<\/p>\n
When Congressional Democrats<\/span> rallied against President Donald Trump\u2019s appointment of Bill Pulte to serve as temporary director of national intelligence last week, they said he was an unqualified pick who would be too eager to use the job to undermine elections.<\/p>\n Now some high-ranking Democrats are lining up to support another permanent appointee with a dubious claim to the legal job requirements \u2014 Jay Clayton \u2014 who has also openly questioned the integrity of U.S. elections.<\/p>\n Some to Democrats are lining up to support Jay Clayton, who has questioned the integrity of elections.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Clayton\u2019s nomination will be heard by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., hopes to have him confirmed as soon as Thursday<\/a> \u2014 a lightning-fast process for a top intelligence post.<\/p>\n What\u2019s at stake, however, isn\u2019t just the outcome of Clayton\u2019s nomination process. Trump\u2019s pick is intertwined with the fate of a key domestic surveillance law, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that expired Friday.<\/p>\n Privacy advocates are worried that Clayton\u2019s nomination will give some Democrats the excuse they have been looking for to vote for renewing Section 702. The advocates are raising concerns about Clayton and calling on Congress to add a warrant requirement to the surveillance law, no matter who ultimately takes over as intel chief.<\/p>\n The top Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut and Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, who have both<\/a> supported renewing<\/a> Section 702 without major changes, have issued positive statements about Clayton\u2019s nomination.<\/p>\n Neither House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., nor Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has tipped their hand as to whether Clayton\u2019s nomination will lead them to support a so-called \u201cclean\u201d renewal of Section 702.<\/p>\n Jeffries said last week that he supports making significant reforms to the law, although he did not specifically commit to a warrant requirement.<\/p>\n Sean Vitka, executive director of the left-leaning advocacy group Demand Progress, urged Democratic leaders to stand firm on reform.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is no universe where the momentary person who happens to satisfy Himes and Warner\u2019s vibe check,\u201d Vitka said, \u201cshould mitigate everybody\u2019s concerns that are decades old with warrantless surveillance.\u201d<\/p>\n The reauthorization of Section 702 once appeared to be on a \u201cglide path,\u201d according to Warner<\/a>. The law sets the parameters for when intelligence agencies can warrantlessly search<\/a> American communications collected abroad.<\/p>\n Congress was within days of passing a new version of the law with minor tweaks when Trump nominated<\/a> Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and chair of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to serve as temporary director of national intelligence.<\/p>\n When he tapped Pulte, Trump said he wanted to him to use the post to investigate<\/a> \u201crigged\u201d elections. That alarmed Democrats who noted that Pulte is already accused of misusing sensitive mortgage databases to help launch<\/a> investigations against Trump\u2019s political enemies.<\/p>\n The intelligence chief post has no formal role in election administration, but that did not stop outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard from appearing at an FBI raid<\/a> of a Fulton County, Georgia, ballot warehouse.<\/p>\n Pulte\u2019s lapdog reputation was not the only thing that worried Democrats. They also noted that he did not meet the job requirement for the intelligence chief post in statute, which states that the nominee \u201cshall have extensive national security expertise.\u201d<\/p>\n Centrist Democrats who were willing to renew Section 702 despite Gabbard\u2019s overt politicization of the intelligence chief job finally had enough when it came to Pulte\u2019s nomination. Even Warner and Himes voted against the law\u2019s reauthorization.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s nomination of Clayton was an attempt to undo the backlash. Clayton currently serves as the federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York and was previously the Securities and Exchange Commission chair \u2014 the kind of resume that reassures Washington insiders.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve known and respected Jay Clayton for decades,\u201d Himes said on X<\/a>. \u201cHis intelligence, temperament and deep commitment to public service will make him a terrific DNI. Had this nomination been made a week ago, lots of pain might have been avoided.\u201d<\/p>\n Advocates were more dubious. They noted that only days before his selection, Clayton had been asked on CNBC about the delays in returning California\u2019s election results that had fueled right-wing conspiracy theories.<\/p>\n \u201cOn the integrity side, we\u2019re doing an absolutely terrible job,\u201d Clayton said<\/a>, without offering evidence. \u201cAnd the American people are right to question it.\u201d<\/p>\n Clayton\u2019s willingness to engage with one of Trump\u2019s favorite tropes alarmed advocates, who say that Gabbard\u2019s role in the Georgia warehouse raid shows how the intelligence chief post could be misused to sow election doubt.<\/p>\n Clayton\u2019s willingness to engage with one of Trump\u2019s favorite tropes alarmed advocates.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Even centrist Democrats concede that, like Pulte, Clayton doesn\u2019t have \u201cextensive\u201d national security experience. In his defense, supporters point to the role of federal prosecutors in launching national security cases.<\/p>\n Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the ranking member of the armed services committee, sounded a note of skepticism<\/a> on \u201cFox News Sunday.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe have to look very clearly at Jay Clayton,\u201d Reed said. \u201cHe is a very accomplished lawyer, but the statute requires someone taking this job to have significant national security experience, and that has to be measured. I don\u2019t think he does.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Election Conspiracies<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n