Tag Archives: CIA

Here’s how you could have handled the Russia problem

President George W Bush visits CIA Headquarters, March 20, 2001.

Donald J. Trump didn’t ask me for my opinion on this, but I’ll give it to him anyway … not that it matters in Trump World.

CIA officials have concluded that Russian computer hackers had some impact on the 2016 presidential election. To what end, they haven’t disclosed; it’s highly classified at the moment.

They aren’t alone in that assessment. Other intelligence agencies and independent experts also have reached that conclusion.

So, what does the president-elect do? He dismisses the CIA’s findings. He says he doesn’t believe them. He says the Russians didn’t do what has been alleged. He blames Democrats for fomenting a false allegation. How does he know any of that? He doesn’t.

A better response would have been for Trump to do the following: Stand before the media and issue a statement.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I want to issue a brief statement. There’ll be no questions.

The news from the CIA is troubling in the extreme. I hereby join President Obama in calling for a full review of the findings and a public disclosure — to the extent that it is possible — of what, if anything, transpired in the Kremlin that might have had an impact on the election.

I am acutely aware of my statements throughout the campaign that the election would be “rigged” in favor of my opponent, Hillary Clinton. As I’ve noted on other campaign-related matters, I said some things for “dramatic effect.” The “rigged election” allegation was one of them.

I did not envision the “rigged election” charge coming back on me and my campaign in this matter.

Do I believe the Russians tilted the election in my favor? No. But you shouldn’t just take my word for it.

I remain confident that a thorough review of the evidence and the facts will determine we would have won anyway.

But let’s find out the truth of what happened, starting with the review that the president has demanded from the intelligence community.

He didn’t say anything like that. Instead, he has denigrated the intelligence community, as he has done with many other facets of government.

Trump’s stubborn denial of any possible hanky-panky — and his stated disbelief in the work of the CIA’s professional intelligence officers — only darkens the clouds forming over his administration.

The questions only will deepen the distrust many Americans are expressing at this moment over what might have transpired on Election Day.

Secretary of State Tillerson? We’ll see about that one

90

Rex Tillerson will get the nod from the president-elect as the next secretary of state.

Let’s hand it to Donald J. Trump: He appears unafraid to pick a major fight with the U.S. senators who will be asked to confirm his appointment.

Tillerson’s pending nomination troubles a lot of senators, Republicans and Democrats alike.

He has zero diplomatic experience. Tillerson is a 40-year employee of ExxonMobil, the oil giant he now runs as CEO. He is friends with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he has worked in cutting big deals on behalf of his company. Oh, and Putin’s government now has been fingered by the CIA as seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor.

Gosh, do you think Tillerson brings some serious baggage to this job at Foggy Bottom?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/12/trump-to-name-secretary-of-state-pick-tuesday-232544

Donald Trump has selected a number of unconventional nominees for various Cabinet posts. The Tillerson pick likely takes the cake.

His friendship with Putin is going to drive Senate Republicans nuts. One of them, John McCain, is emerging as the top GOP lawmaker who is set to become the inquisitor in chief of this selection.

McCain calls Putin a “thug” and a “butcher.” He is in no mood to reset our nation’s relationship with the former head of the KGB, the Soviet Union’s dreaded spy agency.

Then we have this ongoing discussion about what role Russia played in seeking to undermine the U.S. presidential election. The CIA says the Russians interfered with the electoral process. Trump’s reaction? He said the intelligence pros at the CIA are wrong, that they don’t know what they’re talking about. He said he doesn’t believe the CIA’s analysis.

So, we have a Putin pal getting the call from the president-elect to serve as secretary of state and the CIA saying that Russia — which Putin rules — has sought to interfere with our election.

I believe Tillerson and his political benefactor — Donald Trump — are going to get roughed up big time by the U.S. Senate.

Waiting to hear what Russians actually did

trump

I don’t understand a lot of things.

One of them involves the Russian effort to “influence” the 2016 presidential election, allegedly to grease it for Donald J. Trump to become the next president.

We’re hearing a whole lot of chatter about the CIA’s findings that apparently conclude that Russia did use cyber tactics to meddle in the U.S. electoral process.

But …

What did the Russians do? What precisely did they do, using their computer systems to hack into relevant computer platforms in the United States to tilt the election in Trump’s favor? How does this sort of hacking actually work?

http://time.com/4597416/transcript-donald-trump-fox-interview/?xid=homepage

We keep hearing about “classified information” that’s been shared with pertinent members of Congress. One of them, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said this morning he couldn’t divulge what he knows. All he would say was that the CIA has made a determination that the Russians did something to seek to influence the election outcome.

A lot of Americans are interested to know what the Russians — or whoever — did. It is my sincere hope that we can learn at least a snippet of what the CIA says it knows.

The danger, of course, is whether releasing too much information to the public could jeopardize our own country’s ability to retaliate against the meddling nation or to protect us from future cyber-crime attempts. I get all that.

The media, though, keep nibbling around the edges of what the Russians supposedly sought to do.

As a consumer of this information, I am awaiting some explanation of what precisely was done, by whom — and to what end.

