According to the Times report<\/a>, written by Julian E. Barnes and Matthew Rosenberg and published Friday, US intelligence agencies got a \u201cdetailed assessment\u201d<\/em> of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, thanks \u201cin large part to informants close to President Vladimir V. Putin and in the Kremlin who provided crucial details.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Today, however, \u201cthe vital Kremlin informants have largely gone silent,\u201d<\/em> leaving the CIA and other US spy agencies \u201cin the dark\u201d<\/em> about Putin\u2019s intentions. Russia could be trying to \u201ctilt\u201d<\/em> the midterms, \u201csimply sow chaos,\u201d<\/em> or \u201cgenerally undermine trust in the democratic process,\u201d<\/em> the spies tell the NY Times.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t believe the CIA ever had significant sources in Putin\u2019s Kremlin. But even if they had, all that leaking to CNN & newspapers would have exposed their identities, if the information was accurate. So go figure! pic.twitter.com\/V8uZyabadE<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Bryan MacDonald (@27khv) August 24, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Not for a moment do the authors, or their anonymous sources from inside the US spy community, contemplate the possibility that Russia might not be doing anything at all. That, however, would upset the apple cart of \u201cRussian meddling\u201d carefully built from smoke and mirrors since mid-2016, and that just wouldn\u2019t do.<\/p>\n So the noble Times reporters embark on speculation: The sources have not been compromised or killed, they say, but are probably laying low due to a variety of reasons, all serving the US intelligence community\u2019s narratives, of course.<\/p>\n Read more<\/p>\n One theory is that the \u201cinformants\u201d<\/em> have been intimidated by the March \u201cpoisoning\u201d<\/em> of double agent Sergei Skripal<\/a> and his daughter in Salisbury, UK \u2013 for which the British authorities never provided any evidence, and the US famously declared it needs none<\/a> beyond its ally\u2019s word.<\/p>\n Another explanation is also related to the Skripal affair: The mass expulsion of Russian diplomats, termed \u201cspies\u201d<\/em> by the US and UK authorities, backfired when Russia expelled<\/a> an equal number of US diplomatic personnel in retaliation \u2013 gutting the CIA\u2019s capabilities in Moscow.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Russians kicked out a whole bunch of our people,\u201d<\/em> said John Sipher, a former CIA officer who once ran the agency\u2019s Russia program. \u201cOur station in Moscow is probably really small now and they are under incredible surveillance.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The third theory tries to blame President Donald Trump\u2019s supporters on the House Intelligence Committee, who revealed that the FBI used an informant against his presidential campaign advisors, and unmasked him as academic Stefan Halper<\/a>. This, the authors say, may have had \u201ca chilling effect on intelligence collection.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n At no point in the article do the authors or their named and unnamed sources even consider the possibility the whole \u201cRussian meddling\u201d<\/em> story may have been a mirage conjured by then-CIA chief John Brennan, now a cable TV pundit offering a daily stream of invective against Trump. Brennan became a heroic martyr<\/a> of the #Resistance recently, when Trump revoked his security clearance.<\/p>\n Barnes and Rosenberg actually give Brennan much credit for \u201cRussiagate,\u201d<\/em> saying that his congressional testimony \u201cbacked up the accounts of the information provided by the current and former officials.\u201d<\/em> Which information? Which officials? They won\u2019t tell, we just have to take their word for it.<\/p>\n Read more<\/p>\n\n
\n ![\"Former](\"https:\/\/cdni.rt.com\/files\/2018.08\/thumbnail\/5b7ecc8afc7e93bd498b45d1.jpg\")
\n <\/a>\n<\/div>\n
![\"\u00a9](\"https:\/\/cdni.rt.com\/files\/2018.08\/thumbnail\/5b7ef480dda4c8a2028b4642.jpg\")