Democrats tint everything with conspiracy involving the intelligence community.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Democrats-Get-Near-The-Intelligence-Community
The importance the New World Order crowd place on the controlling the intelligence community is the reason John Ratcliffe never got out of the starting gate:
I should have seen this coming.
Warner wants a loyalist who is loyal to him and to the United Nations:
You better believe they are out to get him:
Losing control over the intelligence community frightens Democrats more than losing a liberal seat on the Supreme Court. President Trump’s fight to wrest control over the Director of National Intelligence from the global government crowd will not get 1/100[SUP]th[/SUP] of the coverage a Supreme Court nominee gets. Needless to say whatever time television gives to coverage it will advance the U.N.’s worldview.
Count on one thing. Democrats and RINO will turn Trump’s decision to appoint his own acting director into a bloodbath if need be. That is why I am hoping Trump will appoint his choice when Congress is on its August recess. Democrats will play hell trying to remove Trump’s choice after they return to town.
Let me close with a connection between nuclear treaties and our intelligence community:
Trump’s biggest mistake was not firing all of those Clinton-Obama holdovers as soon as he was sworn in; most especially not firing all of those holdovers planted in key positions in intelligence agencies.
This article by Jon Wolfsthal is pro-START (anti-Trump). The excerpt is critical in understanding intelligence community thinking. To be precise —— the thinking of Cold War holdovers.
I am wondering if Mikhail Gorbachev is interfering in the Senate confirmation process.
Whenever Gorby is in favor of anything our intelligence professionals better be against it.
Incidentally, Nutso Nancy Pelosi and Mikhail Gorbachev have been as thick as thieves for close to 30 years.
In 2006 the old Commie dictator praised then-Senator Clinton when he revealed that he occasionally conferred with her by telephone. He said:
Good ‘ol Gorby clearly considers Hillary Clinton’s loyalties “. . . the work of a great mind.”
Democrats began infiltrating intelligence agencies at the beginning of the Cold War. Had they been more successful before the Soviet Union imploded Americans would be speaking Russian today. After the Cold War ended Democrats did get control of every intelligence agency.
At long last those Democrats entrenched in the intelligence community might finally be rooted out and sent packing. Americans can only hope and pray that President Trump and John Ratcliffe get it done. Add AG William Barr to the mix and things are looking better for Americans than it looked in decades.
At long last those Democrats entrenched in the intelligence community might finally be rooted out and sent packing. Americans can only hope and pray that President Trump and John Ratcliffe get it done. Add AG William Barr to the mix and things are looking better for Americans than it looked in decades.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Democrats-Get-Near-The-Intelligence-Community
The importance the New World Order crowd place on the controlling the intelligence community is the reason John Ratcliffe never got out of the starting gate:
Updated: President Trump on Friday abruptly dropped his plan to nominate Representative John Ratcliffe as the nation’s top intelligence official. Read the latest.
WASHINGTON — The White House is planning to block Sue Gordon, the nation’s No. 2 intelligence official, from rising to the role of acting director of national intelligence when Dan Coats steps down this month, according to people familiar with the Trump administration’s plans.
The decision to circumvent Ms. Gordon, who has served as the principal deputy director in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, will probably upset Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. They have expressed doubts about Representative John Ratcliffe, Republican of Texas, who is President Trump’s choice to be the next Senate-confirmed leader of the agency.
Mr. Trump did not allow Ms. Gordon to personally deliver a recent intelligence briefing after she arrived at the White House, according to a person familiar with the matter. A spokeswoman for the Office of the Director of the National Intelligence, Amanda J. Schoch, said Ms. Gordon was not blocked from attending any recent briefing, but she declined to comment about what happened inside the Oval Office.
Opposition in the White House to letting her serve as acting director has raised the question of whether she will be ousted as part of a leadership shuffle at the intelligence director’s office that will be more to Mr. Trump’s liking.
A federal statute says that if the position of director of national intelligence becomes vacant, the deputy director — currently Ms. Gordon — shall serve as acting director.
But there appears to be a loophole: The law gives the White House much more flexibility in choosing who to appoint as the acting deputy if the No. 2 position is vacant, said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, who specializes in national-security legal issues.
Ms. Gordon will retire if told by the White House that Mr. Trump wants someone else in the deputy’s role who could then rise to fill the vacancy created when Mr. Coats departs, according to officials.
Mr. Ratcliffe, an outspoken supporter of Mr. Trump, has thin national security experience relevant to overseeing the work of the nation’s 17 intelligence agencies. The scrutiny that he is now receiving also brought to light that he exaggerated his résumé when running for office.
Ms. Gordon, who has served more than 30 years in intelligence posts at the C.I.A. and other agencies, has not been officially informed by the White House that Mr. Trump intends to name someone else to oversee the intelligence agency until the Senate confirms a new director of national intelligence, officials said.
