Friday, August 2, 2019

Deep State Interdiction: Ratcliffe Withdraws From DNI Bid

The Hill is reporting that President Trump has advised John Ratcliffe that he will not nominate Ratcliffe for DNI--Trump withdraws Ratcliffe as Intelligence pick:

Trump's abrupt announcement came after days of scrutiny of Ratcliffe's background and past statements critical of former special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Several Republican senators had declined to weigh in on his nomination, as he withstood a barrage of criticism from Democrats.

Trump had not officially nominated Ratcliffe for the role.

What this may mean is that unless Trump can find a nominee acceptable to "several Republican senators"--unnamed--Deep State operative Sue Gordon may be acting DNI. RINOs acting in concert with Deep State and Dem senators against their President.

Trump famously said: You'll get tired of winning. He knew. Yes, the GOPe is tired of winning.

Techno Fog


Something to watch: 
Lawfare/Swamp efforts to elevate Sue Gordon - their choice DNI, and ally of John Brennan - while they go scorched earth against Ratcliffe.

1:12 PM - 29 Jul 2019

Techno Fog


Case in point: Mark Warner.
Plan: get Sue Gordon (CIA/Swamp Choice) as Acting DNI, stall/defeat Ratcliffe.
Essential for Republicans like @SenatorCollins to recognize this.

9:17 AM - 1 Aug 2019


  1. Dan Coats always struck me as a moron. Which suggested that ODNI could be removed from the org-chart without anybody noticing.
    Do we really care about ODNI?

  2. Probably only to the extent that it can throw another bureaucratic roadblock in Barr's path. He'll win in the end in these struggles but it can slow him down.

    I'm surprised at this screwup. I expected that Trump would have cleared this through McConnell.

  3. Events like this give me pause. Just when I allow myself to think things are going full-steam ahead, bang. This has happened more than once. I understand the opposition from Democrats. But the Republicans! Romney, McConnell, et, al. They are worse than vipers.

    Also, this reflects badly on Trump. Either, as you imply, Mark, Trump and/or his staff failed to do their homework, or in some sense, Trump is just throwing names against the wall and going with the ones that stick.

    In any or either event, color me bummed by this news. Lordy, that Coates is an absolute moron. Let us all pray that Sue Gordon doesn't find herself, for a single second, in this slot.

    1. I wouldn't be too quick to blame McConnell. Sundance blames Burr and other GOPers on the SSCI--people like Rubio, Collins, Sasse. Romney, no doubt.

  4. The solution is to fire Gordon and everyone below her until you find someone you can trust.

  5. The cover-up continues, because the truth about what happened must be very bad.

    For example, Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director, must have been an active participant in the framings of George Papadopoulos and of Carter Page. Ratcliffe could not be counted on to protect her and the other participants at the CIA's London station.

  6. This is an example of why Barr is naive to view this case as purely a judicial contest in which facts, evidence, and legal acumen will prevail. At a minimum, this is political warfare and the Deep State is playing for keeps. At worst, this is just an opening salvo in what will become an escalating campaign of increasingly desperate and extreme measures. The collateral damage may well go beyond smears and figurative appointment backstabbing.

    Barr has now lost the initiative by enabling the public debacle of allowing Comey to skate on a Class I felony. And the Deep State has shown that it can keep it's firewalls up and running despite Executive power over it's pwn agencies and departments. As mentioned previously, Barr needs a wartime consigliere and a lead prosecutor who has taken on mafia crime bosses. That is the closest analogy to what he is now facing.

    1. "Barr is naive to view this case as purely a judicial contest"

      I'd say you're naive to think that that is Barr's view.

      Barr's Comey decision was the right call. But this is just the beginning. If you have more prosecutorial experience than diGenova let me know and we'll discuss this. For that matter, if you have more trial experience than I have ... diGenova:

      "In this case, however, even that deplorable conduct did not rise to the level that was possible to prosecute criminally. The career prosecutors assigned to the case told Fox News that this “wasn’t a close call,” and I can see why. The confidential nature of the memos was too ambiguous. The intent element was too hard to prove.

      "Attorney General Barr made the right call. This would have been the first major charging decision of this investigation, which is not the time to go all in on a “maybe” case."

      "Barr needs a wartime consigliere and a lead prosecutor who has taken on mafia crime bosses."

      You mean like John Durham?

    2. BTW, could you please explain why you continually use the phrase "Class 1 felony"?

      Federal law does not use numerical designations.

      A Class A felony is punishable by life imprisonment or death.

      Do you really think mishandling classified docs--classified "confidential"--is punishable by life imprisonment or death?

  7. I was going to say fire Gordon but Yancey beat me to it. Fire the whole chain of command. Honestly, the whole country would be better off.

    They too busy spouting off about "diversity and inclusion", "equity", "doing the right thing", "speaking truth to power" and LGBT rights.

    How about doing your jobs in a non-partisan way and forgetting the social justice shtick.