It’s a strange time within the Intelligence Community. You can tell it’s all in flux when you see the New York Times giving a version of the story that is positive toward DNI Tulsi Gabbard, and the Wall Street Journal continuing with debunked/fake information still trying to get DNI Tulsi Gabbard removed.
The New York Times version appears to be the most truthful, factual and cited. It also makes the most sense.
In essence, two foreign nationals were having a phone call about Iran and discussing Jared Kushner’s role and influence in the policy of Trump toward Iran. The phone call was intercepted by a foreign intelligence agency, who then relayed their interpretation of the discussion to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
NEW YORK TIMES – […] It was a discussion last year between two foreign nationals about Iran, not an unusual topic for American spies to study. But an intercept of that communication, collected by a foreign spy service and given to the United States.
[…] Mr. Kushner’s name was redacted in the original report from the National Security Agency, but people reading it, including the whistle-blower, were able to determine that the reference was to him.
[…] The foreign nationals, they said, were commenting on Mr. Kushner’s influence with the Trump administration. At a time last year when Mr. Kushner’s role in Middle East peace talks was less public than it is now, the foreign officials were recorded saying that he was the person to speak to in order to influence the talks.
[…] The intercept also included what officials described as “gossip” or speculation about Mr. Kushner that was not supported by other intelligence.
[…] The whistle-blower report was based on a telephone intercept provided to the N.S.A. from a foreign intelligence service. Intercepts are notoriously difficult to interpret.
[…] The whistle-blower, an intelligence official whose identity has not been publicly disclosed, said Ms. Gabbard’s actions improperly limited who could see the report.
[…] Some administration critics, who have reviewed the report and have considered the underlying intelligence to be significant, also agreed that Ms. Gabbard did not act improperly by restricting distribution of the report. (more)
Democrats (administration critics) agreed that DNI Gabbard did not act improperly.
If it was possible to tell the identity of the U.S. person (aka Kushner) simply by reading the intel report, and this report is simply gossip by two other people talking about a U.S. person, then yes, duh – the report should be secured and not spread.
This story becomes more of a nothingburger each time new information is leaked.
