Thread by @EpochTimes

News Analysis🔎US Attorney #JohnDurham, tasked to look into the origins of the @FBI’s “#CrossfireHurricane” investigation, is now “investigating @CIA resistance to sharing #Russian secrets,” according to a report in @NYTimes. (Thread👇) theepochtimes.com/durham-reporte…

#Durham is reportedly looking into “whether and how information from foreign governments or the C.I.A. played any role in stoking suspicions at the F.B.I. about Trump campaign links to Russia.”

It had previously been reported that #Durham was expected to seek an interview with former @CIA Director @JohnBrennan as well as former Director of National Intelligence #JamesClapper, following an expansion of his investigation. theepochtimes.com/focus-of-durha…

@CIA @JohnBrennan #Brennan appears to have played an instrumental role in passing on unofficial foreign intelligence—primarily from the #UK, but also from other Five Eyes members, such as #Australia—to the @FBI. theepochtimes.com/the-uk-and-aus…

#Brennan stated that during a May 23, 2017, congressional testimony:

#Brennan also stated that it was his intelligence that helped establish the @FBI investigation:

@FBI According to @NYTimes, an area of focus for #Durham is the ICA report produced by #Brennan and #Clapper released on Jan. 6, 2017.

The final report significantly propelled the allegation that Trump colluded with #Russia into the public sphere. dni.gov/files/document…

Notably, Adm. Mike Rogers, who at the time was director of the National Security Agency, publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning it only a moderate confidence level.

#IGHorowitz also noted in his #IGReport that the @CIA was somewhat reluctant to include…

…Christopher Steele’s reporting in their assessments but that “the FBI, including Comey and McCabe, sought to include the reporting in the ICA.”

While #Brennan has publicly denied using the #SteeleDossier for the ICA, he did attach a summary of the dossier to the ICA.

The @NYTimes notes that over the last several months, “Durham and his team have examined emails among a small group of intelligence analysts from multiple agencies, including the C.I.A., F.B.I., and National Security Agency, who worked together to assess the Russian operation.”

#Durham has reportedly interviewed these analysts and has specifically focused on information that @CIA reportedly attempted to withhold from other agencies—including the identity and placement of a #CIA source inside the #Kremlin. theepochtimes.com/russian-spy-re…

The article noted that @NSAGov intelligence analysts wanted to know the “identity and placement” of a specific #Russian source “to weigh the credibility of his information.”

But @CIA “was initially reluctant to share details about the Russian’s identity but eventually relented.”

The @NYTimes noted in the article that the source was “outside of Mr. Putin’s inner circle, but saw him regularly and had access to high-level Kremlin decision-making — easily making the source one of the agency’s most valuable assets.”

But the article also noted that there were some doubts within the @CIA.

Following the refusal of extraction in late 2016, some officials within the CIA “wondered whether the informant had been turned and had become a double agent, secretly betraying his American handlers.”

@CIA The @CIA’s #Russian source was apparently highly regarded by @JohnBrennan, who felt the identity of the source was so important that, according to the @NYTimes article, he “kept information from the operative out of President Barack Obama’s daily brief in 2016.”

There is another significant problem, as well. The #MuellerReport, after 2 lengthy years of investigation, concluded there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, thereby proving a key part of the alleged Russian activities incorrect. justice.gov/storage/report…

Another reported area of focus for #Durham is regarding the raw information that was in @CIA’s possession.

The CIA was reportedly arguing in favor of masking, a restriction that would have made analysis difficult for @NSAGov analysts.

Although it isn’t entirely clear what this info is, it appears there was some disagreement over whether @CIA needed “to filter the data to mask names and other identifying details about Americans and American organizations” before handing the info to @NSAGov analysts.

In addition to the disagreements regarding unmaskings, there were reportedly some internal conflicts over “access to unclassified emails of American officials that the Russian government had previously hacked, including at the White House and State Department.”

The @NYTimes also reported that a foreign ally of the US had “obtained its own copy of the stolen messages and provided drives with another reproduction of them to the United States government.”

@FBI wanted to examine these emails, which reportedly included emails from Obama.

According to the article, “Obama’s White House counsel, W. Neil Eggleston, decided that investigators should not open the drives, citing executive privilege and the possibility of a separation-of-powers uproar if the F.B.I. sifted through lawmakers’ private messages.”

Messages sent by former @FBI agent #PeterStrzok—part of the #CrossfireHurricane team—appear to hint at some inter-agency conflict.

In Dec 2016, #Strzok wrote: “Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried, and political, they’re kicking into overdrive.”

In April 2017, #Strzok again made a potential reference to the @CIA, noting, “I’m beginning to think the agency got info a lot earlier than we thought and hasn’t shared it completely with us…Would also highlight agency as source of some of the leaks.”

@CIA The number of interviews conducted, as well as the widening scope, suggests that #Durham has been gathering all available facts, evidence, and data prior to approaching central figures such as @JohnBrennan and #JamesClapper in his inquiry. theepochtimes.com/durham-reporte…

/END/