Executive Departments 3

[Howl]

On 7/28/2019 at 4:19 PM, fraurosena said:

It's official. Coats is out. I wonder who the 'acting' will be.

It should be Sue Gordon*, because there's a, you know, LAW clarifying that the acting will be the Deputy DNI, but it seems Mr. Ignorant is going to ignore that and appoint somebody.  I've read that Sue Gordon is very highly regarded in the IC, meaning she's very good at her job and loyal to the country and the IC, not Trump = the kiss of flucking death in this cluster fluck of an administration. 

*Sue Gordon's title is Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

[fraurosena]

John Ratcliffe is a lying liar who lies. He'll fit right in with the other idiots running the asylum.

Trump’s Pick for Top Intelligence Post Overstated Parts of His Biography

Quote

Aides to the congressman chosen by President Trump to lead the nation’s intelligence agencies were forced on Tuesday to clarify his claims that he had won terrorism convictions as a federal prosecutor, as his background came under new scrutiny.

Mr. Trump’s pick, Representative John Ratcliffe, Republican of Texas, had said on his House website and in campaign material that he had tried suspects accused of funnelling money to the Hamas terrorist group. But instead, an aide said, Mr. Ratcliffe had investigated side issues related to an initial mistrial, and did not prosecute the case either in that proceeding or in a successful second trial.

The questions about Mr. Ratcliffe’s résumé came amid broader concerns from Democrats and even some Republicans about the depth of his experience and his partisan outspokenness.

Rachel Stephens, a spokeswoman for Mr. Ratcliffe’s congressional office, confirmed that the Justice Department appointed him “to investigate issues related to the outcome” of the Hamas case.

Mr. Trump defended Mr. Ratcliffe as the right choice to rein in intelligence agencies, which he has long viewed with skepticism and openly disparaged. “We need somebody strong that can really rein it in, because as I think you’ve all learned, the intelligence agencies have run amok,” the president told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House on Tuesday. “They run amok.”

Those comments are unlikely to persuade skeptics in the Senate, particularly lawmakers who have been supportive of Dan Coats, the outgoing director of national intelligence. Mr. Trump announced Mr. Coats’s departure on Sunday and his intent to nominate Mr. Ratcliffe, an ardent defender of the president with relatively little intelligence experience, as his replacement.

Mr. Ratcliffe’s statements about his role in the Hamas case seems to be the clearest instance of an overstated résumé, but there are other examples relevant to his stated credentials to oversee the intelligence community.

While he has touted his role as the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Texas during the George W. Bush administration, Mr. Ratcliffe was an interim holder of that position, bridging a gap of less than a year between two Senate-confirmed presidential appointees.

He has emphasized that his previous responsibilities as an assistant prosecutor in that office included overseeing terrorism investigations. But examples of significant national-security cases — as opposed to more common crimes like fraud and drugs — arising in eastern Texas during that period are not readily apparent in the public record; he did prosecute a psychologically troubled Iraq War veteran who pleaded guilty to possessing a pipe bomb.

Malcolm Bales, who worked as a prosecutor in the office from 1989 until his retirement in 2016, culminating in more than seven years as the United States attorney, praised Mr. Ratcliffe as “a bright guy and a quick study” but acknowledged that he could not recall a single terrorism prosecution in the Eastern District of Texas during Mr. Ratcliffe’s time there.

“There were none,” Mr. Bales said, adding, “They are not common in our district.”

A sharp critic of illegal immigration, Mr. Ratcliffe has also frequently embellished the extent of his role in a 2008 immigration-related case involving chicken processing plants in five states that he helped bring as a United States attorney. “I am opposed to amnesty — period. But don’t just take my word on it. Ask any of the over 300 illegal aliens I arrested in a single day,” he said in a 2016 campaign statement. The biography on his House website likewise boasts that Mr. Ratcliffe “arrested 300 illegal aliens in a single day.”

Mr. Ratcliffe did play an important role in the case, helping to bring charges against 280 non-citizens who had been working for a poultry producer; the government accused them of committing identity fraud and other crimes to secure employment. But he did not arrest anyone. That was left to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as state and local law enforcement officials who worked in five states to round up those charged, according to a Justice Department account.

The terrorism case that Mr. Ratcliffe has touted, United States vs. the Holy Land Foundation, was one of the government’s most complex and prominent efforts to shut down funding of terrorist organizations in the decade after the Sept. 11 attacks. The case involved a Muslim charity sending money to Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza.

A 2015 news release on Mr. Ratcliffe’s House website said “he convicted individuals funnelling money to Hamas.” A 2016 post on his campaign website said he had a “special appointment as a prosecutor” in the case. And the biography on his House website appears to point to the claim, stating that Mr. Ratcliffe “put terrorists in prison.” But he played no part in the substance of the case, said three former government lawyers and a former senior F.B.I. official directly involved in the case. It was prosecuted in a different Texas district.

“It doesn’t sound accurate,” James T. Jacks, one of the prosecutors on the case said of the Ratcliffe campaign statements. “But they have since corrected the record.”

Mr. Ratcliffe was asked to investigate possible irregularities that had led to an embarrassing October 2007 mistrial, said Nathan F. Garrett, another prosecutor on the case.

“John was brought in because the trial team could not look at that,” Mr. Garrett said in an interview. “It involved a jury and defendants that we were trying, so John was brought in so as not to taint it.”

Ms. Stephens would not confirm further details about the Holy Lands case, citing Justice Department policy to keep private any information about investigations that result in no charges. NBC News and ABC News earlier reported the questions about Mr. Ratcliffe’s résumé.

Working in a United States attorney’s office, Mr. Ratcliffe would have worked with F.B.I. agents investigating terrorism and counterespionage cases. A spokeswoman for the Eastern District of Texas could not readily name any national security cases that resulted in criminal charges while Mr. Ratcliffe was there, though such cases frequently result in no charges.

Mr. Garrett defended Mr. Ratcliffe’s work ethic and qualifications. He said that court records likely would not indicate the extent of the congressman’s counterterrorism work as a federal prosecutor because “most of the work of a terrorism prosecutor never saw the light of day.”

Democrats have already attacked Mr. Ratcliffe’s résumé and experience. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee that will vet Mr. Ratcliffe, cast doubt on his qualifications on Tuesday.

“By law, this position requires ‘extensive national security expertise.’ Congressman Ratcliffe appears to lack the experience needed for the job,” she said in a statement. “This isn’t a learn-as-you-go position and shouldn’t be given out to political supporters.”

Republicans in the Senate greeted the selection of Mr. Ratcliffe coolly, and some have privately expressed reservations about his thin résumé.

But one key Republican senator signaled growing comfort with Mr. Ratcliffe. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, the Intelligence Committee chairman, has pledged to work within the regular order to have Mr. Ratcliffe confirmed.

Mr. Burr had warned the White House against nominating Mr. Ratcliffe last week out of concern that the position would be politicized, according to people familiar with Mr. Burr’s conversations with the White House. But an aide to Mr. Burr disputed that account and said Mr. Burr expressed no personal concern about the choice.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said on Tuesday that he would withhold judgment on Mr. Ratcliffe.

