Since Twitter thread makers (who collectively have more influence than the MSM) have taken the position that high ranking people in the Obama administration will be prosecuted for their involvement in Spygate the MSM must counter that narrative.
Each Government agency or department has an Inspector General. The 73 Inspectors General act as internal watchdogs for their respective agencies and departments.
Conservative concern trolls will insist Barr and the DOJ are corrupt and nothing has changed.
Get ready for it now, because that narrative is coming.
It is, however, a hand map that will connect Spygate players with their actions. It will expose bad actors who are, at present, believed to be patriots & further expose the crimes of people we know are corrupt.
Spygate is a complex matter to understand but the Clinton Foundation corruption is even more difficult.
After Durham's Spygate investigation has been digested by normies, they'll be prepared to hear about Huber's work on the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One.
The purpose was revealed in the opening paragraph.
What kind of firewall?
In this case, the firewall is a narrative that contains the damage of #Spygate to low-level players while protecting (insulating) high-level FBI employees from culpability.
The Times article was designed to shield CIA, DOJ, State Department, Pentagon, White House, ODNI and foreign intel agencies from culpability.
In an urgent text to Bruce Ohr, Christopher Steele expressed his fears about "important firewalls" holding as James Comey was about to testify to Congress about the origin of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation.
The Times is betting the IG will come to a similar conclusion in the FISA report. nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/…
That's why, in their latest article, the Washington Post claimed that Barr is already in disagreement with the main conclusions of the Horowitz report.
Non-paywalled link: archive.is/mZ8bv
From that, #Horowitz is claimed to have determined that Mifsud was not a western intelligence asset and Durham is said to have had no reason to dispute those findings.
He knows the FBI will leak what they can to the media.
Why would he risk biasing potential jurors and compromising his investigation by giving information to the media?