As part of the effort to silence the leaks, President Trump needs to question how personnel were hired in his Administration.

Link: Trump incensed by continued White House leaks.


Last week, after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, he was met with a barrage of hostility and criticism, at first from the predictable Democratic loud-mouths, and followed up by the media, which now editorializes everything.  Not surprisingly, many Republicans in Congress took their marching orders from the Democrats and the media, and joined in the criticism.  Would President Barack Obama have face this type of response?  Of course not, but the "eat your own" Republican Party, many of its members singularly focused on re-election, leave President Trump with no real political support.  Some will blame President Trump, but the problem is much more a symptom of why Trump chose to run for president in the first place.  He should be able to rely on a Republican-controlled Congress for support, and to leave the criticisms and calls for Independent Counsels to the Democrats.  But GOP Senators and Representatives have become so worried about getting re-elected, that they obsess over the vagaries of public opinion.  First and foremost, President Trump had every right to fire Comey.  The Democrats had been calling for his head ever since Hillary Clinton announced to the nation that Comey is the reason she lost the election.  Recently, many of Trump's supporters started questioning why the FBI wasn't tackling the problem of leaks more aggressively.  Since former National Director of Intelligence James Clapper and Comey had publicly stated that no evidence has yet to be discovered linking the Trump Campaign Staff to Russian efforts to impact the election, why is the FBI still knee-deep in that investigation?  Just when was Comey planning on winding things down?  It had become a serious distraction, especially when the only illegal activity that had up to now been uncovered was the politically-motivated "unmasking" of 1,934 citizens, in an investigation which had yet to find even a scrap of evidence of wrongdoing by the Trump team.

Attorney General Sessions needs to take the lead in putting a stop to the leaks.  Trump needs to explain to his staff that all phone calls to the Washington Post and the NY Times must stop, and make a point of finding the next culprit and summarily firing said person.  Frankly, President Trump needs to revisit the list of people who have become his closest advisers.  The media continues to claim that much of the leaking can be attributed to the Trump Administration's hiring of so many people who are unfamiliar with the White House and politics in DC.  The last time I took a good look, most of the mid-level staff in the White House are professional political workhorses.  What about draining the swamp?  I am truly surprised by the number of highly qualified loyal Trump supporters who applied for positions with the Transition Team, and never so much as heard a burp in reply.  I happen to be one of those individuals.  As an author with a successful career in the CIA on my resume, along with time as a Federal Agent, and a vocal supporter President Trump during the election, I am just the kind of person the Transition Team should have considered for one of those mid-level positions, which doesn't provide the opportunity to speak, but allows one to observe and listen.  I believe the majority of the leaks in this White House comes from the numerous unspoken bodies in the room, who stand in the background in case their Cabinet member boss needs something.  Once previously I wrote a blog questioning the hiring methods of the Trump Transition Team, and I received hundreds of email responses from persons in positions similar to my own.  Professionals in the Department of Justice, Department of State, and in the Department of Homeland Security, who had chosen early retirement because of their unwillingness to continue working for the Obama Administration, but had volunteered to return in support of the Trump Administration and his desire to Make America Great Again.  Why weren't we considered for any of the thousands of jobs that were supposedly being filled?  The truth is, most of those jobs were filled with former Obama officials and others who have no interest in seeing President Trump succeed.

President Trump needs to re-evaluate the team he has put in place to hire the staff which has access to the daily routine of the White House, and ask his Cabinet members to take stock as well.  Anyone with Obama on their resume should be given the boot.  In addition, Cabinet members and anyone with similar access, including the CIA and FBI Directors, need to monitor their personal staff with the goal of identifying anyone engaged in leaking.  For President Trump to be distracted in this manner is as devious as it is unfair.  Those opposed to the Trump Agenda, with the media at the front of the pack, are using this access to paint whatever picture matches their narrative, of an administration in crisis and a White House in conflict. I don't believe the Trump Administration is in crisis and I certainly don't believe the juicy tidbits about Bannon arm-wrestling Jared Kushner for the President's ear.  Anyone who has had the pleasure of ever knowing President Trump understand that he expects a lot from his team, as he tackles the real challenges of North Korea, Russia, Syria, ISIS and our broken immigration system.  Everyone in the White House who is truly loyal to this administration needs to prioritize the identification and removal of leakers, and whatever mechanism is currently in place to hire qualified persons who will support this President without reservation, needs to review the stacks of resumes they received in December and January.  We haven't gone anywhere.