“Generally speaking, I would lean toward the president’s nominees, and I would rather not address that until I have actually had a chance to meet him and address his background and qualifications,” Mr. McConnell said.

[snarky note from me: McConnell will probably need to find out if Russia wants Ratcliffe in the job before voicing his 'judgment']

 

[GreyhoundFan]

So she spends most of her tenure as ambassador to Canada away from her post, so now we make her UN Ambassador... "Kelly Knight Craft confirmed as Trump’s next U.N. ambassador"

Spoiler

The Senate confirmed Kelly Knight Craft on Wednesday to serve as President Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, a vote that fell largely along party lines with leading Democrats saying she lacks the necessary qualifications.

Craft succeeds Trump’s first U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, who left the administration at the end of December. She served previously as U.S. ambassador to Canada.

Throughout her confirmation process, Craft struggled to allay Democrats’ concerns about her family’s significant investments in the fossil fuel industry, though notably she separated herself from the president on the contentious issue of climate change. During her confirmation hearing last month, Craft declared that she believes fossil fuels and human behavior contribute to the planet’s shifting weather phenomena. “Let there be no doubt,” she said.

She also pushed back against Democrats’ accusations that she had spent too much time away from her post in Ottawa, Canada’s capital, arguing that her travel throughout the country and elsewhere had been approved, and that many of her trips were to negotiate and promote Trump’s new North American trade deal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) praised Craft on the Senate floor before Wednesday’s vote, calling her an “impressive nominee” who had represented the United States “by skillfully and effectively advocating” for its interests, even during challenges that threatened trade negotiations.

“By all accounts,” he said, “Ambassador Craft’s involvement led to greater cooperation.”

The vote’s final count was 56 to 34. Only five Democrats — Sens. Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) — endorsed Craft’s confirmation. Eight other Democrats, including the seven participating in this week’s 2020 presidential primary debates in Detroit, missed the vote along with two Republicans.

The vote to confirm Craft reflects far deeper partisan divisions over her appointment than existed in the Senate for Haley, who was confirmed in January 2017 by a vote of 96 to 4.

Trump’s initial choice to succeed Haley, former Fox News journalist Heather Nauert, withdrew from consideration in February amid reports that she and her husband, years prior, employed a nanny who was not approved to work in the United States.

Jonathan Cohen has served as acting ambassador since Haley’s departure in December.

In the hours before the vote, Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) released a report on Craft stating that her “qualifications fall short: she does not have the knowledge, skills, qualifications, or experience to successfully lead the United States’ efforts at the United Nations.”

Complaints in the report mirror many of the issues over which Craft and Democrats clashed during her confirmation hearing. Among them are that Craft “displayed a lack of depth on basic foreign policy issues,” such as the two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinian territories, and that “she merely repeated talking points” on developing crises such as Iran.

The Democrats’ report also repeated concerns about Craft’s travel while ambassador to Canada, pointing out that she spent about seven months of her two-year stint in Kentucky or Oklahoma, where she and her husband have homes. They also complained that she did not seem to have a full understanding of her husband’s investments, and said that her promise to recuse herself from negotiations and meetings related to coal — while agreeing only to look into doing the same for fossil fuels — was unsatisfactory.

Spokesmen for the State Department and National Security Council did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon.

Generally speaking, Craft is expected to uphold most of the policy positions Trump has espoused, even when it puts her into conflict with senators, Republican or Democrat.

During her confirmation hearing, she defended Trump’s decision to reduce payments to the U.N. and pull out of bodies like the U.N. Human Rights Council, stating that the international organization’s “ambitions at times have gotten ahead of accountability. Waste and overlap remain problems,” she said.

She also promised that she would respect the findings of the United Nations’ investigation into Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Par for the freaking course: "Trump’s pick for managing federal lands doesn’t believe the government should have any"

Spoiler

President Trump’s pick for managing federal lands doesn’t think the federal government should have any.

This week, Trump’s Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed an order making the Wyoming native William Perry Pendley the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management. Pendley, former president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, was a senior official in Ronald Reagan’s administration.

The appointment comes as a critical time for the BLM, which manages more than a tenth of the nation’s land and oversees the federal government’s oil, gas and coal leasing program. Two weeks ago, Interior officials announced the department would reassign 84 percent of the bureau’s D.C. staff out West by the end of next year. Only a few dozen employees, including Pendley, would remain in Washington.

After more than two and-a-half years in office, Trump has yet to nominate a permanent director for BLM. By placing Pendley in charge of the agency, Bernhardt has installed a longtime crusader for curtailing the federal government’s control of public lands.

In the three decades since serving under Reagan, Pendley has sued the Interior Department on behalf of an oil and gas prospector, sought to undermine protections of endangered species such as the grizzly bear, and pressed to radically reduce the size of federal lands to make way for development.

“The Founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold,” he wrote approvingly in a National Review magazine article in 2016. He said “westerners know that only getting title to much of the land in the West will bring real change.”

His views differ sharply from those articulated by former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who said “I am absolutely against transfer or sale of public land.” Asked whether Pendley’s appointment marks a change in policy, an Interior Department spokesperson said on Tuesday said that “the administration adamantly opposes the wholesale sale or transfer of public lands.”

Pendley’s legal ties, as well as his policy positions, have attracted scrutiny. Environmental groups are pressing Interior to formally recuse Pendley from any involvement in a court case in which he is still the counsel of record representing an aging businessman, Sidney Longwell and his small company Solenex.

Solenex purchased a 6,247-acre lease in northwest Montana in 1982 during the Reagan administration for about $1 an acre. Longwell wants permission to build a six-mile service road and bridge over the Two Medicine River on lands considered sacred by the Blackfeet Tribe. Interior wants to cancel the lease. He would use the road to bring in drilling rigs and other oil exploration equipment.

“The Department’s career ethics professionals are working closely with Mr. Pendley and will advise him as necessary,” an Interior official said.

“Oil wells do not fit our traditional knowledge system of taking care of the land,” said John Murray, the historic preservation officer of the Blackfeet Tribe. “A lot of our origin stories are right in that area.”

The exploration leases cover an area of the Lewis and Clark National Forest where the Badger Creek and Two Medicine river have their headwaters. The expanse is surrounded by Glacier National Park, the Bob Marshall Wilderness and the Blackfeet Indian reservation.

Administrations that succeeded Reagan sought to block development, arguing that the leases were issued improperly in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historical Preservation Act.

Obama officials proposed buyouts and in November 2016, Devon Energy took one. That left just two leases: Solenex and one owned by oil driller W.A. Moncrief Jr.

The Obama administration offered to give Solenex enough money to cover expenses to date, while a private philanthropy offered additional funding. The Blackfeet tribe, which says the current leases are in particularly sensitive places, offered a swap for 26 parcels of tribal land already producing oil. The tribe said other parts of its reservation do not have the same sensitivity.

Longwell and Pendley refused.

