Is John Ratcliffe the PLUMBER to the FBI Clog?

From Pg 7

The need for better intelligence coordination across the foreign-domestic

divide was identified by the 9/11 Commission and was a moving force behind

the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Creating a DNI with

explicit responsibility for coordinating and managing domestic and foreign

intelligence agencies serves as an important step in the right direction. But the

legislation cannot create a community by itself. In fact, if nothing is done, a

determinedly independent FBI could largely elude the DNI’s intended authorities. To understand the risk, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms by

which the DNI is expected to lead the Intelligence Community.

In writing the intelligence reform legislation, Congress did not create a Secretary of Intelligence or move all of the intelligence agencies under the direct

command of the DNI. Congress left the intelligence agencies where they

were—the Defense Department in most cases—but it also granted the DNI

substantial authority over those agencies. NSA is typical. Though it is a

Defense Department agency, NSA is part of the Intelligence Community. To

ensure that NSA is responsive to the DNI, Congress gave the DNI significant

authority over both NSA’s budget31 and a say in the appointment of its director.32 The intelligence reform law applies the same basic authorities to the

FBI but, in the case of the FBI, the DNI’s principal tools for ensuring influence remain troublingly vague.

https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/wmd_chapter10.pdf