CIA Director Exposes Flaws In Trump-Russia Narrative
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 3 hours ago
**Game-Changer! New CIA Director Disputes Obama-Era Trump-Russia Narrative**
In a significant development, the newly appointed CIA Director John Ratcliffe has challenged the long-held narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to aid Donald Trump.
This revelation emerges from Ratcliffe's written testimony, which indicates a lack of supporting evidence for the explosive claims made by former CIA Director John Brennan.
During his confirmation process, Ratcliffe's review of the infamous Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), crafted in January 2017, found that the evidence purportedly linking Trump to Russian collusion is far weaker than previously claimed.
The ICA, produced under the Obama administration, suggested that Vladimir Putin had a clear preference for Trump over Hillary Clinton. However, Ratcliffe's findings suggest that Russia's goal was to undermine American democracy rather than specifically support one candidate.
Ratcliffe noted that the Russian operations during the election sought to sow division and instability in the U.S. political landscape, rather than showing an outright alignment with Trump.
Critics of the Trump-Russia narrative have consistently pointed out that the ICA was hastily assembled, with significant dissenting voices within the intelligence community suppressed.
For instance, the National Security Agency reportedly disagreed with the principal conclusion that Russia favored Trump, and key agencies, including the State Department and Defense Intelligence Agency, were not consulted in crafting the assessment.
Furthermore, Ratcliffe revealed an alarming detail: a CIA document dated July 2016 indicated that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan to fabricate a scandal linking Trump to Russia.
This orchestrated effort to discredit Trump reflects a broader issue of weaponized intelligence used for political ends during the Obama administration.
As Ratcliffe continues to unpack the murky details surrounding the origins of the ICA, his findings could drastically alter the prevailing narrative that has fueled years of investigations and divisive media commentary.
The implications of these revelations are profound, not only for the legacy of those who promoted the Trump-Russia collusion theory but also for public trust in intelligence assessments shaped by political motives.
This latest chapter in the ongoing saga is a potent reminder that political narratives can often overshadow truth, and as new facts come to light, the public deserves clarity on the integrity of its intelligence community.
With this new perspective from Ratcliffe, it seems America is finally getting a clearer view of how political machinations may have influenced the intelligence used against one of its own presidents.
Sources:
therightscoop.com
independentsentinel.com
realclearinvestigations.com
In a significant development, the newly appointed CIA Director John Ratcliffe has challenged the long-held narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to aid Donald Trump.
This revelation emerges from Ratcliffe's written testimony, which indicates a lack of supporting evidence for the explosive claims made by former CIA Director John Brennan.
During his confirmation process, Ratcliffe's review of the infamous Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), crafted in January 2017, found that the evidence purportedly linking Trump to Russian collusion is far weaker than previously claimed.
The ICA, produced under the Obama administration, suggested that Vladimir Putin had a clear preference for Trump over Hillary Clinton. However, Ratcliffe's findings suggest that Russia's goal was to undermine American democracy rather than specifically support one candidate.
Ratcliffe noted that the Russian operations during the election sought to sow division and instability in the U.S. political landscape, rather than showing an outright alignment with Trump.
Critics of the Trump-Russia narrative have consistently pointed out that the ICA was hastily assembled, with significant dissenting voices within the intelligence community suppressed.
For instance, the National Security Agency reportedly disagreed with the principal conclusion that Russia favored Trump, and key agencies, including the State Department and Defense Intelligence Agency, were not consulted in crafting the assessment.
Furthermore, Ratcliffe revealed an alarming detail: a CIA document dated July 2016 indicated that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan to fabricate a scandal linking Trump to Russia.
This orchestrated effort to discredit Trump reflects a broader issue of weaponized intelligence used for political ends during the Obama administration.
As Ratcliffe continues to unpack the murky details surrounding the origins of the ICA, his findings could drastically alter the prevailing narrative that has fueled years of investigations and divisive media commentary.
The implications of these revelations are profound, not only for the legacy of those who promoted the Trump-Russia collusion theory but also for public trust in intelligence assessments shaped by political motives.
This latest chapter in the ongoing saga is a potent reminder that political narratives can often overshadow truth, and as new facts come to light, the public deserves clarity on the integrity of its intelligence community.
With this new perspective from Ratcliffe, it seems America is finally getting a clearer view of how political machinations may have influenced the intelligence used against one of its own presidents.
Sources:
therightscoop.com
independentsentinel.com
realclearinvestigations.com
Latest News