Tag Archives: National Security Adviser

national news, political news

Immunity request: Does it signal guilt … or what?

Donald J. Trump once thought requests for immunity from key witnesses implied they were guilty of something.

Now the president of the United States is saying something quite different. Imagine that, if you can.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn wants congressional committees to grant him immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony on what he knows about Trump’s possible connection with Russian government hackers.

Guilty of something? Or is he trying to avoid what he calls “unfair prosecution”?

Flynn has a story to tell.

Something tells me it might be the former. That means the president’s one-time belief seems to hold up today.

Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general — and an acknowledged brilliant battlefield commander — served as national security honcho for 24 days. Then he was pushed out by the president over questions about meetings he allegedly had with Russian government officials.

Oh, yes. The Russian government has been named by U.S. intelligence agencies as trying to hack into our computer network with the intention of influencing the 2016 presidential election.

Trump’s response? He has disparaged U.S. spooks, comparing them to Nazis. He has said nary a discouraging word about Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Flynn’s role is key here. Does he know something that he cannot tell because he might face criminal charges himself? And, oh by the way, does any of this include the possibility of treason?

I’ve tried to weigh this matter: immunity to protect someone who might have betrayed his nation?

I believe the president — and Flynn, for that matter — were right initially. Immunity requests would seem to imply criminal guilt.

Make Gen. Flynn talk, even at the risk of facing criminal prosecution.

military news, national news, political news

Whether to grant immunity to Gen. Flynn

The word is out: Former national security adviser Michael Flynn is trying to obtain immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for what he knows about the Donald Trump presidential campaign and its possible relationship with Russian government officials.

The retired Army lieutenant general and his lawyers are dickering with congressional intelligence committees — in the House and the Senate — over an immunity deal.

Hmmm. Whether to grant it or not. My gut tells me that will depend on what he has to tell senators and House members and their investigators.

Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser after he admitted to lying to Vice President Mike Pence and others about whether he talked to Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign.

At issue is whether Russian officials hacked into our electoral process seeking to influence the outcome in Trump’s favor — and whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in any way, shape or form.

The story doesn’t end there. It is now threatening to swallow up the president himself.

Flynn’s request for immunity might suggest — at least it does to me — that he might be able to tell congressional investigators some highly valuable information about what the president knew, when he knew and how he reacted to whatever he might have learned.

Flynn could turn out to be a tiny minnow in a net full of much bigger fish if he gets the immunity he is requesting.

I find it fascinating to the max that he has been so quiet for so long after leaving the Trump administration just 24 days on the job as the president’s main man on national security.

He’s gone. Then again, he might return in a major way if House and Senate committee chairmen decide to grant him immunity.

Talk to us, Gen. Flynn. Many millions of us are waiting to know the truth about your former boss — given that he won’t tell us himself.

military news

McMaster: right man for national security adviser

Some of us thought Michael Flynn was a bad choice for national security adviser from the get-go.

He had called Islam a “cancer” and that Americans’ fear of Muslims was justified. Then the retired Army lieutenant general reportedly lied to the vice president about the nature of some talks he had with Russian government agents during the 2016 presidential campaign.

If you’ll forgive the chest-thumping, here’s what I wrote in early December.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/12/get-rid-of-flynn-as-national-security-adviser/

He got the boot from the president.

Now we have another Army three-star, H.R. McMaster, coming in to be the national security adviser. He’s a renowned military scholar and deep thinker who says, among other things, that Russia is a pre-eminent threat and that our war against terror shouldn’t morph into a war against Islam.

I feel significantly better about this guy than I did about his immediate predecessor.

I believe Donald Trump has chosen well in filling this highly critical staff post.

Even critics of the president, such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, speak highly of McMaster. Indeed, McCain speaks well of the president’s national security team. McCain added that he “could not imagine a better, more capable national security team than the one we have right now.”

