The Trump presidency

[petee]

The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins
Intelligence Community pushes back against a White House it considers leaky, untruthful and penetrated by the Kremlin

( by John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He’s published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee.)

...out of worries about the White House’s ability to keep secrets, some of our spy agencies have begun withholding intelligence from the Oval Office. Why risk your most sensitive information if the president may ignore it anyway? A senior National Security Agency official explained that NSA was systematically holding back some of the “good stuff” from the White House, in an unprecedented move. For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president’s eyes only, containing enormously sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets.

I previously warned the Trump administration not to go to war with the nation’s spies, and here’s why. This is a risky situation, particularly since President Trump is prone to creating crises foreign and domestic with his incautious tweets. In the event of a serious international crisis of the sort which eventually befalls almost every administration, the White House will need the best intelligence possible to prevent war, possibly even nuclear war. It may not get the information it needs in that hour of crisis, and for that it has nobody to blame but itself.

Isn't this, well, rather worrying?

that's in jared kushner's newspaper, btw

 

[CrabbedOne]

The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins
Intelligence Community pushes back against a White House it considers leaky, untruthful and penetrated by the Kremlin

( by John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He’s published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee.)

...out of worries about the White House’s ability to keep secrets, some of our spy agencies have begun withholding intelligence from the Oval Office. Why risk your most sensitive information if the president may ignore it anyway? A senior National Security Agency official explained that NSA was systematically holding back some of the “good stuff” from the White House, in an unprecedented move. For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president’s eyes only, containing enormously sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets.

I previously warned the Trump administration not to go to war with the nation’s spies, and here’s why. This is a risky situation, particularly since President Trump is prone to creating crises foreign and domestic with his incautious tweets. In the event of a serious international crisis of the sort which eventually befalls almost every administration, the White House will need the best intelligence possible to prevent war, possibly even nuclear war. It may not get the information it needs in that hour of crisis, and for that it has nobody to blame but itself.

Isn't this, well, rather worrying?

It is even more so for foreign agencies that are close to the US.

You've got loose mouthed nutters sitting on the NSC with Russian connections and a Twittering President who if he'd been hired to PR for Putin could not be more sycophantic to the man.

The Israeli spooks were already leaking they had worries weeks ago.

It occurs to me even if Trump does quash any US investigation foreign agencies will not stop looking for evidence of collusion with the Kremlin.

 

[hot air baboon]

tbf the Israeli's just appear to be re-cycling the US line orginating from his clearly serious enemies amongst the US spooks - has anything actually "leaked" as yet that we know of ?

Those involved in the talks said that the Americans warned Israel to “be careful” starting Jan. 20, the day Trump takes over the Oval Office.

 

[CRI]

that's in jared kushner's newspaper, btw

He's got his digits in many pies.

 

[CrabbedOne]

tbf the Israeli's just appear to be re-cycling the US line orginating from his clearly serious enemies amongst the US spooks - has anything actually "leaked" as yet that we know of ?

Those involved in the talks said that the Americans warned Israel to “be careful” starting Jan. 20, the day Trump takes over the Oval Office.

I did hear something on a podcast a former Israeli spook saying he just thought it politicised and that in any case intel is shared agency to agency and not much goes up to the Whitehouse. But they would say that wouldn't they Israel's own intelligence community is a very political business often cockily subverting the PM's line.

Agencies tend to worry about moles in foreign services anyway. The Israelis are quite good at planting them in the US so are probably very cagey anyway.

Intelligence agencies are by nature very secretive and adverse to sharing valuable intelligence product that might not be acted on. That could be greater problem with Infowars loving Trump. The US agencies can have an agenda but are actually pretty subservient creatures. There's a long history of intelligence in the US being doctored to suit the customer. The truth that's spoken to power is only the one they want to hear. So say Langley digs up some very unpleasant news on Russia it's liable to get binned by a middle manager who knows how to climb the slippery pole and that's not by bearing bad news. I recall Bob Baer saying that's what happened in the Reagan era with dirt on the Iranians. CENTCOM currently has a scandal about something very similar happening under Obama with bad news on IS always being prettied up to please him.

I'd also assume Mossad are digging away like crazy to see if there is a problem with Team Trump simply because its a very eccentric and apparently incompetent administration that's really unpredictable. The NSA were not above routinely tapping Merkel's phone. Finding out what a foreign leader might do is what these people are for. Trying figure out what's really going on beneath that strange combover will be occupying a lot of people.

 

[camouflage]

Interesting interview talking about Trump and the Russians.

Watch Full Interview With Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov

 

[redsquirrel]

Calm down. Maybe if you joined in you could raise the tone of the thread.
That quote, i put it there in response to what the crabbed one had written (their previous 2 posts) about how this was not a desperate cry for a fairer more egalitarian society from some okies in a Steinbeck novel (their words not mine). I thought it was kind of funny that the quote was mistakenly attributed to Steinbeck. It's actually from a recent(ish) book called A short History of Progress, about how civilisations die, which i've just started.
Point was supposed to be that whilst Trump talked about jobs, and the forgotten men and women, his agenda was not one designed to appeal to folk who want a fairer society. Trump's a poor man's millionaire but he did not win on a platform of reducing inequality.

