How corrupt are U.S. intelligence agencies? The list at the end of this piece consists of the fifty-one high-ranking U.S. intelligence officers – most from CIA – who signed a letter published on the eve of the 2020 election that unconditionally claimed that the criminality-confirming information, pictures, and videos on Hunter Biden’s laptop computer were the result of a Russian disinformation operation.
Many thought then — including myself, because I had worked with some of them — that the senior-level named people below were lying to help Joe Biden get elected. In the past week these suspicions were confirmed in an unconditional manner by the leading newspaper in the anti-Trump and anti-American coalition that is led by the Democratic Party and the media, funded by Soros, major U.S. banks and corporations, and China. That coalition also is assisted by many foreign intelligence services.
The signers of this letter obviously broke their oath of office; none had any interest in defeating America’s deadly enemies, either foreign or domestic. Indeed, they themselves were the republic’s most lethal enemies. In addition, these senior intelligence officers controlled the work, the information collected, and the reports produced by tens of thousands of U.S. intelligence officers.
They alone could decide who in the national government and military would receive the information, how fully the information would be shared, or if the information would be shared at all, or if it would be deep-sixed into locked drawers, limited-access computer files, or even destroyed. The signers also often used their power to intimidate and/or punish individuals who pushed too hard to present unvarnished intelligence to those who needed it most.
The fifty-one individuals named below do not represent a limited crop of bad apples in the intelligence community. Rather, the group proves the long-term existence of a deep, pervasive, and thoroughly anti-American rot that is still running through the components of the U.S. intelligence community. If anything, this rot has broadened, deepened, and grown more flamboyantly traitorous since Biden’s election.
The bottom line, it seems, is that the U.S. Intelligence community is no longer interested in defending Americans, only its elites and their money. In turn, that means many Americans and their families are living in neighborhoods beside intelligence-officers who are helping the governing elite to impoverish and enslave them and their children.
The below list of the fifty-one signers of the lying letter is from the courageous and stalwart New York Post (https://nypost.com/2022/03/18/intelligence-experts-refuse-to-apologize-for-smearing-hunter-biden-story/) . That paper first broke the news about the treason-identifying Biden laptop. It consistently refuted allegations that it was Russian disinformation, and it was censored by Biden and Big Tech for its trouble.
It is worth noting that, when asked by the Post what they thought about the confirmation that the Biden-laptop was genuine and not a Russian operation, none of fifty-0ne recanted their deliberate lies. Most did not respond, a few stood by their allegations, a few answered with new lies, others said they had noting to say or they were not up to date on the issue, and one, apparently in hiding, could not be reached.
The only conclusions to draw all of this are that (a) the U.S. intelligence community’s leaders have been and are liars, anti-American, and have been suborned by the Democrats, foreign powers, massively rich individuals, or all of the foregoing, and that (b) these officers are so afraid of being Arkancided if they defect from Biden that they are content to risk going down with the Deep- State ship or to be hunted down and dealt with by the wonderfully well-armed loyal citizenry they most certainly betrayed.
Following is the New York Post’s results from questioning the fifty-one contemporary Quislings:
Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN: Didn’t respond.
Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit: “Yes, I stand by the statement made AT THE TIME, and would call attention to its 5th paragraph. I think sounding such a cautionary note AT THE TIME was appropriate.”
Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary, now runs a public policy institute at California State University: Declined comment.
John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.
Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University: Didn’t respond.
Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank: Didn’t respond.
John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins University: Didn’t respond.
Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, now at George Mason University: Didn’t respond.
Mike Vickers, former defense undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Systems: Didn’t respond.
Doug Wise, former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, teaches at University of New Mexico: Didn’t respond.
Nick Rasmussen, former National Counterterrorism Center director, now executive director, Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism: Didn’t respond.
Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center acting director: “The letter explicitly stated that we didn’t know if the emails were genuine, but that we were concerned about Russian disinformation efforts. I spent 25 years as a Soviet/Russian analyst. Given the context of what the Russians were doing at the time (and continue to do — Ukraine being just the latest example), I considered the cautionary warning to be prudent.”
Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director: “As far as I know I do [stand by the statement] but I’m kind of busy right now.”
John Moseman, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.
Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group: Didn’t respond.
Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of staff, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.
Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.
Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel: Didn’t respond.
David Priess, former CIA analyst and manager: “Thank you for reaching out. I have no further comment at this time.”
Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of analysis: Didn’t respond.
Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Chris Savos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
John Tullius, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
David A. Vanell, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Kristin Wood, former CIA senior intelligence officer, now non-resident fellow, Harvard: Didn’t respond.
David Buckley, former CIA inspector general: Didn’t respond.
Nada Bakos, former CIA analyst and targeting officer, now senior fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute: Didn’t respond.
Patty Brandmaier, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
James B. Bruce, former CIA senior intelligence office: Didn’t respond.
David Cariens, former CIA intelligence analyst: Didn’t respond.
Janice Cariens, former CIA operational support officer: Didn’t respond.
Paul Kolbe, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Peter Corsell, former CIA analyst: Didn’t respond.
Brett Davis, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Roger Zane George, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Steven L. Hall, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Kent Harrington, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Don Hepburn, former national security executive, now president of Boanerges Solutions LLC: “My position has not changed any. I believe the Russians made a huge effort to alter the course of the election . . . The Russians are masters of blending truth and fiction and making something feel incredibly real when it’s not. Nothing I have seen really changes my opinion. I can’t tell you what part is real and what part is fake, but the thesis still stands for me, that it was a media influence hit job.”
Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIA’s Kent School of Intelligence Analysis: Didn’t respond.
Ron Marks, former CIA officer: Didn’t respond.
Jonna Hiestand Mendez, former CIA technical operations officer, now on board of the International Spy Museum: “I don’t have any comment. I would need a little more information.”
Emile Nakhleh, former director of CIA’s Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, now at University of New Mexico: “I have not seen any information since then that would alter the decision behind signing the letter. That’s all I can go into. The whole issue was highly politicized and I don’t want to deal with that. I still stand by that letter.”
Gerald A. O’Shea, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Nick Shapiro, former CIA deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to the director: Didn’t respond.
John Sipher, former CIA senior operations officer: Declined to comment.
Stephen Slick, former National Security Council senior director for intelligence programs:
Didn’t respond.
Cynthia Strand, former CIA deputy assistant director for global issues: Didn’t respond.
Greg Tarbell, former CIA deputy executive director: Didn’t respond.
David Terry, former National Intelligence Collection Board chairman: Couldn’t be reached.
Greg Treverton, former National Intelligence Council chair, now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “I’ll pass. I haven’t followed the case recently.”
Winston Wiley, former CIA director of analysis: Couldn’t be reached.
