Former CIA Director Bob Gates weighs in on Russia's involvement
9:31 AM 12/19/2016
The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Will Trump Play Spy vs. Spy?
By EVAN THOMAS -
DEC. 19, 2016
"Much depends on the character of the national security adviser, who has enormous power to carry out the chief executive’s writ."
"The best model of a national security adviser was Brent Scowcroft, a scrupulous pragmatist and honest broker under George H. W. Bush. Judging from press accounts, Mr. Trump’s pick, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, is no Scowcroft. While skilled at disrupting terrorist networks in Iraq as an intelligence officer, he was regarded as an erratic and overbearing boss by many of his subordinates at the Defense Intelligence Agency. It is easy to imagine him establishing clandestine intelligence and operational groups to feed him and the president what they want."
In recent days, President-elect Donald J. Trump has rejected the C.I.A.’s conclusions that Russian hackers attempted to sway the American elections, and has accused unnamed officials within the agency of trying to undermine him. And he has rejected the tradition of receiving the intelligence community’s daily briefing, implying that he would rather rely on information and analysis from his inner circle of advisers.
It’s a disturbing set of developments, if only because we’ve been here before. Presidents face a great temptation to go “in-house” for intelligence that fits with their plans; some have even set up formal or informal operations to circumvent the C.I.A. and other agencies. In almost every case, the result has been a disaster — for the president and for the country.
The most obvious example is Richard M. Nixon. When, as president-elect, he interviewed Henry A. Kissinger to be his national security adviser, Nixon told Kissinger that he didn’t trust the State Department or the “Ivy League liberals” at the C.I.A. Once in office, Nixon tried to use the agency to shut down the F.B.I.’s investigation of the Watergate burglary, but he was rejected by its director, Richard Helms.
But even long before Watergate, Nixon had decided to bypass the normal foreign-policy and intelligence chains. Nixon and Kissinger kept the secretary of state, William P. Rogers, in the dark on secret diplomacy and schemed to outfox the top brass at the Pentagon to conduct the bombing of Laos and Cambodia.
Photo
President Nixon aboard Air Force One with Secretary of State Rogers, left, and Henry Kissinger, national security adviser, right. Credit Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
And when the generals and the intelligence officials refused to do his bidding, Nixon looked for someone who would. While he hated the C.I.A., he counted on J. Edgar Hoover of the F.B.I. Lyndon B. Johnson had told Nixon that Hoover would be the only one in Washington he could trust — meaning, trust to do his dirty work, just as he had for presidents going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS
M. L. Chadwick 7 minutes ago
Now, hang on.You write that when the deputy director of the FBI did what was necessary to reveal that President Nixon himself was behind the...
Lynn 12 minutes ago
On top of twisting intelligence to strengthen his own power rather than strengthen the United States, Trump is giving high-level security...
Louisa 32 minutes ago
Anyone interested in Trump vs the CIA needs to read yesterday's book review in the NY Times on "Debriefing the President" by John Nixon...
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
But even Hoover balked. When the Pentagon Papers appeared in June 1971, Nixon ordered Hoover to dig up dirt on the leaker, Daniel Ellsberg. A shrewd self-preservationist, Hoover ducked the order; he could see that the legal system was starting to crack down on government wiretaps and “black bag jobs” — i.e., burglaries.
Thwarted, Nixon went in-house, and created an internal security unit to plug national security leaks. The unit, whose chief operatives were a former F.B.I. agent, G. Gordon Liddy, and an ex-C.I.A. case officer, E. Howard Hunt, became infamous as “the Plumbers.” Liddy and Hunt did catch a leaker or two, but during the 1972 campaign they went on to do political espionage for the Committee to Re-Elect the President.
As Nixon found, one problem with subverting the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus is the risk of incompetence. Liddy and Hunt were stumblebums who got caught. When Ronald Reagan made the mistake of sneaking around the State Department and C.I.A. to free the hostages held by Iranian terrorists in 1986, he sent his national security adviser, Robert C. McFarlane, on a ludicrous mission to Tehran bearing a Bible and a baked cake. McFarlane’s swashbuckling deputy, Marine Col. Oliver North, proceeded to cook up an arms-for-hostages deal that boiled over into the Iran-contra scandal, almost wrecking Reagan’s presidency.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Enter your email address
Sign Up
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
SEE SAMPLE MANAGE EMAIL PREFERENCES PRIVACY POLICY
The ends, arguably, sometimes justify the means. Before America entered World War II, Roosevelt probably violated the law in going outside normal channels to aid embattled Britain. But attempts to outflank or bully the bureaucracy usually end badly. Leading up to the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney leaned on the C.I.A. to conclude there were ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Much depends on the character of the national security adviser, who has enormous power to carry out the chief executive’s writ. Kissinger was brilliant at opening China and negotiating an arms control deal with the Kremlin. But he had a devious side.
