Is Durham Investigating Whether Brennan Lied About His Interest In Using the Steele Dossier to Frame Trump?

Interesting thread on Twitter by The Last Refuge compiled at Twitchy.

The short version is this: Brennan testified to Congress that the CIA -- including himself, of course -- did not at all rely on the Steele Dossier.

And yet Comey testified that Brennan "insisted" on including "the crown material," which is almost certainly the Steele Dossier, in the Intelligence Community Assessment given to Trump in early January 2017.

Comey claims he insisted that "crown material" not be included, as it was unverified. The compromise, apparently, was that the "crown material" was not included in the ICA itself, but was instead paperclipped to the ICA as some kind of unofficial addendum. Then Trump was briefed on both the real ICA and the fake news addendum.

And this briefing was leaked to CNN, which was the plan all along. In fact, CNN might actually have conspired with government officials to perform a criminal act (leaking classified information to unauthorized persons).

By doing so, whoever clipped the Steele Dossier to the ICA gave CNN the "story hook" Comey says they needed (and why did Comey know what CNN needed to publish the Steele Dossier?), and gave CNN license to conflate the actual ICA with the fakey-fake addendum in people's minds. Conveying the sense -- wished for by both Jeff Zucker's personal televised rantblog and the Deep State conspirators -- that the Steele Dossier was in fact verified by the intelligence community and relied upon as accurate and true.

So who is telling the truth? Both Brennan and Comey are known liars and intense partisans; is Comey lying about Brennan insisting on including this Russian disinformation, or is Brennan lying about it?

I suspect that Brennan was behind virtually everything that happened here -- including giving the order for his spies to begin making contact with George Papadoplous and Carter Page overseas, where US protections against state surveillance did not fully apply -- but I don't know.

Durham may be combing through Brennan's communications to discover if he did in fact reject the "crown material," as he claims, or if he was the Deep State's highest-ranking patron of it.

The Last Refuge speculates further -- perhaps too far -- that the entire ICA itself was corrupt from the outset, written to provide a pretext for the Russia Collusion coup attempt.

But I'm not ruling anything out. I would point out that the very same corrupt, intense partisans with a history of perjury are the people who fought so hard to claim that "17 agencies" agreed on the Russia Interference narrative.

Including the claim, disputed by former NSA Mike Rogers, that Russia was not just trying to make trouble and sow discord, but to affirmatively work to get Trump elected. That was not agreed to by "17 agencies" -- but good luck trying to get the media or its Deep State co-conspirators to report that.

16) However, beyond Brennan's fibbing, and even more disturbing, what does this say about the political intents of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?

The ICA is very troublesome. https://t.co/0pMOVwHpLy pic.twitter.com/2v5HSJEXJJ

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) December 20, 2019

18) Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) December 20, 2019

20) If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) December 20, 2019

posted by Ace of Spades at 02:18 PM

| Access Comments