See part 1 here.

The Dutch played a role, also.  In December 2011, Robert Bertholee became head of Dutch intelligence.  He would later show up at intelligence forums and cross paths with Clapper, Brennan, Steele and Downer.  It was in mid-2014 that Dutch intelligence managed to penetrate the systems of an organization codenamed “Cozy Bear” whom they monitored for more than a year.  The operation was so sophisticated that they managed to access a surveillance camera pinpointing the Russian operation to a university building in Moscow.  

In November 2014, they watched as Cozy Bear penetrated the computers of the State Department and alerted US officials who thwarted the hack attempt within 24 hours.  Dutch intelligence would later confirm that another Russian outlet- Fancy Bear- was behind the DNC hack and Bertholee personally briefed both Clapper and Brennan.  This was in 2015 and was most likely behind the FBI alerting the DNC that year.  

When Obama and Trump were briefed about the Russian efforts in early January 2017, the work of the Dutch was cited in the report.  That report noted that the Dutch had detected streams of intelligence regarding the DNC emails in Russian military intelligence computer networks.  They, however, do not say how they got there.  It does necessarily mean they were responsible for the hacking of the DNC, although the official narrative on many levels says otherwise.

Great Britain played the biggest role in the mess.  On April 15, 2014 Robert Hannigan became head of the GCHQ.  Hannigan was pushing to have Assange kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London.  Hannigan was another one in attendance at the February 2016 Munich Security Conference.  A few days later, prime minister David Cameron announced a national referendum on the Brexit situation with the government coming down heavily against leaving the EU.  One official suggested that the biggest beneficiary would be Russia.  

In March 2016, the GCHQ noted that metadata traceable to Russia was trying to access the servers at the DNC.  On June 24th, the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU stunning the world.  Brennan contacted his counterparts in London to discuss next steps.  At some point in July 2016- and this is important- Hannigan traveled to the United States to hand over important intelligence to “his counterpart,” John Brennan at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.  The problem is: Brennan is not Hannigan’s counterpart in the US; Admiral Mike Rogers at the NSA is.  However, Rogers was on the proverbial shit list in US intelligence circles.  Rogers was squeezed out of this vital intelligence being handed over by the GCHQ.

In September 2016 at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, Papadopolous met with a British member of parliament- Tobias Ellwood.  Ellwood had extensive contact in London with Joseph Mifsud after the Brexit vote.  Mifsud was the one who planted the “dirt on Hillary” bug in the ear of Papadopolous in early 2016 which was later relayed to Alexander Downer in a London bar.  Why would a MP from Britain reach out to a low-level, unpaid Trump campaign adviser?  Then three days after Trump’s inauguration, Hannigan unexpectedly resigned from the GCHQ.

There are two possibilities here.  Assuming you are Robert Hannigan and you are so convinced of Trump-Russian connections, you jump on an airplane, fly to DC and visit the head of the CIA at their headquarters.  This information is so vitally important because it could mean the future of US-UK relations if a puppet of Putin makes it into the White House.  Assuming your evidence is so airtight, wouldn’t you want the world to know this?  

The alternate scenario is that you fly to Langley and you know your evidence is not all it is cracked up to be.  After this existential threat to world freedom- Donald Trump is elected and sworn into office- you resign because you know that Trump will now have access to the information you turned over to Brennan and it was not “all that.”  You would most likely resign.  When Trump threatened to declassify all the information gathered regarding Spygate, it scared officials, especially those in London.  It is suggested that prime minister Theresa May begged Trump not to reveal anything, and he pulled back on his promise to declassify everything citing concerns from “key allies.”  

What may be the biggest embarrassment to officials in London is that the alleged Russian agent, Joseph Mifsud, had gotten extremely close to high-ranking intelligence officials in Great Britain.  One British official who was particularly close to Mifsud was Claire Smith and Sir Anthony Wood, as well as the aforementioned MP Tobias Ellwood, and another MP, Alok Sharma.  Mifsud has been photographed with Boris Johnson, then the foreign secretary.  The story out of Britain gets deeper since in that photograph is also Prasenjit Kumar, a business associate of both Sharma and Mifsud.  Kumar was a close friend of Olga Polenskaya, the Russian passed off as Putin’s niece in a meeting with Papadopolous who could barely speak English, but had a great command of the language in emails.

Perhaps Hannigan was concerned about the obvious links to Great Britain in spying on the Trump campaign.  It was the GCHQ who picked up incidental connections to the Trump campaign while monitoring suspected Russian agents.  It was Mifsud with deep ties in Great Britain luring Papadopolous to London.  It is in a London bar that he “reveals” things to Alexander Downer.  It is Christopher Steele, a former member of the British MI6, who compiles the infamous dossier.

So why would British intelligence, of all the foreign spy agencies, put that “special relationship” with the US at risk by helping its US counterparts with regards to the Trump campaign?  The answer is Brexit.  Despite the vote in favor of leaving the EU, the established government position was against leaving the EU.  As British officials noted, the only beneficiary would have been Russia and they suspected a Russian influence campaign which is why they likely targeted suspected Russian assets in Great Britain.  Both Brexit through the action and Trump through his rhetoric represented a serious threat to the “new world order” in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union.  Both were populist movements with a dash of nationalism which when mixed together are a threat to the globalists who occupied the seats of power in Western Europe.  

Hillary Clinton was a loyal continuation of the status quo, not a disruptor who was going to tear apart NATO and rip up NAFTA.  But, British intelligence failed to factor in a wave of populism and a dash of nationalism sweeping over Europe with the ascension of leaders in Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Holland, Austria, France and, later, Poland and Italy.  Other than Holland, note that these other countries played no role in Spygate.  

The British intelligence services are up to their eyeballs in this saga whether it was Hannigan at the GCHQ, or the MI6 or former members of MI6.  Mifsud is the alleged Russian agent glue that holds the narrative together, per the Mueller report.  If he truly was a Russian agent- and every indication is he was a Western intelligence asset- then that makes the British government and intelligence services look like they are not what they were negligent.  But, in the alternative, if Mifsud is a Western intelligence asset, then the British are co-conspirators in Spygate.  In either case, they just look nothing but bad.

Next: Admiral Mike Rogers of the NSA smells a rat