The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) released a partially redacted version of its report on the origin of the infamous, Obama-Admin 'Intelligence Community Assessment' (ICA). It's very interesting as it details a series of lengthy arguments by officials of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, etc. of whether or not the Steele Dossier should or should not be included in the ICA...
because everybody knew it was not reliable/not validated. In fact, the NSA knew nothing about it, & Clapper claimed he had only heard about it in mid December from Brennan. Comey was the one who insisted it be included...Brennan didn't want it included. When you read this, it becomes clear why Durham has been investigating the ICA. So, you can read it here (heavily redacted in the beginning, then opens up):
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4_Excerpt.pdfNow below is a lengthy analysis of the above document, including other pertinent facts/activities that relate to it, & I'll post a portion of it:
https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/07/what-to-take-from-senates-ica-report.html#moreQuote:
........
1. It's clear that the ICA was special ordered from the highest levels. Obama ordered it, but one assumes that there had to have been high level discussions before the decision was made. Those discussions probably involved both the Obama camp as well as the Clinton camp. After all, the Steele "dossier" was Clinton property--they had contracted for it, paid for it, and had already been putting it to use by the time the ICA was written. Getting it into the ICA, mainstreaming it as somehow an intel product rather than a political campaign product, was a big deal. And that was true no matter what caveats CIA analysts may have added.
2. Despite his testimony to the Senate, it seems clear that Comey was the driving force behind getting the dossier into the ICA. Certainly that comes across as the CIA's understanding of the dynamics. There are hints that the FBI's Bill Priestap--its top CI official--wasn't totally committed, but Comey and disgraced former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe come across as determined. The question, then, is: Was Comey acting strictly on his own, or was he colluding with political operatives, whether from the Obama or Clinton camps, or both? Durham has surely been exploring that angle.
3. John Brennan comes across as rather clever in pointing the finger at Comey in his Senate testimony. This explains why Durham was so eager to get his hands on communications between Comey and Brennan, rather than having to rely on their testimony. What seems clear to me is that if Brennan had insisted, had really gone to the mat in support of the CIA analysts, the dossier could have been excluded from the ICA. Brennan was positioning himself.
4. While the ICA was presented as the assessment of the Intel Community as a whole, it's more clear than ever from this report that the matter of the dossier was strictly between the FBI and CIA--no other agency was truly involved--and Brennan positioned the FBI to shoulder any responsibility.
5. While the CIA analysts may not have been aware of the political provenance of the dossier material, the people at the FBI pushing for its inclusion in the ICA most certainly were fully aware that this was Clinton campaign material. They were also aware of just how unreliable it probably was and the FBI's failure to vet the material was raised insistently by the CIA analysts. Not only was this political provenance concealed from anyone reading the ICA as well as from the CIA analysts, but the fact that the FBI made no attempt to amend or revise the ICA after the Danchenko interview--just three weeks after the ICA came out--is damning evidence of Comey's conspiratorial intent against the president............