried to help Trump get elected.

The whole thing was nonsense, of course, and now we're told that there is documentary evidence that IC analysts pushed back against the official conclusions of the ICA. The official conclusion was that the Russians wanted Trump elected, but the analysts apparently put in writing that the evidence that claimed to support that conclusion was actually very weak. Instead, the analysts pointed out, the evidence that the Russians wanted Hillary to win was quite strong. That pushback was suppressed by the IC, but has been dug out by the Barr/Durham investigation. We have never missed an opportunity to stress that the ICA is at the very heart of the Big Picture conspiracy case that Durham is building.

Yesterday, as one of his first official acts as DNI, John Ratcliffe forwarded to Senators Grassley and Johnson a newly declassified version of Annex A. It's quite brief--not even a page and a half. All it is is a summary of the fabrications that Chris Steele ginned up for the Clinton campaign as contractor for the Clinton oppo research shop at Fusion GPS. Steele then also purveyed these falsehoods to the FBI, the Fake News Media, and various politicians and their operatives. As the Horowitz Report was at pains to point out, the FBI was fully aware--from the get go, in July, 2016--of the political provenance of the Steele "dossier," as it came to be known. The fact that this material was, in all essentials, fiction was also known by the FBI when Peter Strzok helped put together the summary of the "dossier" that was appended to the ICA--Annex A.

None of this should be news to regular readers. Bill Barr and John Durham are smart guys, and they've been focused on the ICA all along. The reason is simple. If the ICA was a knowingly fraudulent production that put forth conclusions favored by the IC Triumvirate, but disputed by the analysts themselves, then we have a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy to defraud the US Government of the honest services of the Intel Community, because if the ICA had been the product of honest services it would have incorporated the views of the analysts who were fraudulently claimed to have reached the official conclusions. By colluding to falsify the true views of the analysts, the IC Triumvirate of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey conspired to defraud the US Government of their honest services. The aim of their conspiracy, of course, was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's election.

Grenell Succinctly Explains Where Barr/Durham Is Headed

We've heard many times that the Barr/Durham investigation is closely examining the process behind the infamous Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA was foisted on a credulous nation by disgraced former CIA Director John Brennan and his Deep State and Media allies, and has served to perpetuate the myth of "Russian meddling" on behalf of Trump.

Per TGP and CTH, Grenell has appeared on The Rubin Report. Here is, IMO, the most important thing he had to say:

Grenell: ... 

And the current intelligence community believes there are a couple of bad apples that they got to get out there and that they were manipulated.  And I will say this – there were red flags early on in the Russia investigation from a variety of agencies and some people made those red flags and those comments from people coming forward, saying ‘this Russian stuff is not true’, they classified that information and pushed it away. 

I’ve seen that information and I’ve called for it to be declassified. It’s a process that’s ongoing, it takes time.  I wasn’t there long enough to do it.  But there are instances where red flags were raised very early on in certain agencies and I’ve requested that information to come out and I hope that it will.”

You can go to the bank with this--Barr and Durham have seen the same information, and--since Barr has full authority to declassify--when the time comes we will see it, too.

To be clear, what Grenell is saying is this: During the process of fabricating the ICA, intel analysts came forward and expressed--in writing--that "this Russian stuff [being inserted into the ICA] is not true." Brennan and the other corrupt actors classified those objections to keep it hidden. A bit like Susan Rice classifying her email-to-self to prevent it from being seen.

What Grenell is describing is powerful evidence of intent to perpetrate the Big Picture Conspiracy. Thus the desperate actions we see.

Grennell's Final Declassifications

FoxNews has a story out about formerly Acting DNI Grennell's final declassifications--Grenell declassifies slew of Russia probe files, as Ratcliffe takes helm as DNI. It will now be up to new DNI John Ratcliffe to decide which of the newly declassified documents will be made public. Of course the story leads with what, to my mind, will end up being a non-story--the call transcripts of Kislyak and Flynn. However there is mention of a document that is undoubtedly near the heart of the Durham investigation. It has to do with "manipulation of intelligence," which undoubtedly concerns John Brennan's "shaping" of the ICA, which was the basis for all subsequent coup and fake impeachment efforts. In that case, it's possible that Ratcliffe--undoubtedly in consultation with Barr/Durham--will withhold that document for the time being. As a former USA himself, Ratcliffe will fully understand whatever the dynamics are in that decision:

The documents include transcripts of phone calls that then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak had in December 2016, during the presidential transition period. Grenell said publicly last week that he was in the process of declassifying those files, after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked that he do so. 

Fox News has learned that the declassification review of those transcripts is now complete, and it will be left up to Ratcliffe on whether to release them publicly. 

