Thread by @JohnWHuber

The mainstream media's latest cover story for how the Trump Russia investigation got started - BEFORE Papadopoulos apparently blabbed about Hilary emails - doesn't make any sense

Let's see why. THREAD

THE COVER STORY

In "late 2015", the Brits (GCHQ) were "routinely" listening in on Moscow targets and picked up "Kremlin operatives" talking to people "associated with Trump"

This story was told by multiple UK/US intelligence sources to Luke Harding, journalist for The Guardian

This "intelligence" about Trump and the Kremlin *was handed to the FBI and CIA* by GCHQ. Later in 2016 other intelligence agencies also started sharing "similar electronic material", including Germany, Estonia, Sweden, Poland, Australia, Netherlands, and France

Let's put aside for a minute how credible it is that SWEDEN (and almost every intel agency in Europe) has the capability to routinely carry out electronic interception on high level Kremlin operatives

Harding first wrote the outline of this story in *April 2017* in The Guardian, sourced to "UK intelligence": amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/a…

Harding then turned it into his "Collusion" book in Nov 2017. He added an epilogue in late 2017 covering the George Papadopolous drunken bar meeting with Alexander Downer.

BUT he kept this same story about GCHQ being *the start of everything*. This cover story has never been retracted by the #resistance, though it barely gets mentioned anymore and the focus has moved to Papadopolous and the Steele Dossier.

So to recap: the Brits/GCHQ caught the Kremlin talking to Trump associates in late 2015, and gave this info to the FBI and CIA

The FBI and CIA then did NOTHING. Yet the FBI later opened a major counterintelligence investigation into a presidential candidate based on just one drunk conversation in a bar between Alexander Downer and the low-level no-experience-at-all George Papadopolous? 🤔

I'll come back to the many, many problems with Luke Harding's book in another thread. But here are a few reasons WHY this makes no sense

1. Who was "associated with Trump" who even could have been talking to "Kremlin operatives" in "late 2015"? Trump WASN'T EVEN THE NOMINEE IN LATE 2015. He had a bare bones campaign staff. He was ahead in the polls but Cruz/Kasich/Bush/Carson were all still in the race 🇺🇸🏁

Here's a list of the media's favourite "Collusion" suspects and when they became "associated" with Trump:

Paul Manafort (Mar 16)
Rick Gates (Mar 16)
George Papadopolous (Feb 16)
Carter Page (Feb 16)
Mike Flynn (Feb 16)*
Jeff Sessions (Feb 16)

*advisor, endorsed Jul 16

None are "late 2015". About the only person "associated" with Trump in "late 2015" who is even a remotely plausible suspect is his long time lawyer Michael Cohen. Ah, but Harding says these were "extensive contacts" with "Trump's team" - that description hardly fits just one guy

This reads more like a story created by some Brits AFTER THE FACT. Whoever they are, they don't understand the US primary process & forget almost none of their favourite suspects were even associated with Trump at the time GCHQ was supposedly picking them up talking to Moscow

Oh and this cover story isn't just from Luke Harding either. He's just a ventriloquist dummy with US/UK intel's hand stuffed up him. The New York Times ran a similar claim on Jan 6 2017 (right before the dossier and Steele was leaked on Jan 10): mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/…

That version of the British tip off to the US also makes less sense than Harding's. This one says the Brits warned the US the DNC was hacked *in 2015*. Okay, then the NSA/CIA/FBI just let it carry on for MONTHS throughout 2016? 🤔

The second reason none of these stories make sense is FAR more damning

2. Did GCHQ even pass on "standard [electronic] collection" (or info about the DNC hack) like the cover stories say, or was it *something else*? Did UK intelligence agencies actually give information from the STEELE DOSSIER MEMOS to US intelligence instead?

What may have really happened:

1. Steele gave his memos not just to the FBI, *but directly to MI6* (in Jul 16)

2. MI6 passed Steele's info to GCHQ (& the chief of MI6 even used the memos in his first ever public speech)

3. GCHQ "passed on to their US counterparts" (in Aug 16)

That case can be proven just by relying on left wing mainstream media and people obviously using UK/US intelligence agencies and Christopher Steele as sources - before the cover story was created as the dossier lost credibility

Here is Kim Sengupta, the veteran Defence Editor of the far left Independent on Jan 12 2017: independent.co.uk/news/world/ame… and Jan 15 2017: independent.co.uk/news/world/ame…

Luke Harding again, April 2017: amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/a…

Jane Mayer March 2018: newyorker.com/magazine/2018/…

Adam Entous June 2017: washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/…

Let's put that together:

Steele > MI6 (Jul 16)

MI6 > GCHQ (Jul/Aug 16)

GCHQ > CIA (Jul/Aug) (GCHQ Director Hannigan *flies to US to personally brief CIA Director John Brennan*)

CIA > Obama ("early August") (Brennan sends "eyes only" envelope personally to Obama)

Is it just a coincidence that in Jul/Aug 16 Steele is writing the first of his memos (who end up with the FBI, MI6, GCHQ and the CIA) and all of this frantic activity happens AT THE EXACT SAME TIME? But it's all really due to Papadopolous and "routine collection"? Give me a break

Last thing. Peter Strzok was the lead agent who opened the Trump investigation on Jul 31 16. Here he is two weeks later, right around the time Brennan is briefing Obama & O's WH Chief of Staff Denis McDonough is meeting with the FBI 🤔

What did Obama know & when did he know it?