The best model of a national security adviser was Brent Scowcroft, a scrupulous pragmatist and honest broker under George H. W. Bush. Judging from press accounts, Mr. Trump’s pick, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, is no Scowcroft. While skilled at disrupting terrorist networks in Iraq as an intelligence officer, he was regarded as an erratic and overbearing boss by many of his subordinates at the Defense Intelligence Agency. It is easy to imagine him establishing clandestine intelligence and operational groups to feed him and the president what they want.
29
COMMENTS
The bureaucracy can find ways to fight back. During the Nixon administration, the Joint Chiefs of Staff grew so distrustful of the White House that they planted a spy on the staff of the national security adviser. “Deep Throat,” the famous source behind some of the earliest Watergate revelations from Bob Woodward at The Washington Post, turned out to be the deputy director of the F.B.I., Mark Felt. But those intrigues ultimately doomed a presidency and plunged the nation into crisis.
We need to heed those lessons: Congress, law enforcement, the bureaucracy and the press will need to be vigilant about the Trump White House. We can’t say we weren’t warned. Nixon tried to keep his unruly emotions a secret. President-elect Trump tweets them.
Evan Thomas is the author, most recently, of “Being Nixon: A Man Divided.”
A version of this op-ed appears in print on December 19, 2016, on Page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Will Trump Play Spy vs. Spy?.
There is a tool of thought called Occam’s razor, which suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. For example, when you can’t find your phone, what assumption makes more sense: that you misplaced it or that someone broke into your home while you were showering and stole it?
Conspiracy theories, such as climate change being a hoax perpetrated by those who stand to profit from renewable energy or that the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were an inside job, embrace the opposite principle, where the most cynical and tangled answer is the correct one.
The simplest explanation doesn’t always end up being right – maybe somebody did steal your phone – but it is the best place to start. So where would Occam’s razor have us begin when it comes to Donald Trump and Russia?
Vladimir Putin, the former KGB agent and current president of Russia, made his preference for Trump clear during the presidential election, which nobody disputes.
Putin is no fan of Hillary Clinton, who has been harshly critical of him and rightfully so. His list of offenses include the fraudulent 2012 Russian presidential election, the annexation of the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, efforts to destabilize Europe through propaganda, cyberattacks and missile placement, and the slaughter of civilians in Syria, including the bombing of hospitals and schools, in support of the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad.
For a decade, Trump has repeatedly praised Putin, telling CNN’s Larry King in 2007 that the Russian president is “doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia period.” In December 2015, Trump reciprocated Putin’s praise of him by saying “it is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.” And the kicker: More than a year after Russia annexed Crimea, Trump told a stunned interviewer that Russia was “not going into Ukraine.”
Several members of Trump’s campaign and presidential teams have been revealed to have strong ties to Russia, such as former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former adviser Carter Page, and now Trump’s choices for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and secretary of state, Rex Tillerson.
And then there’s Trump’s advance knowledge of Kremlin propaganda published by Russian news outlets and a bombshell tweet from adviser Roger Stone saying “Wednesday
@HillaryClinton is done” well before the WikiLeaks release of stolen Democratic National Committee emails.
That brings us to the likelihood that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign to improve the odds of a Trump presidency.
The CIA, for one, believes that’s exactly what Russian hackers, possibly under the direction of Putin, were trying to accomplish. The FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the 17-agency U.S. intelligence community, are less convinced of intent but they don’t dispute the CIA assessment. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers, including Sens. John McCain and Mitch McConnell, are joining Democrats in calling for a bipartisan investigation into Russia’s actions. And on Wednesday, the New York Times published a thorough investigation into Russian involvement in the DNC hack and the U.S. government’s inadequate response.
Here’s what President-elect Trump says about all of the evidence: “It’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it.”
It doesn’t matter what Trump believes. Any reasonable person can see that there is enough information to warrant a deeper look at Russian interference in the presidential race and several congressional contests, including the 1st District race here in New Hampshire.
The conspiracy theory says the countless Trump-Russia links are the invention of a diverse coalition of Trump haters and sore losers; Occam’s razor points to a troubling relationship between a new U.S. presidential administration with many financial interests in Russia and that nation’s thuggish leader, who has expansionist ambitions and a hatred for Hillary Clinton. The simple explanation is that Putin and Trump are bound by their insatiable greed – for money, power and revenge.
A thorough congressional investigation is necessary, and any elected or appointed official who doesn’t believe that is a danger to this country.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Will the Electoral College dump Trump? 13:43
autoplay autoplay
In the aftermath of a wild, norm-busting 2016 campaign, it's only fitting that Monday's Electoral College vote — the next step in formalizing Donald Trump's election to the presidency — has generated frenzied, star-studded arguments to somehow change the results.