Big surprise: Trump trashes CIA analysis of Russian hackers

11intel-01-master768

Of course Donald J. Trump would dismiss the CIA’s assessment that Russia played a role in seeking to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Naturally, he would dismiss the analysis provided by career intelligence officers trained to the max to make such determinations.

The president-elect won the election fair and square, by a “landslide,” he says. He didn’t need no stinkin’ Russian hackers trying to mess with our electoral process, he’ll say.

This is a potentially huge deal, folks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/trump-mocking-claim-that-russia-hacked-election-at-odds-with-gop.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

It’s so big that President Obama has ordered a top-to-bottom analysis of what happened, when it happened, who did it and why. He wants the results on his desk before he leaves office on Jan. 20.

The president-elect has fired yet another barrage at the U.S. intelligence community he is about to lead. He is opening up a potentially serious breach between the myriad intelligence agencies and the White House.

Trump has drawn fire from, get this, fellow Republicans. As the New York Times reported: “’To have the president-elect of the United States simply reject the fact-based narrative that the intelligence community puts together because it conflicts with his a priori assumptions — wow,’ said Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the N.S.A. and later the C.I.A. under President George W. Bush.”

That’s what he is doing. He is rejecting these findings out of hand.

I get that partisan emotions are still burning white hot. More from the New York Times: “With the partisan emotions on both sides — Mr. Trump’s supporters see a plot to undermine his presidency, and Hillary Clinton’s supporters see a conspiracy to keep her from the presidency — the result is an environment in which even those basic facts become the basis for dispute.”

The man who’s still the president for a few more weeks has ordered a complete review. How about letting the intelligence pros do their job, deliver their complete findings to the president — and then let us discuss how we might need to defend our electoral system against foreign interference.

One person’s ‘serious mistake’ is OK; another deserves to be ‘locked up’

petraeus

I’m trying to keep all this straight. Man, it’s a struggle.

David Petraeus, a retired U.S. Army general and former head of the CIA, admitted to sharing classified information with his mistress. He paid a hefty price politically for it; he resigned as the nation’s top spook.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, while serving as secretary of state, used a personal e-mail server. She was accused by her political foes of letting classified information get out where it shouldn’t belong. She lost the presidential election amid calls from Donald J. Trump, the man who defeated her, that she should be jailed for unspecified and unproven allegations of wrongdoing.

Petraeus, though, is now being considered for secretary of state by the very same man — Donald Trump — who said Clinton needed to be tossed into the slammer.

What gives?

I don’t doubt Petraeus’s tremendous service to the country while he wore the Army uniform. He commanded our fighting personnel in this difficult struggle against international terror organizations.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/petraeus-mishandling-classified-information-i-made-serious-mistake-n691721

I am just having difficulty processing how one person can admit to doing something illegal but still be considered for high office and other one can be only accused by her political opponents of breaking the law and be scorned.

Petraeus gets a pass for mishandling classified info?

90

Wait just a minute!

Donald J. Trump said Hillary Clinton should be in jail over the way she used a personal e-mail server. Now he’s considering a retired Army general for secretary of state who actually pleaded guilty to mishandling information and lying about it to federal investigators?

David Petraeus is being considered for the State job.

He’s a dedicated and highly decorated retired military officer. He served his country with great distinction. However, he got caught doing something he shouldn’t have done and then admitted to doing it.

Does the president-elect look the other way as it regards the general while insisting that his former campaign opponent should have been locked up?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-david-petraeus-231909

As Politico reports: “The very consideration of Petraeus for a senior position reveals that the Trump campaign’s rhetoric regarding Hillary Clinton was totally bogus,” said Steven Aftergood, a specialist on government classification at the Federation of American Scientists. “Candidate Trump was generating hysteria over Clinton’s handling or mishandling of classified information that he likely never believed or took seriously.”

What am I missing?

Trump must really believe he’s the smartest man on Earth

aakgcmf

Donald J. Trump told us he knows “more about ISIS than the generals. Believe me.”

I thought the president-elect was just offering us another example of rhetorical bluster on the campaign trail.

Silly me. I think he now actually believes such nonsense.

The Washington Post is reporting that Trump is forgoing the usual flood of intelligence briefings set aside for the president-elect to keep him apprised of ongoing national security threats.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/ar-AAkGkkf?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

The National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency — all of ’em — have helped prepare a team of briefers ready to get the next president up to speed.

He’s forgoing most of it.

The vice president-elect, Mike Pence, however, is soaking it all in. He’s meeting almost daily with briefers, getting tons of intelligence on those threats.

Maybe this is what Trump meant when he was asked during the campaign about Pence’s duties. The Republican presidential candidate said he’d assign Pence some of the nuts and bolts of governance while  concentrates on “making America great again.”

Well, I actually would prefer that the president-elect devote himself as well to some of the nitty-gritty. I mean, the guy has had zero exposure to government policymaking. He has relied on his business acumen and he managed to persuade enough voters during the campaign of that moxie to enable him to win an Electoral College victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Post reported: “Officials involved in the Trump transition team cautioned against assigning any significance to the briefing schedule that the president-elect has set so far, noting that he has been immersed in the work of forming his administration, and has made filling key national security posts his top priority.

