Read on Twitter
THREAD: Senate SSCI contains a section (p 870, pdf 884f) entitled "Parsing the Dossier's Subsources" - something that we've been doing successfully in our corner of twitter in past few weeks. Thread examining SSCI efforts in light of what we know. Note redactions below.
2/ SSCI observed that it is "as standard practice" in Western intel services to "communicat[e] clearly to a reader any uncertainty about a source's access to information". This was NOT done in ICA, but SSCI shut their eyes to this critical intel failure.
![2/ SSCI observed that it is "as standard practice" in Western intel services to "communicat[e] clearly to a reader any uncertainty about a source's access to information". This was NOT done in ICA, but SSCI shut their eyes to this critical intel failure.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Efy9RA_U4AErtAH.png "2/ SSCI observed that it is \"as standard practice\" in Western intel services to \"communicat[e] clearly to a reader any uncertainty about a source's access to information\". This was NOT done in ICA, but SSCI shut their eyes to this critical intel failure.")
3/ SSCI noted that Steele's own description of sources was "inconsistent and not completely transparent" and speculated that it might have been "intentional, for source protection purposes". In my opinion, obfuscation was to conceal amount of fabrication done in UK/US.
4/ SSCI observes that report 80 cited a "former Russian intelligence officer". We know that Danchenko has, to his knowledge, "never been in same room" as the former Russian intelligence officer - who is supposedly Trubnikov (who visited Halper and Dearlove at Cambridge in past)
5/ Danchenko's supposed information attributed to Trubnikov came via Sergei Abyshev (convincingly identified as Source 1 by Chuck Ross). Danchenko, Abyshev and Ivan Vorontsov (Source 2) had boozy evening (in Moscow) on June 15, 2016, noted up by Vorontsov next day.