But the White House requested this week that the office provide a list of senior officials who worked for the agency, according to a senior administration official — a move that was interpreted as another sign that it is looking beyond her for people who could be temporarily installed in the top position.
When Mr. Trump posted tweets Sunday announcing that Mr. Coats would step down on Aug. 15 and that he intended to nominate Mr. Ratcliffe, the president hinted that Ms. Gordon might not automatically become the acting director in the interim, saying an acting director would be named soon.
WASHINGTON — The White House is planning to block Sue Gordon, the nation’s No. 2 intelligence official, from rising to the role of acting director of national intelligence when Dan Coats steps down this month, according to people familiar with the Trump administration’s plans.
The decision to circumvent Ms. Gordon, who has served as the principal deputy director in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, will probably upset Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. They have expressed doubts about Representative John Ratcliffe, Republican of Texas, who is President Trump’s choice to be the next Senate-confirmed leader of the agency.
Mr. Trump did not allow Ms. Gordon to personally deliver a recent intelligence briefing after she arrived at the White House, according to a person familiar with the matter. A spokeswoman for the Office of the Director of the National Intelligence, Amanda J. Schoch, said Ms. Gordon was not blocked from attending any recent briefing, but she declined to comment about what happened inside the Oval Office.
Opposition in the White House to letting her serve as acting director has raised the question of whether she will be ousted as part of a leadership shuffle at the intelligence director’s office that will be more to Mr. Trump’s liking.
A federal statute says that if the position of director of national intelligence becomes vacant, the deputy director — currently Ms. Gordon — shall serve as acting director.
But there appears to be a loophole: The law gives the White House much more flexibility in choosing who to appoint as the acting deputy if the No. 2 position is vacant, said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, who specializes in national-security legal issues.
Ms. Gordon will retire if told by the White House that Mr. Trump wants someone else in the deputy’s role who could then rise to fill the vacancy created when Mr. Coats departs, according to officials.
Mr. Ratcliffe, an outspoken supporter of Mr. Trump, has thin national security experience relevant to overseeing the work of the nation’s 17 intelligence agencies. The scrutiny that he is now receiving also brought to light that he exaggerated his résumé when running for office.
Ms. Gordon, who has served more than 30 years in intelligence posts at the C.I.A. and other agencies, has not been officially informed by the White House that Mr. Trump intends to name someone else to oversee the intelligence agency until the Senate confirms a new director of national intelligence, officials said.
But the White House requested this week that the office provide a list of senior officials who worked for the agency, according to a senior administration official — a move that was interpreted as another sign that it is looking beyond her for people who could be temporarily installed in the top position.
When Mr. Trump posted tweets Sunday announcing that Mr. Coats would step down on Aug. 15 and that he intended to nominate Mr. Ratcliffe, the president hinted that Ms. Gordon might not automatically become the acting director in the interim, saying an acting director would be named soon.
I should have seen this coming.
Those tweets prompted concern on Capitol Hill that Mr. Trump would circumvent Ms. Gordon. The next day, Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina, who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressly referred to the fact that he looked forward to working with Ms. Gordon, calling her “a trusted partner.”
Warner wants a loyalist who is loyal to him and to the United Nations:
On Friday, Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, who is the committee’s vice chairman, said that the law was “quite clear” that the acting role goes to the deputy when the director of national intelligence leaves and that Ms. Gordon had the Senate’s confidence. “It’s outrageous if the president is hoping to pass over this extremely qualified and experienced individual, the highest-ranking woman in O.D.N.I., in order to install a political loyalist as acting director,” he said.
You better believe they are out to get him:
Ms. Gordon’s experience is not necessarily a point in her favor for the White House, where Mr. Trump and his allies view the permanent bureaucracy of national security professionals with suspicion as a so-called deep state that may be out to get him.
Mr. Trump and House Republicans have made clear that they believe a broad reorganization of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is needed. Administration officials and House Republicans also have said they would like someone at the agency who will work well with Attorney General William P. Barr, who has ordered a review of the intelligence agencies’ support for the F.B.I. as the bureau sought to understand Moscow’s covert efforts to tilt the 2016 election, including any links to the Trump campaign.
There appears little chance that the Senate, which is currently gone for its summer recess, will swiftly confirm Mr. Ratcliffe, in light of the bipartisan skepticism about his qualifications and questions about the honesty of his résumé.
The White House has bypassed the legally prescribed usual order of succession to appoint acting officials at several agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. It has obtained the approval of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to not follow succession statutes by instead invoking the complex Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
Under the Vacancies Reform Act, a president may pick someone other than a No. 2 official to serve as acting head of an agency so long as that appointee is either a sufficiently senior official at the same agency or is currently serving in a Senate-confirmed position in the broader executive branch.
