Blog No. 229. John Ratcliffe for DNI: Just Say No

It is sometimes said that a sign of insanity is to repeat the same action again and again, hoping each time for a different result. In that vein, it may be insanity to hope that the Republicans in the Senate will on some occasion find the backbone to stand up to Donald Trump. On the other hand, Alexander Pope instructed us that “hope springs eternal in the human breast.” On that more positive note, I venture to hope that the Senate Republicans will gather enough of their collective wits to join Democrats in rejecting the nomination of Congressman John Ratcliffe to be Director of National Intelligence.

It is abundantly clear that Ratcliffe lacks the experience and temperament to fill this vitally important office. The responsibility of the DNI is to coordinate the activities of all the intelligence agencies within the government and to provide the president with intelligence estimates that reflect the facts as best they can be determined. If the DNI is to truly serve the president—and the country—the estimates must not be diluted or twisted to fit within the president’s political perceptions and desires. All previous holders have had a depth of experience in national security matters and the stature to fulfill that responsibility. The retiring DNI, Dan Coats, met that standard under difficult and trying circumstances, refusing to allow intelligence assessments to be corrupted by the passions and whims of the president. On Russia, Iran and North Korea he repeatedly told the inconvenient and unwelcome truth. Having done so, it is perhaps a minor miracle that he lasted as long as he did.

There is not the slightest reason to believe that Ratcliffe will perform in the tradition of Coats and previous DNIs. Ratcliffe is a third term Congressman who has served for a few months on the House Intelligence Committee and, before coming to Congress, he served briefly as a U.S. Attorney. He was little known or heard from before seizing a bit of the spotlight to mount a savage attack on Robert Mueller during the latter’s recent testimony. It is widely assumed that the attack on Mueller was precisely what won Ratcliffe the nomination.

Ratcliffe is among the Devin Nunes acolytes who have sought to discredit the Mueller investigation on the grounds that it originated with improper activity by the FBI involving the controversial Steele Dossier and a FISA warrant for surveillance of of a former Trump campaign consultant. Such allegations have been under investigation for months by the Inspector General of the Justice Department. More recently, Attorney General Barr has taken up the cause by launching his own investigation, a probe that I have described as the Barr Witch Hunt (See Blogs 222 and 223, “Bill Barr: The AG as Chief Witch Hunter, Parts I and II”). If Ratcliffe is confirmed, he will immediately become an important element of the Barr Witch Hunt.  In furtherance of the Witch Hunt, Trump recently gave Barr the unprecedented authority to declassify any and all information held by the intelligence agencies. If Coats were still serving as DNI, he would have been in a position to resist that authority’s  being exercised irresponsibly and for partisan purposes. It is hard to imagine Ratcliffe exercising such a restraining influence.

An even more important matter of immediate concern is the question of what we are doing to prepare for and prevent interference by Russia and possibly others in the 2020 elections. This is an issue of vital importance towards which the president has shown conspicuous and shocking indifference, even refusing to be briefed on the subject, let alone to exert leadership. It has been credibly reported that the president’s attitude stems from his fear that any reference to Russian interference taints his 2016 electoral victory. Even more troubling is the possibility that Trump is counting on similar assistance in 2020. In either case, it is unlikely that Ratcliffe will be much of voice for measures to prepare and prevent.

And the Republicans in the Senate? It was reported today in the New York Times that several Senators “are cool” to Trump’s choice. Well, Senators, being cool to the nomination just doesn’t cut it.