The Oval Office should be above arguing on Twitter, especially with the likes of MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.

I understand the motivation, but every time I hear that President Trump is arguing with someone on Twitter, its like fingernails on a chalkboard.  First and foremost, the President of the United States should not be arguing with journalists and entertainers on social media.  The Office of the Presidency has platforms in place to allow the president to address either the media, or the American people.  Responding to ill-intentioned individuals on Twitter provides the worst elements in our society with an opportunity to insult the Commander and Chief.  Candidate Trump made tactile use of Twitter during the Republican Primaries and during the campaign against Hillary Clinton.  He was able to communicate with the American people with language that set aside some of the delicacies that annoy many real Americans.  Now that President Trump sits in the White House, we assume he has too much on his plate, so to speak, to get drawn into a social media arguments with ignorant and nasty journalists and entertainers who openly admit disdain for our Republic and its history.  So much for assumptions.

On a personal note, I can't help but be confused and disturbed with some of President Trump's Twitter comments.  With as much less-than pleasant ammunition about Mika Brzezinski available through Google, why bring up some occasion at Mar-el-Lago three years prior when Brzezinski had evidence of recent plastic surgery?  News flash- Mika Brzezinski has had some work done?  At the end of the day, the President of the United States should not insult someone's physical appearance on social media, regardless of how nasty this person has been.  President Trump argues that the biased and aggressively political media no longer provides his administration with access to the American people.  He believes that his forty-five million followers on Twitter give him the access he needs.  Actually, Mr. President, at least half of your followers are Democrats, waiting for you to make some ill-advised comment about an entertainer, a journalist, or a Democrat politician.  President Trump, I implore you- please cancel your personal Twitter account.

I'm not President of the United States, so I feel very comfortable commenting on MSNBC hacks Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.  Joe and Mika were heavily involved before beginning divorce proceedings with their former spouses, but in some circles, the vows made during the marriage ceremony mean nothing.  You would think that when Joe and Mika decide to tie the knot, both might be a bit embarrassed when the preacher gets to the vows.  As for Joe and Mika, the MSNBC hosts of some morning program (honestly, I've never seen it, and from what I understand, few people have), you would be hard-pressed to find more miserable, mean-spirited, unpleasant co-hosts.  Joe used to be a Republican, and Mika used to be a human being.  In February 2017, Brzezinski decided to no longer accept Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway as a guest on the show (I guess Joe agreed).  Mika claimed that Conway really didn't have the access she claimed, and that each time she was interviewed, "something's askew, off, or incorrect".  In fact, Brzezinski didn't want Conway on her show because Conway knows how to handle agenda-filled interviews.  Instead of just admitting that Conway wasn't easily intimidated and manipulated, as most of Joe and Mika's conservative guests are, she engaged in a mean-spirited, insulting, personal attack.  This episode is important, because Mika claims to be a huge supporter of women in the workplace.  The entire episode was a good example of just how much clout Brzezinski has at MSNBC.

Thank goodness very few people actually believe that MSNBC is a "real" provider of news anymore.  You would have to search high and low to find two people with less class than Joe and Mika.  Actually, what's really missing with these two is an iota or either integrity or relevance.  Since, like most Americans, I've never seen the show, I've been reviewing clips sent to me by friends and associates.  When Mika and Joe get started on a Trump kick, which I understand happens every day, they aren't able to discuss the details of the various controversies, because as we know, the FBI has been unable to provide even the slightest shred of evidence that Trump or any of his staff were involved with Russian efforts to impact the 2016 election.  Instead of filling their time slot with useful interviews and factual investigative work, Joe and Mika spend their time insulting President Trump.  According to Joe and Mika, President Trump is a criminal, a liar, a crook, a terrible businessman, a terrible father, a Russian agent, and a "shmuck".  Its the same message day-in and day-out, and for the life of me, I can't imagine how anyone can watch this crap.  The truth is, there are loonies on both sides of the spectrum, and when President Obama was in office, it was occasionally necessary to put some distance between myself and some of the angry, anti-Obama crowd.  But the left seems to adore these two clowns, and since the left basically controls the media, we'd better get used to seeing them around.  I'm just grateful I don't have to watch them, although they do serve a purpose.  They remind me that in America its still possible for someone with absolutely no talent or integrity to earn two million dollars a year (her salary; I have no clue what he makes).     

