Why would Donald Trump consider the president of a small South Dakota engineering school as Director of National Intelligence? Would it be her experience ten years ago on the House Intelligence Committee? His sympathy for her dalliance with conflict of interest in illegally using federal money for lobbying?
Or might Donald Trump want someone like Heather Wilson to direct national intelligence because he wants a weak director of national intelligence?
President-elect Donald Trump is looking at possible ways to limit the power of the director of National Intelligence, according to sources close to the transition.
The thinking within the Trump transition team is that the DNI often gets in the way of the 16 intelligence agencies it represents, which includes the CIA, the sources told CNN.
…One source said that Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — Trump’s pick for national security adviser — has pushed the idea of reigning in the DNI. Flynn was pushed out as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, which falls under the DNI’s leadership. Flynn clashed with other intelligence officials, including his bosses Mike Vickers, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for intelligence, and DNI James Clapper [Evan Perez and Daniella Diaz, “Trump Team Looking at Ways to Limit the Power of DNI, Sources Say,” CNN, 2017.01.05].
CBS reports Trump may just leave the DNI unfilled… because Donald Trump epitomizes the idea that Presidents don’t need intelligence. Or maybe Trump will skip the middle man and appoint his preferred source of information, fellow accused sex offender Julian Assange.
Related: At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing (streaming right now on C-SPAN) on Russian hacking and cybersecurity, Chairman John McCain asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and NSA and Cyber Command director Admiral Mike Rogers if they “think there’s any credibility we should attach to” Julian Assange. DNI Clapper and Admiral Rogers both said no.
Republicans Are Afraid … of people checking their work. Oversight of intel? Nah, don’t want it. Ethics commissions? Nah, we’re not cheating. Yeah, right!
CNN says:
*reining in, as in reining a horse
Cory writes:
Personally I don’t regard the rape allegations against Assange as credible.
Assange is no angel, but I’d trust him over McCain, Rogers and James “Not Wittingly” Clapper any day of the week.
Evans, here ya go man. Go visit your new pals. http://www.touropia.com/tourist-attractions-in-russia/ I hear there are some republican lawmakers that want to go directly to the Duma. I am sure you will be a real addition there. Tell them about your 6,000 year old universe belief, as that is the way to win hearts and minds there for sure.
Kurt, that “reigning” is CNN’s bad.
Drumpf tapped former Indiana Sinator Dan Coats for the DNI. There’s a stretch for you.
Evans, Assange is as dirty as Vlad in this election corruption. What we now have is an illegitimate president who got there by a foreign enemy, Russia. That is not just for you to live with, but forces me too as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ntel-report-identifies-russians-who-gave-emails-to-wikileaks_us_586f96a3e4b02b5f85884397?exuv6yk3dfdhrggb9
So how would religion play out in a Don regime of totalitarianism, lucky or unlucky for us, we have a history of that http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/religion-in-nazi-germany/
Interesting, Mike. The Coats pick suggests DNI is not on the chopping block that earlier reports suggested. Coats also seems to have more heft with Congress than Heather Wilson, a healthy sign that the DNI won’t be as beholden to Trump as a Wilson-like pick would have been.
Jerry writes to me:
One difference between the United States and Russia is that Russians are generally far more aware of the extent to which their public education system is set up to brainwash them with propaganda.
Traditional evangelical Christianity has historically thrived under persecution. Other forms of religion probably wouldn’t fare as well.
Cory writes:
I’d meant to indicate that in my comment, Cory, and I’d like to apologize for not indicating it more clearly.