Authorities told Times that the timing and emphasis of the note, which is said to contain no new details, aims to strengthen management’s efforts to stay silent on the news. Many former national security officials said in the article that the depiction of the note suggests that it could be shaken by political intentions.
In the note, the CIA and the National Center for Counter Terrorism evaluate the “medium level trust” that a unit of the Russian military intelligence agency GRU offers awards, saying to the two official newspapers informed of the officer’s content.
However, the two officials, the National Security Agency and other members of the intelligence community, found that there was insufficient evidence to reach this level of certainty, and therefore said they had less confidence in determination. A third official who knew the note told Times that the CIA’s confidence in the outcome was higher than that of other institutions.
The spokesperson for the DNI office declined to comment. CNN also reached the CIA.
The statement allegedly passed on the intelligence behind the agency’s results, the Times said on Friday. This included reports of meetings between Russian military intelligence officers and leaders of criminal networks that had ties with the Taliban, a GRU account that transferred money to the network, and captured lower-level network members who approved Russia’s use of grace to promote such murders.
However, the two officials described in more detail in the note highlight the Times, the lack of evidence that the note was exactly what GRU officials and network leaders said during the meetings, so that Russia’s frankly extended awards for the deaths of American soldiers.
He also stressed that, according to the Times newspaper, NSA lacks surveillance images of clear evidence that the captured members’ blessing accounts or the money transferred will pay for the rewards.
The officer also noted that the Defense Intelligence Service lacked evidence that directly linked alleged reward offers to the Kremlin.
Analyst. Amateur problem solver. Wannabe internet expert. Coffee geek. Tv guru. Award-winning communicator. Food nerd.