The air crackled with accusation Friday night as former CIA agent Bryan Dean Wright appeared on television, directly confronting the implications of a recent video released by Senator Elissa Slotkin. Wright, himself a veteran of the agency, asserted that Slotkin’s appeal to members of the U.S. Military – urging defiance of potential orders from a former president – wasn’t a spontaneous act, but a calculated maneuver.
Slotkin’s video, featuring herself and other Democrats, framed the possibility of “illegal” orders, subtly encouraging service members to question and potentially refuse them. Wright contends this wasn’t simply a matter of expressing concern, but a deliberate attempt to sow discord and undermine the chain of command. He believes Slotkin understood precisely the power and potential consequences of her message.
Wright drew a stark parallel to a moment in 2017 when Senator Chuck Schumer hinted at leveraging intelligence agencies against a former president. He framed Slotkin’s actions as a continuation of this pattern – a willingness to weaponize national security structures for political ends. This isn’t an isolated incident, he implied, but part of a larger strategy.
Having served as a CIA operations officer, Wright explained the specific skillset Slotkin possesses. His role involved gathering intelligence and executing operations, while hers centered on analyzing the effectiveness of propaganda. This background, he argued, makes her acutely aware of how to craft and deploy persuasive, and potentially destabilizing, messaging.
According to Wright, the video’s construction is key. He pointed to the initial emphasis on establishing credibility and authority as a hallmark of effective propaganda. By positioning themselves as knowledgeable and trustworthy figures, Slotkin and her colleagues aimed to amplify the impact of their message and encourage compliance with their implied call to action.
Wright directly addressed Slotkin on social media, referencing their shared history at the CIA. He accused her of sedition, stating the video was a thinly veiled attempt to incite insubordination, masked by a pretense of legality. He emphasized that she was fully aware of the implications of her actions.
The core of Wright’s argument isn’t simply about disagreement with political viewpoints, but about a perceived breach of trust and a dangerous precedent. He believes that such actions, deliberately designed to undermine faith in leadership and the military’s adherence to lawful orders, demand accountability.
The situation raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of political discourse and the potential for exploiting national security concerns for partisan gain. Wright’s perspective, informed by his years within the intelligence community, offers a chilling assessment of the motivations and potential consequences behind Slotkin’s controversial video.