A few important and fair issues to consider before voting for Hillary Clinton.

(I realize that today's blog entry is addressed to person's who may choose to vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8.  I also acknowledge that the great majority of people who read this blog have no intention of voting for Clinton.  These facts may lead you to consider, "what's the point?"  The national conversation currently taking place in the United States isn't meant to be limited to just the necessary amount of bad press to convince folks to vote one way or another.  Even after you believe you have made up your mind, its important to let the educational process comtinue.  Learn all you can about both candidates.  It can only add to your conviction.)

We have less than sixty-three days remaining before United States citizens go to the polls to decide who follows Barack Obama into the Oval Office.  There is no doubt that the American people would like a campaign based on the economy, foreign policy, and the national debt, just to name a few important issues.  But at the end of the day, the discussion always seems to devolve into negative reporting and personal attacks.  Last week, Republican Donald Trump announced an effort to reach out to Black and Hispanic Americans, two voting groups that seem determined to vote Democrat until the end of time.  Trump spoke of the rising unemployment in minority communities and the lack of quality schools.  He didn't shy away from the subject of gun violence, and the unacceptably high number of young Black and Hispanic men who sit in jail, when they should be sitting in a College Classroom.  Trump spoke of the failure of the system that exists in place, and the lack of opportunity in our poorer urban communities.  Instead of encouraging the introduction of such important issues into the race for the Presidency, the Clinton Campaign almost overnight put together a video alleging that Donald Trump has ties to the KKK- a perfect example of what is wrong with our political system.

Although I'm sure the Trump Campaign won't hesitate to attack Clinton in the same fashion, I always endeavor to introduce issues that I feel are relavent and vetted.  Vetted by who?  By me; I've spent enough time living in DC and working inside the beast to have a useful perspective, if you will excuse the self-promotion.  I won't accuse Hillary Clinton of being a Chinese spy or a closet Marxist (she disposed of the closet long ago!).  But I will ask a very important question, that as of today, has yet to be addressed.  If Hillary Clinton is elected President, how will she be able to view classified material?  A simple review of Clinton's admitted actions involving classified documents when she was Secretary of State, preclude her from having any hope in hell of passing a background check.  If we consider only the actions that Clinton has admitted, and set aside the plethora of unanswered accusations, it would be a stretch to think that Clinton could get a "Confidential" level clearance, let alone a Top Secret/SCI clearance, which is a necessary tool for the President of the United States.  Its past time that the issue is addressed by the media.  How can we elect a President who cannot pass the necessary evaluation to earn a Top Secret/SCI clearance?

Let's take a look at that monstrosity identified as "The Clinton Foundation".  This entity serves to provide former President Bill Clinton the opportunity to raise money for a number of good causes across the globe.  The idea is that Bill Clinton has a great deal of influence among the powerful and wealthy around the world, and can bridge the gap between the needy and the resources necessary to improve lives.  It all sounds great, except for a handful of problems.  Have you ever heard of, or seen, The Clinton Foundation at work?  Have you ever seen a news special or documentary on some successful project to feed hungry people or educate the poor, that was made possible by the Clinton Foundation?  In the end, the Foundation is just like all the other charities that the rich and famous like to set up (lately its been folks in sports and the entertainment industry); lots of noise and money changing hands, but very little being accomplished.  The reality is, these Foundations serve to provide jobs to all of those who at one time or another, proved useful.  The Clinton Foundation is a "who's who" of Clinton supporters and useful contacts.  It costs a fortune to run a Foundation, especially when you take a look at what it's employees are paid.  At the end of the day, its a miracle that any money is left over at all to apply to the original goal.  But the Foundation continues to grow, and in the case of Bill Clinton, provide a never-ending supply of worshipers and fans.  Isn't Bill a great guy!

