Russia bounty scheme: Top Trump intel official John Ratcliffe faces his first big test

Analysis: So far, the new director of national intelligence has tried to walk the fine line of appeasing the president while not undermining his own intelligence reports, writes US political correspondent Griffin Connolly

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe faces the decision on whether he will toe the Trump line or the intelligence community line. (Photo by Gabriella Demczuk -Pool/Getty Images)

Top Trump official John Ratcliffe is facing his first major test since the former Republican congressman's party-line confirmation last month as director of national intelligence.

With the president suggesting the alleged Russian intelligence scheme to pay bounties to Taliban fighters who kill US soldiers is a “fabricated Russia Hoax” intended to “make Republicans look bad,” he has thrust Mr Ratcliffe into a position that has gotten many Trump aides before him fired.

Mr Ratcliffe, a former Texas congressman whose history of partisanship had previously given pause to Senate Republicans and Democrats alike, can either prove his loyalty to Mr Trump by obfuscating the truth about the intel reports outlining the scheme, or he can directly refute the president’s delusions that Russia, under the direction of Vladimir Putin, would never perpetrate such a plot.

Congressional Democrats and many Republicans, including Mr Trump’s Sunday golf partner, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, have vowed to get to the bottom of the alleged Russian bounty scheme, which was first reported by the New York Times last week.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter on Monday to Mr Ratcliffe and CIA Director Gina Haspel requesting an interagency briefing for all House members.

“The questions that arise are: was the President briefed, and if not, why not; and why was Congress not briefed?” Ms Pelosi wrote to Mr Ratcliffe and Ms Haspel.

Walk the line

So far, Mr Ratcliffe has tried to walk the fine line of appeasing the president by backing parts of his claims — that he was not given an oral briefing about the Russian bounty plot — while not addressing the more damaging parts. Namely, that such a plot existed, was known in US intelligence circles, and was left unpunished for months.

"I have confirmed that neither the president nor the vice president were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday," Mr Ratcliffe said in a statement over the weekend, referring to the Times story on Friday that claimed Mr Trump and Mr Pence were privy to the intel reports.

"The White House statement addressing this issue earlier today, which denied such a briefing occurred, was accurate,” Mr Ratcliffe continued.

“The New York Times reporting, and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate,” he said.

But Mr Ratcliffe’s office has not stated publicly whether intel reports about the Russian bounty scheme were included in the President’s Daily Brief, the daily summary of high-level information and analysis from all agencies on national security issues that is supposed to land on the desks of the president, cabinet officials, and top advisers.

No easy way out

When the New York Times broke the story last Friday with details about the Russian bounty scheme in Afghanistan, outside intelligence analysts quickly and accurately noted Mr Trump had bumbled into an impossible public relations situation.

No matter how the White House spun the narrative, he would emerge from the episode appearing weak, clueless, or both.

Either Mr Trump knew about the alleged Russian bounty scheme and did not denounce it publicly or press Mr Putin on it privately, or his advisers were so grossly incompetent that they did not deem a matter of such grave importance to national security worthy of the president’s attention. There's a third option: Career intelligence officers and even Trump Cabinet officials withheld the intel because they did not trust Mr Trump knowing about it.

Yet, Mr Trump has tried to wiggle out from between that rock and hard place by undermining the substance and severity of the report altogether.

“Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or [Vice President Mike Pence],” the president tweeted late on Sunday evening.

Given recent public reporting about how seriously US spy and commando units on the ground in Afghanistan dealt with and responded to information about the Russian bounty scheme, it strains credulity that officials in Washington believed the reports were so unfounded they did not merit the president’s attention in one form or another.

But so far, that is the line from the White House.

Stirrings on Capitol Hill

Even before the Russia bounty scheme splashed across US headlines, Mr Ratcliffe was already ruffling feathers on Capitol Hill for signalling his potential refusal to publicly testify before Congress about global threats before the 2020 presidential election, Politico has reported.

The customary annual hearing on global threats is one of the few opportunities Americans have to hear candidly from leaders of their intelligence agencies.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager during Mr Trump’s trial earlier this year, told Politico Mr Ratcliffe and his office have indicated he will not sit for a hearing in that chamber this summer or fall.

“Although various explanations were provided, the reality is that the intelligence community leaders are afraid of contradicting claims made” by the president, Mr Schiff told Politico.

Mr Ratcliffe did not receive the blessing of a single Democratic senator during his confirmation process in May.

He was an unusually controversial choice for a position whose holders have historically garnered at least some bipartisan backing.

But many moderate Republican senators felt Mr Ratcliffe could not be worse for the administration’s image than former acting DNI Richard Grenell, who held the post for several controversial months this year, so the Senate GOP moved ahead with Mr Ratcliffe’s nomination.

At a confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee last month, Mr Ratcliffe promised to “speak truth to power” and that he would provide intelligence that “will not be altered or impacted by outside influence.”