The article gives a ton of valuable context around Trump's nomination of John Ratcliffe. There is some clear political bias again Ratcliffe on the part of the author, but if you can get past the first paragraph of labeling, the rest of the article sticks to the facts.

While I believe that this article and author indulge in some speculation that comes off as a political bias against Trump's potential plans, I believe overall the information provided is highly contextual for those who don't understand the relationship between the head of DNI and the President.

It seems like the beginning has some political agenda overtures here. The author does begin to get more into the information after that, but the damage is done by that point, as my impression of the author was negative already.

The author interviewed many sources and it seems credible. I didn't know Trump wasn't following the norm for selecting the new nominee, so this was a valuable insight. I do believe that Trump doesn't want to hear what's real, but rather what info the intelligence agencies (horrible propagandistic term for spy agencies / secret police / gastapo) he can use to further his own twisted agenda. So this appointment makes sense -- let's hope his lack of any significant experience in these areas disqualifies him from the role!