When Donald Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the Oval Office in May 2017, this date was closely monitored. Even more attentively, it was noted that a few days later, the US President admitted that he had shared secret information with the guest from Russia. He has every right to do that, rumbled Trump on Twitter.
In the US intelligence agencies triggered these processes, according to a report by the CNN channel from hectic activity. The anxious question: what else could the president tell? According to CNN sources, which according to the broadcaster were directly involved with the decisions, it was decided shortly after the Lavrov deadline to withdraw a top US spy from Russia.
Exclusive: The US extracted one of its top spies from Russia in 2017, worried about exposure and Trump's handling of intelligence https://t.co/kzT5VwEN4y
- CNN (@CNN) September 9, 2019Also the "New York Times" ("NYT") reports extensively on the case. However, the newspaper puts the reason for the withdrawal a little differently. According to the CIA, the end of 2016, ie before the Lavrov meeting, would consider bringing their source out of the country. Therefore, more and more speculation of the US media, why the secret services knew so much about the Russian influence on the US elections 2016 know. Such details, so the conclusion, could only supply sources that are very close to the Kremlin. In view of these reports, the secret service's decision-makers appeared to be concerned that the source could be uncovered.
Both CNN and "NYT" report that the spy was at a relatively high level in the Russian government apparatus - though not within the president's immediate circle. According to "NYT," over decades, the person provided information that had become increasingly valuable as their political career progressed.
Moscow's 2016 election opportunity https://t.co/gGqDujajR7. Read secrets to the CIA for decades
- The New York Times (@nytimes) September 10, 2019After all, those responsible in the US did not seem to want to guarantee the safety of this valuable resource. In a secret mission, he or she was taken out of the country. Apparently, the informant had initially refused to leave - for family reasons. So it writes the "NYT". In the case of the services, this has caused concern that this may be a double agent. Ultimately, the person was but left. The identity and current whereabouts of the spy are therefore kept secret. The president was informed about the withdrawal plan, according to CNN.
"To lose someone like that is a big deal"
CNN relies in its revelation on five unnamed sources that are said to have worked or been in the Trump government, the US Congress, and the intelligence services. The White House and the CIA have objected to the presentation of the US station. The "New York Times" also does not mention any names, but mentions as a source extensive discussions with active or former high-ranking government representatives.
For the secret services, the loss of the source should have meant a significant step backwards. This is also the opinion of John Sipher, who has spent 28 years working at a high level in the CIA.
Just for some context, recruiting a source with key access is extremely hard. A source in a key position may happen once a generation, if ever. Keeping him or her safe is daunting work (Lake "The Billion Dollar Spy"). It's a big deal to loose those kind of sources. https://t.co/yHVY2kK6y5
- John Sipher (@john_sipher) September 9, 2019On Twitter, he writes: "Recruiting a source in a key position is extremely difficult, it can only happen once in a generation, if at all, to protect him or her is a great challenge, and losing someone like that is a big deal . "