Then make that point. Don't just post a stupid, false quote.

As it is the tweet is both factually wrong and the type of patronising crap that has lost the Democrats so many votes over the years.

 

[CrabbedOne]

On Political Violence @ A Glance Beyond Narcissism: What Political Psychology Tells Us About Foreign Policy Under Trump

...
First, at 70 years old, Trump is the oldest US president ever to take office. Research by Michael Horowitz, Rose McDermott, and Allan C. Stam suggests that older leaders, particularly in democracies, are at a heightened risk of initiating, and escalating, conflict. The exact mechanisms behind this relationship are subject to debate, but older leaders may have shorter term horizons, making them more likely to take risks in order to make their mark. Second, although Trump has stated that the military boarding school he attended gave him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys who go into the military,” he has no formal military experience. Recent scholarship by Michael Horowitz, Allan Stam, and Cali Ellis suggest that leaders at the highest risk of initiating conflicts are those that have served in the military, but never saw combat, since combat experience makes leaders “more knowledgeable about the risks and consequences” of the use of force. Third, one of Trump’s most frequently brandished credentials on the campaign trail was his experience as a business leader. Ongoing research by Matthew Fuhrmann finds that leaders with business backgrounds are more likely to free-ride in alliances. Fourth, although there have been debates about the relationship between gender and conflict propensity, there is little systematic evidence to suggest that male leaders are more conflict-prone than female leaders, such that Trump’s gender offers little indication of his potential foreign policy behavior.
...

And it does not get any better.

That bit on leaders who have been CEO's being prone to "free-ride in alliances" is just a result of a life of market competition.

 

[Pickman's model]

Trump's a poor man's millionaire but he did not win on a platform of reducing inequality.

trump's not a poor man's millionaire.

 

[CrabbedOne]

trump's not a poor man's millionaire.

He'd be very insulted, millionaires are Trump's idea of poor people.

 

[bimble]

Then make that point. Don't just post a stupid, false quote.

As it is the tweet is both factually wrong and the type of patronising crap that has lost the Democrats so many votes over the years.

It's not a tweet ffs. Its a quote. If you think its crap please say why. I've tried to explain why I think it's relevant. Trump's fans want low taxes and private enterprise, they don't want to pay anyone else's healthcare etc.

 

[DotCommunist]

the history of the american socialist and american labor movements from the battle of blair mountain to the new left, to sacco and vanzetti, to the IWW and Joe Hill and everything before and inbetween and after bimble. Thats why its crap tbf, because it completely ignores americas proud socialist tradition- never happened, just grasping individuals. Theres a wealth of history to put the lie to that quote. No matter who was misquoting it, its just untrue.

 

[Raheem]

It's not a tweet ffs. Its a quote. If you think its crap please say why. I've tried to explain why I think it's relevant. Trump's fans want low taxes and private enterprise, they don't want to pay anyone else's healthcare etc.

It puts an idea into Steinbeck's mouth that he didn't express and probably didn't hold.

You're right about what *some* of Trump's fans want, but they are not typically going to be what we would think of as proles.

 

[redsquirrel]

So ignoring for the moment the fact that it's a false quote, it's factually incorrect. Socialism did take root in the US, at times there has been a very strong socialist movement in the US which rather makes it's (sneering) conclusion rubbish. So you think a claim that is

1) made up and wrongly attributed to Steinbeck in a shit attempt to add gravitas to it
2) factually wrong, showing the ignorance of the writer about the subject they are pontificating about
3) uses (2) to make a patronising deepism about the US working class

is relevant and useful. I suppose it is in showing up the type of bullshit parroted by liberals and why the Democrats are dying, but it's tells nothing about Trump's agenda.

 

[bimble]

the history of the american socialist and american labor movements from the battle of blair mountain to the new left, to sacco and vanzetti, to the IWW and Joe Hill and everything before and inbetween and after bimble. Thats why its crap tbf, because it completely ignores americas proud socialist tradition- never happened, just grasping individuals. Theres a wealth of history to put the lie to that quote. No matter who was misquoting it, its just untrue.

Thank you. Lots of googling for me to get on with. Anything post WW2?

 

[DotCommunist]

Thank you. Lots of googling for me to get on with. Anything post WW2?

The american New Left period was post ww2. I'm no expert here, I merely read and digest. Look at socialistic elements within the civil right movements for one, thats just an obvious and naked example. Its a lot of history and somehow it never gets told widely. I must stop referencing mark fisher but that sort of quote is a prime example of capitalist realism/revisionism. Oh and you could read whole books on the mob infilitration/co-option of labour unions. It is a long and often bloody history. Aren't they always.

look at the history of the IWW and he development of american counter culture first I recon.