Former FBI Director James Comey must be held accountable for his actions.

Since the beginning of the Justice Department's investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private internet server, we've been treated to a parade of politicians, journalists, and analysts, all trying to spin the mess into a political weapon.  Occasionally we would get a glimpse of a well-groomed bureaucrat here and there, stuck in the unenviable position of trying to answer questions without sharing classified information.  Most of us were introduced to former FBI Director James Comey sometime in the summer of 2016, which speaks highly of his ability to stay out of the spotlight, considering the number of high-profile investigations in which he was involved.  In my experience, anyone with that level of authority who has been able to avoid becoming a familiar face, is doing something right.

How things have changed for Mr. Comey.

During the Hillary Clinton investigation, Comey was put under a tremendous amount of pressure by Congressional Democrats, who were acutely aware of the damage the controversy was causing her presidential campaign.  Although the left will claim otherwise, fro the most part, the GOP let the investigation evolve and expand on its own, as new revelations provided room to grow.  Many Democrats believe that Comey's decision to publicly announce new developments in the investigation during the presidential campaign eventually cost Clinton the election.  Clinton has echoed that allegation, along with her list of at least thirty-six other "reasons" that Donald Trump unfairly won the election.  At the time, Comey was vilified by Democrats on Capitol Hill, amid the usual calls for investigations you usually get when two or more Democrats are in the same room.  It was obvious to me that Comey took the accusations to heart, and this once stoic, professional bureaucrat allowed himself to become personally involved.

When Donald Trump arrived in DC, he made the decision to keep James Comey on as Director of the FBI.  The Justice Department and the Bureau had become highly politicized during the Obama Administration, and Trump thought it was important to keep some level of continuity, especially as ongoing investigations were concerned.  For anyone who might need a reminder, when I recall the last eight years of the Department of Justice, I think of the "Fast and Furious" debacle, the decision not to investigate the IRS audit targeting controversy, the choice by Congress to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, and the "coincidental" meeting on the Phoenix Airport tarmac between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton, whose wife at the time was the subject of an ongoing Justice Department investigation.  During the eight years of the Obama Administration, which include three years with James Comey as the Director of the FBI, the Bureau had a crisis of personnel, as highly-respected, experienced Special Agents and Supervisory Special Agents were choosing early retirement or just flat-out quitting.  Off the record, the decision to leave usually involved the politicization of the Justice Department.  Just how would this "politicization" reveal itself?  Possibly with the request for FISA authority to conduct surveillance and listen-in on phone conversations being conducted by Russian authorities.  The never-ending leaks are another example of what can happen when a sensitive government agency has been seeded with political appointees and activists.  When President Trump and his advisers realized the level of politicization in the FBI, and the probability that one investigation after another sans justification would be focused on his Administration, he used his authority to make a change in Bureau management.  No doubt President Trump was also considering the possibility that the investigation of his campaign staff and Russian contacts would continue as long as the distraction negatively impacted the Trump Agenda.  Keep in mind that no evidence has yet been discovered which implicates anyone in the Trump campaign with Russian espionage activities, but for some reason the investigation goes on and on and on.

The one surprise Comey saved just for me was his admission to leaking classified information.  Comey claims that once he realized he was getting the ax, he decided to pass notes from his private conversations with President Trump to a college professor, with instructions that she share the notes with the press.  His justification?  Comey asserts that he was concerned Trump might squash the Russia investigation, therefore the public release of the notes might force the naming of a Special Counsel.  What a load of horseshit.  Everyone with even a modicum of political common sense knows that Comey released his notes in order to "get back" at President Trump.  Who would have envisioned that the top Law Enforcement Officer in the country, the person who is tasked with locating and prosecuting persons who leak classified information, would openly admit to Congress that he had knowingly shared classified information with an acquaintance for the express purpose of delivering that information to a journalist?