Fox News has learned that Grenell also completed the declassification review of other documents related to the origins of the Russia probe — including one that a senior intelligence official told Fox News was “very significant in understanding how intelligence was manipulated to support launching the Russia investigation.” 

The official could not provide further details on that newly declassified document, but said that it will also be up to Ratcliffe to decide whether to make it public.

Speaking with Tucker Carlson, FoxNews' Ed Henry focused on the documentation regarding the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), stating that, if some of the other newly declassified documents are released, "it could get sticky for John Brennan in particular, because of some of the other info":

More On Predication And The ICA

The "ICA", of course, is the Intelligence Community Assessment--a John Brennan production that was published on January 7, 2017, just short of two weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States. The ICA proclaimed with "high confidence" in its Key Judgments that Russia and, specifically, Russian President Putin had sought to influence the 2016 US Presidential Election in order to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of being elected. Putin was claimed to have had a clear preference for Trump, so the logical corrolary was that Trump's election was tainted by Russian interference in our election. Trump was, arguably, an illegitimate president, attaining office through the efforts of a hostile foreign power to whom Trump would be beholden:

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

Recently I cited the statements of a 25 year national security specialist, Fred Fleitz:

UPDATED: Specifics On Brennan's Fraudulent ICA Production

Fred Fleitz will be doing an interview in which he states that CIA has been concealing a House Intelligence report that provides evidence that Putin and Russia wanted Hillary to win. This evidence was considered "strong" by CIA analysts but was excluded from the ICA over their objections by John Brennan. "Weak" evidence that maybe Russia wanted Trump to win was included by Brennan over the objections of the same CIA analysts:

TONIGHT 8pm ET 📺👉https://t.co/nT5simhWyH

Former NSC chief-of-staff: There’s an unpublished @HouseIntel report stuck at @CIA since 2018 which contradicts the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
@FredFleitz on @AmThoughtLeader🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/b9eDgg3h4t

— Jan Jekielek 😷 (@JanJekielek) May 3, 2020

 UPDATE: I really should have added an explanation for why I find this important. The point of this is that the ICA was the justification for everything that came afterwards, it was the "proof" of what "everybody" claimed to know: That Trump had to be investigated for colluding with the Russians who had tried to help him win the election. It was behind the DNC hack narrative, the Wikileaks narrative, the Roger Stone persecution. But most of all it was behind the Mueller Witchhunt.

By revealing Brennan's dishonesty in overriding the CIA analysts Durham can use that as evidence of conspiratorial intent. It's an element of proving intent--not the whole ball of wax--but it's important in that respect. This explains why Durham has apparently spent so much time interviewing analysts who were part of the ICA team, and also why he wants to talk to Gina Haspel--if he hasn't done so already. Has she been concealing that report? She and Chris Wray may find themselves in the same or similar boats, very soon.

What Did The CIA Give The FBI In 2016?

In A Tale Of Three Dossiers I failed to include a major point that Devin Nunes included. Nunes included among the current areas of focus for investigators: What information did the CIA give the FBI in 2016. Here's exactly what Nunes said:

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:

Why you should care that Nunes says House intelligence focus is on ‘info CIA gave to FBI in 2016’

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;  

3. and [] this information served as the basis for the FBI investigation.

How's This For Predication

Regular readers will recall that, according to the Attorney General Guidelines for the FBI's National Security Investigations, in order to obtain a FISA warrant the FBI must first have a Full Investigation opened. Once again, below is the required predication for opening a Full Investigation. Note that the difference between a Full and a Preliminary Investigation is that in the case of a Full the FBI must be able to cite "specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe that a [described] circumstance ... exists." Meaning, specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe that the circumstance actually exists. In a Preliminary Investigation the standard is that the circumstance may exist. Among the practical differences that arise from this distinction is that in the case of the Full Investigation the FBI is allowed to use more intrusive investigative techniques--specifically, FISA.

Here are the relevant parts of the Guidelines, and I've highlighted the portions that would logically apply in the circumstances that the FBI claimed gave rise to the Crossfire Hurricane Full Investigation:

FBI Headquarters or a field office may initiate a full investigation if there are specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe that a circumstance described in Part II.B.l of these Guidelines exists.  

Part II.B. 

