It isn’t surprising that the Intelligence Community, aka the IC, is already attacking newly confirmed DNI John Ratcliffe. Equally unsurprising is the fact that the MSM is attacking Ratcliffe. They know that Ratcliffe wants to drain the IC swamp, that he wants to get rid of people who think of Peter Strzok, Jim Comey and Jim Clapper as heroes.

CNN started its attack by saying “Ratcliffe will transition from being one of the President’s key defenders to leading an intelligence community that has been under constant fire from Trump, who has pushed unsubstantiated claims about a ‘deep state’ of career officials trying to undermine his presidency.” CNN pretends that the transcripts from the HPSCI, aka House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, interviews haven’t come out. Those 63,000 pages of transcripts show that Jim Clapper said on TV that President Trump might be a Russian asset but then changed his story, saying under oath that he hadn’t “seen any direct evidence” of collusion or conspiracy between Trump and the Russians.

Peter Strzok kept open Operation Crossfire Razor on Gen. Flynn even though the DC Field Office wanted it closed because, in the field office’s opinion, Gen. Flynn had told the truth. Strzok said that the “7th floor”, aka FBI Director Jim Comey, wanted the investigation kept open. Does that sound like the FBI political appointees were people of integrity? It doesn’t sound like that to me.

Susan Rice and Samantha Power also requested the unmasking of Gen. Flynn’s name, too. What CNN calls unsubstantiated is actually substantiated. It’s just that CNN is filled with liars who shill for Democrats. Eli Lake wouldn’t fit with CNN. Lake isn’t a lying progressive like the meatheads at CNN. He wrote something entirely different in this article:

Flynn did not then know that leaders of the FBI and the Justice Department were out for his head. They suspected he was a Russian agent—despite the fact that a counterintelligence investigation into Flynn launched five months earlier by the FBI had found no evidence for such a claim. Three weeks into the Trump administration, the Flynn hunt bagged its trophy. The newly installed national-security adviser was compelled to quit. The stated rationale was that Flynn had lost the confidence of the new vice president because he had supposedly misled Mike Pence about some phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States. That those phone calls became public knowledge was almost certainly the result of Obama-administration leaks of highly sensitive intelligence information.

Lake isn’t a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He just isn’t a CNN-style commentator because he, unlike many of their commentators, isn’t a liar. Instead, he’s just a reporter that takes his responsibilities seriously. Then there’s this from CNN:

Ratcliffe has been unequivocal that he believes Russia has interfered in US elections and will continue to do so — but he has not sided with one of the intelligence community’s key findings: that Russia was trying to help Trump in 2016.

There’s a reason for Ratcliffe’s hesitation in siding with the IC’s finding. While there is documentation from the IC thought that Russia was trying to help then-Candidate Trump in 2016, it’s also true that Jim Clapper didn’t turnover the documents that showed Russia preferred Hillary. That documentation said Russia knew her and thought that she was “malleable.” When intelligence says contradicting things, it’s best that the IC not take a conclusive position. This is telling, too:

“I haven’t served in an intelligence agency. I think that bringing a different kind of experience today is really going to be vitally important,” Ratcliffe told Catherine Herridge of CBS News after he was nominated in March.

“You know all of the experience in the world isn’t helpful without judgment, and I think what we’ve seen is that some of our most experienced intelligence officials have gotten it wrong with respect to important issues,” Ratcliffe said.

It’s better to pick someone talented and honest than picking someone experienced and dishonest.

Leave a Reply