13 thoughts on “Pilot Guest Columnist Marc A. Thiessen: President striving to thwart leakers

  1. Nowadays, “classified” discussions of POTUS with other world leaders seems not so classified. It is a crime to leak classified information and the leakers hide behind the safety of the media protecting their sources of information; avoiding federal prosecution. The reporter asking the President “if he is working for the Russians” is an affront to the Office and America. This is nothing more than the liberal media trying to twist their viewers/readers into believing there is a more sinister or traitorous agenda being kept from the public. The American people should recognize that some topics are not suitable for public consumption and can have detrimental effects of international relations. The motivation to leak seems to stem from either political jockeying or to maliciously disparage and undermine the current Administration.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I certainly don’t see how you arrive at the conclusion that the Russian connections are a hoax based on Theissen’s opinion.

    But here is a statement that defies logic:

    “Some U.S. officials also told the media that Trump had shared classified details of an Islamic State terrorist plot with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during an Oval Office meeting — exposing Israel as the source of intelligence. It turned out that Trump did not reveal that Israel was the source — that was done by the anonymous geniuses who leaked his conversation.”

    Trump had already revealed Israel as the source to Lavrov. The leaker just asserted that Trump had done this.

    Two years into this administration, and it is still Trump’s staff, appointed and approved by him presumably, that is the source of the leaks.

    Maybe his “approval” was on the same level as his “personal approval” of teachers for Trump University. And then he could not name a single one. Not one.

    Trump was supposed to be a reformer, or as he called it, a swamp drainer. “Swamp draining 101” seems to be that one understands how it works first. And that requires time away from watching FOX and playing golf. It also requires appointing advisors who are not just sycophants, but rather strong people willing to challenge as well as advise.

    Obama was one of the most aggressive presidents with regards to plugging leaks.

    Trump doesn’t even bother…probably because he likes the publicity. After all, what good is it if he insults world leaders and know one knows about it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I didn’t see where anything written led to the conclusion that the Russian/trump connection is a “hoax”. Between Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen, there is certainly “something” there. Regardless, Theissen is typically as fast and loose with the truth as his President.

      Like

  3. The more evidence that Trump is completely in bed with Putin the more silly and desperate his enthusiasts become. This post is a good example. The fact that so many of the people Trump has hired are very disloyal and leak at the drop of a hat is NOT any sort of evidence of a hoax. If anything, it shows that the people around him know very well that Trump deserves zero respect and zero loyalty.

    Like

    1. Right and wrong are not determined by tribe.

      If you accept a job in the executive branch, you have an obligation to refrain from undermining the President’s efforts in foreign relations, whether you agree with those efforts or not.

      Neither appointees nor civil servants have the authority to direct foreign policy by sabotaging efforts or Presidents they don’t like. If they cannot salute and carry on their jobs honestly, their option is to resign and criticize from the outside, not damage our relations with other countries to make the President look ineffective.

      Like

      1. Of course you are correct. But, the fact that Trump has surrounded himself with egregious leakers remains. And the fact that this is so is NOT evidence that there is a Russia collusion hoax.

        Like

  4. I believe Thiessen’s leaks are evidence the Russian collusion story is a hoax based on my theory of the hoax. Should my theory of the hoax be confirmed, it will then be obvious the criminal leaks were part of it:

    • The Obama administration wanted to bury the Clinton email server story, which had come to light almost by accident in the course of the Benghazi hearings in Congress.
    • When Wikileaks began publishing emails from the server, the administration attempted a distraction from the substance of the scandal by claiming Russia had stolen them.

    • When then-candidate Trump began threatening to investigate, if elected, the Obama administration came up with the Steele dossier and claims that Putin must be blackmailing Trump.

    • When Trump won the election, Obama holdovers in the new administration began a campaign of leaks to discredit the president and pressure him to not investigate the Clinton server.

    Everything leads back to the Clinton server and efforts to cover it up or marginalize interest in it. The question is why?

    The best speculation I’ve heard claims the Clinton server was an approved intelligence asset, possibly used for back channel communications of a sensitive nature. This would account for President Obama himself having an email account there.

    Like

        1. Since you seriously propose this tin foil hat nonsense you will not be capable of understanding why it is such utter nonsense. What you call “best speculation I’ve heard” is completely laughable. What kind of “back channel” channels NOTHING of any significance in four years of operation?

          Like

          1. RE: “Since you seriously propose this tin foil hat nonsense you will not be capable of understanding why it is such utter nonsense.”

            I’m asking for an explanation, anyway. If you can’t provide it, then we must assume you don’t have one.

            As for the Clinton server being an approved intelligence asset, you can make of that what you wish. It is not central to my reasoning.

            Like

    1. I don’t believe the “dossier” became an issue until after the election. That is when the FBI took it to Trump first to show them what they had uncovered.

      Only Buzzfeed published the story, the MSM held it back as they should have.

      Like

      1. The FBI’s involvement with the dossier preceded the election. Also, the dossier was an open secret long before James Comey had his meeting with the president-elect to share the document. Mother Jones, for example, published an article disclosing some of its allegations in October, 2016.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s