The question I will continue to have is whether the new national security adviser will be able to provide unfettered, unfiltered and unambiguous advice to Trump — without the influence of senior political strategist Steve Bannon, who Trump has installed as a member of the National Security Council principals committee.

A lot of sharp military minds believe Bannon’s role on that panel is a huge mistake. One of them, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, said the NSC’s principals committee must be absolutely clear of politics; Bannon’s presence there, Mullen said, politicizes it egregiously.

McMaster reportedly received assurances from the president that he’ll be able to hire the staff he wants and will be allowed to proceed in the manner in which the adviser must proceed. He will have full and complete access to the president and will be able to give him the assessment he needs about national security threats.

The Flynn story is far from over.

However, the national security team now appears to have added a valuable new member to help protect Americans against our nation’s enemies.

military news, national news

Let’s hope the new security adviser stands test of time

I am more than likely able to stipulate that H.R. McMaster wasn’t privy to any conversations between Donald J. Trump’s campaign and Russian government officials prior to the president taking office.

That is one of many positive aspects of the president’s choice today of McMaster to become the new national security adviser.

McMaster is the second Army lieutenant general to take this post, succeeding retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who Trump dismissed a week ago for a whole host of reasons — some of which are likely to be fodder for ongoing investigations.

McMaster’s appointment is drawing high praise from Republicans interested in national security and defense. At first blush, Gen. McMaster looks like a great choice.

Even Trump critics are pleased. One of them, Sen. John McCain, lavished praise on the president and his national security adviser. “He is a man of genuine intellect, character and ability. I give President Trump great credit for this decision,” said McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, of McMaster.

As with all of Trump’s selections, though, one must ask: Will the president rely on this man’s experience, intelligence and savvy as he presents reports on threats to our national security?

McMaster has been tested in combat, leading a cavalry regiment during the Iraq War. He was a critic of U.S. policy in the Vietnam War. His credentials as a national security expert are unquestioned.

Many of us, though, have questioned whether the president has politicized the National Security Council by placing senior political strategist Steve Bannon on the principals committee.

The national security adviser must have unfettered access to the president and must be able to deliver the truth to the commander in chief when it’s required. My hope is that Gen. McMaster will have the access he needs and my expectation would be that this no-nonsense military man demanded it of the boss before he agreed to serve.

If the president committed full access to the new man, great.

If he keeps his pledge, that’s even better.

International news, military news, national news

National security must be above politics

I cannot help but wonder if it ever has occurred to Donald Trump that the presence of his top political strategist on the National Security Council might deter qualified individuals from seeking the national security adviser’s job.

OK, I know that the president isn’t prone to introspection at any level. But the longer he goes without a national security adviser, the more grave the risk for the United States in the event of an international crisis.

These things have a way of exploding with zero advance warning … you know?

Michael Flynn was dismissed from the post after 24 days on the job, setting some kind of dubious record for brevity. Vice Admiral Bob Harward — a Navy SEAL and a highly regarded military mind — was thought to be ready to become the new national security adviser. Then he backed out!

Now the job remains vacant. Trump’s “fine-tuned machine” of an administration does not have the individual who is closest to the president after the White House chief of staff.

And this brings me to another, related point. Steve Bannon is part of the principals committee on the National Security Council. Bannon has limited experience in national security. Sure, he was a junior officer in the Navy once. He earned his political spurs, though, while running the Breitbart.com website.

He’s a political hand. A hack. Experts in national security issues have bemoaned his presence on the NSC, suggesting that national security should be totally, completely and irrevocably removed from any political maneuvering.

The president needs unvarnished assessment of national security threats without the taint of what a response would mean politically.

Trump elevated Bannon to the NSC and demoted the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the director of national intelligence, two people who historically have served on the principals committee that meets regularly with the president to assess these national security issues in detail.

What the … fudge?

The president insists his administration is on track. It’s running smoothly, he says. Everything is in order. Everyone is on the same page.

