Jump to content

TOTAL Distrust of Trump is causing Chaos in Intel Community


Recommended Posts

Trump’s relations with his own intelligence services have never been so fraught: the US president doesn’t listen to his spy chiefs, doesn’t seem to rank his sources and makes snap decisions without giving them any warning.

 

The two sides have clashed repeatedly, including in May when, as part of efforts to defend himself against collusion accusations, Trump agreed that files on the investigation into Russian election meddling in 2016 could be declassified.

 

A few weeks later, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats announced he would step down as head of the 17 agencies that make up the intelligence community.

 

 

Trump proposed as Coats’s replacement John Ratcliffe, a member of Congress known for repeating conspiracy theories on Fox News.

 

Under withering criticism, Ratcliffe withdrew his nomination.

 

But the president passed over Coats’s deputy Sue Gordon, who was in line to serve as acting director.

Gordon, who spent a quarter-century in the CIA, told the Women’s Foreign Policy Group this month that Trump was the first president “in my experience that had no foundation or framework to understand what the limits of intelligence are, what the purpose of it was and the way that we discuss it.”

 

She said Trump’s typical response in briefings was, “I don’t think that’s true.”

Her experience was borne out by a former CIA analyst who now works at a prestigious institution in Washington.

 

– ‘Fox and Friends’ briefings –

 

“When I was in the CIA, the big thing to do was to get an article in the presidential daily brief. It was always a big thing. That was gold, professionally speaking,” he said.

The former analyst, who served under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, added that “I knew that both of them took that thing extremely seriously.

 

“Now, I really get the impression that whatever is presented to (Trump), he doesn’t care about it, and really he’s getting his briefing from ‘Fox and Friends’,” one of his favorite TV shows.

 

Still, Mike Pompeo, the current Secretary of State, was Trump’s first CIA director. He became a central figure in the administration and regularly visited the White House for briefings, which Trump appreciated.

But the president counts the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which opened the Russia inquiry into 2016 electoral interference, among his adversaries.

 

GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File / MARK WILSON Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats (pictured July 2019), whose views did not always coincide with those of Trump, announced he would step down in July 2019
 

Last week, Trump suggested the FBI director whom he appointed, Christopher Wray, “will never be able to fix” the “badly broken” agency.

 

The disdain has its effect.

At the end of 2018, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigned over Trump’s plan to pull troops from Syria.

While Trump called the battle-hardened ex-Marine general Mattis the “world’s most overrated general,” it was the entire intelligence and military services that felt insulted.

 

“People are exceptionally frustrated,” said Brian Perkins, a former Navy signals analyst who is now with the Jamestown Foundation think tank.

 

“They are putting forward what they think their bigger concerns are, and how to go about things, and they’re being completely ignored,” he said.

 

Many members of the intelligence community have left, he said, alarmed particularly by the frustrations that Mattis confronted on Syria and Afghanistan.

 

– ‘Open mind’ needed –

 

“Intelligence is meant to be objective, but if things are not going to be actually consumed and listened to with an open mind, what is the point?” said Perkins.

 

In January, the president branded his intelligence services “naive” about the danger posed by Iran.

“Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!” he tweeted, but later assured that he was in agreement with them on the major issues.

 

More recently, Trump abruptly decided in October to pull US forces from the Turkish-Syrian border, leaving Washington’s Kurdish allies to face a Turkish offensive.

 

The result was total disorder. Aside from torpedoing a major alliance, US disengagement reinforced the regional position of Washington’s strategic rival Russia.

 

Kurds played a crucial role in fighting the Islamic State group and tracking down its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

In the fight against terrorism, information-sharing between powers is of vital importance. But Trump’s outbursts are taking their toll.

 

“It’s harder politically to cooperate with the United States,” said Daniel Byman, an anti-terrorism expert at Georgetown University in Washington.

 

“And Trump is helping make the case that the West is at war with Islam,” he said. “So those are just some of the ways I think… that ignoring advisors is dangerous.”

 

As a deeply polarized United States moves into an election year, concerns are rising. Yet the intelligence community remains bound by its code of professionalism and a sense of duty to the nation.

 

“Intelligence can still influence senior policymakers. The president has never been the only consumer of intelligence,” said Seth Jones, who served in Afghanistan and is now a counter-terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

 

“It’s still important to collect and analyze intelligence, and the US is still involved in lots of operations that don’t require presidential authority,” he noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) on Sunday said the United States government owes former Donald Trump campaign adviser Carter Page an apology regarding the federal surveillance application that enabled the investigation into Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016."

 

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/12/15/durbin-u-s-government-certainly-owes-carter-page-an-apology/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is a Russian "asset" or "apparatchik," and Putin has owned him since Putin took over in Russia.

Putin knew that Trump had been involved in illegal money laundering deals with the Russian mob since the 1980s, and now those mobsters were Putin's "oligarchs!"

Whether the Trump/Russian prostitute scene took place in a Moscow hotel or not is irrelevant. Trump wanted to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, and was negotiating it during the 2016 campaign. The probable reason Putin didn't approve the project, was because Putin was smart enough to know that if the American press got wind of this "deal," it would make Trump's election to the WH impossible.

And Putin was working with Trump to rig the 2016 election, because Putin knew that Hillary would treat him like America's enemy, and the despicable despot, and dictator that he  is.

And so Trump has been Putin's puppet since entering the WH, and Helsinki proved it, when Trump denounced our own Intelligence Agencies, and sided with Putin about Russian interference in our 2016 elections.

And Trump and Putin are also planning on rigging the 2020 elections, and the Biden/Ukraine lie was just the opening salvo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are these guys??????.....Pompeo....Mulvaney....Bolton....?????????