Murray called it all part of “a big chess game.”

When Zinke — a Montana native — took the helm of Interior in 2017, he said he would keep pressing for the cancellation of the leases. But earlier this year, the department said it would drop efforts to cancel Moncrief’s lease, while still trying to terminate the Solenex lease.

Pendley’s ties to the most conservative networks run deep. Pendley’s Mountain States Legal Foundation, founded in 1977 and initially run by Reagan’s controversial first Interior Secretary James G. Watt, has received backing from ultraconservative groups and individuals such as the Koch-linked Donors Trust and beer tycoon Joseph Coors.

Pendley will once again be overseeing a coal leasing program he was found to have mismanaged

Pendley followed Watt into the Reagan administration and was singled out in a 1984 Government Accountability Office report on ethical missteps among leaders of the federal coal leasing program and an “incomplete and unreliable” review by the agency’s inspector general.

The GAO report highlighted a dinner Pendley, then head of the Minierals Management Service, and another Interior official and their wives attended a dinner with two coal company attorneys on March 19, 1982, the same day that Pendley and his colleague had made a favorable decision regarding bids on Powder River Basin coal leases. The coal company officials picked up the entire $494.45 tab, or $1,343 in today’s dollars.

Pendley, who had moved from Interior to the Navy, resigned the year after the GAO’s findings became public.

“By fixing this pivotal deal in 1984 — and getting away with it --- Mr. Pendley may be one of the most important faceless functionaries in the expansion of coal use in the United States,” said Tom Sanzillo, director of finance at the Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis, in an email. He said the report showed “a much wider pattern of high ranking employees and administration officials cutting deals with the industry without regard for laws.”

As a result, he said, “billions of tons of coal could come to market from the Powder River Basin for the next now 40 plus years at below market prices due to what was done at the time.”

Since Pendley joined the Mountain States Legal Foundation in 1989, the group has represented a variety of clients in political cases. One was racecar driver Bobby Unser who was fined $75 for straying into federal lands on a snowmobile. Unser said he and a friend got lost in a blizzard.

The group also joined an amicus brief on limiting the use of union dues in political campaigns if individual members don’t approve.

In 2007, the foundation, represented by Pendley himself, filed litigation seeking to narrow protections for grizzly bears on national forest lands. It sought to reverse a National Forest Service ruling barring motorized access to parkland to protect grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act. The filing called the ruling “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion.”

Pendley, who wrote a book on Reagan’s legacy called “Sagebrush Rebel,” has become a pundit on the conservative circuit. His other books include “Warriors for the West: Fighting Bureaucrats, Radical Groups, and Liberal Judges on America’s Frontier” and “War on the West: Government Tyranny on America’s Great Frontier.”

In an appearance at the 2014 CPAC conference, Pendley said that “you can’t understand the battle against fossil fuels without understanding what is at the core of the environmental movement and the environmental extremists..... They don’t believe in human beings.”

Pendley also expressed sympathy with Cliven Bundy, who ended up in a heavily armed standoff over whether he could graze his cattle on federal land in violation of federal conservation efforts.

More recently in a September 2017 article in the National Review magazine, Pendley attacked then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for failing to do enough to reduce the size of the country’s national monuments. Zinke, while approving reductions in the size of four national monuments, favored the protection of the Badger-Two area Solenex wanted to explore.

“Secretary Zinke recommended decreasing the size of only four of the most blatantly illegal national monuments while leaving the boundaries of all the others standing with mollycoddle language, which will soon get stricken by environmentalists,” Pendley wrote. He urged Trump to “heed his own pugnacious and not Zinke’s pusillanimous counsel.”

 

[fraurosena]

On 7/31/2019 at 4:34 PM, Howl said:

It should be Sue Gordon*, because there's a, you know, LAW clarifying that the acting will be the Deputy DNI, but it seems Mr. Ignorant is going to ignore that and appoint somebody.  I've read that Sue Gordon is very highly regarded in the IC, meaning she's very good at her job and loyal to the country and the IC, not Trump = the kiss of flucking death in this cluster fluck of an administration. 

*Sue Gordon's title is Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

According to Mark Warner (allegedly) there will be bipartisan pushback if Sue Gordon is passed over.

 

[Howl]

It will be interesting to see what happens next.  McConnell does NOT want to attract Trump's wrath;  he's got to produce a steady supply of lickspittle sycophants for Trump in key positions. 

Meanwhile, Ratcliffe, in 48 hours or so, has gone from being a respected junior member/possible rising star in Congress to being exposed as a desperately flawed lying liar who lies.  Familiar scenario.  #ETTD?

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by Howl

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s pick for national intelligence director is disengaged from committee work on Capitol Hill, officials say"

Spoiler

President Trump’s nominee to be the nation’s next spy chief is regarded as a relatively disengaged member of the House Intelligence Committee and is little known across the ranks of spy agencies he has been tapped to lead, according to interviews with congressional and intelligence officials.

Though Rep. John Ratcliffe’s membership on the House committee is perhaps his most important credential for the top intelligence job, officials said he has yet to take part in one of its overseas trips to learn more about spy agencies’ work. The other new lawmakers on the panel have done so or are scheduled to travel in the coming months.

It is also unclear whether Ratcliffe (R-Tex) has spent much time at the headquarters of the CIA, the National Security Agency or other parts of the sprawling U.S. intelligence community that he has been nominated to direct.

Before his nomination, he made at least one trip to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in suburban Virginia. One of the most common reactions across those agencies when Ratcliffe’s nomination was announced, officials said, was: “Who?”

Several U.S. intelligence officials said Ratcliffe first came to their attention last week when he grilled former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III on his handling of the investigation of Russian election interference and possible coordination with the Trump campaign.

Congressional officials said that the House Intelligence Committee has completed a dozen trips for its members this year, though most on the panel have taken part in only a few. The trips are “the bread and butter of committee business and oversight,” said one congressional official, describing travel that usually enables members to meet with the CIA’s top operatives in foreign capitals as well as representatives in foreign governments.

They often involve travel to war zones, including Afghanistan, or other areas of high national security interest to the United States. Several members, including Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), recently returned from a trip to Colombia and Panama, where members went to border crossings used by drug smugglers and met with senior U.S. intelligence officials and other officials involved in interdiction measures.

CBS News first reported Ratcliffe’s lack of foreign travel with the committee.

Ratcliffe did take part in a delegation arranged by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in April. That trip took Ratcliffe and others to the Colombian border with Venezuela, the scene of a major foreign policy crisis, and he was asked to go because of his position on the intelligence committee, Ratcliffe’s spokeswoman said.

Others who joined the committee this year with Ratcliffe have made impressions on other members with their efforts to get up to speed on the complex issues and overlapping agencies the panel is responsible for overseeing.

Rep. Sean Maloney (D-N.Y.), for example, has taken part in at least four foreign trips sponsored by the Intelligence Committee in 2019, congressional officials said. Maloney, who worked as a senior adviser in the Clinton White House, was also described as an avid participant in Intelligence Committee hearings and a weekly visitor to the secure room where members can read classified reports and investigative documents provided by the CIA and other spy agencies.

