During an interview this week, the FBI’s former director of intelligence made a shocking statement that aligns with the Biden administration’s new “Disinformation Governance Board.” In an interview with Just the News, retired Assistant Director of Intelligence Kevin Brock stated that he believes Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign used “contrived information” to fabricate the “Trump-Russia collusion narrative,” which has since been debunked as a hoax and that it was more than just a “political dirty trick.” Rather, the goal of the deception, according to Brock, was to deliberately mislead the American people in a way that, as it turns out, has increased public suspicion of their government.
“This is more than simply dirty politics,” Brock explained. “Most political dirty tactics have some basis in reality.” “However, they just made it up.” The outlet went on to say: that Brock, one of the bureau’s most venerable former leaders, praised Special Counsel John Durham’s use of the trial of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to reveal how the phony Russia collusion story was built.
Do you trust the main stream media?
"*" indicates required fields
Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI in October 2016 when he denied engaging on behalf of a client in giving the bureau what turned out to be false accusations that Trump had communicated with the Kremlin. He has pled innocent and will go on trial at the end of the month.
Durham has just revealed new information indicating that the Clinton campaign’s own researchers were suspicious of the accusation, which one called a “red herring.” The underlying data connected to the bogus charge, according to another campaign researcher, showed just an “inference” at best.
In a court filing only last week, Durham’s team uncovered an email in which a journalist told Clinton’s campaign research team weeks before they approached the FBI with the conspiracy allegations that the reporter’s Russian sources called them “bulls**t.” “This is how deception is actually revealed,” Brock said of Durham’s latest evidentiary court filings, “not by some created government agency, but by the facts produced in court that gets to the truth of what happened.”
“What Durham is systematically doing is setting up a case that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party conspired, in a conspiratorial sense, to deceive the American voter ahead of the election,” Brock stated. Brock has already chastised his old employer for allowing the Russian connection probe to drag on for two years without any adequate pretext or meaningful proof.
"*" indicates required fields
He also believes that Sussmann approaching the FBI with allegedly false information should be seen in the context of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party purposefully bombarding the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, and the media from multiple angles in an attempt to sell the bogus collusion story using flawed “evidence” like the Steele dossier in order to trigger an investigation.
“This is far more than a Clinton campaign lawyer lying to the FBI,” Brock added. “He’s using this charge to reveal a bigger picture, a bigger story.” “According to Durham’s latest court papers, it was a cooperative effort of conspiratorial acts that concocted information,” Brock said.
“Unquestionably, the American people were duped.” He also slammed the Department of Homeland Security’s new disinformation board, claiming that using it to control Americans’ online and offline speech will be a mistake and that the board is open to politicization. He stated, “I believe that misinformation is in the eye of the beholder.”
“I believe the majority of people believe that all of this information will be distributed by one political party rather than the other.” “Now, DHS, the secretary has gone to great efforts to claim ‘No, we’re merely interested in combatting Russian or Chinese disinformation on social media platforms,” Brock added. “However, it is something that should be tackled, and I believe we are approaching it with caution.”
Durham claims that the jury has to comprehend the broader plot in order to appreciate why Sussmann lied to the FBI — namely, to hide the Clinton campaign’s link to the Trump-Putin back-channel accusation. Sussmann was a former Justice Department cybersecurity lawyer who texted the FBI’s then-general counsel, James Baker, rather than going through the proper procedures to report a suspected crime.
Sussmann figured that because he had known Baker for years, Baker would assume Sussmann was sending the material to help the FBI defend national security, not because he was working for anti-Trump customers who were paying him to offer the government anti-Trump opposition research.
Durham hoped to show at trial that (a) Clinton operatives concocted the Trump-Russia back-channel story; (b) Clinton lawyers, Fusion GPS researchers, and Joffe (aided by other Internet researchers) curated the data and peddled it to the media; (c) Sussmann used his former government national-security official gravitas to persuade the FBI to investigate; and (d) Hillary Clinton and her campaign exploited the fabricated seriousness of the allegations.