Comment by Jim Campbell
February 20, 219
It appears that those on the inside do not want National Security Director, Dan Coats sacked by Trump.
This is sending another mixed message from the oval office.
February 20, 2019
Even after last month’s clash appeared to be resolved, the spotlight was back on Coats, one of the few remaining original members of an administration that has seen substantial turnover in its national security team, most recently with the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis.
Ruddy is among those who argue Coats both overstepped and undermined the president’s policies with his congressional testimony last month.
“I think you have a classic example here where Director Coats is trying to make policy and not inform policy,” Ruddy told CNN on Monday, a day after he was spotted dining with Trump in Palm Beach, Fla.
“The purpose of intelligence is to give the president the facts, let him decide and make the decisions — not to publicly declare that his policies are going to fail a week before he goes over to North Korea on this very important summit.”
Ruddy, who is CEO of Newsmax, added that he hadn’t heard from Trump about his plans, but said “sources around the White House” spoke of “deep concern” about Coats’s testimony.
Others worry about the calculus behind any move to fire Coats.
“If Coats is getting canned simply because of his sobriety then I think it sends a very troubling signal,” said one former Trump White House official.
“The big fear is that Trump might give away the store so he can declare victory and such a move is not in the national security interest of the [United States].”
Eric Brewer, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security who worked as an intelligence official mostly during the Obama administration, said it is not unusual for the intelligence community’s findings to be at odds with the desires of policymakers.
But he said that during this administration, and with a president who often prefers appointees whose views are in line with his, there may be more tension between the White House and apolitical intelligence officials.
“I think there’s going to be a natural tension that exists in those relationships,” Brewer said.
“But some personalities get along better than others.”