Mr. Chesney noted that certain language in the 2004 law that created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is written more restrictively and in a way that he said strongly indicates Congress did not intend for the Vacancies Reform Act to be available for filling the position of director.
However, he also flagged a complexity — one that resonates with the White House’s request for a list of senior officials at the office. According to the person familiar with internal thinking, the White House specifically wanted a list of “cadre” officials, meaning employees who work directly for the director’s office rather than employees of other agencies who are merely on a temporary assignment.
An alternative, less obvious interpretation of the law, Mr. Chesney said, could be that a president may use the Vacancies Reform Act to install some senior agency official other than the No. 2 as acting director, so long as that appointee worked directly for the office and was not a detailee.
He said that while this maneuver would require what he portrayed as a dubious interpretation of the law, it could create a way for what he viewed as a “happy result” — letting Ms. Gordon remain in place. The broader danger, he said, is that if the White House moves to bring in outsiders in both the No. 1 and No. 2 positions, there would be no one atop the intelligence community who had “the benefit of a career person who knows how to run the place.”
For now, Ms. Gordon continues to perform the duties of deputy director, an official said. On Friday, she was speaking at a security conference in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Trump and House Republicans have made clear that they believe a broad reorganization of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is needed. Administration officials and House Republicans also have said they would like someone at the agency who will work well with Attorney General William P. Barr, who has ordered a review of the intelligence agencies’ support for the F.B.I. as the bureau sought to understand Moscow’s covert efforts to tilt the 2016 election, including any links to the Trump campaign.
There appears little chance that the Senate, which is currently gone for its summer recess, will swiftly confirm Mr. Ratcliffe, in light of the bipartisan skepticism about his qualifications and questions about the honesty of his résumé.
The White House has bypassed the legally prescribed usual order of succession to appoint acting officials at several agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. It has obtained the approval of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to not follow succession statutes by instead invoking the complex Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
Under the Vacancies Reform Act, a president may pick someone other than a No. 2 official to serve as acting head of an agency so long as that appointee is either a sufficiently senior official at the same agency or is currently serving in a Senate-confirmed position in the broader executive branch.
Mr. Chesney noted that certain language in the 2004 law that created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is written more restrictively and in a way that he said strongly indicates Congress did not intend for the Vacancies Reform Act to be available for filling the position of director.
However, he also flagged a complexity — one that resonates with the White House’s request for a list of senior officials at the office. According to the person familiar with internal thinking, the White House specifically wanted a list of “cadre” officials, meaning employees who work directly for the director’s office rather than employees of other agencies who are merely on a temporary assignment.
An alternative, less obvious interpretation of the law, Mr. Chesney said, could be that a president may use the Vacancies Reform Act to install some senior agency official other than the No. 2 as acting director, so long as that appointee worked directly for the office and was not a detailee.
He said that while this maneuver would require what he portrayed as a dubious interpretation of the law, it could create a way for what he viewed as a “happy result” — letting Ms. Gordon remain in place. The broader danger, he said, is that if the White House moves to bring in outsiders in both the No. 1 and No. 2 positions, there would be no one atop the intelligence community who had “the benefit of a career person who knows how to run the place.”
For now, Ms. Gordon continues to perform the duties of deputy director, an official said. On Friday, she was speaking at a security conference in Salt Lake City.
Trump Won’t Let No. 2 Spy Chief Take Over When Coats Leaves
By Julian E. Barnes and Charlie Savage
Aug. 2, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/john-ratcliffe-sue-gordon.html
By Julian E. Barnes and Charlie Savage
Aug. 2, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/john-ratcliffe-sue-gordon.html
Losing control over the intelligence community frightens Democrats more than losing a liberal seat on the Supreme Court. President Trump’s fight to wrest control over the Director of National Intelligence from the global government crowd will not get 1/100[SUP]th[/SUP] of the coverage a Supreme Court nominee gets. Needless to say whatever time television gives to coverage it will advance the U.N.’s worldview.
Count on one thing. Democrats and RINO will turn Trump’s decision to appoint his own acting director into a bloodbath if need be. That is why I am hoping Trump will appoint his choice when Congress is on its August recess. Democrats will play hell trying to remove Trump’s choice after they return to town.
Let me close with a connection between nuclear treaties and our intelligence community:
And arms control experts say it's not difficult to convert existing air- or sea-based systems into the ground-based missile the Pentagon plans to test. "It is not a significant engineering task," said Jon Wolfsthal, director of the Nuclear Crisis Group and a former nuclear expert for the National Security Council under the Obama administration. "It's well within the capability of major defense contractors and the army to pull off."
