Is the FBI One Person? – A New Director Will Carry the Baton

I am no staff opinion writer for the Washington Post, but all the squabble over Comey’s firing dazzles me.  Was Comey the only person investigating?  Who is running the store now?  Nobody?  Isn’t the FBI still investigating?  The FBI is not one person, is it?

Will the new director or deputy director stop the investigation?  At best, changing directors or putting his deputy in charge is a very temporary delay.  Won’t Comey’s backup or replacement take the reins?  I am no lawyer, but passing the baton is not the same as stopping the race.

Doesn’t an obstruction block the way?  I do not see anything stopping.  Isn’t the point of all these inquiries to find the facts?  Don’t we really want the results?

As to Sessions’ actions, why don’t we see what he was asked regarding Mr. Comey?  Just as Comey was not the FBI, Comey’s dismissal was not dismissal of the FBI investigation.

Re the recusal:  No attorney general could operate within the critics’ broad theory that Sessions’ recusal of matters relating to the investigation, includes matters relating to anyone in the FBI.  I guess the Justice Department could add all sorts of knotty issues to the newly appointed special counsel’s agenda, conjoining the various conspiracy theories.  That way Robert Mueller’s name can fill the newsways for a while.

What I detect is a strong appetite for the process, per se.  The news media have a voracious appetite for spectacular “content.”  What good are results versus chances to publicly speculate, ruminate, accuse, and read minds?  Who could pass up  opportunities to castigate, lambast, and assassinate national reputations? – oh dear, the excitement, my heart, I think I’ve got the “vapuz.”

Civil War in America – Dueling Suicide Vests

The political enemies of President Trump are weakening our nation, and helping the enemies of the USA with their attacks on him.  The latest example is the accusation that the president leaked super-secret, military intelligence to the Russians, about Islamic State plans.  This was a privileged White House meeting with the Russian ambassador and our ISIS experts, held in one of our most secure “contained” facilities.

Within hours, the information discussed in this meeting,  is published by the icons of liberal media.  The Washington Post and its cousin, The New York Times claim that president Trum revealed damaging, top-secret information to the Russians.  Later, the news sources compounded the problem, by claiming Isreal was the source of the secrets.

In their lust to skewer the president, these two news mongers received classified information from one or more traitors. (I know no clearer label.)

Publishing the information exposed and “verified” the secret for everyone in the world.  The attribution to Isreal was a gift for the Russians, and anyone else in the Middle East who might be interested.

The press attack was calculated to produce maximum political harm to the president, but, what did it do for our country?  Who intentionally “weaponized” the secret?

Those who were there in the room, including National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, say that neither source, nor method of obtaining the intelligence was compromised.

I do not know the “truth,” but I do know that all the “optics” help Russian intelligence. There is information and there is knowledge.  Information without verification might have been questioned, doubted, or ignored; now the Post and the Times have elevated it to likely or verified.

The intensity of breast-beating accusations by the Democrats, and the malevalent media headlines have given Russia, Turkey, and other countries cause to question the security of any discussions between President Trump and their emissaries.

The point is, the Democrats, who should be equally vigilant protectors of our national security; it seems the media, that should have a giant stake in keeping us safe, would rather “throw us under the bus,” if it gives them any way to undermine President Trump.  They have taken the president at his word when he called them “enemies.”

Make no mistake, people on both sides of this escalating battle seem equally, and rabidly eager for Pyrrhic victories.  They somehow believe that ripping apart their political rivals strengthens them, and justifies weakening our position in the world.  Any illusions of American unity and strength crumble under this suicidal bloodlust.  The same virus has infected our citizens.  Do we really feel these family feuds strengthen us somehow?  Does righteous, rancorous infighting raise our national pride, or elevate our international prestige?

Besides, what are the possible consequences of these virulent attacks on our president?  Even if the Democrats managed to impeach President Trump, succeed or fail, our country would suffer mightily.

When two opponents don suicide vests, who wins?

