Tag Archives: CIA Director John Ratcliffe

When You Pull A Piece Of Yarn On A Sweater

Posted on by

When you pull a piece of yarn on a sweater, you never know exactly what will happen next. You could get a short threat that you can simply weave back into the sweater to repair it or you could unravel the entire sweater. I think the second scenario is where we are with the impeachment of President Trump over his telephone call with Ukraine.

On Monday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the transcripts of the testimony of Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) Michael Atkinson before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in September and October of 2019. This was not a classified session–only a closed-door session.

The article reports:

In fact, during the October 2019 deposition, Ranking Member Devin Nunes went out of his way to clarify the status of the hearing itself. Chairman Schiff reemphasized this was not part of the impeachment inquiry, simply a hearing to clarify questions from Republicans to ICIG Atkinson about the nature of the complaint created by CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.

…This is interesting, because that means at the time of the hearing itself in 2019 any one of the members could have immediately gone to the microphones and discussed all of the information gained from within the questioning.   They didn’t.

Later on, Chairman Adam Schiff classified the Atkinson testimony in order to bury it.  The Lawfare impeachment crew, led by Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Mary McCord, Dan Goldman, Barry Berke, Stephen Castor and Norm Eisen also weaponized the “ongoing investigation” classification to keep the CIA/ICIG report hidden during the impeachment effort.

President Trump was not even allowed to see/review the classified IC IG information that was being used to impeach him.

Now, as you can see from the attendance above, John Ratcliffe was present for both Atkinson depositions.  Despite his immediate silence, we know John Ratcliffe was concerned about the content within ICIG Atkinson’s statements as he relayed in a series of questions during a public hearing December 9, 2019. {SEE HERE}.

The article asks the question:

DNI nominee John Ratcliffe was confirmed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on May 21 and sworn in on May 26, 2020.  John Ratcliffe was now a constitutionally confirmed DNI with access to the full record and work product that led to the previous impeachment effort.

Why didn’t DNI John Ratcliffe release the ICIG investigative material and CIA whistleblower report?

Why did it take another six years and DNI Tulsi Gabbard to discover, dig out, declassify and release the material that was in the custodial review of DNI John Ratcliffe back in 2020?

Congressman Ratcliffe was in both Atkinson depositions during Sept/Oct 2019, and he knew the impeachment allegations were false.  He essentially called out the HPSCI Democrat staff in December of 2019. Congressman Ratcliffe became DNI in May 2020 and knew the entire background of the IC IG material that was now at his fingertips.

Ratcliffe knew President Trump was set up.

Why didn’t John Ratcliffe release the evidence of it in 2020?

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. There is something very rotten here. What is the statute of limitations on treason?

Cleaning Up The Mess Left Behind

Posted on by

On Friday, Just the News posted an article about some of the changes being made by the Trump administration in the Intelligence Community.

The article reports:

In a dramatic repudiation, CIA Director John Ratcliffe on Friday rescinded or revised 19 intelligence reports the agency produced dating back to the Obama era because they were politically biased or used poor spy tradecraft, including one analysis suggesting that women who pursue traditional motherhood were at danger of becoming violent extremists.

A senior CIA official told Just The News the reports were initially flagged during a review by the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, then reviewed by career agency officials before being retracted, recalled or revised.

“There is absolutely no room for bias in any kind of the CIA’s work,” the official said. “So when we find instances where our tradecraft did not reach that high bar of impartiality, we must correct the record. And that’s why we’re taking steps to reinforce analytic integrity by ordering the public release, substantive revision or retraction of these products that do not meet CIA’s tradecraft standards.”

The article notes:

The CIA assessment also said that it defined “white REMVE(racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist)-sympathetic” actors as “individuals or groups who may not openly advocate violence but amplify white REMVE narratives regarding their perceptions of racial and ethnic hierarchy, as well as perceived threats from those they see as advocating multiculturalism and globalization.”

“White REMVEs and their sympathizers have claimed in online posts that it is essential for white families to have as many biological children as possible to counter the rising birthrates among non-white populations; white REMVEs allege that this rise is a conspiracy, which they have termed the ‘great replacement,’ according to an Open Source Enterprise assessment,” the since-withdrawn agency assessment said.

So women who chose to stay home and raise their children or who encouraged other women to stay home and raise their children was considered a threat. Good grief!

The article concludes:

In the U.S. intelligence community’s anti-DEI efforts during the second Trump administration, Judge Anthony Trenga last April blocked efforts by the CIA and the ODNI to terminate intelligence officers who had been tied to DEI initiatives during the Biden administration. The Justice Department, on behalf of the two spy agencies, quickly appealed the ruling to an appeals court, where a ruling has not yet been issued.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article.