Ratcliffe, by contrast, was described as an infrequent visitor to the classified “reading room” and a member known for brief appearances at the weekly business meetings and hearings that the panel often conducts behind closed doors.

Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), another new member of the committee, took part in a recent congressional trip to Europe during which panel members visited officials from NATO. She also participated in a visit to the National Counterterrorism Center in May.

Ratcliffe’s apparent low level of engagement is not likely to be seen as disqualifying by Trump, who is known for his own short attention span during intelligence briefings and his denunciations of the work of the CIA and other agencies.

Trump reportedly skipped numerous intelligence briefings in the months after the 2016 election — a period during which previous presidents-elect had often sought to become thoroughly grounded in classified reports on global trouble spots.

The daily intelligence briefing has been a fixture on Trump’s schedule since taking office, but officials with knowledge of the sessions have said that he prefers pictures and charts to written assessments and often strays into other subject areas when his attention wanes.

Trump also made it clear in impromptu remarks last week that his priority for a new director of national intelligence is to subdue agencies that have often contradicted his claims about national security threats emanating from Iran, North Korea and elsewhere.

Defending his nominee, Trump said he expected Ratcliffe to “rein in” spy agencies that “have run amok.”

The House and Senate intelligence committees for decades were treated as relatively nonpartisan enclaves of oversight because of the sensitivity of the issues they cover and a desire to put national interests ahead political interests.

That dynamic has changed substantially in recent years, especially as both panels took on investigations of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential race, a subject of intense sensitivity to Trump.

The president’s main ally on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), has used the position to wage an effort to discredit the CIA, FBI and Office of Special Counsel investigations of Russian interference and potential ties to the Trump campaign.

Nunes was known for similarly limited engagement with the substance of intelligence oversight during his early tenure. The panel at the time was led by then-Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who at one point threatened to cut off Nunes’s travel budget if he did not spend more time reading classified files important to the panel’s work.

Thursday on Capitol Hill, two key senators sounded skeptical about Ratcliffe’s prospects to win confirmation.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters that he would reserve judgment until the White House formally nominates Ratcliffe.

“When he’s nominated and we do an investigation, I’ll be happy to comment on what I think his qualifications are,” Burr said.

Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the committee’s vice chair, said that Ratcliffe had less experience than any previous nominee for the position and that he was troubled by reports that Ratcliffe had exaggerated his involvement in terrorism cases when he was a federal prosecutor in Texas.

“I want to give Mr. Ratcliffe the chance to explain himself,” Warner said. “If this guy has even had to take that very thin résumé and pad it, that would be clearly disqualifying.”

 

[fraurosena]

36 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump’s pick for national intelligence director is disengaged from committee work on Capitol Hill, officials say"

  Hide contents

President Trump’s nominee to be the nation’s next spy chief is regarded as a relatively disengaged member of the House Intelligence Committee and is little known across the ranks of spy agencies he has been tapped to lead, according to interviews with congressional and intelligence officials.

Though Rep. John Ratcliffe’s membership on the House committee is perhaps his most important credential for the top intelligence job, officials said he has yet to take part in one of its overseas trips to learn more about spy agencies’ work. The other new lawmakers on the panel have done so or are scheduled to travel in the coming months.

It is also unclear whether Ratcliffe (R-Tex) has spent much time at the headquarters of the CIA, the National Security Agency or other parts of the sprawling U.S. intelligence community that he has been nominated to direct.

Before his nomination, he made at least one trip to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in suburban Virginia. One of the most common reactions across those agencies when Ratcliffe’s nomination was announced, officials said, was: “Who?”

Several U.S. intelligence officials said Ratcliffe first came to their attention last week when he grilled former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III on his handling of the investigation of Russian election interference and possible coordination with the Trump campaign.

Congressional officials said that the House Intelligence Committee has completed a dozen trips for its members this year, though most on the panel have taken part in only a few. The trips are “the bread and butter of committee business and oversight,” said one congressional official, describing travel that usually enables members to meet with the CIA’s top operatives in foreign capitals as well as representatives in foreign governments.

They often involve travel to war zones, including Afghanistan, or other areas of high national security interest to the United States. Several members, including Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), recently returned from a trip to Colombia and Panama, where members went to border crossings used by drug smugglers and met with senior U.S. intelligence officials and other officials involved in interdiction measures.

CBS News first reported Ratcliffe’s lack of foreign travel with the committee.

Ratcliffe did take part in a delegation arranged by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in April. That trip took Ratcliffe and others to the Colombian border with Venezuela, the scene of a major foreign policy crisis, and he was asked to go because of his position on the intelligence committee, Ratcliffe’s spokeswoman said.

Others who joined the committee this year with Ratcliffe have made impressions on other members with their efforts to get up to speed on the complex issues and overlapping agencies the panel is responsible for overseeing.

Rep. Sean Maloney (D-N.Y.), for example, has taken part in at least four foreign trips sponsored by the Intelligence Committee in 2019, congressional officials said. Maloney, who worked as a senior adviser in the Clinton White House, was also described as an avid participant in Intelligence Committee hearings and a weekly visitor to the secure room where members can read classified reports and investigative documents provided by the CIA and other spy agencies.

Ratcliffe, by contrast, was described as an infrequent visitor to the classified “reading room” and a member known for brief appearances at the weekly business meetings and hearings that the panel often conducts behind closed doors.

Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), another new member of the committee, took part in a recent congressional trip to Europe during which panel members visited officials from NATO. She also participated in a visit to the National Counterterrorism Center in May.

Ratcliffe’s apparent low level of engagement is not likely to be seen as disqualifying by Trump, who is known for his own short attention span during intelligence briefings and his denunciations of the work of the CIA and other agencies.

Trump reportedly skipped numerous intelligence briefings in the months after the 2016 election — a period during which previous presidents-elect had often sought to become thoroughly grounded in classified reports on global trouble spots.

The daily intelligence briefing has been a fixture on Trump’s schedule since taking office, but officials with knowledge of the sessions have said that he prefers pictures and charts to written assessments and often strays into other subject areas when his attention wanes.

Trump also made it clear in impromptu remarks last week that his priority for a new director of national intelligence is to subdue agencies that have often contradicted his claims about national security threats emanating from Iran, North Korea and elsewhere.

Defending his nominee, Trump said he expected Ratcliffe to “rein in” spy agencies that “have run amok.”

The House and Senate intelligence committees for decades were treated as relatively nonpartisan enclaves of oversight because of the sensitivity of the issues they cover and a desire to put national interests ahead political interests.

That dynamic has changed substantially in recent years, especially as both panels took on investigations of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential race, a subject of intense sensitivity to Trump.

The president’s main ally on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), has used the position to wage an effort to discredit the CIA, FBI and Office of Special Counsel investigations of Russian interference and potential ties to the Trump campaign.

