Trump spymaster may have spilled 'crucial' secrets to special counsel Jack Smith: analysis

A former Trump administration spymaster may have given “crucial” evidence to special counsel Jack Smith that former President Donald Trump is itching to get his hands on, a new political analysis contends.

Former director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe is the subject of a recent discovery request filed by Trump's team that New York Sun editor A.R. Hoffman calls suggestive, especially considering he reportedly warned against challenging the 2020 election.

“[It] suggests a particular interest in what the spymaster has to say,” Hoffman writes of Trump’s request.

“Mr. Ratcliffe’s words of warning to Mr. Trump could be pertinent — even crucial — to Mr. Smith’s case at trial.”

ALSO READ: Nazis bullied a conservative Tennessee town. Locals punched back. Trump should be worried.

As proof, Hoffman points to Trump’s specific request for “all documents” pertaining to Ratcliffe’s grand jury testimony, which stands out among the “voluminous” requests for documents in the federal election interference case.

While it remains unclear what Ratcliffe told Smith’s grand jury, there are hints on the public record as to what Smith likely wanted to know, Hoffman contends.

One such hint comes courtesy of former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified at the Jan. 6 congressional hearings that Ratcliffe opposed Trump’s campaign to claim victory in 2020.

“Ms. Hutchinson’s account of a White House in chaos and a president intent on staying in power was a dramatic highlight of the Democrat-dominated committee’s televised hearings,” writes Hoffman.

“She reported that [Ratcliffe] warned of ‘dangerous repercussions in terms of precedents set for elections, for our democracy.’”

A second clue can be found in a report from the National Intelligence Council, which Ratcliffe oversaw, that was presented to Trump on Jan. 7, 2021 and found no evidence of voter fraud, according to the analysis.

If Ratcliffe told the grand jury he had disclosed to the former president the report's conclusions before the Jan. 6 riot, then Trump’s case, that he genuinely believed voter fraud had occurred, becomes harder to make, Hoffman contends.

“If Mr. Trump knew that conclusion on January 5," Hoffman writes, "Mr. Smith could be one step closer to a conviction.”