I've kept saying that the most important thing is to find out who started the whole false-propaganda ploy: who ordered it.
... notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump - which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative. Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack. Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally. Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn’t buy it. He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation. Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on to the view; the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.
Did it originate with Brennan? Was Brennan ordered to come up with something, some ploy regardless of any way to substantiate it?
What we do know is that Clapper (who was caught blatantly lying to everyone about spying on the American People en masse but wasn't fired for it) and Comey did not originate it and were not ordered in the way Brennan may have been. By the way, an "order" can be as simple as a suggestion understood as, do it or be left out (just as the article suggests Brennan was likely operating).
People who buy the Russiagate narrative are easily duped or willing accomplices. It's like global-warming deniers. It's like those who believe Iraq had WMD just because the military said it, just because Brennan said it. It's like persistent jet trails in the sky when two jets are flying side-by-side at the same altitude and one leaves the trail and the other leaves nothing visible to the naked eye.
It's cognitive dissonance. People are too cowardly to stand out.