President Donald Trump appointed Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe to be the administration’s Director of National Intelligence in July 2019.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/29/politics/ratcliffe-director-intelligence-community-trump/index.html
The appointment, in the short term, accomplished little more than achieving the dubious distinction of having the words “Trump” and “intelligence” appear in the same sentence.
A few days after Trump appointed Ratcliffe, the president withdrew his nomination after it became clear that Senate Democrats and some Republicans objected to the selection because the nominee had little experience in intelligence.
But then again Trump had little experience with intelligence and see how well that turned out.
Never mind.
CNN reported that Trump’s nomination of Ratcliffe would put a politician “with less than five years national experience under his belt to the pinnacle of US espionage in one of the most powerful and sensitive jobs in government.”
Trump didn’t appoint Ratcliffe because of his experience, CNN and other news media reported, he did so because of his loyalty to Trump for grilling Special Counsel Robert Mueller who was investigating Russian meddling of the 2016 Presidential Election and “not because he has any relevant experience” to serve as Director of National Intelligence.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/29/politics/ratcliffe-director-intelligence-community-trump/index.html
The appointment of Ratcliffe raised several troubling questions – not the least was Trump’s penchant for making appointments based on a person’s devotion to him and not because any qualifications they might have.
The con man always goes for the Constitution.
Trump blamed the news media for sabotaging the appointment.
“Rather than going through months of slander and libel, I explained to John how miserable it would be for him and his family to deal with these people,” Trump said on Twitter.
Hardly.
Ratcliffe had exaggerated his success as a U.S. attorney, falsely claiming on his congressional website that “as a U.S. Attorney, I arrested over 300 illegal immigrants in a single day,” in 2008.
The Washington Post reported that that Ratcliffe’s office had arrested just 45 undocumented workers at a poultry plant. Many of those cases were dismissed, including two because they were American citizens, the newspapers reported.
One former immigration investigator called the operation “a costly failure.”
“At the end of the day, it did not deliver,” the source told The Post. “It was the biggest waste of money and hype.”
ABC reported that Ratcliffe had misrepresented “his role in an anti-terrorism case that he’s repeatedly cited among his credentials related to national security issues.”
Secondly, GOP senators had warned Trump before the announcement that the selection would be met with criticism from Democrats and Republicans, and yet Trump went with the announcement.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/trump-ratcliffe-dni/index.html
Thirdly, there was widespread condemnation of the selection from the intelligence community.
This had not been the case with Dan Coats, a former conservative senator from Indiana who had previously served in the position.
Democrats and Republicans praised Coats’s tenure as Director of National Intelligence.
https://rollcall.com/2019/07/28/dan-coats-leaving-post-as-director-of-national-intelligence/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/trump-ratcliffe-dni/index.html
Several months later, Trump again nominated Ratcliffe to be director of National Intelligence.
The GOP majority in the Senate approved the nomination. The intelligence community again responded with condemnation.
“I think he is the most unqualified person ever formally nominated to this position,” said Larry Pfeiffer, who spent 32 years working the U.S. intelligence community, serving as chief of staff to CIA Director Michael Hayden.
Wired magazine went further, asking, “It’s hard to know what’s more dangerous: The confirmation of John Ratcliffe to be Director of National Intelligence —or what comes after it?”
Wired said that all of the previous directors of National Intelligence had been highly qualified for one of the most important jobs in government.
“Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise,” the magazine said.
And, it added, “John Ratcliffe definitely doesn’t.”
https://www.wired.com/story/john-ratcliffe-director-of-national-intelligence/
In October 2020, John Sipher, a foreign policy, intelligence, and national security expert who worked for the CIA during his 27-year career in Russia and other parts of Europe and Asia, wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times that having Ratcliffe as Director of National Intelligence was a risk the United States could not afford.
“Exploiting the intelligence community in this manner fundamentally debases it — in ways the American public cannot always see. Hastily considered declassification of selective secret material runs the risk of exposing sources and methods, assisting foreign adversaries and undercutting the trust of our allies. And why would allies or potential sources be willing to share their secrets with intelligence officials who won’t hesitate to publicize their information if they see short-term political benefit? In the end, our defenses are weakened.
“In the world of intelligence, credibility is paramount. Our allies and sources must trust us. And policymakers need to trust that intelligence professionals are providing the very best, unbiased analysis. If that bond of trust is breached, and motives and honesty are questioned, the intelligence is worthless. Mr. Ratcliffe and his enablers need to understand that once the credibility of our intelligence community is surrendered, it will be extremely hard to recapture.”