During his opening remarks to the Congressional Committee, Comey claimed he was angry with President Trump, because of Trump's alleged criticism of the FBI's rank-and-file officers.  Sorry, but I have to call horseshit once again.  A review of the statement Trump released to announce Comey's termination, makes it clear that all and any criticism was reserved for Comey.  President Trump rightly expressed concern regarding the effectiveness of the FBI with Comey in charge, and in no way maligned the hard work being done by Bureau personnel.  At the end of the day, Comey's appearance before members of Congress only reiterated what the Trump Administration has been saying from the beginning.  No persons involved with the Trump Campaign colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign.  The mainstream media, which continues to prove that "anything goes" in the war against the Trump Administration, was unable to spin Comey's appearance into the Russian espionage narrative, so they've moved on to Plan B, which is to introduce the world to "Trump the Obstructionist".  The talking points must have been prepared quickly, because I noticed the term "obstructionist" on the websites of the NY Times and the Washington Post, and heard it on MSNBC and CNN.  The media is a formidable opponent, folks, as they answer to no one, and can print whatever allegation comes to mind, as long as it comes from an "unnamed source".  To demonstrate that respect for the rule of law is paramount in today's FBI, the Department of Justice needs to make an example of James Comey, and prosecute the former Director for providing the media with classified information.  Since he's admitted his guilt, this case should be open-and-close, which would go a long way to discouraging potential leakers in the future.      

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.

The Washington Post and New York Times have dropped all pretense, and now see it as their duty to destroy both President Donald Trump and the Conservative Movement in the United States.

This weekend, the NY Times will publish a front-page story on former Donald Trump advisor Paul Manafort.  Can you guess what shocking revelation the Times will be sharing with its readers?  No doubt it will highlight Manafort's long-time business activities in Russia, and close with a comment from another ubiquitous anonymous source, reminding the reader that the justice Department is investigating certain Trump advisors and their "alleged" contact with Russians during the 2016 Campaign.  You can be sure that the Times article will not mention that this investigation, which is becoming more disturbing everyday, has yet to find the slightest bit of evidence indicating wrong-doing on the part of Trump or his staff.  Between the Washington Post and the Times, its beginning to appear as if these two once-respected newspapers are taking turns, publishing stories about Trump advisors or cabinet members, which provide nothing but the same basic allegation, dressed up with the all-important comment from the secret source.  Currently, journalists in DC seem to have an endless supply of inside government sources.  At first, these leakers caused a firestorm by providing the Associated Press and others with the identity of three Trump advisors or confidents who had met with Russian government officials during the campaign.  What should be most disturbing is the willingness of the AP, the Post and the Times, to print information which is obviously classified and illegally obtained.

 If the FBI or another government entity finds it necessary to surveille and "listen in" to the conversations of foreign nationals, occasionally that effort will pick up the identity and incidental comments of U.S. citizens as well.  Whoever has been given the authority to collect intelligence on the foreign national is required by law to mask the identity of any U.S. citizen who has "inadvertently" picked up in conversation.  Before the FBI or whoever are allowed to start the surveillance operation which might involve a U.S. person, they are required to obtained FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) authority from a Judge.  Trump's nominee for Attorney General Jeff Sessions and advisor Michael Flynn were picked up during a FISA-approved collection effort.  How can we know this?  Because an anonymous source, probably within the Justice Department, provided this information to a journalist.  First and foremost, only a select number of people in Washington DC are supposed to have "unmasking" authority.  One of these individuals unmasked both Sessions and Flynn, which gave the media the opportunity to create a firestorm of innuendo and unproven allegations regarding both Trump and Flynn.  I have yet to hear one Democratic Congressperson express concern regarding the unmasking of U.S. citizens.

Some things in life are guaranteed. Ice is cold, kittens are irresistible, and the American people have no faith in the mainstream media.  Have you noticed that since the GOP has taken over both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the media is anxious to publicize any and all polls that illustrate Congress' low approval rating?  At the same time, you will rarely see poll results on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS that highlight the complete lack of trust the American people have for the mainstream media.  Regardless, journalists continue to have no clue.  Even after the fiasco of anointing Hillary Clinton as the winner of the 2016 election while the Campaign was still in full-swing, the media remain convinced of their intellectual superiority over almost all Americans (they probably rank themselves somewhere just below tenured Ivy League Professors).  This knowledge burdens them with the heavy responsibility of editorializing every piece of news.  From where they stand, the job of a journalist is not only to report the news, but to do so in a selective and nuanced fashion, ensuring that the audience comes away with the "correct perspective".  For the press, the fact that no evidence exists connecting Trump advisors and staff to alleged Russian efforts to impact the 2016 Presidential Campaign, makes it imperative that the American people are reminded, ad nauseam, that the Justice Department has not completed its investigation into this matter. 