Nunes was known for similarly limited engagement with the substance of intelligence oversight during his early tenure. The panel at the time was led by then-Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who at one point threatened to cut off Nunes’s travel budget if he did not spend more time reading classified files important to the panel’s work.

Thursday on Capitol Hill, two key senators sounded skeptical about Ratcliffe’s prospects to win confirmation.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters that he would reserve judgment until the White House formally nominates Ratcliffe.

“When he’s nominated and we do an investigation, I’ll be happy to comment on what I think his qualifications are,” Burr said.

Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the committee’s vice chair, said that Ratcliffe had less experience than any previous nominee for the position and that he was troubled by reports that Ratcliffe had exaggerated his involvement in terrorism cases when he was a federal prosecutor in Texas.

“I want to give Mr. Ratcliffe the chance to explain himself,” Warner said. “If this guy has even had to take that very thin résumé and pad it, that would be clearly disqualifying.”

 

Another quality necessary for working for this administration: a profound unwillingness to work and/or gain knowledge of the field of expertise in question

[fraurosena]

Many (if not all) of Ratcliffe's lies laid bare.

 

[Howl]

Annnnnnnd, #ETTD!  Another glorious finale for another fabulous Infrastructure Week. Ratcliffe has jumped off his sinking ship and is withdrawing his nomination.  

[fraurosena]

8 minutes ago, Howl said:

Annnnnnnd, #ETTD!  Another glorious finale for another fabulous Infrastructure Week. Ratcliffe has jumped off his sinking ship and is withdrawing his nomination.  

 

Happy dance time!

Here's his official tweet about it. Note that he gives no reason for his withdrawal.

 

Except.. who will be nominated now? Because Coats wasn't ousted for nothing. Trump knows about the counterintelligence investigations into him, is scared shitless and needs to make them go away asap.

Edited August 2, 2019 by fraurosena
added tweet

[fraurosena]

Aha, here's why Ratcliffe didn't give a reason for his withdrawal. He was told to withdraw by Trump, who dropped him —and blamed the media for it, of course.

 

@Howl, in the meantime, and quite unsurprisingly, Trump is doing his utmost to try to prevent Sue Gordon from becoming acting DNI. 

Trump Won’t Let No. 2 Spy Chief Take Over When Coats Leaves

Quote

Updated: President Trump on Friday abruptly dropped his plan to nominate Representative John Ratcliffe as the nation’s top intelligence official

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Yet another thing Barr is aiding him with.

[Howl]

We've been in an era of lawlessness with this administration and now it's getting even more blatant.  #LeningradLindsay yesterday forcing a roll call without allowing Dems to testify is another example.   

[Howl]

OK, 

On 8/2/2019 at 7:43 AM, Howl said:

McConnell does NOT want to attract Trump's wrath;  he's got to produce a steady supply of lickspittle sycophants for Trump in key positions. 

 

On 8/2/2019 at 9:51 AM, fraurosena said:

Another quality necessary for working for this administration: a profound unwillingness to work and/or gain knowledge of the field of expertise in question

Setting the stage for letting y'all know that #MoscowMitch's wife, Sec of Transportation Elaine Chao's brother-in-law (her's sister Grace's husband) Gordon Hartogensis, has been nominated to 

Quote

...direct the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a Labor Department agency that collects insurance premiums from sponsors of defined-benefit plans and pays out benefits when companies cannot meet their obligations.

According to WaPo, Gordon Hartogensis has zip for government experience or managing pensions, so zip for insight on the mission of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.  He will be in charge of utterly staggering sums of money.  Currently, he manages his family's trust!  Let that sink in.  I mean, in all of Washington, DC, or hell, the entire damned country, is there not another qualified person to take over this position?

One must assume that nominating this guy is a strategic move to protect someone or to further the fortunes of the Chao/McConnell axis or heck, why not both?

His nomination requires Senate approval, so what are the odds that this will degenerate into another amuse-bouche, courtesy of the Trump admin, while we wait for the main course?  

Jeeze, do we need a separate nepotism/corruption thread for #MoscowMitch et al.?

[fraurosena]

27 minutes ago, Howl said:

Jeeze, do we need a separate nepotism/corruption thread for #MoscowMitch et al.?

A separate thread is a good idea. Now all things #MoscowMitch get stuck in the Senate thread and his corruption and treachery deserves its own spotlight. 

[fraurosena]

Huh. It turns out Ratcliffe's withdrawal was for an entirely different reason than lying on his resume and being an intelligence ignoramus. 

Whistleblower Allegations Surfaced Just Before DNI Pick John Ratcliffe Withdrew

Quote

An email disclosing Rep. John Ratcliffe’s (R-TX) alleged involvement in a controversial whistleblowing case reached the White House prior to the announcement Friday that he was withdrawing his name from consideration for Director of National Intelligence, according to two sources with knowledge of the correspondence.

The email, originally sent to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, laid out how Ratcliffe promoted a company accused of being instrumental in the reprisal against a whistleblower and their cybersecurity efforts, according to one of those sources. The Government Accountability Project, an organization that protects whistleblowers, is helping represent the unnamed government employee. Details about the case are being closely held in part because of security reasons. 

The organization sent information on its client’s disclosure to the committee Wednesday morning. The email then circulated among Republicans in Washington, including some White House officials, who did not think Ratcliffe was up to the job of DNI, according to two sources with direct knowledge.

White House spokespeople did not provide comment for this story. Ratcliffe did not respond to a request for comment.

Ratcliffe’s third-largest campaign donor in the 2019-2020 cycle, according to Open Secrets, a non-profit that tracks the intersection of money in politics, is a company that forced the shutdown of a critical government cybersecurity office. That’s according to an individual familiar with the whistleblower’s disclosure. Ratcliffe hosted the company in front of the House Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, the source said.

“While I am concerned that there was never a complete review of the facts of this case as it related to Mr. Ratcliffe … I’m thankful the committee took this matter seriously,” said Irvin McCullough, a national security analyst at the Government Accountability Project. “This engagement exemplifies the need for policymakers to continue championing their work with courageous whistleblowers willing to speak truth to power.”

News of the email comes as President Donald Trump considers multiple individuals for the position of DNI. Since Trump announced the nomination of Ratcliffe last week, U.S. media organizations have published multiple reports of holes in the congressman’s biography and his exaggeration of the work he did as a former U.S. Attorney in Texas. Three sources with knowledge of the government’s vetting process said Trump administration officials raised concerns about Ratcliffe’s past over the last week. It’s unclear whether the whistleblower disclosure email impacted Ratcliffe’s nomination, or if the president himself was aware of the email.

Trump announced Ratcliffe’s decision Friday afternoon.

“Our great Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe is being treated very unfairly by the LameStream Media. 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 in a tweet. “John has therefore decided to stay in Congress where he has done such an outstanding job representing the people of Texas, and our Country. I will be announcing my nomination for DNI shortly.”

As of Friday night, Trump had not announced his nomination and his team was still actively considering multiple different individuals for the DNI posting. One of those individuals is U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands Pete Hoekstra, according to two individuals with knowledge of the Trump administration's search. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report on Hoekstra’s consideration on Friday.