 

Democrat in Republican’s Clothing – George W. Bush

George W. Bush supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.  He has become an ersatz Republican elitist, who still thinks he is right to oppose President Trump.  He remains a sore loser, who did not get his way.  He is worse than the Democrats who continue to moan and groan because they lost the election.  George is a Democrat in Republican’s clothing.  It appears that his mission is not yet accomplished.

“Wolf in sheep’s clothing” is a term for something that seems innocent, but is a lethal enemy.  Nothing could be a worse disguised enemy than someone who pretends to be in the same political party, but who attacks the president, being not too careful in hiding his true feelings.

Who would want the return to elite political power more than GWB?  He was born, raised, and steeped in the rarified, upper echelons of the Republican party.

The Associated Press published part of a recent interview, at a book promotion in Simi, CA.  Bush asserted that receding from global interaction creates a vacuum that would be filled with “… people who don’t share the ideology, the same sense of human rights and human dignity and freedom that we do,”

On his assertion of what will fill vacuums:  Just exactly what countries does he mean?  Does he really think we have friends in every nation into which we pour money?  No, they still hate us, but they love our money.  Does he think adversarial ideology will take over Europe, Britain, Mexico, etcetera?  It must be much more complicated than I thought.

Whoever tries to fill the “vacuums” will do so at their financial peril.  Estimated total foreign aid by Russia and China combined was less than half of US expenditures.  If these evil forces had enough money, they would already have forced us to find other places to put our dollars.

What would be lost by focusing on our internal problems?  I read recently that our foreign aid expenditures total about 1% of our budget.  I also read that only 34% of our budget is discretionary.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

That means 1% is really 3% of our discretionary expenses.  With a total 2016 budget of about $4.15 trillion, $42.4 billion goes to “foreign assistance.”  (And everyone made a big deal about Trump’s proposed $54 billion increase in military spending; just 1.35% of the total budget.;)

In the interview, Bush stated that he, “… didn’t intend to criticize Trump when he said recently that a free press is essential to democracy. Trump has referred to the press as the “enemy of the people.” Bush said at the library, the nation needed an independent press, but added that it needs to be accurate.”

The “independent press” used to be 98% news, and 2% editorials; today, editorials are more like 50 to 100% from many sources on both the left and the right.  That changes the character of the press from providing information, to publishing propaganda.  This is an abuse of the public platform and audiences.  This is a perversion of journalism.

Wikipedia says, ” Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the “news of the day,” and that informs society to, at least, some degree.”  Note that the word “reports” means relays, or conveys factual information about what happens, without interpretation.  Also note the chagrin of “at least some degree.”

Spin, commentary, opinions, editorials, exaggerations, conflation, are not reports.  Neither are unbalanced, “soft ball” interviews with only strongly opinionated, partisan, advocates or critics, selected to advance an ideological agenda.  (e.g. Fox, MSNBC, CNN) That is propaganda.

The BBC is the best example of journalism today.  They clearly delineate news from opinion, and entertainment.  Walter Cronkite is a shining example of the qualities of journalists, and the journalism of the past.  Persuasion is not the intent of true journalism.

What if a news source is not accurate, on purpose?  What if the “free press” is vicious, verging on hate speech?  What if their articles contain accurate facts, wrapped in overwhelming opinions, “newspeak,” “analysis,” and commentary that is clearly inaccurate, subjective, and savagely slanted in scope and innuendo?  What do you call an organization that is staunchly, and consistently opposed to the elected government of the USA, almost to the point of sedition, subversion, insurgence, even insurrection?  What kind of “free press” pounces on, and amplifies every mistake?  What good is a free press that fearfully, and angrily projects, and postulates every possible, negative, future outcome of executive proposals?  Does a free press overlook, denigrate, and downplay every positive possible scenario to extinction, or discredit?

I appreciate GWB’s talent as a painter; he was president during the most shocking attack on American soil since WW II.  His standard-issue ideas, elitist disloyalty, and blindness to the enemy within is not what we need right now.  We do not need disgruntled words from a veteran patrician.  But I do not mean to criticize him.

