The recent analysis by Paul Sperry regarding the intelligence community’s actions during the Trump presidency unveils a troubling narrative about complicity within the administration. According to Sperry, certain political appointees during Trump’s first term inadvertently played a role in the deception surrounding the bogus claims of collusion with Russia.
As former Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation revealed, key figures in Trump’s cabinet, including John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Gina Haspel, were not only aware of the flawed nature of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) but actively chose to suppress evidence that could have exonerated Trump. This assessment, crafted during the final days of the Obama administration and steeped in dubious claims, falsely linked Trump to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Sperry notes that a vital 2018 government review found that the ICA’s most significant allegations stemmed from a sketchy sentence within one intelligence report. The reliance on the Steele dossier—fabricated dirt funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign—only compounded the fraud. This assessment misrepresented the credibility of its sources, raising questions about its integrity.
Notably, Durham is criticized for his decisions leading up to the 2020 election; he reportedly halted the release of exculpatory evidence just as the election was on the horizon. This suppression further muddied the waters, leaving Trump under a cloud of suspicion that may have affected his chances for re-election. Former national security adviser J.D. Gordon described this betrayal as occurring “in plain sight” while insiders allowed the narrative of collusion to persist.
The analysis highlights the behavior of key figures such as John Bolton, who received a report that could have cleared Trump but failed to pass this crucial information on to him. Fleitz, Bolton’s chief of staff, expressed disbelief about the CIA’s handling of intelligence and the subsequent obstruction they faced in their investigation. The atmosphere at the CIA during this period was tightly controlled, as Haspel allegedly monitored congressional inquiries, severely limiting the House Intelligence Committee’s access to necessary documents.
Throughout this period, Sperry illustrates how the actions of Trump’s appointed officials, rather than merely undermining the president, contributed to a broader effort to politicize intelligence—a betrayal of their duties. The dynamics within the intelligence community reveal a culture reluctant to confront errors or disclose damaging information.
The article also raises alarm about the implications of these findings for the integrity of U.S. intelligence. With allegations that the CIA “fabricated intelligence” against Trump, it suggests a grievous misuse of power. This incident has ramifications not only for Trump but for trust in intelligence operations, as claims of manipulation raise severe concerns regarding accountability and transparency.
As Sperry articulates, the delayed release of the ICA and other classified documents has sparked new investigations into the very officials who crafted the initial assessment. The DOJ is now probing into the actions of Obama-era officials, indicating that this saga has not yet reached its conclusion.
The analysis serves as a call for scrutiny of how intelligence is leveraged in the political arena and the possible consequences of a collusion narrative that led to extensive investigations based on shaky foundations. The tension between verifying the truth and protecting political narratives becomes a central theme in this unfolding story, revealing how fragile the relationship between intelligence and politics can be.
"*" indicates required fields