The environment in DC at present is bizarre, to say the least.  From 2008 to 2016, Democrats and the Obama Administration, with the assistance of an active, aggressive media, frightened and intimidated Republicans into playing dead.  Now that President Trump is the White House, and the GOP controls both Houses of Congress, the high-tide of the Conservative Agenda should be sweeping away all sorts of Obama legislative leftovers.  Don't hold your breath, folks.  The Democrats act as if they own Capitol Hill, and Obama is still sitting in the Oval Office.  Why do Republicans continue to avoid serious confrontation with Democrats?  The first reason is fear of being labeled a racist or a Nazi.  The Left can manipulate just about any issue, so that with the help of the press, opposing the Democrats will result in being called a racist and/or a Nazi.  The second reason the GOP has become so non-confrontational is, of course, the media.  You don't want to defend Conservative principles too loudly, just ask Ted Cruz.  Devin Nunes, Head of the House Intelligence Committee, temporarily distracted the media away from the Trump/Russia narrative, by visiting his own source and being shown intelligence which demonstrates how leakers passed classified intelligence, including the unmasked identity of a U.S. Senator, to the press.  Once the Democrats on his own Committee discovered that Nunes had been to the White House and shared information with President Trump (which is authorized), the indignation was palpable.  No one gave a rats ass that the Obama Administration went out of its way to spread classified intelligence about the Trump Campaign before Obama left office, nor did anyone on the Left express even the slightest concern regarding the shocking amount of leaked classified intelligence that regularly ends up in the hands of the media.

I'm hoping that the Trump/Russia issue can be put to bed once the Justice Department Investigation is complete.  Can you imagine how much money has been spent to date?  More resources than were expended investigating Hillary and her special server, no doubt.  Once Attorney General Sessions has finally exterminated all the hold-over rats that seem to be lurking in every nook and cranny of the FBI, State Department, and Homeland Security, we can expect internal and external investigations in numerous Agencies, and hopefully prosecutions.  Leaking classified information for political and ideological reasons is not acceptable justification, and a message needs to be sent so as to avoid this situation in the future.  Throw the book at 'em.  It will be interesting to see just how the Post and the Times attempt to keep the Russia story on the front burner.  I might bother to check out a NY Times headline or two, but I don't like trying to read the paper than lines my cat box.          

A reasonable solution to the debate over President Trump's Executive Order on refugees.

Less than three months into Donald Trump's Presidency, its become obvious that the opposition will oppose and obstruct everything the Trump Administration attempts to achieve.  I realize I'm wasting my time when I ask certain questions, but can you imagine the indignation of the Democrats if the GOP had behaved in the same manner to Barack Obama, who had his cabinet approved with no drama and his Supreme Court choices approved by near unanimous votes?  Regardless, President Trump will outlast his opponents because the Constitution is on his side.  For instance, President Trump's Executive Order delaying the resettlement of refugees for a three-month or less time period, while Homeland Security and the FBI complete thorough reviews of each applicant, is authority guaranteed the Executive Branch by the Constitution.  Barack Obama put a six-month ban on refugees from Iraq in 2011, and other Presidents also exercised this authority, with not a word of disagreement.  A quick check of Google will turn up volumes of commentary pointing out that Trump targeted a handful of nations, while Obama only focused on Iraq; but the issue is not about the differences in what Obama and Trump were trying to accomplish, this issue is about the legality of the Executive Order.  The fact that previous Presidents have delayed immigration and refugee resettlement for National Security concerns, makes it clear that such authority rests with the Executive Branch, not with District Courts. 

President Trump's original Executive Order included Iraq, which caused a great deal of inconvenience for Iraqis who had assisted the U.S. government during the last war, from legal resettlement in the United States.  After District Judge James Rodart in Seattle ruled against Trump, instead of pushing the appeals process all the way to the Supreme Court, Trump and his legal team removed Iraq from the Executive Order.  Actually, Judge Rodart wasn't that interested in potential injustices dealt to the Iraqi community.  His justification for ruling against the Executive Order was its "apparent" discrimination against Muslims.  Since President Trump had been quoted on the campaign trial occasionally talking about Muslim refugees and immigration, Rodart makes the assumption that Trump is a racist, and that the Executive Order purposely targets Muslims solely based on their religion.  Can we assume that if Trump added Norway and Luxemburg to the list, Rodart would change his ruling? Don't count on it.  As expected, President Trump issued a re-worded Executive Order, basically with the same intent, but with Iraq removed.  And as anticipated, Hawaii, a left-leaning state, and Obama-appointed District Judge Derrick Watson wasted no time in ruling against Trump once again, but with the same justification.  Both Rodart and Watson believe that President Trump's Executive Orders are motivated by racism and unfairly target Muslims.  The problem is, neither Judge has the authority to rule against the Executive Branch on this issue, just as any Republican District Judge who decided to rule against President Obama in 2011 would have been overstepping his authority.

