One does not need to be particularly well-versed on the intricacies of various U.S. intelligence agencies to smell a rat after hearing “expert analyses” from current and/or former officials that sets BS detectors off.

Such was the case for yours truly after reading about and watching a clip of former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi sharing his latest sizzling hot takes about the Capitol riots, who was behind them, etc. during a Wednesday interview with MSNBC host Craig Melvin.

During the segment, Figliuzzi – an MSNBC contributor and a favorite of network anchor Nicolle Wallace (which should tell you quite a bit) – speculated on the security failures that happened at the Capitol that day, and suggested that the White House might be the reason why calls from the Capitol police for back-up allegedly were not heeded until over three hours after they were reportedly made.

“Here’s the next hard questions that we need to get to at the next level of hearing,” Figliuzzi said after Melvin inquired about what other “key questions” needed to be asked at this point in the investigation.

“So was this merely [a] typical Pentagon bureaucratic ‘snafu’, that it takes hours and days to get something figured out? Maybe. Or is this evidence that there was political intervention, that the hand of the White House was involved in this?” Figliuzzi wondered.

It was then Figliuzzi revealed what was behind his belief that the White House might have been “involved” in the security delay: a gut feeling.

“We’re hearing word of optics playing into what this looked like if the Guard deployed,” Figliuzzi stated. “I’m – my gut’s telling me there’s more to this story. When you get the secretary of defense saying, ‘no, no, no,’ I’m needing to ask the question, did the White House reach into this decision-making?”

I couldn’t find an embeddable copy of the video, but Mediaite has one for those interested in watching it.

You know, everyone is entitled to their own opinions on things – and there are definitely a lot of opinions in Washington, D.C. But when someone is billed as an intelligence expert who served for over two decades at the FBI, and even wrote a book about their vast knowledge and experience, shouldn’t they be expected to provide more evidence to back up their sensational claims about alleged White House involvement in delaying additional security beyond citing a mere a “gut feeling”?

MSNBC ’straight news’ report’s impeccable sourcing: 'My gut's telling me' Trump White House behind lack of Capitol protection on Jan. 6https://t.co/JHhWE3qZLn

— johnny dollar (@johnnydollar01) March 4, 2021

After watching the MSNBC clip, I did a little digging and found confirmation that I was right not to take Figliuzzi’s “analysis” on Melvin’s show seriously:

One of MSNBC's Alex Joneses in Frank Figliuzzi suggests Donald Trump and Mike Pence should have been investigated and included as co-conspirators in the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer.

This is the same guy who says a group of bureaucrats should say who can run for President. pic.twitter.com/S0AzoVbYeP

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 8, 2020

MSNBC this week on the El Paso tragedy:

Nicolle Wallace: Trump “talking about exterminating Latinos”

Frank Figliuzzi: Trump raising flag on 8/8 signals “Heil Hitler” to Nazis

Malcolm Nance: “Trump giving [Nazis] subliminal orders”

Mika Brzezinski: “This is what [Trump] wants” pic.twitter.com/KfhdTJTMuj

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) August 8, 2019

Republicans Investigating Capitol Safety Is Like Having ‘Robbers To Help Design Security For The Bank,’ Former FBI Official Says https://t.co/q6QbSiC17r

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) February 27, 2021

Good grief.

Figliuzzi’s unhinged analyses over the several years are a big reason why many people are simply tuning out most medical, legal, and intelligence “experts” in the media these days. More often than not, many of them have overt political biases that cloud their judgment, which makes the conclusions they draw highly questionable to the point of not being believable.

I know I’m not the only one out there who simply wants the straight skinny on medical/legal/intelligence matters without the taint of bias from one side or the other. Unfortunately, most “news” outlets don’t see things that way. We’re seeing it play out on cable news networks every single day. That does not bode well for the future state of American discourse and informed discussion. Not one bit.

Flashback: Jonathan Turley Rips CNN’s Asha Rangappa, Breaks Down Sad State of ‘Legal Analysis’ in the Media