How deranged are the Trump-deranged?

Are the deep state leakers and their Democrat media mouthpieces so blinded by their hatred for the president that they will go to treasonous lengths just to deny him a victory.

Or are they simply hellbent on provoking a full-scale war with Iran? 

CNN’s exclusive report of a leaked top secret US intelligence assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency Tuesday suggested that the weekend B-2 bunker buster sortie in Iran was a flop.

This conveniently contradicted Trump’s claim that it was a “spectacular military success” that had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities and overshadowed the startlingly good news that the president had somehow pulled off a cease-fire between Iran and Israel, which was still holding more than 40 hours later, when we went to press. 

If the aim of CNN and its toxic leakers was to enrage Trump, it worked, with the president venting ever since on social media, on Air Force One to the traveling press corps and in a press conference in The Hague where he called CNN “fake news.” 

He has a point. 

Among the intelligence community, regard for DIA analysis is so low that the nickname for the agency is “Do It Again.” 

The CNN exclusive was written by none other than Natasha Bertrand, the same CIA stenographer who scooped the dishonest Dirty 51 letter by 51 former intelligence officials back in October 2020 falsely claiming that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation.

More on her later. 

Every week, Post columnist Miranda Devine sits down for exclusive and candid conversations with the most influential disruptors in Washington. Subscribe here!

The FBI is hot on the trail of the leaker or leakers of the DIA report, with US special Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff accusing CNN’s anonymous deep state sources of “treason.” 

But CNN’s dishonest spin of the intelligence assessment was as egregious. 

The DIA came out later to say it was a “preliminary, low confidence” assessment done in the early hours after the strike and that the analysis was so equivocal that it said the impact of the strikes could be “limited or it could be very severe,” as Trump told reporters at The Hague Wednesday. 

CNN just ignored the uncertain nature of the DIA findings and failed to report the contradictory assessments within the report that suggested Trump was right.

But never mind.

CNN’s misleading reporting, soon amplified by The New York Times, gave the rest of the Resistance media hours of gleeful raining on Trump’s parade.

God forbid that their audience consider Trump might be a step closer to achieving the ever elusive peace in the Middle East. 

The same Negative Nellies, now chortling that boastful Trump had failed to set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions more than a couple of months, were claiming last week that the president was exaggerating the threat because Iran was nowhere near getting nuclear capability.

They can’t make up their minds because they don’t have any thoughts of their own other than whatever Trump says they’re against. 

Within a day, the CIA, the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission and even Iranian assessments contradicted the CNN story with battlefield assessments involving actual on-the-ground human and signal intelligence from Iran to say the US strike on Iran’s underground Fordow nuclear was “devastating.” 

Iran’s Foreign Ministry admitted its nuclear sites were “badly damaged.” 

The IAEC said Operation Midnight Hammer’s 13.6-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker busters dropped on the underground Fordow plant had “destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility totally inoperable. We assess that the American strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran’s military nuclear program, has set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years.” 

Another post-attack assessment, by the nonpartisan US Institute for Science and International Security, a nonprofit aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, drew similar conclusions, while warning that “with residual stocks of 60% and hidden centrifuges, Iran retains an ability to breakout and produce weapon-grade uranium. 

“[But] considering the damage to Iran’s three known enrichment facilities, the destruction of Iran’s centrifuge manufacturing capabilities, its uranium conversion facility, uranium metal production plant, and other facilities involved in its nuclear weaponization process, reconstituting these capabilities will take significant time, investment, and energy to return to its previous state before the war or build nuclear weapons. Iran has likely lost close to 20,000 centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, creating a major bottleneck in any reconstitution effort.” 

The full battleground assessment is still to come, but Iran is on notice that any further attempts to get its hands on nuclear weapons will be met with further strikes. 

What’s most intriguing about this saga is the media’s complicity with rogue elements of the intelligence community in the ongoing treasonous sabotage of Donald Trump’s presidencies. 

Bertrand, CNN’s Pentagon correspondent, is not really a journalist in the traditional sense but more a conduit for the laundering of get-Trump CIA narratives.

At 33, the Vassar College graduate has had a meteoric rise through the ranks of multiple high-profile media organizations, after well-connected internships at The Atlantic and the Council on Foreign Relations. 

She has been at the center of all the bogus Russiagate reporting about Trump, beginning with the fake Steele Dossier, aka “pee tape,” during her time at Business Insider and later at The Atlantic and Politico, where she was national security correspondent by the tender age of 26.

She was quickly rewarded for her unverified beat-ups on MSNBC, where she became a paid contributor. 

The fact that most of her reporting was later debunked or proven to be misleading did nothing to hurt her career.

Quite the opposite.

She was rewarded for never admitting she was wrong, including when the Mueller Report debunked Russiagate and when her CIA-sourced story (designed to sabotage Trump’s plan to withdraw from Afghanistan in his first term), that Russia had paid bounties to the Taliban for the death of US soldiers, fell apart. 

“Even a cursory review of Bertrand’s prolific output reveals an endless array of gossip, conspiracy and speculative assertions masquerading as journalism,” independent journalist Glenn Greenwald once wrote. “There was arguably nobody in media other than Rachel Maddow who promoted and ratified that [Russiagate] hoax as aggressively, uncritically and persistently as Bertrand.” 

Even Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple, no Trump fan, has criticized Bertrand for her “thumb-on-scale speculation” and “boosterism” of the Steele Dossier in an article titled: “How Politico’s Natasha Bertrand bootstrapped dossier credulity into MSNBC gig.” 

Until now, Bertrand and her employers have been rewarded for their uncritical promotion of ­malign CIA saboteurs. 

But the plummeting ratings at CNN and the Resistance media’s collective loss of public trust suggest their time is running out. 

And finally, the leakers face the real possibility of being outed and held to account.