“But others have interpreted Trump’s limited engagement with his briefing team as an additional sign of indifference from a president-elect who has no meaningful experience on national security issues and was dismissive of U.S. intelligence agencies’ capabilities and findings during the campaign.”

I believe the president-elect should get up to speed.

Now!

Trump picks demonstrate anti-unity theme

sessions

Donald Trump has vowed to “unify” the nation after a bitter campaign that elected him the next president of the United States.

Who, then, does he pick for his national security team?

Let’s see: retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who will lead the National Security Agency, says that fear of Muslims is “rational”; Kansas U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, who will lead the CIA, believes Muslims contribute to the terror threat by refusing to repudiate terrorism; U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, whom Trump has nominated to be attorney general, was denied a federal judgeship in the 1980s because of allegedly racist comments he made as a U.S. attorney in Alabama.

Trump is making no apologies for targeting people of certain faiths and he is making no amends toward the African-American community by nominating someone with, um, a checkered civil-rights past to lead the Justice Department.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%e2%80%99s-national-security-choices-reinforce-his-unapologetic-views-on-terrorism/ar-AAktCJm?li=BBnb7Kz

None of this should surprise anyone, I suppose. The president-elect is precisely who he says he is: a tough guy who vows to roll back many of the policies of the administration he will succeed.

According to the New York Times: “The reaction from Democrats was immediate and angry. ‘The president-elect has created a White House leadership that embodies the most divisive rhetoric of his campaign,’ Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said on Friday. ‘To the extent that these become policies or legislative proposals, I commit to stopping them.’”

Perhaps the most amazing view from this national security team came from Gen. Flynn, who supports a national registry of Muslims and compares such registration to the internment of Japanese-Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. President Roosevelt overreacted grossly to a perceived threat from loyal Americans as the nation entered World War II and that overreaction has been universally condemned in the years since as a tragic mistake.

Oh yes. A new day is about to dawn in Washington, D.C. Let’s all get ready for some storm clouds that are beginning to boil up on the political horizon.

Another key Republican weighs in on Trump

MEET THE PRESS -- Pictured: (l-r)  Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates appears on "Meet the Press" in Washington, D.C., Sunday Jan. 24, 2016. (Photo by: William B. Plowman/NBC/NBC NewsWire via Getty Images)

Now it is Robert Gates’s turn to join the amen chorus of Republicans concerned about their party’s presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Gates, who served as CIA director and defense secretary for President Bush before staying on to serve as defense boss for President Obama, said that Trump is “beyond repair.” He said Trump has no understanding of the differences between negotiating with foreign government leaders and those with whom he has business dealings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/robert-gates-donald-trump-national-security_us_57dd63b4e4b08cb1409622ee

“Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own—such as his claim that he knows more about ISIS than America’s generals,” Gates wrote in op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal. “He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations.”

He “knows more about ISIS than American generals.” That statement taken all by itself suggest to me at least that this clown — I refer to Trump — has no business anywhere near the nuclear launch codes.

I’m not expecting those who have supported Trump’s incredible — and by “incredible” I mean “not credible” — rise in political power to forsake their guy. Still, how many testimonies such as the one delivered by Robert Gates does it take to persuade others that they are banking their country’s national security on someone who knows not a single thing about protecting it?

Or them? Or their families?

Say it again, Trump: ISIS is ‘winning’ … seriously?

adnani

Abu Muhammad al-Adnani is dead — reportedly.

Who is this guy, Adnani? Oh, he’s the No. 2 man in the Islamic State hierarchy. He’s one of the founders of ISIS. He’s believed to be the mastermind behind the recent terrorist attack in Paris.

Adnani apparently bought it in Aleppo, Syria, according to ISIS’s media arm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/world/middleeast/al-adnani-islamic-state-isis-syria.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

This is a big deal, man. A real big deal, in fact.

It’s not clear yet how Adnani was killed. Was it an air strike by a manned jet fighter with an American or allied pilot at the stick? Was it by a drone strike?

Does this mean the end of the Islamic State? No.

However, it suggests — presuming Adnani’s death can be confirmed — that ISIS is in serious trouble.

Why mention this today? Well, we keep hearing from Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, that ISIS is “winning,” that U.S. forces can’t defeat this Islamic terrorist organization because the commander in chief, Barack Obama, refuses to link the terror organization to the religion it purports to represent.

Let’s review for a brief moment.

Osama bin Laden is dead; drone strikes have taken out al-Qaeda and ISIS leaders throughout the Middle East; our special operations forces — Navy SEALs, Army Delta Force commandos and CIA operatives — are on the hunt constantly for the terrorist monsters.

We’re killing bad guys almost daily.

When we take out leaders of the Islamic State brain trust — such as Abu Muhammad al-Adnani — that’s a really big deal.

The fight will go on. Can we declare victory yet? Of course not. It is my sense, though, that we’re a lot closer to that moment than we were on 9/11.