You're so full of hot air. You have no idea what you're talking about.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:39 amGood lord, you actually think the Rat was remotely qualified???old salt wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:39 pmThis evening Hurd said it was unfortunate -- that his friend & fellow Intel Comm member Ratcliffe would have made a good DNI,
...but then what does Hurd know ?Ratcliffe was as qualified as Coats for the DNI job. He just wasn't part of the Senate old boys club.
He was stigmatized as a FNC defender of Trump. He became a pinata for the anti-Trump NBC/ABC/WP/NYT MSM as soon as he defended Trump during the Mueller hearing. Dead man walking -- he didn't even survive to the yearbook search phase.
Here's some depth on Ratcliffe's involvement with the Holy Land case & his anti-terrorism experience as a US Attorney :
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/donald- ... orism-case
https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/30/fo ... tion-case/
We haven't heard the last from Ratcliffe. When the House holds hearings on the IG & DoJ investigations of the investigators, he'll be the leading (R) prosecutor.
As a liar, yes, but not DNI.
Coats was indeed not very well qualified for the position, relative to his predecessors and relative to the job description. True. But way, way, way more qualified than the Rat. 15 years on the Senate Intelligence Select Committee, 4 years as an Ambassador to Germany, 6 years as a Congressman, served in the Army. The Rat? No military service, 4 years on the highly politicized House Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees. Bunch of false statements, tweets, his only 'qualification' was his his partisanship. "stigmatized"? He's a jerk and a liar, with no real experience or long term perspective. Own it.
This is the sort of baloney, along with your continuous postings of right wing blogs that propound quite unsubstantiated, indeed often disproven, conspiracy theories, that undermines so greatly any credibility you might otherwise have.
Yup, the Rat will undoubtedly be the jerk he is, at every opportunity. But now that the public actually knows that he's a liar and a complete partisan, his credibility in any such 'prosecutor' effort will be seen for what it is.
Re Hurd, you grossly misrepresent what he said. He indeed says some nice things about his capabilities to absorb lots of information, something that the next DNI will need, but he doesn't say he would have been a good DNI or a qualified choice, indeed he pivots to endorsing Sue Gordon for her 'vast experience' in intelligence, then he describes his own immense experience, and tremendous respect for the work and people of the IC. Big contrast with his 'friend' Ratcliffe.
Of course, that's why Trump apparently never considered Hurd. "Doesn't know him".
Hurd listed the qualities that Ratcliffe had which would have qualified him to be DNI.
It would have been considered a positive endorsement if he were still a candidate.
You have no idea what training Ratcliffe had in that anti-terrorism & national security US Atty job.
It wasn't just a title. You don't know what intel streams he had access to or what cases he reviewed in that job.
Coats brief military experience was irrelevant unless he was in an intel branch or rose high enough in rank to hold a job where he reviewed intel reports.
Wait & see how the things i've posted from "right wing blogs" prove out compared to your disproven TDS conspiracy rants.
On LP, when Flynn joined Trump's campaign, I predicted we'd see the war within the IC play out if Trump won.
As soon as Ratcliffe defended Trump, he became as big a MSM target as Flynn did when he lead the lock her up chant.
Look how fast the MSM (& you) turned on Barr.
I used the term "Deep State" when the NSA intercepts of Flynn's calls were leaked, before FNC or the RW blogosphere picked up the term.
Your condescending blather about things that don't comport with your preferences will not make them go away.
There's some rough seas ahead for you TDS'ers.