1. Circumstances for Opening an Investigation 

The circumstances on which the initiation of a ... full investigation may be based are: 

a. An individual is ... an international terrorist or an agent of a foreign power.

b. A group or organization is ... a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power,c. ...

d. An individual, group, or organization is ... engaging, or has ... engaged, in activities constituting a threat to the national security (or related preparatory or support activities) for or on behalf of a foreign power.

e. A crime involved in or related to a threat to the national security has ... occurred, is ... occurring, or will ... occur. 

f. An individual, group, or organization is ... the target of a recruitment or infiltration effort by an international terrorist, foreign power, or agent of a foreign power under circumstances related to a threat to the national security. 

g. An individual, group, organization, entity, information, property, or activity is ... a target of international terrorism, espionage, foreign computer intrusion, or other threat to the national security. 

For a long time I was absolutely convinced that Crossfire Hurricane could only have been opened based on the Steele dossier's claims with regard to Carter Page. I assumed that the FBI had had access to the early "reports" from the dossier, in which Steele stated that Page was coordinating with Paul Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign with high level Russian officials to obtain collusive electoral assistance from the Russians. The FBI claimed for a long time that it hadn't had that access, but that now appears to be yet another, um, misstatement:

Larry Johnson On The Collapse Of The Russia Hack Narrative

The other day Larry Johnson did a nice blog on the dismissal of the Concord Management case--A Cornerstone of Russia Hacked the 2016 Election Collapses. He makes the important point--discussed in comments here--that the Concord Management case was always presented by Russia Hoax apologists and the Deep State as "Real proof that the Russians helped elect Donald Trump." It was The Real Deal--and Johnson cites The Atlantic as an example:

The indictment details highly specific allegations—including names, dates, and the text of private messages—that appear to substantiate central elements of the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment [ICA] that Russia made an active, concerted effort to subvert American democracy.

We've known ever since the ICA was issued in January, 2017, that it was a key part of the Russia Hoax narrative, both in defense of Deep State crimes during the 2016 election and as justification for the Mueller Witchhunt and the ensuing Impeachment Theater. Bill Barr knows that, too, and that's why John Durham has been focused on the who-what-when of the ICA--to the consternation of the Deep State. The dismissal of the Concord Management case knocks a critical underpinning from under that narrative.

The rout of Team Mueller is now complete, but Johnson does well in reminding us that it was inevitable as long ago as April, 2019, when Judge Dabney Friedrich admonished Team Mueller for making "false allegations" about one of the defendants--the Internet Research Agency (IRA). The main false allegation was that the IRA had anything at all to do with the Russian government:

The Mueller team folded in the face of a real lawyer, hired by Concord Management. That is what the Mueller team never counted on. 

But this was not the first setback for the Mueller team in this case. They were admonished by the Judge last year for falsely and improperly allegeding [sic] that the IRA was a Russian Government tool for intelligence operations.  

... 

The Judge's order for the Prosecutors to cease linking the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government was vindicated with the final decision to throw the case out for good. If the Mueller prosecutors actually had real evidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 US Presidential contest then they would not have dropped the case permanently. If it was a matter of figuring out how to introduce intelligence information to buttress their evidence they would have left the door open for a future revival of the case. But they did just the opposite. They asked that the charges be dropped completely and permanently.

The dismissal of the case with prejudice eliminates an important narratival defense and talking point. Any attempt to explain it away will fall on deaf ears because it will simply be too complicated for most people to listen to--not to mention, false.

It's All Good News

CTH has linked to an important article at Politico, and it's all good news. Very good news.

The CTH post is quite amusing--for what it doesn't say. We all know that sundance has been pushing the line that his controllers feed him: AG Barr is a bad guy, a swamp dweller looking to double cross all right thinking Americans. So, it's funny to read the CTH subject line, Dirty Spooks Concerned About Barr and Durham. You might expect from the subject line that there would be some mention of Barr, and maybe even an apology of sorts--given that if the Dirty Spooks are concerned about Barr then Barr has to be doing something right. Right? You'd be wrong if that was your expectation. Instead there's only one additional mention of Barr by sundance:

Apparently, if the article is semi-accurate, John Durham and Bill Barr are working around ICIG Michael Atkinson. That would be good news because Atkinson is a dirty cop, completely compromised.

Sundance even manages to quote at length from the Politico article (authored by Natasha Bertrand), while carefully excising all mention of Barr. Well, in fairness, he does omit his usual Bagpipe Bill photo from the post.

You may remember when Barr was nominated that I quoted from profiles of Barr, in which lawyers who had either worked with Barr or against Barr related how shockingly aggressive Barr is as a litigator. A portrait so much at odds with Barr's seemingly genial public persona. But those lawyers were guys like Barr--at the top of their profession--and if they were shocked you can imagine just how tough a litigator/prosecutor/investigator/political operator Barr is. Moreover, not only does Barr have plenty of experience in the Intel world, but he also likes to make his own mind up--which must be extremely unsettling for those under his microscope.