When Hillary Clinton joined the Obama Administration as Secretary of State, persons within Obama's inner circle expressed concern about the closeness of the Foundation to the State Department.  The Obama folks were assured that a "wall" existed, so that no overlap could take place.  So much for the wall.  So far, it has come to light that two of Hillary Clinton's State Deptartment Staff,  Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, continued to do work for the Foundation.  The real trouble for Hillary didn't start until a review of her meeting logs detailed that 55% of persons she met with in her role as Secretary of State, turned around and donated money to the Clinton Foundation.  Have you heard of Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury?  He is a friend of Bill Clinton's, gave at least one million dollars to The Foundation, and pledged to donate one billion dollars to the Clinton Global Initiative.  Not surprisingly, he was treated as a VIP by Hillary's State Department.  He has since been convicted of money laundering in Switzerland.

Sixty-three days do not provide enough time to dig into the hidden tunnels of contacts and favors that existed between Hillary Clinton's State Department and The Clinton Foundation.  So much money, so many discreet deals and purposely paid degrees-of-separation.  For persons who are planning to vote for Hillary Clinton, are you sure that all of this smoke doesn't lead to a fire somewhere down the line?  You may not like Trump, but he has lived his life as a businessman, doing his best to succeed within the framework of rules and regulations that exist for Real Estate Developers.  Clinton has been a politician her entire adult life, which inevitably leads to the type of complications discussed in the previous paragraphs.  Isn't it time we tried a different direction?

Okay, Eric, just what is your problem with Hillary Clinton?

I've had more than a few friends and readers comment lately that my attacks on Hillary Clinton have become more frequent, and appear to be almost personal.  Its true I have been commenting on Hillary  regularly; she's running for president and her supporters should expect more attention.  But I would be disengenuous if I tried to comvince folks that my issues with Hillary Clinton are only related to the 2016 Presidential Election.  You see, I've spent my fair share of time as a Civil Servant.  In 1995 I became first an Inspector and then a Special Agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.  In 1999, I was hired by the Central Intelligence Agency.  I have lived in DC, and discovered more about the Federal Government than I thought possible.  As an Immigration Officer, I experienced the immigration issue first-hand; as a CIA officer, I worked with many different branches of the government, including the Department of State, the Justice Department, and the Department of Commerce.  Early on, it became clear to me that many of the problems of government can be dropped at the feet of both major political parties.  Senators and Representatives of both parties are obliged to start campaigning for their next term almost as soon as they arrive in DC.  Lobbyists have infested the Capitol Building on both sides of the aisle, which explains the seemingly insurmountable problem with Entitlements.  Regarding Hillary Clinton, my time as a Civil Servant closely coincided with her time inside The Beltway.  I remember when the Clintons left DC in the year 2000, and I remember her returning as a Senator from the State of New York.  Part of the time that Clinton was Secretary of State, I was working overseas very closely with State Department personnel.

I am very comfortable discussing Hillary Clinton's record as a Senator and her time as Secretary of State, but I've already made that argument on this blog.  Ironically, its not the New Start Treaty, Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation that fuels my lack of respect for Hillary Clinton.  My core issue with Hillary is one of trust, or the lack thereof.  Hillary Clinton, unlike her competitor, has chosen to be a representative of the people of the United States, therefore she should expect to be held accountable.  In all the time that Hillary Clinton has been known to me, she has never been accountable to anyone or anything.  During her husband's first-term in the White House, Hillary Clinton drummed-up negative information on the existing White House Travel Office, just so she could replace the former employees with her friends and supporters.  The former staff of the White House Travel Office were summarily fired, and left to their own devices.  In comparison to other scandals, this one probably doesn't rank very high, but it provided the American people with a preview of the kind of elitist, "ends-justify-the-means" kind of personality we have been dealing with.

I don't know what bothers me more, the dishonesty or the lack of accountability.  Take for example the Congressional Hearings on Benghazi: Hillary loudly proclaimed that as Secretary of State, she was accountable for what occurred.  Then she launched into a blame-game, during which she did everything but accept responsibility.  What the American people wanted to hear was:

 "The Benghazi incident was a terrible reminder that our men and women working in warzones are always at risk.  We did not do a good enough job protecting our people, and because we didn't, four brave young heroes made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.  It is my job to investigate what went wrong and to make sure it doesn't happen again."

Instead, we saw blame flung in every direction, with some Hillary supporters going so far as to blame Ambassador Chris Stevens for being in Libya when he should have known the dangers involved.

