Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Sooner Rather Than Later--DNI Ratcliffe?

Remember when The Swamp told Trump, Take that John Ratcliffe nomination for Director of National Intelligence and shove it? Did they really think they could get away with humiliating Trump and Ratcliffe, and Trump would simply slink off with his tail between his legs? This is hilarious:

Arthur Schwartz
Typical CNN dishonesty. First they falsely reported that Grenell would be in place a long time because Ratcliffe wouldn’t be confirmed anytime soon. Now this.
CNN missed the original story from the start: Ratcliffe would be confirmed quickly.
Quote Tweet

Alexander Marquardt

Senate Intel is taking steps to hold confirmation hearing for Rep. John Ratcliffe for DNI next week. This suggests lawmakers would like to end the @RichardGrenell's time at the top of the intelligence community sooner rather than later, @ZcohenCNN @jeremyherb report.
12:38 PM · Apr 29, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Meanwhile Grenell has taken many, many of the steps that Trump wanted taken to reform the Intel Community. He's actually turned ODNI into something resembling what it was supposed to be--a coordinator and overseer of intelligence, rather than a competitor with other entities and a place to obtain bloated compensation. Personnel are being sent out to other agencies to help do the actual work.

And Ratcliffe will come in knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt who his foes are.


  1. Oh well, I was hoping Grennel would be there a while.

    My guess is Schiff, and others, did not like the pushback Grennel was giving, including via social media.

    Grennel is wasted as just an ambassador.

  2. I almost could see how Grennel's temp appointment was a strategy to get Radcliffe confirmed by the Senate by making Radcliffe look like the "lesser evil" relative to Grennel's aggressive moves that are irritating Deep State IC types.

    Very clever, if that was the intent.

  3. It was "heads I win, tails you lose" masterfully played by Trump. They could potentially still vote Radcliffe down, but at this point they gain nothing by doing so. So yeah, Trump planned this from the get go. In the mean time, Grennel can keep doing everything Trump wanted anyway. Advice and consent was never meant to provide a veto over Trump's management of the executive branch, so I'm glad to see Trump finally at the end of his term getting to appoint his own people.

  4. You seem to be looking at this as a victory. Do we have high confidence in Ratcliffe? It's hard to keep track of who the RINO's are and are not.

    I have been very encouraged by Grennel's brief tenure.

    This sounds to me like the swamp picking their poison. And of course it's another GOP Senator (who?) making sure the swamp is happy, or at least less unhappy.

    Am I reading this wrong?

    1. I believe you are reading this wrong, mistcr.

      1. John Ratcliff has long been a member of the House Freedom Caucus (Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, et al.).

      2. BTW, he's not a no-name Senator. He's a representative from East Texas (safe R seat) who was an outstanding questioner during House Intelligence Committee hearings and received conservative media plaudits for his efforts.

      3. McConnell thought he could delay Ratcliff's confirmation hearings indefinitely, stating that Ratcliff did not have adequate intelligence experience. (To my knowledge, Ric Grennel has none.) Now Mitch sees that the president's will is not to be thwarted and how serious he is about cleaning the Intelligence stables. I'm sure the howls about Ric Grennel's take-no-prisoners reforms are not confined to retired IC types on CNN and MSNBC. Don'cha just love hardball, Trump-style?

      4. Although he's not as flamboyant as Ric Grennel, Trump's gunslinger, I have confidence that John Ratcliff will do a very good job.

      I agree that Grennel is wasted as an ambassador.

      How about Grennel 2024? He certainly is cut from the same cloth style-wise as DJT. Wouldn't the Dems have kittens?

    2. Ratcliffe was a very effective questioner, always well prepared. He has undoubtedly learned a lot about the IC since 2016.

    3. well, thank you both, good info on Ratcliff...

      I guess I'm more hung up on the McConnell / Senate IC side of this. The RINO's sought to block Ratcliff, now they're traumatized by Grenell, so they're going with the safer horse (at least their perception...)

      So, good, Trump is getting his guy, but he has a great guy in there now... so frustrating.

  5. completely off topic, but I came across this article today, linked from an American Thinker article. It's about imminent population decline in China, as well as significant ageing, as a result of the one child policy.

    I never considered this before.
    I thought China and India would continue to grow like gang-busters. Of course, upon reflection the one-child policy had to bite them eventually.

    Turns out it's really India and Africa, although India is supposed to begin tapering off in a few decades. While still concerning, it's more in the sense of human tragedy than military numbers.

    1. Welcome to the real world. Totally not news. Demographers have known this for a long time. The only reason the US appears not to be in that group is through immigration of mostly young people.

    2. I've known about declines in Western countries (and Japan); i just hadn't considered it for China - even though the policy does make it kind of obvious.

      Does America benefit from the fact that it still has a few religious people who like babies? or is it just immigration?

      If it's the latter, then it won't matter because 'murica will cease to exist.

    3. In fact many countries are in the China boat. Essentially, as the article states, most of the world, including many countries you might not expect. The US is a bit more complicated:

      China's problems are exaccerbated not only by the one-child program but also because of sex selective abortion--leading to a heavily male population. Same is true in Korea. India is a particularly extreme example of that.

  6. Not so fast.

    Radcliffe is an honorable man of integrity; no doubt about it.

    But Sessions (also a former federal prosecutor and Boy Scout personality) actually aided and abetted the most sinister covert criminal enterprise in the history of the republic, i.e. the DOJ/FBI RussiaHoax and coup. And how did this happen under his purview? Sessions is a weak man, both in character and ability. He abandoned Trump within days of taking office and then stood back and watched the debacle unfold with no regret or remorse for what he had wrought. And then he publicly praised his Judas subordinate (Rosenstein). And now he has the gall to run for Senate again. Is there no end to this man's depravity?

    Will Radcliffe be more like Grennel or Sessions? Senator Burr knows the answer and his actions speak for themselves.

    The Executive Branch needs a serious housecleaning. And you can't do that with a milquetoast demeanor. But I hope I wrong about Radcliffe's moxie.

    1. Ratcliffe like Sessions? Milquetoast? Seriously? Are you sure you have seen and heard him?

      Not to worry.

  7. The Temporary Disappearance of Dossier Report 97

    My new blog article.

    The thesis is that FBI official Michael Gaeta (aka "Handling Agent 1"), stationed in Rome, received Steele's reports but deliberately delayed them until they were approved by a cabal of very high US officials.

    The cabal told Gaeta to keep in Rome at least one Dossier report and possibly also also a second -- Reports 97 and 105. Those two reports were NOT included in the reports that were delivered belatedly to the Crossfire Hurricane team on September 19, 2016.

    I speculate that the cabal stopped the delivery of those two reports to the Crossfire Hurricane team because those two reports indicated that Steele had informants collecting info from inside Trump's campaign staff.

    1. I intended to post my above comment under your previous article about Steele (and Clinton, Rice and Nuland).

  8. Ha! SSCI kind of between a rock and a hard place. They really didn’t want Ratcliffe. Then along came Grenell. They’d like him out, pronto... How will mendacious Burr-Warner handle this dilemma?