DAN COATS, DNI RESIGNS - John Ratcliffe was to replace him, but he just withdrew.

       This article shows an initial Torah Codes background check on outgoing Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dan Coats and the nominated John Ratcliffe. After I produced Figure 2 Ratcliffe withdrew - something that I had no reason to check for at first. What is on Figure 2 is SPEAK AND NOT COME TO PASS, but that wasn't found a priori. More about this later. The DNI oversees 17 intelligence agencies.  On Figure 1 the axis term is DAN COATS. At the same exact skip is OBAMA (best spelling). BARACK is at skip -1, as is CLINTON. INTELLIGENCE is at skip +1. If nothing else this matrix shows that DAN COATS is encoded in a very hostile Codes environment which may imply a less than stellar finish to his term. Figure 1 was found against odds of about 189,678 to 1.

       Chances are if the Director of the CIA or the Director of National Intelligence is doing their job right I won’t be writing too much about them. There’s plenty on Arkcode.com about Obama’s former CIA Director John Brennan because (a) he voted for communist (Gus Hall) for President in 1976, and (b) every word out of Brennan’s mouth during and after Obama's rule shows that Brennan is a traitor. I had hoped that once President Trump was sworn in all of his picks would succeed and make him plus my fellow Conservatives proud. Alas, reality has not exactly matched my wishes. Sure, there have been problems with his tweeting, but with all media other than FoxNews.com largely corrupted with fake news, we would hear very little of his opinions without the tweets. However, as much as I cringe at some of the things he says or writes, it's not because I disagree with him. He's very close to being my ideological clone. My problem is that the tweets help Fake News/CNN/MSNBC etc. distract us from enacting his programs which are usually fantastic.

       When I found Figure 1 I was a bit surprised that the President who was at the same skip as DAN COATS was not Trump who he served. Rather we find OBAMA. More we find the name BARACK at skip -1 three letters to the right of DAN COATS. OBAMA was found at a special case skip against odds of about 244 to 1. BARACK had about a 36% chance to be found at a special case skip.Now, it may be the case that the matrix was encoded as it is because the Encoder wants us to know that Dan Coats is idealogically closer to Obama than he is to President Trump. But, to be honest, before looking at policies I want my readers to be aware of name frequencies for the two presidents. Each president is best spelled with 5 letters in Hebrew. For Trump I regularly search for tet resh alef mem peh (the prefered spelling) and tav resh alef mem peh. For Obama I regularly search for alef bet vav mem heh (the prefered spelling) and alef bet vav mem alef. Now, let's look at all these spellings at 100 skips, specifically skip -50 to +50 and also just at skips +/- 1.  Here are the results:

       So, as you can see from Table 1, it's much easier to find Obama at an ELS than Trump at an ELS. This is because name Trump has letters that are harder to find than the letters in Obama's name. While that's true, it is still extraordinary to find OBAMA at a special case skip on Figure 1. Again, that OBAMA was found against odds of about 244 to 1. And, lest you think that we can't find even the best spelling of TRUMP in a small area with an axis term, consider Figure 2 in my recent article about MUELLER AND FUSION GPS. There the  axis term in MUELLER IS CORRUPT. In 40 letters with that is TRUMP at the same absolute skip. Odds against that? 7,620 to 1!  There is abundant evidence that these matrices are not product of chance.

       Coats has publically disagreed with Trump on many issues, starting with North Korea. He warned that Kim Jung-un would not want to surrender his nuclear weapons. I became more suspicious that Coats was probably right, but perhaps the President would have gotten more out of North Korea had he not lit a match to a trade war with China. I think he should have turned to China on trade after we start to airlift the nuclear arsenal out of Korea.

       On ISIS I think Trump was right to declare victory, but Coats challenged him. The President and Coats also don't see eye to eye on Iran. His replacement, assuming that Ratcliffe is confirmed, believes as I do that there was a conspiracy in the Department of Justice against the President. Note that Senator Schumer already announced that he will oppose Ratcliffe. While it is true that Ratcliffe brings less experience to the post of DNI than is typical, it's also true that the entire Intelligence System failed to oust Brennan and went along with Obama's plan to give Iran $151.7 billion to Iran. Trump was right to doubt our Intel community. I say this knowing that most of my readers are in that community. Here I will be clear. The initial contact made by friend Joseph threatened to repeat on me an illegal act that he said was done to someone else who liked to investigate sensitive matters. Things got better after I informed him that I would not be intimidated, but let there be no doubt that while you quickly read everything I write, my goal is to try to direct you to remain loyal to the Constitution. Meanwhile if our relationship isn't perfect because DoD won't make it formal, we each continue to teach each other much as we watch each other.

       President Trump had a bumpy transition into office because he was stuck with a lot of Establishment types that were loyal to whoever runs that (at times on this site I have have looked at the Vatican, Russia, and even E.T.).  Sometimes, like sleeper agents, they seem to make their leaning known after getting into office. That's what happened with Secretary of Defense Mattis. In fact, on Jul 29, 2019 the Economist writes:

Just over a year ago, M. Coats said, “As long as I am able to have the ability to seek the truth, speak the truth, I am on board.” With Nikki Haley and Jim Mattis having departed, Mr. Coats was the last establishment member of Mr. Trump’s administration. He was also the last who publicly contradicted his boss when he felt it warranted. That no doubt annoyed Mr. Trump, but independence is an invaluable quality in a senior intelligence official, and a dangerous one to lack. Sometimes the president needs to be told things he does not want to hear.

