John Sipher writes:

John Ratcliffe, the newly confirmed director of national intelligence, sent letters to congressional leaders on Friday, stating that his office would no longer conduct most oral intelligence briefings on issues related to election security; instead there would be written updates.

The shift, he said, was because of leaks from the intelligence committees, and the new system would ensure that intelligence information “is not misunderstood nor politicized.”

Democrats and other critics questioned how, exactly, written information would limit leaks to the press.

Amid the other challenges facing the country, a change in the mode of passing information from the intelligence community to Congress may not seem like a big deal. And some Republicans downplayed the news. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, said the change is “blown so way out of proportion,” and “I can probably count on one or two fingers the things that are actually classified in those briefings.”

Unfortunately, none of the people the president keeps tapping for intelligence roles seem to know much about the last five decades of reforms that have brought greater accountability and oversight to America’s most secretive agencies. But for the intelligence community, the decision signifies a significant step toward the erosion of congressional oversight, the politicization of intelligence and the expansion of executive overreach.

In simpler vernacular, it smacks of the very thing that Mr. Trump has used to stoke outrage in his followers — the formation of a politicized national security apparatus that can serve as a personal weapon for the president. A “deep state.” [Continue reading…]