Sponsor Advertisement
Ratcliffe Promises Revelations on Clinton's Alleged Russiagate Role

Ratcliffe Promises Revelations on Clinton's Alleged Russiagate Role

Ex-CIA Director John Ratcliffe claims new evidence will expose Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Russiagate controversy. He alleges the evidence shows a plan to push false claims of Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Former CIA Director John Ratcliffe has made headlines with his recent announcement on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," where he promised the release of new documents that purportedly unveil Hillary Clinton's involvement in what he calls the "Russiagate hoax." The interview, conducted by Maria Bartiromo, has stirred up renewed attention to the long-standing controversy over Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

Ratcliffe pinpointed the "underlying intelligence" cited in the annex of the Durham report — the investigation into the FBI's handling of the Russia probe — which is now in the process of being declassified. "What hasn't come out yet, and what's going to come out, is the underlying intelligence," Ratcliffe stated, suggesting a direct link to a plan by Clinton and the FBI to propagate the infamous Steele dossier and the narrative of collusion with Russia.

The Steele dossier, a document compiled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, was funded by Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Despite being largely discredited, it was a significant component that the FBI used to justify the initiation of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

Ratcliffe recounted an interception of Russian communications in the summer of 2016, which he claimed discussed a strategy by Hillary Clinton to falsely accuse Donald Trump of collusion, using what later became known as the Steele dossier. He also mentioned reviewing handwritten notes from former CIA Director John Brennan, which he says reveal the "underlying intelligence behind it all."

The former CIA Director expressed confidence that the new evidence, which he claims has been hidden from the public, will soon come to light. Clinton and officials from the Obama administration have consistently denied that the Steele dossier was the catalyst for the FBI's investigation. However, Ratcliffe dismissed these denials, asserting his belief that there was a conspiracy against Trump and the American people.

Both Ratcliffe and the current Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, have submitted referrals to the Justice Department based on their findings. Ratcliffe anticipates that the statute of limitations will not impede the investigation, citing that on conspiracy charges, the clock does not start ticking until the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy — and he believes they are still acting to further it.

Gabbard has also been active in revealing intelligence, including a 2020 House report that found insufficient evidence to conclude Russia favored Trump in the 2016 election. She has disclosed that top intelligence officials had evidence that Russia did not hack voting systems to change the election outcome.

Recently, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the formation of a "strike force" within the Justice Department to review the referrals from Gabbard and Ratcliffe. This development promises to add another layer to the ongoing saga of the 2016 election and its aftermath.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

From a progressive standpoint, the claims made by John Ratcliffe must be approached with caution and a critical eye. The progressive narrative has consistently recognized Russian interference in the 2016 election as a threat to democratic institutions. However, progressives also stress the importance of evidence-based conclusions and due process.

While acknowledging the potential for political maneuvering by individuals in any party, progressives caution against using unverified allegations to discredit political opponents or to distract from pressing issues facing the country. There is a concern that rehashing the 2016 election controversies serves to deepen political divisions rather than to address substantive policy challenges.

Progressives also emphasize the need for a robust and independent judiciary that can evaluate such claims without partisan influence. The integrity of the Justice Department and its ability to conduct impartial investigations is paramount. Calls for a "strike force" to examine these referrals may be seen as an attempt to politicize the justice system, which could undermine public trust.

The progressive viewpoint maintains that the focus should remain on protecting elections from foreign interference, ensuring that all voices are heard, and that the democratic process is upheld. Any discussion of past elections should be grounded in factual analysis and aimed at preventing future breaches of electoral integrity.

Conservative View

The forthcoming revelations by former CIA Director John Ratcliffe are poised to validate long-held conservative suspicions regarding the origins of the Russia collusion narrative. The alleged involvement of Hillary Clinton and the FBI in fabricating the Steele dossier underscores concerns about deep-seated political bias within federal institutions. This bias ostensibly sought to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump's campaign and subsequent administration.

The conservative perspective emphasizes the importance of holding those in power accountable for their actions, particularly when those actions may have compromised the integrity of our electoral process. The notion that high-ranking officials could conspire to influence a presidential election is antithetical to the democratic principles upon which the United States is founded.

Furthermore, the conservative viewpoint often highlights the media's role in perpetuating the Russia collusion story without sufficient scrutiny. Many believe that the media's eagerness to report on the Steele dossier's unverified claims contributed to a narrative that damaged the Trump presidency and distracted from his policy achievements.

The conservative response to these developments includes calls for transparency and justice. There is a strong desire to see the individuals responsible for perpetuating what they perceive as a hoax held to account. The statute of limitations being a non-factor, as Ratcliffe suggests, would mean that justice may still be served, regardless of the time that has elapsed.

Common Ground

Despite differing perspectives on the Russiagate controversy, both conservatives and progressives can agree on the fundamental importance of election integrity and the rule of law. There is common ground in the belief that any interference in the democratic process, whether foreign or domestic, is unacceptable and that those responsible should be held accountable. Both sides also share an interest in a transparent government that provides the public with access to information that is crucial to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Ensuring that intelligence agencies and law enforcement operate without partisan bias is a shared priority that transcends political divides.