Sadly, my argument will fall on deaf Democrat ears, but I have an idea that makes so much sense, we just might make a breakthrough.  If Trump would be willing to withdraw his Executive Order on refugees, and forego a Supreme Court showdown which likely would be won by the Administration, would Hawaii and Washington State, which seem oh-so proud of their District Judges, be willing to accept and resettle the refugees in their respective states?  At this point, the numbers don't seem to be overwhelming, and I know that the great Northwest has lots of space to fill up, so why not take on this responsibility?  Why should Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other "Red States", be beholden to an Oregon or Hawaii-based District Judge's ruling?  If Oregon and Hawaii can thumb their nose at a legal Executive Order from the President of the United States, then why should the twenty-some Red States have to accept refugees because of decisions made by two activist, progressive District Judges?  To get to the heart of the matter, I'm getting a bit tired of liberals who feel some obligation to save the world, trying to force the results of their agenda on everyone else.  If YOU feel that way, then YOU take the refugees!  Its actually quite simple.  California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Illinois, Washington and Hawaii are all wealthy states in their own right, and are in a much better position financially to support an influx of refugees, as opposed to Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama and South Carolina, who are not.  The important message here?  The latter states would no doubt approve of President Trump's Executive Order, and the former would not.  We have an opportunity to agree on something here, folks.  President Trump needs to forego any additional Executive Orders dealing with refugees, and the seven states mentioned above agree to accept responsibility for the refugees.  I see no reason why this shouldn't work, at least until some event forces us to regain our common sense, drop political correctness and all the nastiness that has replaced normal discourse, and start working together again.  Heck, maybe we can get President Trump to cancel his Twitter Account as part of the deal.  That might be too much to hope for......

A humble suggestion to the Trump Transition Team.......

I had always imagined that when a new President was elected, the staff of the previous Administration would pack up and vacate during the weeks before the inauguration.  Actually, its not that simple.  A great many former staffers do move on before the new President makes himself home in the White House, but invariably some folks are obliged to hang around, in order to ensure a smooth transition with regards to certain sensitive positions.  The goal is, with few exceptions, to eventually have an entirely new team in place within the first few months.  Managing the various government agencies is a completely separate matter.  Although the new Administration is expected to appoint its own folks to run the Central Intelligence Agency, the Justice Department (Attorney General), Homeland Security, and other vital government agencies, its assumed that most management level positions belong to career employees who have been promoted on merit.  Basically, this allows the various agencies to continue functioning as before, but with a new Director who is more in-line with the intentions of the incoming President.  In both instances, outgoing personnel have traditionally been on their best behavior with regards to supporting the new Administration, so as to keep the Executive Branch functioning without too much confusion.  Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has been forced to deal with illegal behavior on he part of personnel who did not move on prior to the Inauguration, and serious opposition from within the Intelligence Community and Federal Law Enforcement.  This development has no precedent, with the last such behavior in my memory being the removal of all the "W's" from the computer keyboards by Bill Clinton staffers, as a welcome to incoming President George "W" Bush.  What President Trump is facing is much more serious, and hopefully will be investigated by the FBI.

