Former FBI Intel Chief Says 2016 Clinton Campaign ‘Made Up’ Trump-Russia ‘Collusion’

May 6, 2022 By John Off
Millions of Patriots already have their TRB Golden Checks, what are you waiting for? Get your checks NOW   

The FBI’s former head of intelligence has made a startling admission during an interview this week that dovetails with the Biden administration’s new “Disinformation Governance Board.”

In an interview with Just the News, retired Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock said he is confident that the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton used “contrived information” to fabricate the ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ narrative that has been debunked as a hoax, adding that it was more than just a “political dirty trick.”

Rather, Brock said, the intent behind the hoax was to intentionally mislead the American people in a way that, as it turns out, has led to more distrust in their government.

“This is more than just political dirty tricks,” Brock said on Wednesday. “Political dirty tricks usually have some foundation in truth. But they just made stuff up.”

The media outlet continued:

Brock, one of the bureau’s most respected former executives, said he has been impressed with the way Special Counsel John Durham has used the prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to expose how the false Russia collusion narrative was constructed. 

Sussmann, who has pleaded innocent and faces trial at the end of the month, is charged with lying to the FBI in fall 2016 when he denied he was acting on behalf of a client in bringing the bureau what turned out to be false allegations that Trump had a secret communications channel with the Kremlin.

Durham has exposed recent evidence showing the Clinton campaign’s own researchers were skeptical of the allegation, which one described as a “red herring.” 

According to another campaign researcher, the underlying data linked to the false allegation demonstrated, at best, only an “inference.”

Just last week, in fact, Durham’s team revealed in a court filing an email in which a journalist told Clinton’s campaign research team weeks before they approached the FBI with the collusion claims that the reporter’s Russian sources called them “bulls**t.”

“This is the way disinformation is really exposed, not by some contrived government agency, but by the evidence presented in court that gets at the truth of what happened,” Brock said of Durham’s recent evidentiary court filings.

“What Durham is methodically doing, is laying out a case that the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democrat Party used contrived disinformation in a conspiracy, in a conspiratorial way, to deceive the American voter ahead of the election,” Brock continued.

In the past, Brock has briskly criticized his former employer for even allowing the Russian collusion investigation to go on for a full two years without there ever being an adequate predicate for it or any significant evidence.

He also opined that Sussmann approaching the FBI with allegedly false information ought to be viewed in a bigger context that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party purposely deluged the FBI, the CIA, and the State Department as well as the media from multiple angles in an effort to try and sell the bogus collusion story using flawed ‘evidence’ such as the Steele dossier in order to cause an investigation.

“This is much more than an attorney for the Clinton campaign lying to the FBI,” said Brock. “He is using this charge to expose a larger story, a larger narrative.”

Durham “called it a joint venture of conspiratorial actions that contrived information,” Brock noted, referring to Durham’s recent court filings. “… Certainly the American people were defrauded.”

He also lashed out at the Department of Homeland Security’s new disinformation board, explaining that it will be a mistake for DHS to use it to police Americans’ speech online and elsewhere while stating that the board is ripe for politicization.

“I think that disinformation is in the eye of the beholder,” he said. “I think most people suspect that all of this information will be information promulgated by one political party rather than the other. And so the danger of a governance board like this is that it will be beholden to the party that’s in power in government at that time to silence or mute opposition viewpoints.

“Now, DHS, the secretary has gone to great lengths to say ‘No, we’re just interested in countering Russian disinformation or Chinese disinformation on social media platforms,” Brock continued. “But it’s something that should be treated, and I think we are looking at it as something to be wary of.”