Except that the one individual he needs to provide accurate and detailed analysis of threats to the nation is nowhere to be found. Hey, he’s got Steve Bannon — the hack and purported white supremacist sympathizer — on hand to give the president the advice he’s supposed to digest.

Trump also told us he knows “more than the generals about ISIS.” Well, actually he doesn’t know squat … in my humble view.

I believe I’ll pray each day that we can survive the chaos that has erupted in what was supposed to be a “seamless transition of power” from one president to the next one.

International news, media news, national news, political news

Here comes another ‘gate’ scandal

The “gate” suffix no doubt is going to be attached to the brewing controversy boiling up out of the Trump administration.

Russiagate? Flynngate? Hackinggate?

I grew annoyed long ago at this media concoction to put the “gate” suffix at the end of every scandal that comes down the pike.

The Watergate scandal that brought down a president in August 1974 stands alone. It began with a “third-rate burglary” at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate office complex. It morphed into something, well, much bigger than the metro desk crime story that the Washington Post considered it initially.

However, the controversy involving Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his alleged contacts with Russian government officials smells like a story that could rival Watergate in its gravity.

Some veteran journalists who covered the Watergate scandal are beginning to pick up the scent of something quite serious. Flynn’s contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign could involve collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin to, um, influence the election.

We’re a long way from drawing such conclusions. There needs to be a thorough, aggressive and independent investigation into what Flynn did and what he told those Russians. Congressional Republicans have joined their Democratic colleagues in calling for such a probe.

Let it commence, but please — no “gate” references.

International news, national news, political news

Russia story growing more legs

My head is about to explode as I continue to consume information regarding Russia’s government, its relationship with Donald Trump and whether there might be some serious violations of federal law leading up to the 2016 presidential campaign.

National security adviser Michael Flynn has left office after less than month on the job. Did he talk out of school to Russian officials about sanctions leveled by President Obama? Did he violate the Logan Act, which prohibits such activity?

Reporting now suggests that Trump campaign officials had numerous contacts with Russian intelligence officials — while Trump was seeking to be elected president. I believe that’s against the law, too.

Did the president know about these contacts? Did he tell Flynn to negotiate with Russians about loosening the sanctions?

What in the name of God in heaven did the president know and when did he know it?

Democrats want an independent investigation. Republicans aren’t yet willing to take that leap. Imagine that.

Not all Republicans, though, are swallowing the party line. Sen. John McCain is emerging as a serious critic of the GOP president. He, too, is demanding answers. He wants to know when Flynn allegedly “lied” to Vice President Mike Pence regarding the conversations he held with Russian government officials.

So help me, I cannot fathom how this brand new administration has gotten off to this terrible start. It’s riddled with chaos, questions and controversy at virtually every level.

Trump’s response to all of this? That, too, is mind-boggling. He’s now attacking what he calls “fake media” which he said have treated Flynn “unfairly.” Good grief, man!

Why doesn’t the president of the United States demand a full accounting of all these questions? Why can’t the guy take ownership of the confusion that has erupted all around him?

Trump touted his business acumen. He bragged incessantly during the campaign about how he had built his business into a multibillion-dollar empire. Most successful billionaires, therefore, are able to run their empires with an iron hand and demand answers when matters go awry.

Trump has tossed all that aside as he has taken command of the executive branch of the U.S. government.

Any failure to deal with this stuff, to seek answers and to right a ship that is listing badly falls directly on the president.

That is, of course, unless the president is a big part of the problem.

It is incumbent, then, for an independent investigation to get to the bottom of this burgeoning crisis.

International news, national news, political news

A full-blown scandal appears to be brewing

As I watch the chaos unfold within the Donald J. Trump White House I am wondering: Are we witnessing the beginning of a serious political crisis … already?

This is breathtaking in scope.

National security adviser Michael Flynn is pushed out of office over concerns that he might have negotiated with a foreign government before the Trump administration took office.