Since President Trump took office, he has been subject to one leak after another.  Confidential information that has come from within the White House has somehow found its way onto the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times.  I think its safe to assume that the leaks are being generated by a few "leftovers" from the Obama Administration, unless we are expected to believe that Trump's own folks are already attempting a coup of some sort.  Any confidential information that originates in the White House is on its face classified, therefore whoever has been sharing that information with journalists has broken the law.  I wish I could say that the FBI has jumped at the opportunity to protect the incoming Administration, but I'm not really sure at present what to make of the Department of Justice.  You see, the Trump Administration is dealing with leaks coming from the Justice Department as well, not to mention the Intelligence Community. Since last November, the press has had very disturbing access to details of ongoing investigations into alleged Russian attempts to impact the 2016 campaign.  Forgive me for being "old school", but shouldn't the FBI and the Intelligence Community wait until its investigations are complete before commenting?  What is most troublesome is the politicization of the process.  Up to now, according to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, not one shred of evidence has been uncovered that indicates Trump personnel were aware of or involved with Russian activities regarding the 2016 campaign.  So why has the media been able to headline this "fake" story for months on end?  Because of leaks from within the investigative authorities.  All that was needed was notification from the Bureau that certain investigations were underway, and confirmation from the Intelligence Community that Russia was trying to fiddle with the campaign, to put the Trump Administration on a "media-trial" for treason within the first month following the inauguration.

The best way for the new Administration to deal with this problem is to remove any and all Obama personnel as the earliest opportunity.  Its just as important for the Administration to clean house in the various government agencies as well.  During the last eight years, a flood of honest, patriotic officers in both Federal Law Enforcement and the Intel Community chose early retirement because of dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration.  Just last year, I recall a number of reports indicating the high-rate of turnover with regards to FBI supervisory personnel.  If I'm correct, then the Trump Administration should reach out to these officers, and ask them to return.  It shouldn't be difficult to determine who in DC is willingly trying to impede the efforts of the new Administration, and if they are using their job in such a manner, then they should be removed immediately.  In eight years, President Obama and the Democrats were successful in seeding every government agency with political appointees who may not have known diddly-squat about their new jobs, but certainly understood their marching orders.  No doubt the rank-and-file of Federal Law Enforcement and the CIA continue to do yeomen's work, sacrificing and defending the nation despite all these distractions.  The problem is limited to a few individuals who feel justified in doing what they can to disrupt the efforts of the new Administration.  Trump needs to root out these folks at IRS, Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and the Intelligence Agencies to promote personnel whose priority is to serve the American people, not obfuscate and meddle for political purposes.  Again, there are many former officers who are anxious to return, to further the goals of national security and provide the American people with fair and honest work.  I should know, I happen to be one of those officers.    

The effort to subvert the will of the American people continues.

This morning I had the misfortune of stumbling across an television interview with an actor named Kerry Washington.  I have no clue who Washington is, although she claims to have worked in the Obama White House.  Normally when I determine that an entertainer is lecturing on politics, I switch the station or shut off the television altogether, but in this instance, probably because of her claim to direct access to the White House, I listened in for a minute or two.  Washington regurgitated the usual crap that we get from the millionaire elite Hollywood community, including the claim that the American voter did not chose Donald Trump, and that President-Elect Trump only captured twenty-five percent of the vote.  These are just two of the bullets from a long list of talking points which is regularly disseminated amongst the Left, who have no interest whatsoever about the damage that this repudiation of our electoral system is causing.  You would think that Washington would take a few minutes away from polishing her Oscars to educate herself on the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, during which Barack Obama won less than thirty percent of eligible voters.  No doubt she considers those two election results to be legitimate and a reflection of the will of the American people.

A month or so before the November election, I stumbled across an offensive and absurd accusation leveled against then-candidate Donald Trump.  While perusing some radical left-wing, seldom-read website, I discovered a story involving Trump which was quite similar to the "Russian prostitutes" story released by Buzzfeed earlier this week.  This accusation, that Donald Trump paid two Russian prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed because the bed had been slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama, had been shared with numerous journalists and media organizations previous to Buzzfeed's mainstream dissemination.  Why did the mainstream media ignore the story for so long?  Because it arrived with absolutely no proof, and contained numerous outright errors and bits of incorrect information.  In short, the mainstream media determined that the piece was just another example of "Fake News", which arrived during a presidential election cycle which had become overwhelmed with unverifiable accusations against both candidates.

