The wrong way to handle Russian meddling.

For those without access to the Washington Post here is the takeaway . . .

“But, of course, in this administration, good men and women don’t last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job: overseeing the dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their jobs.

As Americans, we should be frightened — deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.”

26 thoughts on “The wrong way to handle Russian meddling.

  1. The intelligence services are not a ‘check and balance’ on the President, they are a part of the Executive Branch.

    The President, and especially one who has more than adequate reason to distrust members of the intelligence community, is entitled to place people he trusts in leadership positions.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. As a boat owner you are entitled to appoint anyone as captain. But you would be irresponsible to your passengers if you hired a person who had never seen the water, much less run a vessel.

      You forget that as Trump was openly seeking Russian assistance, ignoring the obvious problem would have been dereliction of duty by those entrusted with our safety. The same ones he calls “scum”. From the beginning.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Openly seeking Russian assistance?

        Surely you can’t be referring to Trump’s joke about the Russians being able to provide the Emails Hillary destroyed?

        Pretty much every intelligence agency in the world could have done so.

        Like

        1. “Trump’s joke“ Always appropriate to see those to words together..

          And you sure you’re not referring trump’s “joke” about China, or Ukraine, or grabbing women by their gentians, or assaulting the media, or shooting people on 5th ave, or using nuclear weapons on Iran, or…????

          It’s obvious you’ve strapped yourself to the mast and are hell bent on going down with the USS Corruption.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. No. More like Don, Jr. meeting with Russians because he was told that dirt on Hillary came from the top in Moscow.

          Or Stone coordinating with Russian hacked emails at WikiLeaks.

          Or Manafort giving internal polling info to Russian intelligence. Or supporting Russians in Ukraine.

          Or Papadopolous bragging about the emails.

          Or Trump’s long relationship with oligarchs for financing his investments.

          Think about Obama doing even one of those. Your head would explode.

          Liked by 4 people

          1. “ Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign “coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities”.Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted or unsaved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete or declined. However, the report stated that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred “in sweeping and systematic fashion”,but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.”

            Wikipedia

            A refresher. Note that “collusion” means nothing legally. “Conspiracy” does.

            The campaign had many ties to Russia, it welcomed the interference, and that all the communications were unavailable for a variety of reasons.

            And Trump was not exonerated on obstruction except by Barr’s is insistence that a sitting president can do whatever the hell he wants. Or effectively so.

            Like I said, if Obama’s team had attended a meeting when promised dirt on his opponents by the Russian government your head would have exploded.

            Liked by 3 people

    2. “The intelligence services are not a ‘check and balance’ on the President, they are a part of the Executive Branch.”

      True. But it APPEARS if Trump is going to weaponize the intel agencies to attack political opponents. If that doesn’t cause a shiver up your back, then maybe, like McConnell and the rest of the GOP, you have no backbone.

      People of trust? Shills that have zero experience in intelligence analysis and even less in running a bureaucracy the size of our national intelligence groups have zero business being appointed, OUT OF CONVENIENCE, because they were Senate approved for an ambassadorship. Grennel, like Barr, auditioned for a position in the administration through undying loyalty to the man, not the office.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. So, I should be concerned that you think Trump might weaponize the intelligence services, even though he has not, as the warning to the Sanders campaign shows, but you are not the least concerned that the Obama administration DID weaponize the intelligence services against the Trump campaign AND the transition?

        Like

        1. @Tabor

          You can be concerned about made up and completely debunked bullshit all you want. Knock yourself out. Of course, the price you pay for such concern is to come across as a hyper-partisan ninny who is either extremely gullible or extremely dishonest.

          If Obama had wanted to destroy Trump’s chances using the security services all he had to do was announce the investigation before the election. He didn’t. And none of the hacks who repeat this nonsense have ever offered an explanation for this fact. You certainly haven’t.

          And, by the way, opening a special desk in the DOJ to process dirt on Joe Biden IS weaponizing the intelligence service. And that could not be more obvious nor more objectionable.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obvious to others. Trump only wants 1)revenge against those who stood/stand agianst him It’s

          called the opposition and in this country, for the time being , is not only allowed, it is necessary. And 2) He wants to blind his base and as many others to the facts of what is happening because in the long run it benefits, not the country as Dershowitz tried to sell, but one person and one person only Donald J. Trump.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Can’t read the article, but the quotation provided tells a lie. Joe Maguire was not dismissed for doing his job. His tenure as acting DNI is statutorily due to expire in a couple of weeks.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Roberts

      You are very free with accusations of “lies.” Typical Trumpian rhetoric and stupidity. I suppose the irony of someone uncritically supporting Trump making such accusations flies right over your head?

      Maguire was, in fact, fired. Your denying that is just another example of Trumpian reality-denying stupidity. Sure he could not continue as DNI without Senate confirmation but he has proved himself over a long career, did a credible job as acting DNI and would have been confirmed if he had been appointed. And, until the Congress was briefed on actual Russian activity in support of Trump, he was on track to be appointed. Instead we now have another acting-DNI – an inexperienced hyper-partisan hack and Twitter troll whose only qualification are his lips glued to Trump’s backside.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “Maguire was, in fact, fired.”

        No one in the administration has said he was fired for cause, and Maguire himself has given no indication of such a thing. Your “fact” is therefore less substantial than you imagine it to be.

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          Of course no one in the administration has said that he was “fired for cause.”
          There is no legitimate cause. Duh!

          But the fact remains very substantial. One day Maguire was in the job. The next day he wasn’t. He did not resign. Try connecting the dots.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @Tabor

            The horror?

            Your spin on this is laughable. Nobody said that Trump broke the law by removing Maguire and bringing in a lackey with almost zero preparation and experience for a very important job. Trump has the authority to replace anyone serving by Presidential appointment that he pleases. I would not even say there is corrupt intent behind this firing, just childish petulance and grotesque stupidity.

            I prefer that the President – no matter what party – not make childish, stupid decisions that will inevitably do harm to our nation. You obviously disagree.

            Liked by 2 people

          1. @Roberts

            “Now that we have that established.”

            Yeah, and it only took about three volleys before you have now finally admitted a basic fact that was in no need of discussion – Maguire was fired.

            As to why he was fired? Actually, we do know why. In front of witnesses, Trump angrily chewed Maguire up and spit him out for allowing the intelligence agencies to brief Congress on Russian actions and intentions. The next day he was removed from his job.

            Liked by 3 people

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