August 1, 2025 – The NYT and other MSM outlets, gaslight their readers about the Durham Annex declassified docs

In Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations, Featured Timeline Entries by Katie Weddington

That’s not what it shows at all. The New York Times is straight up lying.

1) The Durham annex never states at all that the specific intelligence was “fabricated.” It says the opposite, that his office was never able to “determine definitively whether the purported Clinton campaign plan [intelligence]…was entirely genuine, partially true, a composite pulled from multiple sources, exaggerated in certain respects, or fabricated in its entirety.”

2) At the time the intel which Ben Smith says was “fake” was received, John Brennan took it so seriously that he briefed Obama about it, took notes about it, and stashed the notes away in his safe.

3) James Comey specifically went under oath and cited the Clinton plan intelligence as one of the major reasons he chose to unilaterally usurp the authority of Loretta Lynch and to declare that the U.S. government would not charge Hillary Clinton for her use of an illegal private email server.

4) Comey told Congress that he believed the Clinton plan intelligence was “genuine.” “So far as I knew at the time, and still think,” Comey testified on December 7, 2018, “the material itself was genuine[.]”

5) FBI general counsel James Baker said he was “greatly concerned” about the intel and specifically Lynch’s reaction when confronted with it. Durham’s report said Baker “did not dismiss the credibility” of the intel reports. Andrew McCabe likewise said he was struck by Lynch’s “odd” reaction to the allegations.

6) Everyone on earth knows the Clinton campaign launched a scheme to falsely claim that Trump colluded with Russia. This new claim that somehow it was a fabrication that the Clinton campaign ran an op to falsely tie Trump to Russia is beyond insane. It’s sociopathic.

It’s sad that we have to constantly go through this exercise with media figures obsessed with false narratives.

Sean is correct, as he lays out the fact pattern about the attempted takedown of President Trump.
I STRONGLY caution you against accepting media driven narratives about the collusion hoax, given their roles in promoting the hoax in the first place, and the discovery of new information since the Director and I took over.

One of the most striking revelations in the newly released Durham Appendix is that the steady stream of intelligence flowing from Russian sources throughout 2016 abruptly ended in late July. This intelligence covered everything from Hillary Clinton’s efforts to cover up her email scandal to her campaign’s plan to smear Donald Trump with false Russia collusion allegations. The documents span from January through late July 2016, the moment when U.S. intelligence discovered that Russian operatives were aware of Clinton’s plan to vilify Trump.

Here is where the story takes a darker turn. That crucial late July intelligence was briefed to President Obama by then–CIA Director John Brennan on August 3. The very next day, Brennan placed a direct call to his Russian counterpart, Federal Security Service Director Aleksandr Bortnikov. Officially, Brennan warned Russia to cease election interference. Yet at that time, no confirmed interference had occurred. In fact, even months later, both the FBI and NSA expressed strong skepticism about the central claim that Russia had hacked and leaked Democratic National Committee emails.

So what did Brennan really communicate to Bortnikov? The sudden stop of the intelligence stream right after the Clinton plan was exposed strongly suggests Brennan signaled to the Russians—either directly or indirectly—that U.S. intelligence had uncovered their knowledge of Clinton’s scheme. The result was the immediate drying up of that valuable intelligence channel.

In other words, Brennan’s phone call appears to have sabotaged a critical intelligence pipeline to protect Hillary Clinton from further scrutiny, prioritizing dirty politics over national security