Ron Johnson Demands Apology From John Ratcliffe Over CIA's Response To COVID Hearing

[0:00] We're going to conclude pretty quickly. I'm going to give Senator Johnson another chance [0:04] if you have another question. I've got a quick question. Then I want to go someplace else. [0:14] In September 2023, we apparently had a CI whistleblower come forward and there are news [0:18] articles written about this that six of the seven analysts to describe this were bribed to change [0:23] their analysis. Is that true? No. So there's some clarifications on that. What is true? And I thank [0:32] you for bringing up this question, Senator Johnson, because this is one of the things I wanted to make [0:36] sure the record was corrected. So and if if I have just a few minutes here to sort of talk through [0:42] this, there was new information that came out in 2022 and it forced it forced the community to try [0:51] and conduct a relook. There were 10 CIA scientists. I'm talking from the CIA side now, not on the next [0:58] side, 10 CIA scientists that were said, why don't you go ahead and do a COVID relook? On that team, [1:04] there were seven SMEs, subject matter experts, technical experts with, you know, lab experience, [1:10] medical, medical experience. And so they, they began their relook. And by the time they wrote [1:21] their paper, they wrote a paper and they said, we're assessing this as a lab leak. Eight of the 10, [1:27] according to multiple whistleblowers, eight of the 10 were definitely leaning in on lab leak. [1:34] They sent that paper, that draft paper up to the weapons and counter proliferation center front office [1:42] and said, take a look. And magically a new report shows up that allegedly contradicted this, [1:54] the information that had come in earlier that year. The, the multiple people we spoke to said, [2:01] yeah, it didn't really contradict it, but they were told, go back to the drawing board and do a [2:06] reassessment. So the interagency got involved. They were having discussions. So they go back to the [2:11] drawing board. And by the time 2023 rolls around, they've, they've got their, they've got their answer. [2:18] They say, you know, six of the seven technical, technical people on that team. So there's 10 people [2:23] on the team, six of the seven technical experts say, yep, we still think it's a lab leak. We still think [2:30] it's a lab leak and they were sticking to their guns. Management changed the analytic line. They [2:39] changed the conclusion to a non-consensus call. Actually worse than that, they said that the exact [2:47] words were, I don't want to get this wrong. Excuse me. We may never precisely know the origin of [3:03] SARS-CoV-2. Precisely. Precisely is not a term analysts use. They use like low confidence, medium [3:10] confidence. Yes, no. Precisely is a word you use when you want to deliberately end discussion. Because do you [3:20] know how many resources we need to precisely know the origin of SARS-CoV-2? [3:24] So, so again, I want the chairman to be a little bit more here. There's no bribes paid. This is just a [3:30] management decision. They overrode what the, okay. But the financial piece definitely needs to be [3:35] looked into because they did receive an EPA. They just, they got it. It's 1,500 bucks. Okay. So, [3:41] so it may be true then. No, no, no, no, no. Let me be very clear. There were no bribes. They received [3:46] an exceptional performance award. They were upset with it and, and it was not a bribe. But what I will say, [3:52] okay, the people who were not. They were rewarded for their work. They didn't know they were going to get it. [3:57] They were not. I got, I got, I got you. Okay. I got you. And I understand this distinction. [4:01] One point and one question. Just received this from Liz Lyon, the CIA Director of Public Affairs. [4:09] The committee acted in bad faith by subpoenaing an agency officer for testimony today without [4:13] notifying CIA. Despite having already obtained closed-door testimony from the individual [4:17] previously, the witness testifying today is not appearing as a whistleblower in pursuit of the [4:21] truth, but instead in response to the subpoena issued by Chairman Paul. This proceeding amounts to [4:26] nothing more than a dishonest political theater masquerading as a congressional hearing as the CIA [4:30] has already assessed COVID-19 most likely originated from the lab leak and efforts to undermine that [4:35] conclusion are disingenuous. I am calling on CIA Director Radcliffe and this person to apologize [4:41] to Chairman Paul and this committee. This is not political theater. I have years and years and years [4:49] of built-up frustration of agencies like the CIA, Department of Justice, the FBI, HHS snubbing our [4:58] oversight, giving us the big middle finger. And that really leads me into my question. You talked about [5:04] how proud you were. Okay. I can imagine that. My belief is there, I'd say most people serving in [5:11] government, all these agencies, are doing good work. They're patriots. Why aren't there more people like [5:19] you? I mean, you saw Josh Hawley's, Senator Hawley's, the five-page snub, the five-page middle finger [5:27] saying, any and all, this is it. And people inside the agencies know that's not the truth. [5:34] They know that is a big, fat lie. What is going, what happens inside the agency that people, [5:44] good Americans, patriotic Americans, people who believe in democracy, witness that and realize the [5:52] agency they're working for is lying boldface to legitimate congressional oversight, legitimate [5:59] congressional investigations to the American people? What is causing this? Two answers. One, [6:10] we need more leaders like Director Gabbard, who pulls together a task force of people to actually pursue [6:15] this, despite the difficulty in wrangling agencies to do the right thing. I think the second thing I'll say [6:27] is it's a minority of officers. I mean, most, most of the people join the CIA are barrel-chested freedom [6:33] fighters. Like, they're out there wanting to do the right thing. As you matriculate upwards into the, [6:44] into the bureaucracy, I just think that it gets easier and easier to find people who are more willing [6:52] to, to get along. And, you know, we can, if we want to link this back to COVID, uh, you had a bunch of [6:58] refuseniks out there that said no, and they were trying to push these people out. And, and, um, what you [7:06] really need in these organizations are, you know, you can't have the whole organization saying no to [7:11] everything because nothing gets done, but you got to retain the people who are sometimes a little more [7:16] difficult to deal with, more willing to say no over and over. Um, and I think we've, we, we've created a [7:25] milquetoast bureaucracy. I, you know, when I first joined the agency, uh, the chiefs of offices had a [7:32] lot of power, you know, and then modernization happened and, um, they, they watered everything down [7:37] and you didn't, the accountability piece has to be there. Otherwise you're, this is just going to keep [7:42] happening. Well, again, I appreciate you coming forward again. I'm, I'm calling on Director Radcliffe [7:47] and that communications person, this committee, this chairman needs an apology. This is not political [7:52] theater. This is serious oversight work. This is what the American people need to see. And I just wish [7:58] our Democrat colleagues had any level of curiosity what's happening inside the deep state. Thank you, [8:03] Mr. Chairman.