Now, in the middle of a presidential campaign Hillary is finding it impossible to be honest.  FBI Director Comey did NOT say that he believed Hillary Clinton had been honest in her public statements regarding her email server.  Obviously this mess imvolved reams of classified material, and she knows it.  In a fair world, Hillary Clinton would not be running for president.  If she wins, we will be in the unenviable position of having a president with access to Top Secret and SCI information, who would not successfully pass a routine background investigation!  But Hillary's ego and her obsession with power will keep her in the game, no matter how much damage it causes.

The importance of protecting confidential information, even after retirement.

The need to access confidential information is not limited to persons working for intelligence agencies.  The U.S. Government employs hundreds of professionals who work in the intelligence for numerous different agencies and departments.  In order for persons to work in the intelligence field, they must pass a background investigation and a polygraph examination.  A successful completion of the investigation with result in the individual being granted a clearance.  There are many retired U.S. government employees who at one time or another had a clearance, including former officers of the Department of State, Department of Defense, Homeland Security and the FBI.  These Americans are entrusted with enough secrets to probably cripple our nation, even after they have left active service.  Although it is vital to have the latest intelligence, some secrets keep their value for a very long time.  The United States has done a tremendous job choosing intelligence officers, as very few Americans trusted with secrets have decided to betray their country.

Unfortunately, some individuals have made that terrible decision and shared classified information with uncleared persons.  In the past, a few CIA officers have traded secrets with the Russians for financial compensation, and I believe at one time a Department of Defense employee with access to classified intelligence betrayed his country at the request of a woman (who turned out to be a Soviet spy).  I don't know much about these persons who have committed the ultimate betrayal, mostly because those events occurred years before I made the choice to enter the intelligence field.  What I do remember vividly is the trial of U.S. soldier Bradley Manning, and the revelations of former NSA employee Edward Snowden.  I realize that some folks draw a distinction between these two cases, but I don't.  Both men had agreed to treat classified information in accordance with the rules and regulations of the U.S. Army and the National Security Agency.  Both men showed a complete lack of integrity by breaking that vow.  I understand the sympathy for Snowden; many Americans are concerned that the U.S. Government may have exceeded its mandate with regards to intelligence collection and the American public.  I have complete confidence that the U.S. Government is not illegally collecting information on U.S. citizens, nor has it exceeded the bounds of its mission to provide security for the American people in a time of war.  If Snowden felt that his employer had overreached its marching orders, then he should have quit.  As a former NSA officer, he would have been able to write a book or speak publicly about his concerns, as long as he didn't reveal classified information.  This particular issue is so important to me because when Manning and Snowden released classified information, they very well could have put people's lives in jeopardy.  Snowden may THINK he knows what was included in the information he released, but the reality is, he probably has no clue.  But the enemy may understand the released documents in a way that escapes Snowden, because he isn't trained as an operational Case Officer, and therefore can't fully grasp what is included in the cables that he read on a daily basis.  Its very simple: if you can no longer abide by the obligations of confidentiality that have been agreed to, then you need to resign and find other work.

As stated earlier, the importance of confidentiality and protecting classified information does not end when a person retires.  The U.S. Government fully expects its retired officers who at one time or another during their careers were exposed to classified intelligence, to respect the rules and regulations of security until they die.  After medically retiring, I wrote a memoir about my career.  I followed the process put in place for retired Agency officers who write a book; I submitted by manuscript for review in its entirety, and what they Agency chose to redact, was permanently removed.  This includes photographs that were selected for inclusion in the book.  And when I speak publicly, I never exceed the bounds of what was included in my book.  I am firm believer in the rules of confidentiality; I have seen good security practice save lives, and unfortunately, I've seen bad security destroy lives.  When a Case Officer is conducting a confidential meeting with an asset overseas, his dedication to tradecraft is necessary to protect the life of his asset.  When an Officer working in the Pentagon reviews a classified document on a current operation, that Officer must show the same dedication and respect for security as the Case Officer overseas.  And there are no "do-overs".  The CIA does a tremendous job training its officers to understand and respect the procedures in-place to protect classified information; the old World War II British poster with the phrase, "Lose Lips Sinks Ships", is just as relevant today as it was then.  If you decide to embark on a career in the Intelligence Field, understand that it will more than likely be a very rewarding experience.  Also understand that all it takes is one careless mistake, one time bending the rules, for people to lose their lives.  Its a tremendous responsibility.