What do false accusations against Trump and Assad have in common? The British.

The specific false accusation is that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government in order to weight the U.S. presidential election in his favor. In the case of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the false accusation is that he directed a number of chemical weapons attacks against Syrian civilians. 

The accusation against Trump has been thoroughly discredited by the investigation of a Special Counsel. But proving a direct link between the British government and what was clearly a plot to stymie Trump's presidency would be virtually impossible without cooperation from figures from within the British government itself. This means the trail of evidence about British involvement goes only so far then meets a firmly closed door.

Regarding Assad, it is taking independent investigators years to compile enough evidence to call the accusations into serious question. But there are clear links between certain evidence gathered thus far and a number of British operatives.

In other words, it wouldn't necessarily require cooperation from the British government to develop a charge that their government (or operatives 'once removed' from the government) falsified evidence about chemical weapons attacks in Syria. I doubt any such charge would ever see the International Criminal Court but it could serve to open a U.N. investigation into the OPCW -- Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. 

Such an investigation would be important because there's a clear indication that the British government's actions regarding chemical weapon incidents in Syria have compromised the OPCW, which is now both an investigative and prosecutorial body. This dual role has given an international body the power to make accusations against a government that would help a group of nations rationalize military action against the government.

(For more on the OPCW's new role see this November 20, 2018 report from Reuters, Russia fails to curb new powers of chemical weapons watchdog.)

To boil it down, now no single government, such as the United States, has to bear the responsibility of blaming another government for use of chemical weapons. The accusation, and thus a casus belli, can now come from a U.N.-affiliated international body.   

So this is no longer just about investigating the record on chemical attacks in Syria. This is also about the abuse of a respected international organization and its mandate. Clearly, there are people within the OPCW who recognize this and the great danger it poses. They have been passing information to independent investigators about the OPCW investigations into the Syria chemical attacks. (The whistleblowers haven't come forward publicly but it may come to that.) 

The above considerations put me a number of steps ahead of findings from the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media that Col. Patrick Lang's blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis, published yesterday. Those independent investigators are focused on untangling evidence about chemical attacks in Syria, although they are in communication with (unnamed) sources in the OPCW. In short, the investigators are well aware of the considerations I've brought up but at least for their report are hewing to the analysis of very specific data related to chemical attacks.

Yet just the title of their report for SST, which they asked Pat Lang to publish, conveys that their evidence-gathering has led to them to the British government on more than one occasion: How the OPCW’s investigation of the Douma incident was nobbled. 

Nobble means the attempt to "influence or thwart (someone or something) by underhanded or unfair methods" and specifically to influence a decision-making body by such methods. It is a British expression. 

Speaking of the British, the Working Group does mention in their report:

9. UK-led information operations associated with alleged chemical attacks

From combining all available information, it is now clear that several entities involved in reporting and documenting alleged chemical attacks have their origin in a covert programme launched by the UK government in 2012.

In this programme, like a low-budget theatrical production, the same actors reappear in different roles. For instance Hamish de Bretton-Gordon (HdBG) appears successively as covert agent collecting samples for Porton Down, as independent chemical weapons expert quoted in the media, as the founder of a small business setting up an NGO to collect evidence for the OPCW, and from 2016, described as a “former spy”, in the role of a humanitarian worker coordinating a network of hospitals.

It is likely that this programme would have attempted to co-opt OPCW staff, especially UK nationals.

From the spelling of "program" do you get the impression that at least some members of the Working Group are British? Anyhow, you may trust that within 15 minutes of the report's publication at SST a number of MI6 people were reading it along with half the spooks in other Five Eyes nations including those in the U.S. Intelligence Community. 

Perhaps CIA Director Gina Haspel can commiserate by sending MI6 a picture of dead ducks. 

********