I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control
Over the past few months, America has lurched from partisan warfare to the cliffs of an existential crisis.
Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government.
Said an intelligence officer: “I know what's best for foreign policy and national security… And I'm going to act on that.”
Some of us might applaud this man, including a few of my fellow Democrats. In their minds, this is a case of Mr. Smith Goes to Langley to do battle against a corrupt President Trump.
One small problem. The intelligence officer quoted above was actually Aldrich Ames, a CIA traitor whose crime of treason in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in the compromise of more than 100 assets. Many were tortured and executed as a result.
Ames’ flawed logic is eerily similar to that of his present-day colleagues who are engaged in a shadow war with their commander in chief. They, too, have decided that their superior judgment is more important than following the law.
For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume that these officials are somehow different than Ames. Let’s suppose that they have compelling pieces of information that indeed suggest Trump or his staff have committed treason.
When you’re trained as a spy, you’re taught how to handle these kinds of situations. Upon learning the information, it gets tightly compartmented (restricted) and sent to the Department of Justice or Congress for investigation. If the evidence is found to be credible, the constitution makes clear what happens next: impeachment.
That’s how American democracy should work.
And that’s precisely how it has been working. According to former Vice President Biden, there’s been an on-going investigation into the alleged connections between Trump and Russia. All of us should take heart in knowing that the system is functioning exactly as designed.
However, some of America’s spies are deciding that that’s not enough. For reasons of misguided righteousness or partisan hatred, they’ve taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner. They have prosecuted their case in the court of public opinion, with likeminded media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, and the Washington Post serving as court stenographers.
Elected by no one, responsible only to each other, these spies have determined that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president “will die in jail.”
I understand how this might feel appealing to deeply partisan Democrats. After all, I didn’t want Trump to win either. But the solution to fighting this subpar president cannot be encouraging a network of spies to tip the scales back in our political favor. We must instead let the system continue to work, as it has, and make our case to the American people during future elections.
If you’re not convinced, imagine the consequences of letting spies decide not just Trump’s fate but other political winners and losers too. Imagine how they might treat our candidates next.
Flash-forward to November 4, 2020, where Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have defeated Donald Trump and Mike Pence for the White House. Democrats will celebrate in the streets. The liberal spies will smile.
Mission accomplished.
Conservative spies, however, will take a darker view. To them, their liberal colleagues will have gotten away with political murder. They’ll be looking for revenge.
Welcome to the new America. It’s now their turn to burn democracy down. And they’ve got the tools and motivation to do it.
This is the slippery slope of political tribalism that, up until a few months ago, I would have thought impossible in America. Certainly it happens in third world nations but not here. I was trained to believe that we were exceptional.
In the culture of America’s spies, you live and die by a set of rules. One of them is a sacred pledge of allegiance to the constitution and commander in chief. Spies may not like a president or their policies but they must salute their leader nonetheless. If they cannot, they are told to resign.
Spies also take a vow of secrecy, specifically to keep classified information hidden from anyone who doesn’t have an authorized need to know. It’s a commitment one keeps for a lifetime. And should that vow be violated, the consequences are dire. Prison time. Colleagues and informants killed. Enemies emboldened. The country less safe.
Spies also accept and embrace a final rule: there must be an unbreakable wall between government workers and the democratic process.
Why?
Because many spies have access to powerful tools that, if used improperly, could cause incredible damage to the nation’s stability. Accordingly, clandestine officers have a special covenant with the American people – codified by the Hatch Act – that limits their participation in politics.
During my time as a CIA officer, I quickly learned why all these rules were in place. I read people’s emails. I listened to phone calls. I recruited assets that told the dirtiest and most embarrassing of secrets. I came to realize that my power was both an awesome responsibility and, at times, wickedly seductive.
Some of us faltered in our commitments. I remember colleagues who believed themselves above the rules, conducting quiet investigations into cheating wives or ex-boyfriends. They were eventually discovered and rightfully thrown out. They had demonstrated an inability to handle the burden of power.
And that is precisely what we are experiencing today. The spies who are plotting against President Trump are breaking U.S. laws. They’re violating their oaths. And they’re committing treason to remedy (perceived) treason.
They likely don’t see it that way, of course. But, then again, neither did Aldrich Ames.
With luck and aggressive investigations, these renegade spies will join their fallen colleague at the Allenwood Correctional Facility for the remainder of their lives.
I look forward to watching the gates forever close behind them.
Link: I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control
alt fact in an attempt to discredit anyone or any organization that disagrees with Drump. I seriously doubt this guy is a Democrat or that he was a former CIA officer. Just another alt fact to cover up some of the dumb statements that Comrade Drump makes on a regular basis.
What a bunch of BS
(no message)
This was further down the article and what I was referencing:
"However, some of America’s spies are deciding that that’s not enough. For reasons of misguided righteousness or partisan hatred, they’ve taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner. They have prosecuted their case in the court of public opinion, with like minded media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, and the Washington Post serving as court stenographers."
