U.S. intelligence agencies are increasingly mired in a crisis of questionable integrity and political motivations and according to a recent professional journal article by a former CIA analyst, these agencies have become bastions of political liberals.

Although the article was published a few months before the release of the Mueller report findings that have exonerated President Trump, the author’s conclusions are clearly borne out of that investigation failing to deliver what certain politically driven former intelligence officials repeatedly promised: Trump’s head on a platter due to evidence unearthed in the Mueller probe.

Senior editor Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon has a revealing article out which summarizes the analyst’s journal treatise aimed at the intelligence community audience.

Twelve-year CIA analyst Dr. John Gentry’s detailed commentary on his investigation into prevailing institutional political bias was published in the quarterly International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. Gentry makes a case that the role of intelligence in support of policy-making government leaders is being seriously undermined.

Gentry is particularly critical of the very public political pronouncements of former senior intelligence personalities turned high-paid media shills John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Morell, and Paul Pillar. They all broke intelligence-community taboos held for decades by publicly venting their liberal political views, attacking the president and his administration.

To make matters worse, these tricksters personally profited from their betrayals of the intel community by going on the payroll of propaganda outlets such as CNN and MSNBC.

A quote attributed to Sherman Kent, “the father of intelligence analysis,” sheds some light on the importance of political impartiality.

“There is no phase of the intelligence business which is more important than the proper relationship between intelligence itself and the people who use its products,” says Kent. “Oddly enough, this relationship, which one would expect to establish itself automatically, does not do this. It is established as a result of a great deal of conscious effort and it is likely to disappear when the effort is relaxed.”

He continues, “Proper relationship between intelligence producers and consumers is one of utmost delicacy. Intelligence must be close enough to policy, plans, and operations to have the greatest amount of guidance, and must not be so close that it loses its objectivity and integrity of judgment.”

Dr. Gentry reports, “A considerable body of evidence, much of it fragmentary, indicates that many CIA people have left-leaning political preferences, but less evidence shows that political bias influences CIA analyses.” On the other hand, he does also state “bias may have crept into CIA analyses.”

Intelligence politicization has long been specifically prohibited in the community, but “in 2016 observers of U.S. intelligence began to wonder if the CIA’s once-firm prohibition on partisan politics had changed, and to ponder whether a new kind of politicization had arisen: namely, institutionally embedded, partisan bias,” Gentry wrote.

He spotlighted the activities of senior retired intelligence officials during the 2016 presidential campaign that “universally” attacked Republican candidate Trump and supported Democrat Hillary Clinton.

“The attacks on Trump were unprecedented for intelligence officers in their substance, tone, and volume,” Dr. Gentry said. “Critics went far beyond trying to correct Trump’s misstatements about U.S. intelligence; they attacked him as a human being.”

Gentry, currently a professor at Georgetown and Columbia Universities, provided a detailed analysis of whether the 16-agency U.S. intelligence community and the CIA in particular have become institutional partisans supporting the Democratic Party. He reached no definitive conclusion, but he called for further investigation into the matter.

“Unless the questions about bias are answered, Republicans may trust CIA less and give the agency a smaller role. For Democrats, the bias will lead to using the CIA as a tool to support its liberal agenda,” he said.

Unprecedented intel chief politicization. Hayden, Brennan, Clapper et al…they should have been quiet. Lasting damage has been done to the image of the intelligence community. — Mark Munson (@MarkMunson23) April 18, 2019

You mean SOCIALISTS and COMMUNISTS. — Robert Italia (@RobertItalia) April 18, 2019