 

[snadge]

Hoover fucked socialism. Any dissent against 'American values' was noticed by jealous go getters and reported, American culture was at this time very Mysoginist/Racist Jock culture, freedom belongs to the strong etc, extreme bullying in all walks of life.

 

[DotCommunist]

He'd be very insulted, millionaires are Trump's idea of poor people.

he'd sue for defamation, he's done it in the past when people suggested he might not be as rich as he makes out he is.

 

[DotCommunist]

there is a great line from 'L.A Plays Itself' about the walk of fame having near every blacklister there but none of the blacklisted. Who now remembers the armenians etc etc

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Watch Trudeau, Trump speak about strengthening ties


Btw: that quote isn't 'made up'; it's just wrongly attributed to Steinbeck. Someone else said it.

A quote from A Short History of Progress

Socialism never did take root in the US. That's not the same thing as saying 'socialism never existed in the US'. Of course it did; but it has never shown any longevity there, outside of a small and dedicated cadre.

The 'millionaires' bit is also largely true. A majority of Americans still believe in the 'American Dream'. They believe it's possible to join the One Percent. That's why they vote against their own interests on so many things. They remain convinced that it's only a matter of time until they somehow strike it rich. So they vote in anticipation of the day that they'll have lots of money - and they don't want to be sharing it with poor people [ie other people like their current selves; and like which they most probably will remain.]

 

[CRI]

Hoover fucked socialism. Any dissent against 'American values' was noticed by jealous go getters and reported, American culture was at this time very Mysoginist/Racist Jock culture, freedom belongs to the strong etc, extreme bullying in all walks of life.

As much as I wish socialism had a stronger influence on American politics and society, that's really wishful thinking. Only ever gained much traction in a few very liberal enclaves, only for brief periods and never accepted as mainstream. Reagan started breaking the unions around the same time Thatcher did, but they were already weaker and less valued in the UK by that time. The shadow of McCarthy was still pretty strong, and by the 80's, even the term "liberal" became a slur that meant virtually the same as communist or socialist to folk on the right wing. Be interested in views from other North Americans, but I do think some Brits on the board are bigging up that influence, perhaps hoping it will be easy to resurrect?

 

[editor]

 

[editor]

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

see: post 3144

 

[editor]

see: post 3144

I'm too busy to go back that far. Besides you can all sing along again.

 

[DotCommunist]

As much as I wish socialism had a stronger influence on American politics and society, that's really wishful thinking. Only ever gained much traction in a few very liberal enclaves, only for brief periods and never accepted as mainstream

this is literally untrue. You don't know your own history cri, you really don't here. The 'liberal enclaves' bit gives it away. You've no reading here.

 

[belboid]

Watch Trudeau, Trump speak about strengthening ties


Btw: that quote isn't 'made up'; it's just wrongly attributed to Steinbeck. Someone else said it.

A quote from A Short History of Progress

Socialism never did take root in the US. That's not the same thing as saying 'socialism never existed in the US'. Of course it did; but it has never shown any longevity there, outside of a small and dedicated cadre.

The 'millionaires' bit is also largely true. A majority of Americans still believe in the 'American Dream'. They believe it's possible to join the One Percent. That's why they vote against their own interests on so many things. They remain convinced that it's only a matter of time until they somehow strike it rich. So they vote in anticipation of the day that they'll have lots of money - and they don't want to be sharing it with poor people [ie other people like their current selves; and like which they most probably will remain.]

Have you read the thread? We had this...A Short History of Progress quotes it as a Steinbeck quote. And the actual quote, tho using many similar words, was saying something quite different - that the communists he mostly knew were 'embarrassed capitalists' not that that's what most americans were

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Have you read the thread?

I'm too busy to go back that far.

 

[CRI]

this is literally untrue. You don't know your own history cri, you really don't here. The 'liberal enclaves' bit gives it away. You've no reading here.

With the greatest respect, you must be getting your information from "alternative" books, blogs, college campuses, American penpals with fringe political views, but definitely not from lived experience of the place.

What proportion of elected officials (local, state or national) have ever won seats on a ticket with the word "socialist" in their party name, or even included in their platform?

When British people use the term "liberal" they mean something totally different from what Americans mean. You do understand that, don't you?

 

[Pickman's model]

As much as I wish socialism had a stronger influence on American politics and society, that's really wishful thinking. Only ever gained much traction in a few very liberal enclaves, only for brief periods and never accepted as mainstream. Reagan started breaking the unions around the same time Thatcher did, but they were already weaker and less valued in the UK by that time. The shadow of McCarthy was still pretty strong, and by the 80's, even the term "liberal" became a slur that meant virtually the same as communist or socialist to folk on the right wing. Be interested in views from other North Americans, but I do think some Brits on the board are bigging up that influence, perhaps hoping it will be easy to resurrect?

out of curiosity have you done any research on the question, or is this off the top of your head?