News of the president considering someone new for the DNI position came Friday morning when The Daily Beast reported the White House had asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for a list of all its employees at the federal government’s top pay scale who have worked there for 90 days or more. The White House asked for people in ODNI who maintained at least the GS-15 level (the pay grade for most top government employees, including supervisors).

The request underscored the president’s attempt to find a suitable replacement for the ODNI’s top posting and raised questions about whether he attempted to oust Sue Gordon, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Under federal law the individual serving in that position is supposed to step up if the DNI departs. Last week DNI Dan Coates announced that he would leave his post August 15. 

The New York Times reported Friday that the president was in the throes of trying to circumvent Gordon and replace her with his own pick. But later Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the president was, in fact, considering Gordon for the job. 

It’s still unclear who the White House is considering for the post. But as of Friday night, one thing was clear: Ratcliffe was out.

“I do not wish for a national security and intelligence debate surrounding my confirmation, however untrue, to become a purely political and partisan issue. The country we all love deserves that it be treated as an American issue,” Ratcliffe said in a tweet Friday. “I have asked the President to nominate someone other than me for this position.”

@Howl, it looks like Sue Gordon is being considered for the job after all, which, if true, would be a good thing. On the other hand, the rumors that it might be Pete Hoekstra are rather disquieting. You may all be wondering where you have heard that name before.  Well, here's a video to refresh your memories:

 

[Howl]

@fraurosena. your post is a goldmine of information re: Ratcliffe!  Dig a little deeper and there is always more corruption! Wowza.  I keep trying to process exactly what this means: 

On 8/3/2019 at 3:54 PM, fraurosena said:

 a company that forced the shutdown of a critical government cybersecurity office.

 

I read yesterday that one option being considered was to  fire Sue Gordon to get around the law governing succession of the DNI. 

 

On 8/3/2019 at 3:54 PM, fraurosena said:

it might be Pete Hoekstra 

Noooooooooooooo   *the scream*

Edited August 5, 2019 by Howl

[GreyhoundFan]

As if anyone in this sham administration cares about breaking the law: "USDA science agencies’ relocation may have violated law, inspector general report says"

Spoiler

A plan to move two Agriculture Department scientific agencies from Washington to Kansas City may have run afoul of the 2018 appropriations act, according to a report released Monday from the USDA’s Office of Inspector General.

In August 2018, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue unveiled a plan to relocate the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which oversees $1.7 billion in scientific grants and funding, and the Economic Research Service, a federal statistical agency that publishes influential reports on agricultural trade and rural America. Both agencies lease office space in the District.

USDA selected the Kansas City region as the new home for these agencies in June 2019, in what Perdue has billed as a cost-saving decision. About two-thirds of nearly 400 employees refused the reassignment and will lose their jobs. “This is the brain drain we all feared, possibly a destruction of the agencies,” Jack Payne, University of Florida’s vice president for agriculture and natural resources, told The Washington Post last month.

The department has the legal authority to move the agencies, per the USDA inspector general’s investigation. But USDA also needs budgetary approval from Congress to fund the moves, the inspector general’s office said, which the department did not obtain.

In the fall, USDA awarded a $340,000 contract to the accounting firm Ernst & Young to assist with the relocation. The 2018 omnibus spending bill required USDA to receive congressional approval before spending this money. “That prior approval did not appear to have been granted,” the inspector general report says.

This expense may have also violated the Antideficiency Act, the report said, which prevents federal employees from involving the government “in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made.”

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who requested the inspector general’s investigation in September 2018, exhorted USDA to follow the law. “The Secretary must follow the will of Congress and refrain from moving forward with the relocation,” they said in a joint statement Monday, “until Congress approves the use of funds for those purposes as directed by the fiscal year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act.”

In a list of recommendations in the report, the inspector general’s office advised USDA to seek congressional approval.

USDA management refused to do so. “To say the department was out of step with budgetary requirements disregards the authority given to the executive branch by the U.S. Constitution,” according to a statement provided by USDA. It continued: “Since the inspector general affirms the department has the legal authority and we do not agree with the unconstitutional budgetary provision, this case is closed.”

On Friday, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, in a keynote speech at a Republican Party gala in South Carolina, said of the attrition at the agencies: “By simply saying to people, ‘You know what, we’re going to take you outside the bubble, outside the Beltway, outside this liberal haven of Washington, D.C., and move you out in the real part of the country,' and they quit — what a wonderful way to sort of streamline government.”

 

[fraurosena]

Oh no! This is really, really bad... and that's putting it mildly.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"I can no longer justify being a part of Trump’s ‘Complacent State.’ So I’m resigning."

Spoiler

Chuck Park’s resignation from the Foreign Service is effective Thursday.

I was 26, newly married and more than a little idealistic when I set off for my first diplomatic assignment almost a decade ago as a member of the 157th class of commissioned U.S. Foreign Service officers.

According to a certain type of right-leaning conspiracy theorist, that would make me part of “The Deep State” — a shadowy government within the government that puts its own interests above the expressed wishes of the electorate. Adherents to this theory believe that thousands of federal workers like me are plotting furiously to subvert the Trump administration at every turn. Many on the left, too, hope that such a resistance is secretly working to save the nation from the worst impulses of President Trump.

They have it all wrong. Your federal bureaucracy under this president? Call it “The Complacent State” instead.

Like many in my cohort, I came into the government inspired by a president who convinced me there was still some truth to the gospel of American exceptionalism. A child of immigrants from South Korea, I also felt a duty to the society that welcomed my parents and allowed me and my siblings to thrive.

Over three tours abroad, I worked to spread what I believed were American values: freedom, fairness and tolerance. But more and more I found myself in a defensive stance, struggling to explain to foreign peoples the blatant contradictions at home.

In Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, I spoke of American openness and friendship at consulate events as my country carried out mass deportations and failed thousands of “dreamers.” I attended celebrations of Black History Month at our embassy in Lisbon as black communities in the United States demanded justice for Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and the victims of the mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. And in Vancouver, I touted the strength of the United States’ democracy at the consulate’s 2016 election-night party as a man who campaigned on racism, misogyny and wild conspiracy theories became president-elect.

Since then, I have seen Trump assert the moral equivalence of violent white nationalists and those who oppose them, denigrate immigrants from “shithole countries” and separate children from their parents at the border, only to place them in squalid detention centers.

But almost three years since his election, what I have not seen is organized resistance from within. To the contrary, two senior Foreign Service officers admonished me for risking my career when I signed an internal dissent cable against the ban on travelers from several majority-Muslim countries in January 2017. Among my colleagues at the State Department, I have met neither the unsung hero nor the cunning villain of Deep State lore. If the resistance does exist, it should be clear by this point that it has failed.

Instead, I am part of the Complacent State.

The Complacent State sighs when the president blocks travel by Muslim immigrants; shakes its head when he defends Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman; averts its gaze from images of children in detention camps. Then it complies with orders.

