John A. Gentry

I mean, clearly, there's a certain sort of atmospheric concern here, but we know that there are at least some cases in which ongoing intelligence products have been

have been tailored.

And I would encourage interested viewers to look up online a letter that was written by the analytic ombudsman of the ODNI in January of 21.

which was a letter in response to a query from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

And in this letter, the incumbent at the time, Barry Zuloff, writes about two episodes in limited detail, of course, but makes the point clear.

Two episodes.

In one case, China analysts were accused of withholding relevant information from the White House because, allegedly, the China analysts did not want to give President Trump information that they thought would facilitate Trump's policies.

So that's classic politicization.

And the second one, different part of the ICE, and there were allegations, different time, that this was from Russia House, that this was the Russia operation at CIA.

Again, relatively sketchy public information on this.

But the story in the letter was that

Russia analysts kept pushing Trump as a dupe of Putin long after Trump had made it clear he wasn't interested in hearing that.

So basically they were pushing a story at a president just to annoy him.

That's my version of the longer explanation there.

So to the extent that this kind of thing is being reported a little bit, I think we have reason to think that it's probably occurring a little bit more.

Yeah, yeah.

What can citizens do?

I think the best thing for citizens to do, people who are looking at the press, looking at other podcasts and so on, is to try to understand a little bit more about the intelligence business.

Intelligence is a hard thing to understand.

There is some reading about it.