Where Your Speech Is Free And Your Comment Is King - Post A Link

THE NEWS COMMENTER

Screenshot Theconservativetreehouse.com
VOTE  (2)  (0)

Reminder: John Durham Questioning CIA Officials About Intelligence Community Assessment…


Added 10-19-19 06:36:02pm EST - “Within today's reporting from the New York Times and NBC, a key aspect is how CIA analysts are worried about explaining and/or justifying the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).? As?” - Theconservativetreehouse.com

CLICK TO SHARE

Posted By TheNewsCommenter: From Theconservativetreehouse.com: “Reminder: John Durham Questioning CIA Officials About Intelligence Community Assessment…”. Below is an excerpt from the article.

Within today’s reporting from the New York Times and NBC, a key aspect is how CIA analysts are worried about explaining and/or justifying the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).  As such it is well worth remembering information about John Durham’s originating focus from June, 2019:

Against the backdrop of the DOJ admitting FBI investigators never had access to the DNC servers to verify a Russian hack; and with new information about the FBI receiving partial and redacted analysis from Crowdstrike; the review by U.S. Attorney John Durham toward the downstream assessment/claims of the CIA takes on new meaning.

CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.

The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017.  NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.

Read more...

Post a comment.

CLICK TO SHARE

BACK TO THE HOME-PAGE