Email alleged Ratcliffe was involved in whistleblowing case: report – Business Insider

President Trump blamed the media’s “unfair” treatment of GOP Representative John Ratcliffe as the reason he ultimately decided to withdraw the congressman’s nomination to become the country’s next Director of National Intelligence. But according to a report by the Daily Beast late Friday night, there may have been another reason for the president’s decision.

The Daily Beast reported that an email was sent to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, prior to the nomination reversal on Friday, which allegedly detailed the congressman’s involvement in a “controversial whistleblowing case.”

The email, reportedly sent to the committee by the Government Accountability Project (an organization which protects whistleblowers), claimed that Ratcliffe had “promoted a company accused of being instrumental in the reprisal against a whistleblower and their cybersecurity efforts,” according to The Daily Beast.

The report said that Ratcliffe’s third-largest campaign donor in his recent campaign cycle has been from the company that “forced the shutdown of a critical government cybersecurity office.” That company, the report said, was also hosted by Ratcliffe in front of the House Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity.

It remains unclear whether the email played any role in the president’s decision to pull the nomination from Ratcliffe.

Read more: Trump abruptly reversed GOP Rep. John Ratcliffe’s nomination for spy chief amid a bipartisan uproar

Ratcliffe’s nomination for Director of National Intelligence stirred controversy on both sides of the aisle from the beginning, especially after allegations emerged that he had misled the public about having successfully prosecuted people who funneled money to terrorist groups, like Hamas. Also, for a position that’s traditionally been a non-partisan job, the intelligence community worried about Ratcliffe’s seemingly unwavering support for President Trump.

On Friday, Ratcliffe tweeted that had he assumed the role, he would have done so with “objectivity, fairness and integrity that our intelligence agencies need and deserve. However, I do not wish for a national security and intelligence debate surrounding my confirmation, however untrue, to become a purely political and partisan issue.”

Comments

Write a Reply or Comment:

Your email address will not be published.*