Donald Trump and OUR National Security

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, May 9, 2017.

  1. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    If there is a clearer example of what a fundamental hazard Donald Trump poses to our National Security than his handling of Michael Flynn, then I don't know of it.

    Not only did President Obama tell Trump that Flynn was unsuitable to be given a position in National Security on November 10, 2016. But less than a week into Trump's Administration, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates hurried to the White House to warn Trump, again, about Flynn. Acting AG Yates had information about Flynn's Russian contacts with individuals inside the Russian Govt.; about his financial ties; that Flynn had lied to VP Pence; and that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.

    Trump ignored this evidence. He kept Flynn in the job of National Security Adviser for almost three more weeks, only firing him when news of Flynn's ties to Russia broke publicly.

    Rest assured: President Obama and Acting AG Yates were not the only people warning Trump about Flynn. Doubtless Trump received other briefings from classified sources such as the CIA and FBI director, warning him of Flynn's compromised position. We just haven't heard about them. Yet.

    Trump didn't care that his Natl. Security Advisor was compromised. He only cared that the American public found out about it.

    Whatever business or other ties to the Russian Government, or other foreign powers, Donald Trump may have - we simply don't know at this point. Trump's refusal to release his tax returns and provide other customary documentation makes this impossible to know.

    But the fact that Trump would continue to keep Michael Flynn in such a crucial role; with access to our Nation's most closely guarded secrets; tells us very clearly that Trump lacks the basic judgement and common sense necessary to act in the best interests of our Country. Trump's actions tell us that his priority is protecting those around him, his toadies and lickspittles, over the interests of the American people.

    This will not end well.
     
  2. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #2
    I doubt there was any open collusion between Trump and the Russians, except perhaps by people on the periphery of the campaign. However, it looks like Flynn might have violated the law (Logan Act) by negotiating with a foreign government as a private citizen, and even if there isn't collusion, it just means that Trump and his team are dangerously naive, to put it charitably, to the potential dangers of conflicts of interest. The Russians, Chinese, Iranians and North Koreans must be howling with laughter that we elected such an inept President.
     
  3. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #3
    Why didn't Obama or the administration pull his clearance at the time? Obama had 3 months to handle this issue. And while Obama was a lame duck national security certainly should have promoted Obama to act right away. Right?
     
  4. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #4
    Interesting that Clapper shot down the fabled '17 Intelligence Agencies report' that was tossed around by the media and Clinton campaign.
     
  5. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #5
    If Obama had pulled his clearance, the outrage from the Trump campaign would have been palpable.
     
  6. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #6
    Certainly national security take priority over what some homophobic racists think, no?
     
  7. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #7
    Try telling that to Trump. He isn't on board with that yet.
     
  8. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #8
    The Administration that gave security clearance to a fiction writer that was denied clearance by the FBI? Surely you jest.
     
  9. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #9
    The fact remains that you just said Obama put politics before National Security. And based on the opinions in post #1 Obama was/is just as negligent as Trump.
     
  10. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #10
    In regards to Trump - as President (especially) he cannot get a free pass for ignorance. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse nor should what he does out of that ignorance be normalized. He has access to pretty much anyone he wants to consult with. And if he chooses to NOT listen to advice, it's even worse. He owns it.
     
  11. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #11
    I do have to note this:

    "Yay! There's no actual proof (yet) that we committed treason!"

    has to rank as one of the most pathetic boasts I've ever heard from a Presidential Administration. It gives new meaning to the phrase "lowered expectations."

    To help out the dimmer-witted, starting with President Trump, the "seventeen agencies" declared, with near absolute certainty, that the Russian Government interfered with the US Presidential Election. All that James Clapper said yesterday is that he had not seen evidence that they actually conspired with the Trump Campaign in so doing.

    If Clapper actually had seen evidence that had happened, Trump and his associates would be under indictment today.
     
  12. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #12
    While I agree that ignorance is not an excuse it seems to be an excuse. Hillary got off due to "no ill intent". Ted Cruz even talked to Comey during the hearings and they both agreed that intent is not required to prosecute under Title 18.

    The real issue is when do we stop ignoring the fact that ignorance is not an excuse? The precedent has been set that "if you didn't know" it's ok. I'm all for prosecuting people who violate the law and/or jeopardize the national security of the US.
     
  13. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #13
    no ill intent is not the same as ignorance. Just saying. I agree with most of what you say. I also think that it needs to be a case by case basis to determine the level of threat.
     
  14. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #14
    1) I don't think that anyone believes that Russia didn't interfere. They have been doing it both in the US and Europe since Truman was president, they are not going to stop now. You know for example where the involvement of the CIA in JFK's assassination conspiracy theory comes from? Russia, they paid an Italian newspaper to spread it among communist circles, and then the story took flight. Reason? Interference in the elections that saw Nixon win.

    2) it is clear that you base your judgment on "guilty until proven innocent" which is not a good thing.

    3) The lack of a conspiracy is a pivotal issue, I don't see why you downplay it.
     
