To: Fake News

From: Anon

Your narrative that Ratcliffe should be 'instantly disqualified' from one of the top intelligence roles of the country, for 'following an anonymous account on Twitter', by your own account your own narrative SELF-REFUTES.

Nobody needs to do anything except describe your narrative back to you.

You are saying it is a bad thing for an incoming Director of National INTELLIGENCE to have an interest in reading information on BOTH classes in a two class information structure that you are invoking by dividing people into good and bad choice for DNI based on whether or not they read on only side or both sides of what YOU are telling us to think about, Qanon information as divided from all other information in SOME intentional way.

In short, I will only ask, why do you believe that one of the nation's top intelligence positions should not be filled with people who closely look at what you're telling us is a threat?

The only logical explanation that can come from that is that whoever is controlling your narrative is intentionally trying to increase threats against your own readers.

What's that? Ratcliffe would be a threat to the people's safety because he closely monitors what you are saying is a threatening anonymous open source online?

Says what?

"Breaking:[From: Nyt/WaPo/NBC/CBS] "Help, Ratcliffe shouldn't be DNI because he wants to see the intelligence on an open source comms online worldwide network that 'bad people' are posting comments on…it would be better for you and us if he didn't closely monitor what threatens you and us."

This is what you're saying: Whoever is to be The Director of National Intelligence, they are not allowed to be anyone who gathered intelligence