Thread by @GeorgeCroner

A cogent and accurate description. And, let's put to rest the idea that Ratcliffe's decision to terminate oral election briefings had anything to do with "security concerns." It has everything to do with Ratcliffe obsequiously seeking to satisfy his audience of One. /1

https://twitter.com/IgnatiusPost/status/1300613368760471552

A little history of the tenuous position of DNI in the world of "alternative facts." Dan Coats had way too much integrity for Trump and their relationship was doomed to fail from the outset. When Coats had the temerity to stand up for the Intelligence Community after Trump's /2

trashing of the IC in Helsinki in July 2018, Coats was on thin ice. Having no pretense of fealty, Coats refused to back off the Intelligence Community Assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, had a clear preference for Trump, and aspired to help him. /3

With Trump, adherence to these truisms gets you fired. So, Joe Maguire became acting DNI, but only after Trump's first attempt to have his puppet, John Ratcliffe, appointed. When that failed, Joe Maguire became acting DNI. But when Shelby Pierson, who had worked in the IC /4

for over 2 decades and had been appointed "election issues" manager by Coats shortly before his departure, accurately informed the HPSCI in February of this year that Russia was actively working to interfere in the 2020 election and had a clear and continuing preference for /5

the "current president," noted tattletale Devin Nunes informed the "current president" of Pierson's testimony. Maguire was gone in less than a week, to be followed by another "acting" DNI - Trumpist Richard Grenell, who only "acted" as DNI in every sense of the word. /6

Even the Republican Senate couldn't hold its nose long enough to confirm Grenell for the job, so he went on to the Trump campaign which is better suited to using his mendacity full time.

And we now have Ratcliffe, whose votes opposing his confirmation for DNI (44) exceeded /7

the "no" votes cast against confirming all of his predecessors combined. He is unqualified for the job - I said so a year ago when he was first nominated fpri.org/article/2019/0…
/8

So, it's no surprise that Ratcliffe will do anything to avoid his own "Shelby Pierson" moment - anything to avoid having ONI answer unscripted questions that cannot be dodged or fudged. It takes integrity and fortitude to "speak truth to power," and John Ratcliffe has neither. /9