Keep that in mind as you read the following excerpts from a very heartening article, written by an author who is a determined opponent of Barr and a Deep State propagandist. And just imagine the dismay, and fear, being experienced by Deep State actors as they increasingly come face to face with Barr and his chosen bulldog, Durham. Any illusions that this nightmare will somehow just go away must have been dispelled long ago. That part is all over except for the squealing that we're hearing:

Is Guccifer 2.0 A CIA Creation?

We've all heard about the deep interest that Barr/Durham have in the basis for the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)--the IC "analytical" product that established the narrative that "the Russians" tried to throw the 2016 election to Trump. Today former CIA analyst Larry Johnson examines the sourcing for the key claim in the ICA, which is that an internet persona and entity called, respectively, Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were GRU (Russian military intel) operations that relayed DNC materials to Wikileaks.

Johnson's article is long and detailed, yet pretty readable: Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks? I'll paste in the beginning to give you a flavor for where Johnson is headed, but don't stop there--read it all:

Durham Has Brennan In His Sights

Breaking tonight in the NYT: Durham Is Scrutinizing Ex-C.I.A. Director’s Role in Russian Interference Findings. I suspect a lot of this is actually old news and that Durham has been focusing on these matters and collecting documentation since at least the summer.

Excerpts (I've omitted the considerable pro-Brennan spin):


WASHINGTON — The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.

...

Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments, including May 2017 testimony to Congress, about both the dossier and about any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia’s interference, the people said.

...

Mr. Brennan has come into Mr. Durham’s sights as he has focused on the intelligence community assessment released in January 2017 that used information from the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency to detail Russia’s meddling. They concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s chances by damaging his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

...

“The president bore the burden of probably one of the greatest conspiracy theories — baseless conspiracy theories — in American political history,” Mr. Barr told Fox News. He has long expressed skepticism that the F.B.I. had enough information to begin its inquiry in 2016, publicly criticizing an inspector general report released last week that affirmed that the bureau did.

Mr. Barr has long been interested in the conclusion about Mr. Putin ordering intervention on Mr. Trump’s behalf, perhaps the intelligence report’s most explosive assertion. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported high confidence in the conclusion, while the N.S.A., which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence.

...

Instead, a C.I.A. informant close to the Kremlin was a key source for that finding. Mr. Durham has been trying to learn more about any internal debate inside the C.I.A. over the conclusion, former intelligence officials said.

[In fact, the claim that the source was "close to the Kremlin"--an idiotic phrase--is highly dubious.]

...

Critics of the intelligence assessment, like Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of Utah, said the C.I.A.’s sourcing failed to justify the high level of confidence about Moscow’s intervention on behalf of Mr. Trump.

...

Mr. Durham’s investigators also want to know to more about the discussions that prompted intelligence community leaders to include Mr. Steele’s allegations in the appendix of their assessment.

Mr. Brennan has repeatedly said, including in his 2017 congressional testimony, that the C.I.A. did not rely on the dossier when it helped develop the assessment, and the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has also testified before lawmakers that the same was true for the intelligence agencies more broadly. But Mr. Trump’s allies have long asked pointed questions about the dossier, including how it was used in the intelligence agency’s assessment.

Some C.I.A. analysts and officials insisted that the dossier be left out the assessment, while some F.B.I. leaders wanted to include it and bristled at its relegation to the appendix. Their disagreements were captured in the highly anticipated report released last week by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, examining aspects of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.

Mr. Steele’s information “was a topic of significant discussion within the F.B.I. and with the other agencies participating in drafting” the declassified intelligence assessment about Russia interference, Mr. Horowitz wrote. The F.B.I. shared Mr. Steele’s information with the team of officials from multiple agencies drafting the assessment.

Mr. Comey also briefed Mr. Brennan and other top Obama administration intelligence officials including the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, and Mr. Clapper about the bureau’s efforts to assess the information in the dossier, Mr. Comey told the inspector general. He said that analysts had found it to be “credible on its face.”

But C.I.A. analysts still wanted to leave the dossier out of the assessment, as it was not vetted. Mr. Brennan’s allies have said he was among the officials who wanted to omit the dossier from the assessment.

Andrew G. McCabe, then the deputy director of the F.B.I., pushed back, according to the inspector general report, accusing the intelligence chiefs of trying to minimize Mr. Steele’s information.

Ultimately the two sides compromised by placing Mr. Steele’s material in the appendix. After BuzzFeed News published the dossier in January 2017, days after the intelligence assessment about Russia’s election sabotage was released, Mr. Comey complained to Mr. Clapper  about his decision to publicly state that the intelligence community “has not made any judgment” about the document’s reliability.