  15. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #15
    While Russia may have played a role I would not call it interference. From what I can gather all they did is reveal to the American public what Hillary and the DNC was up to. Nothing that was revealed was a lie or fabricated. What people should really be upset about is what was actually revealed, not simply the fact that it was revealed. Had the DNC gotten their hands on incriminating emails of the RNC you can bet your ass that those emails would have been leaked. Is it still "election interference" if some American hacker had performed the act or is it only "election interference" because it was an outside entity?
    --- Post Merged, May 9, 2017 ---
    I disagree. One standard. You violate the standard you get the punishment. I'm not sure if you ever had a security clearance but I do. Hillary broke every rule in the book. You do not destroy hard drives. Once any State data goes through the system it is no longer your property. Even simple things like Ethernet switches, that have 0 potential to hold any data at all, has to be checked and destroyed in the proper way. She did none of that. The lost devices, printing classified emails, home servers, ignoring subpoenas.....the list goes on and on. It was so wrong. She should have had the book thrown at her. And any Trump administration officials who cross that line should have an equal measure of scrutiny and punishment thrown their way.

    The issue I have is all the people here who want to throw the book at Trump were perfectly happy to give Hillary a pass. That is 100% unacceptable to me, and the reverse would be equally abhorrent to me as well. Anyone who wanted the book thrown at Hillary has to be equally ready and willing to square up and throw that same book right at the Trump Administration.
     
  16. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #16
    Back in October (how long ago that now seems) I said:

    Emphasis mine.

    And that remains true to this day. Unless there actually is some evidence of a quid pro quo, I think the Trump Administration deserves the benefit of the doubt on the treason front.

    But that doesn't remove the problematic nature of all the contacts between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian Government. Those need to be investigated. It certainly is well within the realm of possibility that, unbeknownst to Donald Trump, some member(s) of his campaign may have offered favors or influence to people inside Russia, in exchange for financial or other inducements.

    What is concerning to me is that, despite very clear evidence that Michael Flynn was receiving financial benefit from his association with Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump kept him as National Security Advisor.
     
  17. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #17
    I didn't bring up who nor details. I simply said and stand by the fact that each cases should be looked at - scrutinized - and punished appropriately. This is pretty much true of any crime. Context and intensity/complexity of the crime play a role. One size does not fit all.
     
  18. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #18
    When it comes to national security I think the maximum punishment should be used for each offence committed.
     
  19. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #19
    While I certainly agree that keeping Flynn was a botched call, you also have to keep in mind that the intelligence community and Trump didn't start on the right foot. It is normal that the WH and intelligence have some strong disagreements, and two different agendas, but Trump and the US intelligence were going at each other's throat at the beginning of the term. I fault Trump for this, to be clear, but the intelligence community's behavior didn't help. I am pretty sure that Trump simply thought that there was some sort of agenda by the intelligence about this. In other words, it's a bad bad call but nothing ill intentioned. Even listening to Yayes yesterday it is clear that the administration wasn't sure what to do, up to the point that Yates was asked by the WH if Flynn had to be fired (Yates refused to answer the question). If you read closely, it is clear that it was Pence that took the charge and had Flynn fired, he probably explained to Trump that while the intelligence community has its own agenda, there is no way that they would risk the safety of the US political system just to get back at him.
     
  20. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #20
    That's contradictory. If you use the maximum punishment for each offense - then there's no scale because it's all or nothing. Are you suggesting there is no scale by which national security can be compromised?

    Do you mean each offense by one person - or anyone who compromises.

    Either way - I disagree. Not allowing justice to be served in a scaled manner is not justice.
     
  21. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #21
    It will be scaled based on offense. Selling secrets to China is different than forgetting to check that the "Secret" safe is locked everyday.
     
  22. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    This has all the earmarks of an underling taking a bullet for the boss and the Vice President. It's called plausible deniability. You can either believe he knew all about it, or he is a bumbling ignoramice, or both. :oops: I presume you prefer the latter. With all the earmarks of a scammer, while it's not been proven yet, I bet on the former. And I agree completely with the OP, this man is a threat to our national security and if thought of in the extreme, possibly a threat to our existence as we know it.

    [​IMG]
     
  23. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    2) only with republicans
     
  24. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #24
    You bet the former after the intelligence community + Yates not only went to Trump/Pence to explain the problem, but they also declared that Pence was giving false information because Flynn side tracked him?
    They are not amateurs, and the last thing they would've done is showing Flynn's documentation to Trump if he was (knowingly) involved.
     
  25. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #25
    I agree with most of what you said, but I think it's a tad disingenuous to blame the US intelligence community for Michael Flynn.

    Some may disagree, but I would say that National Security Advisor is the most important position a President gets to make that isn't subject to Senate Confirmation. (You will note that Trump picked a qualified, non-whack-job - albeit definitely conservative - in Neil Gorsuch. The Senate, even a solidly Republican one, wasn't going to be messed with.)

    I think Trump picked Flynn deliberately to stick his thumb in the eye of not just the Democrats, but at establishment Washington in general. And that, in my opinion, was reckless. The Security Advisor is the go-to guy for the most important day-to-day matters concerning the security of the United States.

    Trump got a friendly warning from Obama on November 10. He also knew that Flynn was the guy leading the "lock her up" chants at his rallies. He also knew Flynn and his son were peddling the Comet Ping Pong child-sex ring nonsense. That's not the sort of behavior you look for in a person entrusted with the security of the entire world.

    That, to me, speaks volumes about Trump's judgement.
     

Share This Page