Roughly one week before the inauguration, the story has resurfaced, and this time around, no one seems to care about validity, source identification, or verification.  In fact, it appears that since the Trump victory, both the FBI and the CIA have provided Bona Fides to this unsubstantiated, disgusting story by treating it as some threat to national security.  Of course, if a President-Elect had actually engaged in such behavior, that individual would be a prime candidate for extortion, and the FBI and CIA would be obligated to investigate.  The problem is, everyone knows that the story is garbage.  The U.S. Law Enforcement and Intelligence communities must require the existence of some verification or validity in order to conduct full investigations and feel the need to brief President Obama and President-Elect Trump.  Now that the issue has hit the headlines and could end up causing the incoming Administration no small amount of headaches, we need to know what about this story reached the threshold that would justify this kind of attention from the FBI and the CIA?  Actually, this is second time we find ourselves in this predicament.  The Obama Administration showed no hesitation in announcing that the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin in particular, ordered its clandestine cyber operatives to interfere with the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election in a manner that would benefit GOP nominee Donald Trump.  I assume that both the Russians and the Chinese were busy attempting to mess around with our electoral process (its called espionage, folks), but to make this announcement weeks before the inauguration supports the false idea that Donald Trump won the election because of Russian interference.  Last week the CIA was front and center with the Russian interference accusation, and now the Agency finds itself back in the headlines, by apparently treated an obviously fake story as a legitimate threat of some sort.  Thanks, CIA and FBI- you've given this absurd, false story the validity that had been lacking.

As I sit here at my computer, safe in my Texas Hill Country home, more than a handful of CIA officers are working in denied environments, putting their lives in danger to collect the intelligence needed to win the war on terror.  When I think of the CIA, these men and women come to mind, not Russian prostitutes.  I can assure you that everyday, FBI Special Agents are out on the streets, putting their lives at risk in support of national security.  I can only imagine what the rank-and-file of these two patriotic, indispensable organizations must feel, when they realize just how politicized our government has become. 

Media attempt to distract voters from Clinton email scandal falls flat.

Just as we predicted, the arrival of Halloween this year was accompanied by a determined effort on behalf of the mainstream media to change the political comversation.  Late last week, the FBI announced that its imvestigation into Hillary Clinton's use of an illegal email server was actually ongoing.  The investigation, which most of us believed was no longer active, received a new jolt of adrenaline with the discovery of hundreds and thousands of emails on the laptop Clinton Campaign Vice Chairman Huma Abedin shared at home with her husband.  Given the media's obsessive and blatant determination to see Hillary Clinton win the Presidency, we surmised that a full-blown effort would be made to launch a personal attack against Clinton's opponent, Republican Donald Trump.  Actually, the press dropped two separate attacks on Trump today.  On CNN, in the Washington Post, on ABC, and in the New York Times, voters were reminded that the FBI was interested in Trump's connections to Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Before you could take a breath, some of the same media organizations were rehashing the issue of Donald Trump and his unwillingness to release his income tax returns.  Surely one of these stories would catch hold and quickly push the Hillary email scandal from the minds of voters.  Guess what, folks?  It didn't happen.

It didn't take long for the Trump Campaign to remind the various media outlets that the FBI had already cleared Donald Trump and his campaign of any connection whatsoever to the Russian government and efforts by Russia to create havoc with the presidential election.  With regards to the income tax issue, Trump has explained time and again, including in the first debate, that he is presently being audited by the IRS, and as soon as the process is complete, he will be happy to disclose his tax records.  To be honest, I expected something better from the press.  Is this all they could come up with over the weekend?  No doubt they have a few more shots to take, and they may be saving their best shot for last.

Today's effort, I'm pleased to say, fell flat.  The electorate seems to have made up its mind as to the integrity and honesty of both candidates.  I don't think that the Clinton Campaign, or the media for that matter, will have much success with headlines accusing Trump of innapropriate behavior with women- that line of attack has used up its usefulness as well.  On the other hand, Trump seems to be sitting in the catbird seat, because his campaign doesn't have to attack Hillary Clinton's character or truthfulness.  History and the FBI are doing the job already.  Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have established particular reputations in Washington, not only with rank-and-file government bureaucrats, but with White House Staff and the Secret Service.  During their years as civil servants, they enriched themselves through the abuse of access to people with ample resources and influence.  They created an army of sycophants whose best interests are directly tied in to continued Clinton access to the tools of government.  The Clinton Foundation is stuffed full of former Clinton aides, support staff, legal advisors, and political workers, who receive a fat paycheck because of the donations Hillary was able to solicit durimg her time as Secretary of State.  Probably for the first time, average Americans are beginning to see what the Clintons are all about, and many former supporters are deciding that retirement is in order.  The next seven days will determine if the long ride on the back of the American people is finally over.