Every day, we refuse visas based on administration priorities. We recite administration talking points on border security, immigration and trade. We plan travel itineraries, book meetings and literally hold doors open for the appointees who push Trump’s toxic agenda around the world.

So when I read a recent New York Times op-ed calling for the public shaming of the “midlevel functionaries who make the system run,” I squirmed in my seat. We rank-and-file, like the Justice Department lawyer who recently endured public scrutiny for defending the administration’s terrible treatment of detained children, don’t like to be called out. And when we are, we shrink behind a standard argument — that we are career officials serving nonpartisan institutions.

We should be named and shamed. But how should we respond? One thing I agree with the conspiracy theorists about: The Deep State, if it did exist, would be wrong. Ask to read the commission of any Foreign Service officer, and you’ll see that we are hired to serve “during the pleasure of the President of the United States.” That means we must serve this very partisan president.

Or else we should quit.

I’m ashamed of how long it took me to make this decision. My excuse might be disappointing, if familiar to many of my colleagues: I let career perks silence my conscience. I let free housing, the countdown to a pension and the prestige of representing a powerful nation overseas distract me from ideals that once seemed so clear to me. I can’t do that anymore.

My son, born in El Paso on the American side of that same Rio Grande where the bodies of Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter were discovered, in the same city where 22 people were just killed by a gunman whose purported “manifesto” echoed the inflammatory language of our president, turned 7 this month. I can no longer justify to him, or to myself, my complicity in the actions of this administration. That’s why I choose to resign.

 

[Palimpsest]

Re, Park:

Quote

I’m ashamed of how long it took me to make this decision. My excuse might be disappointing, if familiar to many of my colleagues: I let career perks silence my conscience. I let free housing, the countdown to a pension and the prestige of representing a powerful nation overseas distract me from ideals that once seemed so clear to me. I can’t do that anymore.

Yes, I get it.  Sort of.  But Park took his own sweet time.

I hope more people "can't do it any more."

But I am losing hope by the minute looking at the Repuglicans defending Trump in Congress.  I don't know how can they fucking live with themselves.  That is not a rhetorical question.  It is a  statement.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Andrew McCabe sues FBI over firing, alleges plot by Trump to oust those disloyal to the president"

Spoiler

Andrew McCabe, the acting FBI director who authorized an investigation into President Trump for ties to Russia and possible obstruction of justice, filed a lawsuit against the bureau and the Justice Department on Wednesday, alleging he was illegally demoted and fired as part of a plot by Trump to remove those who were not politically loyal to him.

McCabe asked that a federal judge declare his termination a “legal nullity” and essentially allow him to retire from the FBI as planned, with all the benefits that would have afforded him. He was fired from the bureau in March 2018, just hours before McCabe was set to retire, costing him significant retirement benefits. The termination came after the Justice Department inspector general found that McCabe made an unauthorized disclosure to the media, then lied to investigators about it.

“It was Trump’s unconstitutional plan and scheme to discredit and remove DOJ and FBI employees who were deemed to be his partisan opponents because they were not politically loyal to him,” the lawsuit alleges, adding that McCabe’s firing “was a critical element of Trump’s plan and scheme.”

Justice Department and FBI spokeswomen declined to comment. White House officials did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

The inspector general referred McCabe’s case to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, which has been using a grand jury to determine if McCabe should also be charged criminally. McCabe has long asserted he did nothing wrong and that his termination, ordered by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was a politically motivated effort by Trump to undermine the FBI’s work. Trump had vigorously criticized McCabe even before he was removed from his post.

The suit is the second this week by former FBI officials who say they were wrongly removed from their positions for political reasons.

On Tuesday, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, who also played a key role in the Russia probe, sued the Justice Department and FBI for reinstatement and back pay, arguing he was unfairly terminated for criticizing Trump. Strzok was found to have sent anti-Trump text messages, which FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich said called into question the bureau’s decisions in the Russia probe and the separate investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

McCabe’s lawsuit is notable for its forcefulness, alleging that Trump enlisted the highest-ranking members of the federal law enforcement apparatus in a scheme to stifle dissent. The suit singles out in particular Sessions and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who it claims “knowingly acted in furtherance of Trump’s plan and scheme, with knowledge that they were implementing Trump’s unconstitutional motivations for removing Plaintiff from the civil service.”

“Trump demanded Plaintiff’s personal allegiance, he sought retaliation when Plaintiff refused to give it, and Sessions, Wray, and others served as Trump’s personal enforcers rather than the nation’s highest law enforcement officials, catering to Trump’s unlawful whims instead of honoring their oaths to uphold the Constitution,” the lawsuit alleges.

“Plaintiff” refers to McCabe, who filed the suit.

The lawsuit traces in painstaking detail the origins and evolution of McCabe and Trump’s fraught relationship, starting when the FBI in 2016 publicly recommended closing its investigation into Clinton’s email server. Soon after, the suit alleges, then-candidate Trump began to attack McCabe, taking aim at political donations McCabe’s wife received when she made an unsuccessful run for a state senate seat in Virginia from a group controlled by a prominent Clinton-backer.

The suit claims that even though Trump ultimately won the election, he remained fearful that he was in political peril due to his “loss of the popular vote and his campaign’s acceptance of Russian assistance during the presidential election.”

“Once in office,” the suit alleges, “Trump began to purge the DOJ and FBI of officials whom he perceived as his partisan opponents rather than Trump loyalists, and as affiliated with the Democrats because of their support for the Russia investigation.”

The suit claims Trump pressured Sessions, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and others to bend to his political will, and that the president keyed in on McCabe and then-FBI Director James B. Comey, who Trump fired May 9, 2017. The lawsuit does not identify any other employees it claims were purged, though Trump also removed Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates early in his administration.

Trump cited the Russia investigation as a reason for firing Comey. McCabe alleged there was an effort to get him ousted from the case as well.

In one meeting just days after Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller III to lead the Russia investigation, the suit alleges, Rosenstein broached McCabe’s wife’s political campaign and asked him to consider recusing himself. The suit alleges Rosenstein referenced a photo of McCabe wearing a campaign T-shirt, suggesting it could create a credibility issue and cause “unspecified others to complain about Plaintiff’s involvement in the Russia investigation.”

At the time, McCabe was the acting FBI director, though he had told Rosenstein and Sessions he intended to retire the following March when he became eligible, the suit alleges. He was soon replaced by Wray and returned to his post as the bureau’s No. 2 official.

“Plaintiff understood Rosenstein’s concern about unspecified third parties’ complaints to include the only officials who outranked Rosenstein in the DOJ chain of command: Trump and Sessions,” the suit alleges.

Neither Rosenstein nor a spokeswoman for Sessions addressed requests for comment.

Trump continued to attack McCabe publicly in the months that followed with a clear implication: He wanted McCabe gone. In August 2017, the suit alleges, Sessions asked Wray — at Trump’s urging — to fire McCabe, but Wray refused and “suggested that he would resign if Sessions continued to apply such pressure.”