"Elected by no one, responsible only to each other, these spies have determined that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors."
"Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president “will die in jail.”"
(no message)
and, now, as the one who picked the fight, it is up to him to come forward and sue for peace.
The intelligence community is made up mostly of ex-military guys. They think of themselves as patriots who willingly have faced danger and endured sacrifice for their country.
They and their military brethren, with who they work hand-in-glove, have had those sentiments reinforced, especially by Republicans, for decades now. They have been the recipients of non-stop positive propaganda (not to mention huge budget increases), especially since 9-11.
For them to come under fire now, from Donald Trump, who never in his life did anything for anybody but himself, or sacrificed anything for his country or anyone else, is too much for them to take...and I get that.
To them, Trump is no better than a turncoat. They see him as a guy who was born into fabulous wealth and advantage, and now trashes the very people whose task it is to protect that wealth, which will be inherited by his children and no-one else. I am sure that many of them feel that the Don thinks of them as suckers and losers. He has all but said so. He is getting now what they see as a helping of just desserts.
Trump can still salvage this situation, but he is going to have to take a step back, admit publicly that he made a big mistake calling out the IC and the generals, admit that he was a giant douchebag to ever tweet comparing them to Nazis, and apologize.
Tell me, Ned, Do you think the Don has that much character in him? I will say that I have my doubts.
Those that leaked classified information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Trump is an idiot in many ways, but to say the onus is on him for this is ridiculous. It was nothing more than a few idiots playing politics. The ones that leaked this information held some allegiance to Obama and decided to try and "get back" at Trump for beating Hillary.
(no message)
but that has nothing to do with my point that there are treasonous idiots within the intelligence community...both on the left and the right.
By your definition of treason (which, what the hell, let's accept) there have been treasonous idiots in and around the intelligence community for over sixty years. It is the natural order of things, not some rare aberration.
and regarding IC leaks...I don't like them, never did. Those that release classified info to the media should be prosecuted if caught.
the campaign and Russian intellegence. What should be done?
And when you ask for evidence, I say there won't be any without the leakers if, and it's a big if, that happened. So fer now I'm holding my fire and let's let this play out with the FBI and congressional investigations. Cause I find it hard to accept any denials by this admin as credible.
but leaking the info just leads to theory...no facts. No one knows the truth at this point, which is precisely the point.
in the campaign.
I agree that right now no one knows the truth. However, given the lies and alternate facts from this administration I grant great deference to those that question their truthfulness. I believe them only to the extent that it's independently verified.
Intelligence is disseminated through the proper channels and leaking information IS NOT the proper channel. Now, I get your point that you don't trust the administration and there are ways for shit like this to be covered up. I guess I don't hold the "Snowdens" in high regard as you do.
I do know that they happen, some for more altruistic reasons than others and some being strictly political.
For example I assume that you are equally upset at the FBI leakers that forced Comey to go public with the Weiner computer investigation, and later the fake news broadcast on Fox that indictments were imminent in connection with the Clinton foundation?
and the press not be on the short list.
And Don who rode into town partially on a spate of late campaign FBI leaks isn't an exception.
(no message)
impact, although I don't think it was dispostive. It sure didn't help the other side though. You don't deny that there were partisan anti Hillary FBI leaks at the end of the campaign do you? If so shouldn't those be investigated and prosecuted?
What perplexes me is that there aren't many Dems now asking for an investigation. Why is that?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Senate staffers are often the guilty ones. But it could be people in the White House, or people close to Trump seeking to torpedo Flynn.
This shit had politics written all over it. I don't see anyone close the the Donald doing this for fear he'd crucify them. Trump loved and trusted Flynn.
Senate staffers? Could be in collusion with their contacts in the IC.
...and they will be rooted out and prosecuted.
Holdovers, that have yet to get their collective asses kicked to the curb.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
and I didn't believe him for one second. To the Don, a promise is just something he has to do to get a deal done. He has a long, long record of being untrustworthy, and to cite any oath he has taken recently as being indicative of anything at all would be to insult my intelligence.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember, but back in 1963, we had a very popular president who people thought was a really great man...a true Irish-American Roman Catholic hero. In 1960. he won the mock election in my 6th grade class at St.Teresa's 117-3, and carried among our parents by a similar margin. If you weren't around then, you can't imagine how popular he was, at least with us.
In 1963, he got murdered, and we haven't had a Catholic president since. Some people probably think that is happenstancet, but I do not.
The day Kennedy was shot, he was surrounded by people who had taken oaths, including the person who succeeded him. Then, the oath-takers put some poor slob forward as the guy who had killed the president.