 

Plugging Leaks – How to Find Out Who in 30 Days

Information is vital in politics, government, healthcare, warfare, and business.  Secrets are a type of information that has value and power if the confidences involved are maintained.

Secrets are kept to protect the information from other people who might use them to their advantage, or to harm the people the secrets are designed to protect.

When secrets “leak,” they can cause serious damage to systems that rely on confidentiality.  If the attitude about classified information that the State Department displayed under Hillary Clinton prevails, our national secrets are not safe.

Recent leaks of the contents of General Lynn’s secret phone conversations with the Russian ambassador, are intentional betrayals of trust by employees of the federal government, violating their security clearances, and pledges to maintain national secrets.  The leakers are enemies of the US Government, and should be treated as dangerous to our national security.

The question for the Trump administration is how to quash the subversive elements hiding in the bureaucracy.

It seems likely that employees of the Intelligence Community are responsible.  The heads of these agencies have failed to structure, manage, and supervise their staffs to prevent such leaks.  Therefore, these agencies involved cannot be trusted to fix the problem.

It will take a focused, rigorous, and ruthless effort to find and punish the leakers, cauterize the wounds inflicted, and inoculate the intelligence bureaucracy against further subversion.

President Trump could direct his Director of National Intelligence to lead the effort to uncover the leaker(s)

The president could also appoint a Presidential Commission for this purpose.  A commission might be more effective, and manageable to investigate the leaks.

Whichever authority he chooses could announce a four-stage, 30-day, no-nonsense plan to find the person(s) who leaked the contents of the phone call.

Stage 1.  Identify all agencies and staff positions with authorized access to the phone taps and transcriptions.
Stage 2.  Provide incentives, and substantial rewards to those who report the leaker(s).
Stage 3.  If no one identified within 10 days, suspend or revoke the security clearances of those with access.
Stage 4.  If no one identified after 30 days, replace agency heads and their managers.
Is this unfair to innocent, loyal employees?  Maybe.  However, those who do not think that national security is critically important, and do not take their responsibilities seriously, are in the wrong jobs.

Donald Trump – The Matryoshka Candidate?

I am amazed at the number, scope, and continuous flow of speculations about Donald Trump, as president-elect.  Now we have an American, billionaire, capitalist, accused of being a Russian sympathizer, and even a collaborator with Russia’s Putin to win the election.  Does that sound like the Russian version of “The Manchurian Candidate” to you?  (FYI:  a Matryoshka is one of those hollow, Russian, nested, wooden dolls with smaller and smaller dolls inside.)  I guess there are no limits on imagination, enmity, paranoia, malice, and disappointment.

Those who oppose Donald Trump, and those who are left bitter, dazed, angry, and confused by his election as President do not need to be rational in their relentless attacks on anything Trump.  Those accusing him of being soft on Russia, a Putin sycophant, and naïve about our enemies might take a minute to reflect on how silly that sounds.

Is it soft to sell some rich Russians overpriced condos and land in the US?  Is it sycophantic to use Putin to criticize political opponents as being weak?  Is it naïve to get the Russians to pay premium prices to have the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow?  Do I hear a no?

Until now, Mr. Trump’s interest in Russia has been limited to money, i.e. making money, not losing it, and not giving it away.  All his dealings with Russians have been real estate in the US, or visiting Moscow for a US-based beauty pageant.  Trump has never met Putin face-to-face, or made any deals with him.  Putin even cancelled a scheduled meeting with Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.  Does that sound like love to you?  I believe Trump could continue to make money from Russians without being President, and without being friends with Putin; therefore, I do not think there is a sinister link. What else would he have to gain?

Some cite the friendly, respectful tone of comments and letters between the men.  A friendly demeanor is not the same as friendship; sometimes negotiations can benefit from pleasant diplomacy.

Others suggest that Putin sees Trump as weaker than Clinton.  Do we have some evidence that Trump is as passive as Obama has been in foreign matters, such as Crimea and Syria?  Or maybe evidence that Putin is afraid of Hillary after meeting her as Secretary of State?

Let us see what happens after January 20th.