https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/20/john-ratcliffe-intel-on-china-politicized/

[Anons, remember that pitched battle between DNI Ratcliffe and the IC over the impact of Chinese interference in the 2020 election? Which surfaced when Ratcliffe undertook to present his Report to POTUS about Chinese interference in the Election as required by EO No. 13848?

During that entire battle with the "6 Ways From Sunday" Intelligence Community the IC was actively suppressing the damning truths on Hunter's Laptop proving that the Biden Family was fully compromised and owned by the CCP.

Not only did the IC KNOW that the Chinese affected the election outcome, it KNEW that the President Elect himself was nothing but a STOOGE for the CCP.

TREASON INFERNO ]

John Ratcliffe: Intel on China politicized

By Bill Gertz - The Washington Times - Wednesday, January 20, 2021

NEWS AND ANALYSIS:

Outgoing Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe dropped a political bombshell in a report issued in the final days of the Trump administration, accusing U.S. intelligence analysts of politicization by playing down China‘s role in interference with the Nov. 3 presidential election.

“From my unique vantage point as the individual who consumes all of the U.S. government’s most sensitive intelligence on the People’s Republic of China, I do not believe the majority view expressed by [intelligence community] analysts fully and accurately reflects the scope of the Chinese government’s efforts to influence the 2020 U.S. federal elections,” Mr. Ratcliffe stated in a Jan. 7 report.

The DNI said that what he called “the politicization of China election influence reporting” was the result of “undue pressure being brought to bear on analysts who offered an alternative view based on the intelligence.”

The debate centers on whether intelligence analysts emphasized Russian meddling while playing down the role of Beijing during the election. Mr. Ratcliffe said the three-page report raises broader questions about the quality of U.S. intelligence analyses.

The comments followed a more detailed assessment by Barry A. Zulauf, the intelligence community’s ombudsman for politicization. Mr. Zulauf stated in a separate report to Congress that he found a number of examples of faulty analysis on China‘s efforts and a greater emphasis by analysts on Russian interference that he concluded were rooted in analysts’ bias against President Trump.

"China analysts [two dissenting deep state moles] appeared hesitant to assess Chinese actions as undue influence or interference,” Mr. Zulauf stated. “These analysts appeared reluctant to have their analysis on China brought forward because they tended to disagree with the administration‘s policies, saying in effect, ‘I don’t want our intelligence used to support those policies.’”

By contrast, Russian affairs analysts promoted clear evidence of Moscow’s meddling, views that were played up in reports and presentations to policymakers.

Mr. Ratcliffe said the issue involved disputes between National Intelligence Council (NIC) analysts under his office and CIA officials who rejected the NIC views.

CIA managers also took steps to pressure intelligence analysts to “withdraw their support” from alternative viewpoints about election-meddling by China “in an attempt to suppress it,” he said.

The NIC analysts said the CIA engaged in politicization of intelligence, and Mr. Ratcliffe said he agreed.

The U.S. intelligence community’s election assessment “gives the false impression that the [national intelligence officer] cyber is the only analyst who holds the minority view on China,” Mr. Ratcliffe said.

“He is not, a fact that the ombudsman found during his research and interviews with stakeholders,” he noted.

“Having consumed election influence intelligence across various analytic communities, it is clear to me that different groups of analysts who focus on election threats from different countries are using different terminology to communicate the same malign actions,” Mr. Ratcliffe said.

For example, analysts defined the terms “influence” and “interference” within groups focused on China and Russia."….

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/20/john-ratcliffe-intel-on-china-politicized/

>>18061489

with SCOTUS (while it is still undecided in the 10th circuit court of appeals) is odd. How did it get here? Their case hinges on constitutional amendment violations of the right to due process. When an election has concerns of fraud, constitution allows for a 10 day investigation to look at the potential fraud questions and determine if fraud did or did not occur. This case is NOT one of election fraud, it is about congress and the senate NOT doing their oath of office and violating Amendment I to the constitution, Article VI of the constitution, the 14th Amendment of the constitution, section 3, the 5th and the 9th Amendment of the constitution, as well as a couple of Utah State Constitution articles. Most pertain to due process, the right to investigation, and not performing the 10 day investigation when questions of election fraud were presented to congress. It began in the state of Utah, then transferred to federal court when there were originally 3 defendants listed, Biden and Harris as well as Nancy Pelosi, and then 381 other defendents AND over 100 Jane/John Does to the defendent list. All are Federal Government members that are named so far.

The case was filed in early 2021, it was granted a motion to dismiss by the Federal Government, and it was refiled on Appeal to the 10th circuit court. In August 2022, they realized that they did not have to wait for a decision from the 10th Circuit of Appeals. The SCOTUS Rule 11 allowed them to bypass the 10th Circuit and go straight to the SCOTUS."….

https://docbrown77.substack.com/p/interesting-scotus-case-hit-the-docket

>>18061516

[A pox upon me for a fat-fingered, clumsy oaf, anons]

"Interesting SCOTUS case hit the docket: Brunson vs Adams, et al. We have never seen anything like this before.

Jennifer Brown

Nov 28, 2022

Have any of you heard of Brunson vs Adams, et al?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/243739/20221027152243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf

Above is the link to the 18 page filing. I have never seen anything like this before. The history behind this case: Two brothers, Loy Brunson and Raland Brunson, both filed a court case in Utah. Loy’s case is still pending in Utah, but Raland’s case has now made it to the Supreme Court docket. As most of you probably know, getting a case docketed with SCOTUS (while it is still undecided in the 10th circuit court of appeals) is odd. How did it get here? Their case hinges on constitutional amendment violations of the right to due process. When an election has concerns of fraud, constitution allows for a 10 day investigation to look at the potential fraud questions and determine if fraud did or did not occur. This case is NOT one of election fraud, it is about congress and the senate NOT doing their oath of office and violating Amendment I to the constitution, Article VI of the constitution, the 14th Amendment of the constitution, section 3, the 5th and the 9th Amendment of the constitution, as well as a couple of Utah State Constitution articles. Most pertain to due process, the right to investigation, and not performing the 10 day investigation when questions of election fraud were presented to congress. It began in the state of Utah, then transferred to federal court when there were originally 3 defendants listed, Biden and Harris as well as Nancy Pelosi, and then 381 other defendents AND over 100 Jane/John Does to the defendent list. All are Federal Government members that are named so far.

The case was filed in early 2021, it was granted a motion to dismiss by the Federal Government, and it was refiled on Appeal to the 10th circuit court. In August 2022, they realized that they did not have to wait for a decision from the 10th Circuit of Appeals. The SCOTUS Rule 11 allowed them to bypass the 10th Circuit and go straight to the SCOTUS.