Meanwhile, the inspector general was investigating McCabe for the media disclosure, and in December 2017, told Wray of a forthcoming report. The next month, citing that investigation, Wray gave McCabe a choice, the suit alleges: transition to a lesser role of his choosing and falsely announce he was stepping down voluntarily, or be reassigned to a lesser role of Wray’s choosing.

McCabe said he would go on terminal leave until he was eligible to retire but “would not lie to the FBI workforce about the circumstances of his departure,” the suit alleges.

On March 7, 2018, the FBI’s assistant director of the Office of Professional Responsibility, Candice Will, recommended McCabe be fired over the inspector general’s findings. The lawsuit alleges that she seemed to be aware of top officials’ desire to remove McCabe before his expected retirement date that month because she attached a handwritten note to her recommendation saying, “It seems unlikely that [the proposed termination] will reach final resolution before Mr. McCabe’s March 18 retirement date, but that is up to the DAG.”

The lawsuit alleges officials expedited the process so that McCabe’s team had limited time to review the evidence against him, and that one Justice Department official conceded: “We’re making it up as we go along.”

The suit alleges McCabe learned from the media he was being fired, and notes that Trump celebrated the move on Twitter. It claims McCabe’s constitutional rights were violated.

After he was fired, McCabe wrote a book about his time in the FBI, which detailed his uncomfortable and unusual interactions with Trump and Sessions. He also raised more than $538,000 on a GoFundMe page set up for his legal defense.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump announces shakeup at top of U.S. intelligence "

Spoiler

President Trump said in a tweet Thursday that he will name Joseph Maguire, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, as the acting director of national intelligence.

Maguire will assume the role Aug. 15, when Sue Gordon, a career intelligence official who serves as the deputy to the director of national intelligence, will resign. Trump announced Gordon’s resignation in a tweet Thursday.

“Sue Gordon is a great professional with a long and distinguished career. I have gotten to know Sue over the past 2 years and have developed great respect for her,” Trump wrote.

Trump had intended to nominate Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) as the director of national intelligence, replacing Daniel Coats, who is resigning the same day as Gordon. But Ratcliffe’s potential nomination collapsed amid bipartisan criticism about his lack of national security expertise and allegations that he padded his résumé as a former federal prosecutor.

In her letter of resignation, Gordon emphasized her years of experience and praised intelligence agency employees. Trump has repeatedly assailed U.S. intelligence agencies and derided their conclusions when they conflict with his.

“I am confident in what the Intelligence Community has accomplished, and what it is poised to do going forward,” Gordon wrote. “I have seen it in action first-hand. Know that our people are our strength, and they will never fail you or the Nation. You are in good hands.”

Gordon has bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) had said he wanted her to serve as the acting director.

Burr praised Gordon, but didn’t signal that he would oppose Maguire as the acting director.

“Sue Gordon’s retirement is a significant loss for our Intelligence Community,” the senator said in a statement. “In more than three decades of public service, Sue earned the respect and admiration of her colleagues with her patriotism and vision. She has been a stalwart partner to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I will miss her candor and deep knowledge of the issues.”

Trump was reluctant to keep Gordon, regarding her as part of a career establishment of which he has long been suspicious, according to officials with knowledge of the president’s views.

Congressional Democrats said Trump has pushed out Gordon as part of a plan to bring the intelligence agencies to heel.

“President Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is seemingly incapable of hearing facts that contradict his own views,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“The mission of the intelligence community is to speak truth to power. Yet in pushing out two dedicated public servants in as many weeks, once again the President has shown that he has no problem prioritizing his political ego even if it comes at the expense of our national security,” Warner said.

“The retirements of Dan Coats and Sue Gordon represent a devastating loss to the Intelligence Community, and the men and women who serve in it,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

“Gordon brought decades of experience and encyclopedic knowledge of the agencies to bear, and her absence will leave a great void. These losses of leadership, coupled with a president determined to weed out anyone who may dare disagree, represent one of the most challenging moments for the Intelligence Community.”

 

[fraurosena]

6 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump announces shakeup at top of U.S. intelligence "

  Hide contents

President Trump said in a tweet Thursday that he will name Joseph Maguire, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, as the acting director of national intelligence.

Maguire will assume the role Aug. 15, when Sue Gordon, a career intelligence official who serves as the deputy to the director of national intelligence, will resign. Trump announced Gordon’s resignation in a tweet Thursday.

“Sue Gordon is a great professional with a long and distinguished career. I have gotten to know Sue over the past 2 years and have developed great respect for her,” Trump wrote.

Trump had intended to nominate Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) as the director of national intelligence, replacing Daniel Coats, who is resigning the same day as Gordon. But Ratcliffe’s potential nomination collapsed amid bipartisan criticism about his lack of national security expertise and allegations that he padded his résumé as a former federal prosecutor.

In her letter of resignation, Gordon emphasized her years of experience and praised intelligence agency employees. Trump has repeatedly assailed U.S. intelligence agencies and derided their conclusions when they conflict with his.

“I am confident in what the Intelligence Community has accomplished, and what it is poised to do going forward,” Gordon wrote. “I have seen it in action first-hand. Know that our people are our strength, and they will never fail you or the Nation. You are in good hands.”

Gordon has bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) had said he wanted her to serve as the acting director.

Burr praised Gordon, but didn’t signal that he would oppose Maguire as the acting director.

“Sue Gordon’s retirement is a significant loss for our Intelligence Community,” the senator said in a statement. “In more than three decades of public service, Sue earned the respect and admiration of her colleagues with her patriotism and vision. She has been a stalwart partner to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I will miss her candor and deep knowledge of the issues.”

Trump was reluctant to keep Gordon, regarding her as part of a career establishment of which he has long been suspicious, according to officials with knowledge of the president’s views.

Congressional Democrats said Trump has pushed out Gordon as part of a plan to bring the intelligence agencies to heel.

“President Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is seemingly incapable of hearing facts that contradict his own views,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“The mission of the intelligence community is to speak truth to power. Yet in pushing out two dedicated public servants in as many weeks, once again the President has shown that he has no problem prioritizing his political ego even if it comes at the expense of our national security,” Warner said.

“The retirements of Dan Coats and Sue Gordon represent a devastating loss to the Intelligence Community, and the men and women who serve in it,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

“Gordon brought decades of experience and encyclopedic knowledge of the agencies to bear, and her absence will leave a great void. These losses of leadership, coupled with a president determined to weed out anyone who may dare disagree, represent one of the most challenging moments for the Intelligence Community.”

 

Does anyone know anything about this Joseph McGuire? Is he going to be to the IC what Barr is to the DOJ?

If so, that is really frightening and could mean the end of America as we know it. Will the IC become Trump’s stasi?

Edited August 9, 2019 by fraurosena

[GreyhoundFan]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Does anyone know anything about this Joseph McGuire? Is he going to be to the IC what Barr is to the DOJ?

If so, that is really frightening and could mean the end of America as we know it. Will the IC become Trump’s stasi?

I don't know anything about him, but the fact that the orange menace wants him doesn't bode well for the country or world.