I do not think that William Pulte is the proper appointee to the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) but my reasoning is somewhat different from what either the Republicans or Democrats have presented.
Under ordinary circumstances arguing for a “seasoned intelligence professional would be appropriate but present circumstances are not ordinary. Ignore Trump. How should an ordinary, prudent president proceed? The problem is that we do not know that the DNI has been “weaponized” by Democrats and we do not know that the DNI has not been “weaponized” by Democrats.
We do know that the intelligence itself was sound (the bipartisan Senate committee found that) and we do know that the procedures followed were quite unusual. We do not know whether the decision to commission the intelligence was politically motivated or not.
Under the circumstances the ideal candidate for the position would combine independence from the intelligence bureaucracy with sufficient knowledge to evaluate its practices. Such individuals are rare and bipartisan trust may be impossible to achieve in the current political climate.
To my eye William Pulte has not demonstrated the combination of independence, credibility, and commitment to evidence that the current moment requires. The country does not need a defender of the intelligence community nor does it need a prosecutor of the intelligence community. It needs someone capable of determining and convincing the public what actually happened.
Which intelligence are you referring to that the Senate found good but is supposedly weaponized.
Steve
The claim that Democrats “weaponized” the DNI under Obama is a serious allegation that has been investigated thoroughly by a bipartisan Senate committee, which found it to be “unsupported”. But unsupported is not the same as “it didn’t happen”. We need to know whether it happened.
What would you take as evidence it did not? Hard to prove a negative. For me, we know that Trump et al have been in office for over 5 years now. If any evidence existed I would have expected them to find it. Senate has largely been GOP led during that time and it’s not like they have avoided partisan accusations.
Regardless, Pulse is not even remotely qualified. There are plenty of people who have served in military intelligence then gone on to run for office as a Republican. He could have chosen someone like that. I might or might not like their politics but at least they would be qualified. This much akin to his other cabinet and lower office nominations who have no experience in the area they run but are loyal to Trump, which appears to be the only real quality needed.
Steve
My question is the position of DNI necessary?
Trump has relied far more on CIA director John Ratcliffe over Tulsi Gabbard, Mr Ratcliffe has been in all critical national security discussions where Ms Gabbard was excluded if media reporting are believed. Biden used CIA director William Burns to warn Putin, Zelinsky, and the Europeans before the Ukraine war; whereas his DNI director Ms Haines was very much in the background. Mr Trump’s first terms DNI Dan Coats seemed to have sat in a room and done nothing. Then you have Obama’s DNI James Clapper who seems remembered mostly on whether he perjured himself to the Senate.
“weaponization” is a far bigger issue than just the DNI. And it spans Obama and Biden. And to deny it I find embarrassingly childlike. But proving it under law, or the Senate investigation (LOL), is a different matter. But that’s our system. So be it.
As an aside, I know the real estate valuation fraud issues brought against Trump like the back of my hand. I know how loans are made. Talk about weaponization. Don’t publicly embarrass yourself by arguing otherwise.
That all said, I find Dave’s point spot on. Pulte is the wrong guy. One can understand that Trump only trusts close allies after what’s been thrown at him. A sad byproduct of the Dem strategy. But Pulte is a no. I have seen that he may be a short term placeholder. Let’s hope.
I find it embarrassing for you that you believe it absent any evidence after all this time and with Trump’s people running the DOJ. They haven’t hesitated to try prosecuting everyone for whom they could trump up charges, mostly finding that they haven’t even been able to get indictments (in a system where indictments go through about 99% of the time).
Steve
IMO not just the DNI but the CIA should be abolished. All intelligence should be brought under the DoD and subject to the UCMJ.
Disagree. There is value in having information and monitoring done by different organizations so that you are less subject to groupthink if everyone is in the same organization. Having other organizations work under a code similar to the UCMJ might be fine.
Steve