Thursday, February 16, 2017


No doubt the most titillating moment in any episode of the popular TV reality show “The Apprentice” came when the host, fabled New York business mogul Donald J. Trump, would look a contestant in the eye, summarize his or her shortcomings and firmly announce, “You’re Fired!”

I suspect that Mr. Trump’s image as a man with sufficient kahoonas to sack an apprentice contributed to the voters’ decision to install him in the White House with a mandate to “Drain the Swamp.”

That said, the President’s request for the resignation of Homeland Security Advisor Michael Flynn, deserves some attention.

Flynn was a very visible supporter of President Trump’s candidacy. Here’s what Wkipedia says about him:

Michael Thomas Flynn (born December 1958)  is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General who was the 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and was the 25th National Security Advisor, serving President Donald Trump for 24 days, from January 20 to February 13, 2017, before resigning amid controversy over his contacts with Russian officials. Flynn's tenure as National Security Advisor is the shortest in history.

The gist of Flynn’s misbehavior, as reported in the media, was that he lied to Vice President Pence about a conversation he had with Russian Ambassador,
Sergey Kislyak.”according to current and former American officials.”

A February 9th New York Times article by Matthew Rosenburg and Matt Apuzzo asserts that the “American officials” spoke on condition of anonymity because their information was “classified.”

Pretty obviously, the so called “American officials” are members of the vast network of spies often referred to as “the intelligence community.” That would include, the FBI, the CIA, Homeland Security agents and who knows how many other unidentifiable federal employees who constitute the 2017 version of George Orwell’s 1984 Big Brother.

Nameless, faceless, devoid of actual proof of how they learned what they claim to know, these ‘American officials’ speak to the nation through the mainstream media, which guards their anonymity jealously.

My best guess is that U.S. spies regularly tap the telephones of Russian, and probably most other countries’ diplomats, which would explain why they were listening when Flynn spoke to Ambassador Kislyak.

Which would also explain why acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, claimed that Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. She apparently knew about Flynn’s calls to Kislyak and that Flynn had lied to Vice President Pence about what the Kislyak discussion involved.

Frankly, the whole rhubarb about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential campaign is an indictment of the politicization of the federal intelligence community.

The only claim of Russian interference in the 2016 election relates to the Wiki Leaks disclosures about Democratic National Committee favoritism for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.

Julian Assuage, founder of Wiki Leaks, insists that his source is not associated with the Russian government.

Big Brother hasn’t told us how he knows that the Kremlin is behind the anti Clinton leaks. Still, the Obama Administration, the mainstream media and the congressional Democrats have accepted the story of Russian interference.

Big surprise, They lost the election. They lost the Electoral College vote. They have lost the confidence of the nation.

But they still have a grip on the intelligence community. Their unsubstantiated “disclosures” will prove to be a festering infection for the next four years.

Perhaps President Trump will have to say “You’re Fired” to some of those anonymous ‘American officials.’


  1. Judge, I like reading your posts, they are thoughtful, cause me to evaluate and sometimes re-evaluate my thinking. I focus not on whether we agree, places that have one stream of consciousness are totalitarian - this country's foundation is just the opposite.

    I have one exception to your current post relating to the idea of the "mainstream media". With the current political climate drenched in hatred, the attempts to discredit the media is simply stifling thoughtful discourse, evaluation and re-evaluation. This is a totalitarian ploy to control the media by drumming into the populist that their plight in life is caused by someone, something that they should rail against - history is replete with examples. What is frightening is when people fall into the trap of shouting down the media that questions the government because the government and their surrogates foster this hatred, which leads to the government controlling of the media - totalitarianism.

    The irony, the "Mainstream Media" is out front, we know who they are, we can discern their bias and we can contest their position; but we cannot challenge their professionalism.

    The new media by contrast is a webpage, unaccountable and produced in haste --- it is a sound bite, its attempt is sensationalism, it is the weakest of journalism, which has produced a new term, "alternative facts"...which, at best, might be a half-truth, which logically must be a half-lie, which to me is simply a lie; a fraud. If we want to fear the media, I suggest we start with "new media"; the digital tabloids, the 140 character types.

    We can and should disagree on matters of policy - there are few absolutes, but disparaging a media as liberal is lacking a fundamental understanding of U.S. History .... I dare say the Constitution was born of a liberal mind-set; at least King George III must have thought so.

  2. The WSJ headline did not comport with the contents of the article. The headline was meant to attract attention, but it was very misleading. Just to repeat the headline was "Spies Keep Intelligence from Trump".

  3. "Big surprise, They lost the election. They lost the Electoral College vote.
    They have lost the confidence of the nation."

    It"s more like, Trump has captured 35% of the nation.