But that’s only the beginning. Now we’re getting questions from Republicans — supposed political allies of the president — about whether Flynn was acting alone or whether he was doing Donald Trump’s bidding.

Then we have this mess over when Flynn came clean to the vice president and whether the president was aware of Flynn’s conduct as it was occurring.

Congressional Democrats are demanding an independent investigation. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insists that the Justice Department is incapable of doing a thorough probe of where this matter might end up.

Democrats aren’t alone, though. A leading Senate Republican — Lindsey Graham — has asked out loud whether Flynn was acting on orders from the then-president elect.

Many Americans, such as yours truly, are utterly flabbergasted at what appears to be transpiring. Trump has been president for less than a single month and there appears to be some serious concern that the government is unraveling.

What gives here? Trump isn’t talking. White House senior staffers aren’t talking. The vice president appears to be seriously angry over the deception that Flynn pulled on him.

Oh, man. This presidency appears to be careening toward full-blown crisis mode. All because a national security adviser cozied up to Russian government officials before federal law would give him permission to do so.

Moreover, we have the amazing timing of the president’s tweets relating to Russia’s decision not to retaliate against U.S. sanctions relating to Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

We need some answers. Now!

military news, national news, political news

Resigned, fired; tomato, tom-ah-to

The “resignation” of national security adviser Michael Flynn has taken a curious turn.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said today that Donald J. Trump’s trust in Flynn had been waning. Therefore, when questions arose about Flynn’s supposed conversations with Russian government officials, the decline in the president’s trust in Flynn accelerated.

Spicer said the president asked for and received Flynn’s resignation.

Asked for and received …

That tells me Flynn essentially was canned, booted, tossed, fired from his job.

Why be coy about this? Does the president not want to force Flynn to put “fired from national security adviser post” on his resume, as if a future employer won’t know the circumstances of his departure from a job he held for less than a month?

It’s a rhetorical game they play at this level of government.

Whatever the case, this matter isn’t over. We still have some questions to resolve.

Did Flynn tell the president about the conversations with the Russians as he was having them? Did the president dispatch Flynn to talk to the Russians about those pesky sanctions the Obama administration had imposed? Did the ex-adviser lie to the vice president? Did the VP know about the lie and did he inform the president — at the time?

OK, so the president sought Flynn’s resignation. I am going to presume there was an “or else” attached to the request.

International news

When did Flynn talk … and to whom?

Tick, tick, tick.

That might either be the sound of time running out on Donald J. Trump’s national security adviser — or the sound of a bomb about to explode in Gen. Michael Flynn’s face.

Flynn might be working for Trump on borrowed time, owing to his alleged conversation with Russian foreign ministry officials prior to the president taking office.

What’s worse is that Flynn, the retired Army lieutenant general who advises the president on national security matters, allegedly lied to Vice President Mike Pence about what he might have told Russian officials.

The crux of this controversy is that Flynn’s alleged conversation dealt with sanctions that President Barack Obama had leveled against Russia concerning reports that Russians hacked into our electoral process and sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Did he speak out of turn to Russian officials?

The question is whether Flynn negotiated with Russians about those sanctions before President Obama turned the levers of power over to Donald Trump. If that’s the case, then we could be talking about a violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized individuals from negotiating with foreign governments.

Add to that the idea that Flynn might have lied to the vice president, well, then you have a serious breach of protocol … not to mention a violation of federal law.

Reports are now circulating that Trump is looking for a suitable replacement. I hope they find one and I hope the replacement is more of a mainstream individual who won’t label Islam to be a “cancer” that must be eradicated.

I already have declared my desire to see Flynn kicked out of Trump’s national security advisory post. If it can be determined that he had that pre-Trump administration conversation regarding U.S. sanctions against Russia, then he has broken the law.

If that’s the case, a resignation might not be enough. There well might be grounds to prosecute this fellow for criminal misconduct.