Justice Dept. Is Investigating C.I.A. Resistance to Sharing Russia Secrets

WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials investigating the government’s response to Russia’s election interference in 2016 appear to be hunting for a basis to accuse Obama-era intelligence officials of hiding evidence or manipulating analysis about Moscow’s covert operation, according to people familiar with aspects of the inquiry.

[OCS: Not surprising that the New York Times is spinning a particular narrative using anonymous sources which may have been highly partisan and not completely truthful in the past. Notice how they characterize the investigation using the Democrat’s famous “projection” trick – “appear to be hunting for a basis to accuse Obama-era intelligence officials…?" Precisely the same treatment given to Candidate and now-President Donald Trump.]

Since his election, President Trump has attacked the intelligence agencies that concluded that Russia secretly tried to help him win, fostering a narrative that they sought to delegitimize his victory. He has long promoted the investigation by John H. Durham, the prosecutor examining their actions, as a potential pathway to proving that a deep-state cabal conspired against him.

[OCS: Notice how the Democrats and their media propagandists are trying to get ahead of a potentially damning preliminary report by U.S. Attorney John Durham? Notice how they are restating the conclusions of the comprehensive two-year Mueller Report and the various reports of the Inspectors General? At this point in time, there is little doubt that the Obama Administration used the intelligence and law enforcement agencies against Donald Trump in a coordinated attack that included domestic spying on individual Americans.]

Questions asked by Mr. Durham, who was assigned by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize the early actions of law enforcement and intelligence officials struggling to understand the scope of Russia’s scheme, suggest that Mr. Durham may have come to view with suspicion several clashes between analysts at different intelligence agencies over who could see each other’s highly sensitive secrets, the people said.

[OCS: Notice the narrative being advanced: just benign disagreements between analysts at various agencies. They don’t mention that it was highly-placed Obama officials that unmasked and disseminated information that should have remained classified and redacted. Especially troublesome since Susan Rice wrote a cover-Obama’s-ass memo to herself in the closing minutes of Obama’s Administration on Trump’s inauguration day. The same Susan Rice who went on all Sunday news shows and lied to the American people about the origins of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.]

Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result — and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal, the people said.

[OCS: The most significant question: Did John Brennan and/or others manipulate the analysis contained in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment which was then disseminated to the White House, certain members of Congress, and leaked to the media?

“We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.

We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

We have high confidence in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.

All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.”           

Which raises the question of the role played by James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence and Brennan’s boss.]

But officials from the F.B.I. and the National Security Agency have told Mr. Durham and his investigators that such an interpretation is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of how the intelligence community functions, the people said. National security officials are typically cautious about sharing their most delicate information, like source identities, even with other agencies inside the executive branch.

[OCS: Nothing to see here folks, move along. Just a bureaucratic issue. If this is true, why did Obama officials in the closing days of their Administration change the rules so that  raw surveillance data could be shared with all 16 of the United States government's intelligence groups without the customary privacy protections and “need to know” requirements prior to distribution?]

Mr. Durham’s questioning is certain to add to accusations that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies, like Mr. Brennan, who has been an outspoken critic of the president. Mr. Barr, who is overseeing the investigation, has come under attack in recent days over senior Justice Department officials’ intervention to lighten a prison sentencing recommendation by lower-level prosecutors for Mr. Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr.

[OCS: Again Democrat projection – accusing the Trump Administration of the very conduct that the Obama Administration is clearly guilty of. Notice, the New York Times is loath to mention “getting to the bottom” of what appears to be unconstitutional behavior and criminal activities on behalf of the American public?]

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Thursday evening, Mr. Brennan was asked to respond to this article. He both dismissed Mr. Durham’s apparent line of inquiry and portrayed it as dangerous.    

“It’s kind of silly,” Mr. Brennan said. “Is there a criminal investigation now on analytic judgments and the activities of C.I.A. in terms of trying to protect our national security? I’m certainly willing to talk to Mr. Durham or anybody else who has any questions about what we did during this period of 2016.”          

But, Mr. Brennan added, “It clearly, I think, is another indication that Donald Trump is using the Department of Justice to go after his enemies any way he can.”

[OCS: What can you expect from an obviously biased media source and a man serving as their paid commentator -- and who is in danger of criminal prosecution for lying to Congress among other activities? Yes, the line of inquiry is dangerous – to Brennan.] 

Officials also differed over access to unclassified emails of American officials that the Russian government had previously hacked, including at the White House and State Department.

A foreign ally’s intelligence service had obtained its own copy of the stolen messages and provided drives with another reproduction of them to the United States government. Investigators, including at the F.B.I., wanted to look at those files. They argued that the Russian hackers’ chosen focus while the Kremlin’s election interference operation was gearing up might shed light on that operation.

But an index of the messages compiled by the unnamed foreign ally showed that they included emails from President Barack Obama as well as members of Congress. Mr. 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.

[OCS: This is the money shot!

First, it is known that Hillary Clinton used her non-secure private email server to communicate with then-President Barack Obama whose White House security handlers needed to white-list on Obama’s Blackberry so that he would receive messages from Secretary of State’s “alternative” non-governmental e-mail address.

Second, it is likely that the Russians, and others, hacked her emails and thus Hillary Clinton clearly and deliberately compromised national security when she used her server to conduct state business. Which puts the lie to her exoneration for violating the Espionage Act.

Third, it is ironic that those who denied claims of executive privilege and separation of powers demanded such protections for themselves. The fact that classified data or metadata has been produced by a foreign source should preclude any claims of privilege since the data is already known to our enemies and other foreign sources.

And fourth, and most worrisome of all, is that these messages are likely to raise questions for President Obama as to what he knows and when did he know it.]

Mr. Trump has targeted all three former top officials as he has sought to foster a narrative that it was illegitimate for government investigators to scrutinize links between his campaign, Russia and WikiLeaks and that he was the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy to sabotage him for political reasons — a push that led to the Durham inquiry.

[OCS: Notice the prejudicial conclusion and the use of Mister instead of President. This is pretty much the position of the New York Times and their gaggle of intellectually bankrupt group of so-called journalists.]

To read the entire article in context, it may be found here.