The end of the INF pact leaves the US and Russia with just one nuclear arms agreement, the New START Treaty, which governs strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems for each side. If New START isn't renewed or extended by 2021, the world's two largest nuclear powers would have no limits on their arsenals for the first time in decades.
President Donald Trump's ambivalent comments about New START and national security advisor John Bolton's well-known dislike for arms control treaties have given rise to deep concern about a new nuclear arms race.
The end of the INF pact leaves the US and Russia with just one nuclear arms agreement, the New START Treaty, which governs strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems for each side. If New START isn't renewed or extended by 2021, the world's two largest nuclear powers would have no limits on their arsenals for the first time in decades.
President Donald Trump's ambivalent comments about New START and national security advisor John Bolton's well-known dislike for arms control treaties have given rise to deep concern about a new nuclear arms race.
US formally withdraws from nuclear treaty with Russia and prepares to test new missile
By Veronica Stracqualursi, Nicole Gaouette, Barbara Starr and Kylie Atwood
Updated 1:10 PM ET, Fri August 2, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-inf-us-withdraws-russia/index.html
By Veronica Stracqualursi, Nicole Gaouette, Barbara Starr and Kylie Atwood
Updated 1:10 PM ET, Fri August 2, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-inf-us-withdraws-russia/index.html
Trump’s biggest mistake was not firing all of those Clinton-Obama holdovers as soon as he was sworn in; most especially not firing all of those holdovers planted in key positions in intelligence agencies.
This article by Jon Wolfsthal is pro-START (anti-Trump). The excerpt is critical in understanding intelligence community thinking. To be precise —— the thinking of Cold War holdovers.
The agreement entered into force in 2011 and will expire on February 5, 2021. However the agreement can be extended by executive agreement for up to five years, a step that would not require further Congressional approval. (The extension provision was included in the Treaty approved by the Senate.) Both the Joint Chiefs and the U.S. intelligence community support such an extension. Russia, for its part, has repeatedly and unconditionally offered to extend the agreement.
However, key administration figures see two flaws in New START. For Ambassador Bolton, it is an arms control agreement. As others have pointed out, there is a long line of dead treaties in the national security adviser’s wake, and he apparently wants to add New START to the list. The other flaw, this time in the eyes of Donald Trump, is that the treaty was negotiated under President Obama. As with other agreements that have the full support of the U.S. military and intelligence community, including the Iran nuclear deal, Donald Trump appears willing to undo anything achieved by his predecessor as some kind of ego-driven vendetta.
However, key administration figures see two flaws in New START. For Ambassador Bolton, it is an arms control agreement. As others have pointed out, there is a long line of dead treaties in the national security adviser’s wake, and he apparently wants to add New START to the list. The other flaw, this time in the eyes of Donald Trump, is that the treaty was negotiated under President Obama. As with other agreements that have the full support of the U.S. military and intelligence community, including the Iran nuclear deal, Donald Trump appears willing to undo anything achieved by his predecessor as some kind of ego-driven vendetta.
A US-Russia-China Arms Treaty? Extend New START First
By Jon Wolfsthal
May 2, 2019
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/05/us-russia-china-arms-treaty-extend-new-start-first/156693/
By Jon Wolfsthal
May 2, 2019
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/05/us-russia-china-arms-treaty-extend-new-start-first/156693/
I am wondering if Mikhail Gorbachev is interfering in the Senate confirmation process.
Mikhail Gorbachev slammed President Trump’s decision to withdraw from a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia that the former Soviet leader established with former President Reagan in 1987, saying in a Sunday interview with Interfax that Trump’s decision was not the work of “a great mind.” The New York Times reports that Gorbachev characterized the decision as a threat to global peace, arguing that “Under no circumstances should we tear up old disarmament agreements. Is it really that hard to understand that rejecting these agreements is, as the people say, not the work of a great mind.”
Mikhail Gorbachev: Trump’s Withdrawal From Russian Nuclear Treaty Is Not the Work of ‘a Great Mind’
Published 10.21.18 6:29PM ET
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mikha...uclear-treaty-is-not-the-work-of-a-great-mind
Published 10.21.18 6:29PM ET
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mikha...uclear-treaty-is-not-the-work-of-a-great-mind
Whenever Gorby is in favor of anything our intelligence professionals better be against it.
Incidentally, Nutso Nancy Pelosi and Mikhail Gorbachev have been as thick as thieves for close to 30 years.
In 2006 the old Commie dictator praised then-Senator Clinton when he revealed that he occasionally conferred with her by telephone. He said:
"She is a great woman, and she has some legitimate ambitions."
By - The Washington Times
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/mar/13/20020313-041010-6675r/
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/mar/13/20020313-041010-6675r/
Good ‘ol Gorby clearly considers Hillary Clinton’s loyalties “. . . the work of a great mind.”