Mr. Comey said that the F.B.I. had concluded that Mr. Steele was reliable, according to the inspector general report. Mr. Clapper ignored Mr. Comey, the report said.

Mr. Brennan told Congress that he had no firsthand knowledge of any attempts by the F.B.I. to vet the dossier. Mr. Clapper went further, testifying at a separate hearing that no evidence existed in the entire assessment to definitively say whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russian officials. He also said that the intelligence community “couldn’t corroborate the sourcing” of Mr. Steele’s dossier. 

Mr. Brennan’s defenders said he always kept the dossier at arm’s length, arguing against using its findings about the Russian interference campaign in the assessment. The C.I.A. viewed it as “internet rumor,” an F.B.I. official told the inspector general.

It is not clear how much information the C.I.A. has provided investigators, and a C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. The intelligence agencies are continuing to cooperate with Mr. Durham’s investigation, a person familiar with the inquiry said.

Two Good Russia Hoax Reads, And ...

Here are the two good Russia Hoax reads:

1. The Pitfalls of a Pit Bull Russophobe

This is by Ray McGovern. McGovern was chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch during the 1970s. His target here is Fiona Hill:

Like so many other glib “Russia experts” with access to Establishment media, Fiona Hill, who testified Thursday in the impeachment probe, seems three decades out of date.

but also the entire Russia Hoax narrative, especially the Russia-meddled-ICA that Brennan and Clapper put out to validate the coup attempt against Trump:

As for the “Intelligence Community Assessment,” the banner headline atop The New York Times on Jan. 7, 2017 set the tone for the next couple of years: “Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says.” During my career as a CIA analyst, as deputy national intelligence officer chairing National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), and working on the Intelligence Production Review Board, I had not seen so shabby a piece of faux analysis as the ICA. The writers themselves seemed to be holding their noses.  They saw fit to embed in the ICA itself this derriere-covering note: “High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.”  

Not a Problem 

With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan,  were able to pretend that the ICA had been approved by “all 17 intelligence agencies” (as first claimed by Clinton, with Rep. Jim Himes, D-CT, repeating that canard Thursday, alas “without objection).”  Himes, too should do his homework.  The bogus “all 17 intelligence agencies” claim lasted only a few months before Clapper decided to fess up. With striking naiveté, Clapper asserted that ICA preparers were “handpicked analysts” from only the FBI, CIA and NSA. The criteria Clapper et al. used are not hard to divine. In government as in industry, when you can handpick the analysts, you can handpick the conclusions. 

Maybe a Problem After All 

“According to several current and former intelligence officers who must remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the issue,” as the Times says when it prints made-up stuff, there were only two “handpicked analysts.”  Clapper picked Brennan; and Brennan picked Clapper.  That would help explain the grossly subpar quality of the ICA. 

If U.S. Attorney John Durham is allowed to do his job probing the origins of Russiagate, and succeeds in getting access to the “handpicked analysts” — whether there were just two, or more — Hill’s faith in “our intelligence agencies,” may well be dented if not altogether shattered.

2. FBI Lawyer Referred for Criminal Prosecution by Horowitz Was Primary FBI Attorney on Trump-Russia Case

h/t on this one to Mike Sylvester. My feed on Jeff Carlson's blog seems slow to refresh. This showed up in my feed reader eventually, but not before Mike pointed it out.

This blog is all about Kevin Clinesmith. There's not a lot here that we haven't already heard, but it puts a lot of information at your fingertips in a readable way. Recommended. After reading it you'll have no doubts about why Clinesmith's situation--targeted by John Durham in a criminal investigation--could be a game breaker.

3. The Carlson blog on Clinesmith leads me to sundance's latest piece, in which he suggests that the "altered email" that Clinesmith used to bolster a woefully weak Carter Page FISA application was, in fact, an email from Page himself (complaining about death threat occasioned by leaks about him). I don't see how this could be true based on the information that we have at this point. According to the NYT, Clinesmith:

“took an email from an official at another federal agency that contained several factual assertions, then added material to the bottom that looked like another assertion from the email’s author, when it was instead his own understanding.”

If the email Clinesmith altered was, in fact, from "an official at another federal agency" then it wasn't from Carter Page.

OTOH, for separate reasons, I'm inclined to suspect that the renewal application to which this altered email was applied may well have been the final renewal, which was done for Team Mueller.

QUICK ADDENDUM: Ron Paul has a nice piece at Zerohedge. Nothing you don't know, but succinct--all about the "interagency consensus" or Deep State: The Real Bombshell of the Impeachment Hearings.