 

 

If the Republicans want more substantial and direct evidence, they should demand the testimony of Mike Pompeo, who has been implicated in the scandal by the testimony of his own subordinates including Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Pompeo allegedly instructed State Department personnel to cooperate in the machinations of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s henchman on Ukraine. For that matter, they should also demand to hear from Giuliani himself under oath, who claims to be a Trump attorney but has made no court appearances on behalf of the president.

 

If the Republicans want firsthand proof of who ordered the suspension of military aid to Ukraine — at least until Zelensky promised to smear Biden on cable TV — they should insist on sworn testimony from Mick Mulvaney. The acting chief of staff told the Office of Management and Budget, which he continues to oversee, to withhold that vital assistance from Kiev, without any further explanation, and it did. Surely the Republicans want to know who gave that order.

 

If the Republicans need additional evidence that Trump pushed this “drug deal,” as former national security adviser John Bolton dubbed the Ukraine bribery and extortion scheme, then they must join the Democrats in urging Bolton to step forward with the truth. Bolton has always been a dubious figure, dating back to his efforts to help the Reagan administration cover up the Iran-contra scandal. But his failure was cast into sharp relief by the words of Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert who spoke up courageously in her own testimony. Like Bill Taylor, George Kent, David Holmes and the other witnesses who came before the committee, she did her duty.

 

“I believe that those who have information that the Congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it,” said Hill. She was morally and legally right, of course — and her simple statement should shame every official, both in Congress and the executive branch, still aiding Trump’s obstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, benson13 said:

Trump’s relations with his own intelligence services have never been so fraught: the US president doesn’t listen to his spy chiefs, doesn’t seem to rank his sources and makes snap decisions without giving them any warning.

 

The two sides have clashed repeatedly, including in May when, as part of efforts to defend himself against collusion accusations, Trump agreed that files on the investigation into Russian election meddling in 2016 could be declassified.

 

A few weeks later, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats announced he would step down as head of the 17 agencies that make up the intelligence community.

 

 

Trump proposed as Coats’s replacement John Ratcliffe, a member of Congress known for repeating conspiracy theories on Fox News.

 

Under withering criticism, Ratcliffe withdrew his nomination.

 

But the president passed over Coats’s deputy Sue Gordon, who was in line to serve as acting director.

Gordon, who spent a quarter-century in the CIA, told the Women’s Foreign Policy Group this month that Trump was the first president “in my experience that had no foundation or framework to understand what the limits of intelligence are, what the purpose of it was and the way that we discuss it.”

 

She said Trump’s typical response in briefings was, “I don’t think that’s true.”

Her experience was borne out by a former CIA analyst who now works at a prestigious institution in Washington.

 

– ‘Fox and Friends’ briefings –

 

“When I was in the CIA, the big thing to do was to get an article in the presidential daily brief. It was always a big thing. That was gold, professionally speaking,” he said.

The former analyst, who served under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, added that “I knew that both of them took that thing extremely seriously.

 

“Now, I really get the impression that whatever is presented to (Trump), he doesn’t care about it, and really he’s getting his briefing from ‘Fox and Friends’,” one of his favorite TV shows.

 

Still, Mike Pompeo, the current Secretary of State, was Trump’s first CIA director. He became a central figure in the administration and regularly visited the White House for briefings, which Trump appreciated.

But the president counts the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which opened the Russia inquiry into 2016 electoral interference, among his adversaries.

 

GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File / MARK WILSON Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats (pictured July 2019), whose views did not always coincide with those of Trump, announced he would step down in July 2019
 

Last week, Trump suggested the FBI director whom he appointed, Christopher Wray, “will never be able to fix” the “badly broken” agency.

 

The disdain has its effect.

At the end of 2018, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigned over Trump’s plan to pull troops from Syria.

While Trump called the battle-hardened ex-Marine general Mattis the “world’s most overrated general,” it was the entire intelligence and military services that felt insulted.

 

“People are exceptionally frustrated,” said Brian Perkins, a former Navy signals analyst who is now with the Jamestown Foundation think tank.

 

“They are putting forward what they think their bigger concerns are, and how to go about things, and they’re being completely ignored,” he said.

 

Many members of the intelligence community have left, he said, alarmed particularly by the frustrations that Mattis confronted on Syria and Afghanistan.

 

– ‘Open mind’ needed –

 

“Intelligence is meant to be objective, but if things are not going to be actually consumed and listened to with an open mind, what is the point?” said Perkins.

 

In January, the president branded his intelligence services “naive” about the danger posed by Iran.

“Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!” he tweeted, but later assured that he was in agreement with them on the major issues.

 

More recently, Trump abruptly decided in October to pull US forces from the Turkish-Syrian border, leaving Washington’s Kurdish allies to face a Turkish offensive.

 

The result was total disorder. Aside from torpedoing a major alliance, US disengagement reinforced the regional position of Washington’s strategic rival Russia.

 

Kurds played a crucial role in fighting the Islamic State group and tracking down its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

In the fight against terrorism, information-sharing between powers is of vital importance. But Trump’s outbursts are taking their toll.

 

“It’s harder politically to cooperate with the United States,” said Daniel Byman, an anti-terrorism expert at Georgetown University in Washington.

 

“And Trump is helping make the case that the West is at war with Islam,” he said. “So those are just some of the ways I think… that ignoring advisors is dangerous.”

 

As a deeply polarized United States moves into an election year, concerns are rising. Yet the intelligence community remains bound by its code of professionalism and a sense of duty to the nation.

 

“Intelligence can still influence senior policymakers. The president has never been the only consumer of intelligence,” said Seth Jones, who served in Afghanistan and is now a counter-terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

 

“It’s still important to collect and analyze intelligence, and the US is still involved in lots of operations that don’t require presidential authority,” he noted.

 

Who is the boss?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...