Two days later, when they tried to transfer the alleged killer to another jail, he was surrounded by law enforcement of all stripes. all of whom had taken oaths. Then, another nobody popped out of the crowd, and all the oath-takers parted like the Red Sea before Moses. This guy killed Kennedy's killer, and spent a few years behind bars surrounded by oath-takers, until he died, from cancer, the oath-takers said.
Then, about 10 or 15 years after he was murdered, Kennedy's reputation started taking hits. Big, ugly hits. First, it was a trickle, but then just a flood of "information" began spewing forth. Where did all these alternative facts about Kennedy come from? Facts that supposedly were known by insiders for decades, but only came out after Kennedy and his brother were long gone?
Why, they came from the oath-takers, of course! And nobody said a thing.
That is just one reason that I don't take seriously the fact that people who are players in the game of power have taken oaths. Their oaths are written on the water.
I hope this answers your question.
(no message)
...McFarland...many, many others whose names are not as well-known...all were prominent public oathbreakers. Some survived, some didn't.
Now we have Flynn...and Trump.
If you are correct, then the Republic failed a long, long time ago.
You are a dodgemeister, at best.
(no message)
My posts have been about the people who take the oaths, in response to you post about "the IC (peoples') oaths being null and void. Next you pivoted brought up "the Republic." Now, you switch to the Constitution. All this evasion while never taking on the substance of anything I said. i guess I'm not supposed to notice.
I tried to engage with you at some length yesterday, and gave you plenty to shoot at, and all you can come back with is junior high level subject line nonsense. Very weak.
I actually typed up a long (and pessimistic) post in response to your post. I posted it. Then I deleted it.
I did that because I'm trying to overcome my pessimism about the Republic. I'm trying to rally.
5 years ago, I thought the Republic was suffering from a very serious but curable illness, but we had little room to mess around. About a year ago, when I saw the candidates we were coming up with, I decided that the illness had gone into its final stages, and there was no recovery. That is when I entered my acceptance stage of dealing with grief. That is why I can laugh at Trump...I had accepted that we can no longer save the Republic...so he couldn't really do anything all that bad. But, I must say, after his first few weeks in office, I'm beginning to think that he might have what it takes to save the Republic.
And yet, we have allegations that the IC is trying to stage a very non-Republican, non-Constitutional coup. And, the people who claim to love the Republic (like you) support that. It is rather astounding to me. I also see people who do love the Republic, but who don't see that Trump has the potential to turn things around. It is frustrating to me.
If we assume that the rules have not changed (and the Republic is not in its death throws), then I cannot accept as a legitimate political strategy the leaking to the press of non-criminal things to provide meat for criminal allegations to be made against a recently elected President in a purely political effort to fabricate a constitutional crisis to topple that president. The IC members who did it should be arrested and tried. Dems here claimed that Trump would create a constitutional crisis, but it is the Dems (and people like McCain and FrankL) who will, in the end, create the constitutional crisis, because they are blinded by his tweets, and cannot see the good he is doing.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Snowden.
If you truly believe that crimes were committed that are being covered up, what do you do?
Watergate would have gone down as a third rate burglary, the mistakes over Vietnam wouldn't have come out until much later, and we would all still be wondering what precisely is it that the NSA is able to do.
Not endorsing it but I can see the dilemma.
(no message)
(no message)
He was a traitor out for himself.
What seems to be happening now - and there is too much we don't know to say for sure - is that our IC has info on Trump that leads them to believe that he is fundamentally compromised.
The author of your piece may have misidentified who Ames is in his foolish analogy.
(no message)
But we have been told that there is SIGINT as well as HUMINT connecting the campaign to Russian intelligence.
It will all come out, at some point. For now there are three active FBI investigations going on, and probable Congressional investigators soon too.
Until then, I have no doubt at all that the people who work in the IC are professional and patriotic. The jury is still out on the new president.
(no message)
just can't be covered up.
Just a guess.
I'd believe they're still digging, but if the evidence had been found, we'd know it by now.
Again, just a guess.
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret) and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Thomas Drake, former Senior Executive, NSA
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, ret.
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
Brady Kiesling, former U.S. Foreign Service Officer, ret. (Associate VIPS),
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The needle in my BS detector got buried into the red zone when you posted, "...a few of them...".
You, sir, are a charlatan.
P.S. You're allusions to conspiracy theories is old, tiresome and groundless. Get a new schtick.
I think Giraldi is in TV a lot.
That's about the extent of my knowledge of these people. And your riddles bore me.
Sorry.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The author was saying that Ames's motives were bad, but that he said his motives were good. The author specifically called Ames a traitor.
Now, the people releasing this information today?...their statements that they are noble are the same statements as a bad actor like Ames. He's saying we can't trust them just because they are claiming noble motives. We have to judge them by their actions.
He was not saying that Ames's motives were patriotic. He was saying that claims of patriotism are often made by bad actors.
(no message)
(no message)