       I'm not sure how the Economist decides to label someone as being an establishment member. It's kind of like not knowing that something is rotten until you noticed that it stinks. The President and I were both thrilled about General Mattis until he seemed to run amuck as SecDef, but Nikki Haley did a fantastic job. Unless I'm give reason to change my mind, I'd seriously consider voting for Halley for President one day. When the Economist writes about Coats being a member of the Establishment they may have in mind that Coats spent nearly four decades in public and foreign service. Or they may be thinking about allegations (denied) that Coats authored a 'resistance' op-ed. Those who resist the Trump agenda could be seen as allies (or flunkies) of Obama. Perhaps this was the motive of the Encoder for producing the matrix on Figure 1.

COMPARING FIGURE 1 TO FIGURE 2 (WHICH NEEDS UPDATING BECAUSE RATCLIFFE JUST WITHDREW). As the spreadsheets reveal, Figure 1 paints a clearer and statistically more significant portrait of Dan Coats than does Figure 2 of John Ratcliffe. In part this is true because I know more about how things turned out with Coats than I do for Ratcliffe. I never knew anything about Ratcliffe until he blasted Mueller. It might be true that while I was thinking Wow, I like this guy, that Trump was thinking the same thing plus You're hired in conjunction with him. The President likes to be spontaneous and unpredictable, in this case too unpredictable.

       Both Figure 1 and 2 have intelligence at a special case skip although INTELLIGENCE is more significant on Figure 1 because it is at skip +1 (the best case scenario in which it was found against odds of about 105 to 1) whereas on Figure 2 INTELLIGENCE was only found at the absolute skip of the axis term. In the second case I use the frequency of the term at skips +/- 1 and the axis term, here +/- 53,285. INTELLIGENCE was found on the white (270-letter) part of Figure 2 against odds of about 28 to 1, and on the full Figure 2 matrix against odds of about 12.4 to 1.

       I wasn't sure at first if it was worth expanding Figure 2 from the 270 letters with a white background to the full 625 letters required to show CLINTON and RUSSIAN. Doing so devastated a lot of the significance of the terms on the smaller matrix but I still wound up with a matrix that was about 12.3 times more significant so it was worth it. More, I just saw John Brennan come on TV and say that he had no confidence in Ratcliffe. I took his rejection as the highest recommendation, but even a broken ckock is right twice per day, and perhaps Brennan was right in this case (although possibly for the wrong reasons). I still believe that our intelligence community will remain broken until Brennan goes to prison for high treason. As for Figure 2 having CLINTON and RUSSIAN on it, I originally wrote that this doesn't imply that he's in cahoots with them. It probably refers to his investigation of them. I also wrote, "However, this is still early on my Codes investigation of both men. A major difference between my articles and normal publications is that my articles remain alive as long as I do, and as you well know if you're a regular reader, I often expand upon matrices as time moves forward and I know more about what or who to look for." That especially applies to Figure 2. 

       The most noticeable aspect of Ratcliffe's personality was his loyalty to the President. LOYALTY, on the smaller matrix on Figure 2, was also the most significant a priori term found for Figure 2. The 6-letter terms was found against odds of about 226 to 1. However when we examine the full 625-letter matrix then the odds against LOYALTY drop to about 19.26 to 1, and we find RUSSIAN most significant. It was found at a special case skip against odds of about 61 to 1.

     Note that CLINTON appears at skip -1 on both Figures 1 and 2. This is the simplest transliteration of the name. The frequency of the name was the same on both matrix spreadsheets. The name appeared at a special case skip 57 times - all of them at skip -1 with none at skip +1 or at the skips of the axis terms (+/- 53,285 and +/- 94,878). This is usually the case with this transliteration of CLINTON. The expression SPEAK AND NOT COME TO PASS only occurs once in Torah. Had I guessed that it would be there then as an a priori term it would have been found against odds of about 488 to 1, but it was an a posteriori find so I assign it no statistical significance. On an a priori basis I sought but did not find withdraw, withdrew, fail, failed, fired, lied, liar and terminate. After that I read through each line looking for something like SPEAK AND NOT COME TO PASS. I don't count terms like this because it's hard to know exactly how many terms would be something like it. However, for military purposes, a posteriori terms are worth considering so long as they are so classified. Problems with respect to how much effort to put into a matrix can be overcome by funding Project Creator Encoder. To effectively use the Torah Code what is needed is the speed of a computer linked to a well-designed artificial intelligence.

BOTTOM LINE: Figure 1 has too many names near DAN COATS that are hostile to President Trump. Did he gossip negative things about the President?  As Figure 1A shows while I had to expand Figure 1 down by 13 rows to show it, at the same skip as DAN COATS is GOSSIP. This match in 26 letters (one column, 26 rows) at a special case skip is against odds of about 390 to 1. Perhaps the President just suspected him of gossip, but that suspicion alone could have been reason to force the resignation. Figure 2 shows that JOHN RATCLIFFE was chosen for his LOYALTY, but that loyalty did stand the test of time. Ratcliffe's start was an impressive one until he withdrew. Was there something about the words CLINTON and RUSSIAN on it that hinted at a problem quickly caught that led to him dropping out, or just an exaggerated resume' and not enough experience?