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.

Are We Focused Too Exclusively On The Islamic State?

Link: Who Is This Unknown Group That Has Experts Concerned?


Before the 1998 terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, very few Americans had ever heard of Al-Qaeda.  The terror group had been active for some years, recruiting and causing trouble in the Horn of Africa and Yemen.  In the four-year period between 1998 and 2002, Al-Qaeda (AQ) became a household name.  Hezbollah, Hamas, and the P.L.O. basically disappeared from the U.S. media target list.  Why not?  Those three groups were only focused on destroying Israel.  Al-Qaeda, now there was a group of young men with ambition.  After September 11, the United States justifiably declared war on AQ.  In true warrior fashion, President George Bush developed a strategy that would take the fight to the enemy.  Another important part of that strategy was the need to force AQ into a conventional war, which they were ill-prepared to win.  For one reason or another (enough blame to go around folks), we took our eye off the ball.  While its true we cut off the snake's head (bin-Laden), at least two more have grown back in its place.

I appreciate the concern expressed by the experts in the link provided, as it demonstrates that we have established a solid network of assets in the region.  But I continue to be concerned with the reluctance of the policymakers to accept the fact that these groups are basically part of the same monster.  Al-Qaeda in Magreb, Al-Qaeda in al-Sharm, Al-Qaeda in Yemen, Islamic State, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and on and on.  These groups talk to one another and they support one another.  Any reporting that details a rift between respective groups had better be vetted well, because that is just the type of disinformation these assholes use.  I strongly support the approach taken by the CIA.  While the Agency has analysts taking apart each respective group, it falls under one inclusive umbrella known as the Counter Terrorism Center (CTC).  I don't know if anyone will ever be able to adequately detail how many lives have been saved because of the work of these folks.  Seeing these folks at work is truly amazing, and will make your pride swell.  Not only has CTC uncovered and disrupted countless plans to attack U.S. interests, they have also shared life-saving information with our international friends.  Its not that complicated, really.  CTC Case Officers travel to the hot spots, use their training to spot, assess, and recruit people in positions of access.  They must set up a safe, flexible commo plan so that the information can be shared on a "need-to-know" only basis.  Most important is to keep your contact/asset safe.  When I rummage through the archives of my own gray matter (enter at your peril), I cannot recall very many instances in which Agency contacts have been uncovered.  Many times the bad guys will feed false stories to the local media (hello, Russia) in order to demonstrate some success against the Agency.  I am proud to have once worked (three months!) in CTC, and proud as an American at their tremendous sacrifice and their spectacular successes, most of which you may never know.

Sorry for getting a bit off track.  My point is, that we would all be better off considering international terrorism to be one, nasty, dangerous conglomerate.  These people have money and they get around.  Language and culture issues do not stand in the way, as they are the experts at practicing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  The war in which we find ourselves is against TERRORISM.  It shouldn't necessarily include narco-traffickers but if a few get blown away in the process, all the better.  If we keep our focus on their focus (the destruction of western culture and civilization), it will be easier to attack this monster head-on.  Let the experts at Langley, Interpol, and other various allied intel agencies worry about the different names and personalities.  The linked article mentions the name of a lesser-known group in Syria calling itself "Khorasan".  From what limited information the media has been able to obtain, this group consists of a small number of Al-Qaeda veterans and prefers to recruit foreigners.  Its penchant for conducting bombing attacks probably has something to do with the focus of its recruitment.  At the end of the day, I'm sure this group is no less violent and cowardly as the next.  Instead of singling out Khorasan, they should be lumped into the pile of shit we already know as International Terrorism.

Sooner or later I believe our government is going to create an Agency to focus exclusively on the terrorist target.  As of today we have counter-terrorist elements within the CIA, Department of Defense, FBI, and NSA.  The problem has become such a threat that it would be in our best interest to collate all the intelligence in one repository.  I think a "pseudo-effort" to accomplish this was the creation of the Director of National Intelligence, but I can't help but fear that much is lost in the transfer from one office to another.  The events of September 11 went a long way to obliging the various agencies to share trace information (thank goodness).  I hope we look towards creating this singularly-focused Agency soon.  I'm also hoping that we don't replicate too much work by searching for hundreds of different groups with different names.  They all share one moniker," the enemy", and they should receive an equal amount of our fury.