But regardless of whether you view these efforts as proper and legitimate uses of Constitutional authority, sour grapes or just democracy's version of primal scream therapy, don't expect any reversal of November's overall result.
Sound and Fury
The weeks since the election have seen an unprecedented number of headlines teasing various scenarios about changing the results in the Electoral College — whose 538 members meet Monday in the 50 state capitals to cast their official votes. Trump won the Electoral College, 306 votes to Hillary Clinton's 232, but lost the popular vote by over 2.5 million votes, the
third worst margin since 1824.
A handful of Democrats and even a few Republican electors have embarked on an unusual effort to deny Trump the victory — or at the very least, raise the specter of changing the election.
Electoral College gets final say on election 4:08
autoplay autoplay
Electors in three states have gone to court seeking the chance to vote their mind; another resigned to avoid the vote altogether. One Republican elector in Texas has publicly said he will not vote for Trump, although his state voted overwhelmingly for the GOP candidate.
And a group of about 80 electors (including one Republican) signed on to
a letter to National Intelligence Director James Clapper asking for a briefing on the role Russian hacks may have played in the election before the vote. (That request, supported by Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta, will not be granted, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said.)
Activists, meanwhile, have taken up the cause. A
petition aimed at "conscientious electors" has garnered nearly 5 million signatures. The West Wing's fictitious president, Martin Sheen, and a slew of actors released a YouTube appeal pleading with electors to give the election to Clinton, or anyone other than Trump.
Filmmaker Michael Moore
published an impassioned plea to Republican members of the Electoral College "to vote your conscience" and promising to pay the fines of electors whose states punish them for breaking with Trump.
On "Saturday Night Live," comedian Kate McKinnon revived her Clinton impression to show up at the house of an elector and spoof
the cue card scene from the holiday movie "Love Actually."
"Just vote for literally anyone else," one of the cards read.
Should electoral college honor Trump's win? 6:18
autoplay autoplay
Constitutionalists argue that the electors are free to vote however they please, although 29 states have Supreme Court-upheld laws requiring them to vote as their state did. The constitutionality of enforcing those laws, however, has never been tested.
But even if these efforts worked to deny Trump the 270 votes, they are not aimed at boosting Clinton. The election would be sent to the House of Representatives where Republicans have a large advantage, meaning Trump would still almost certainly still be president.
A Great Big Civics Lesson
All these machinations are another sign of just how hugely partisan and unusual 2016 was. In past elections, few have acted as so-called "faithless" electors. Since 1948 there have only been nine of them. Even in the disputed 2000 presidential election, when passions ran almost as high as today, no electors changed their votes and just one abstained. That was in protest over D.C.'s lack of voting representation
in Congress.
Experts say the only real effect of Monday's vote might be a civics lesson for America.
GOP elector: Why I won't vote Trump 8:50
autoplay autoplay
"For citizens, they tend to learn something from these car crashes," legal analyst Jonathon Turley said, recalling the 2000 election's startling reminder that a majority of Americans don't necessarily elect presidents in America.
"This raises the question: Do we need electors?" said George C. Edwards III, a Texas A&M professor and author of "
Why The Electoral College is Bad for America." "This increases awareness and sensitivity of the problems of the Electoral College. That in turn might have a longer term impact on the structure of American politics."
Still, both say it's unlikely the Electoral College will be changed, either.
"Republicans have fallen back in love with the Electoral College because they view it as a protection of small states, some Democrats have fallen back in love with the Electoral College because it's viewed as a fail safe mechanism against candidates like Donald Trump," Turley said. "As a result, the Electoral College has never been more popular."
Support for the Electoral College rose in the weeks following the election. According to a Gallup survey, 47 percent said they favored keeping the current electoral system, up from 35 percent four years ago. Slightly more, 49 percent, favor amending the Constitution to get rid of the system, but that's down from 62 percent four years ago.
But few elected officials — and even fewer Republicans, for whom empowering urban electorates would seem a death knell — are on board, and critics say a surge in popularity makes change unlikely.
"It was already difficult to talk to members about removing the Electoral College — I know because I've tried — but it's almost impossible when it's experiencing a surge of popularity," Turley added.
Lessig: Electors May Have 'Moral Reason' Not to Pick Trump 6:32
autoplay autoplay
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
<a href="http://NBCNews.com" rel="nofollow">NBCNews.com</a> - 21 hours ago
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the Obama administration, congressional leaders and Donald Trump have all demonstrated a lack of urgency surrounding the recent election-related Russian hacking revelations. "I think that given the ...
"Cradle-to-Grave Monitoring and Intervention
Results of routine, comprehensive mental health screening for every child, preschoolers included, are integrated with electronic health records. Longitudinal national electronic databases, including treatments and personal family information, can be accessed by insurance companies, federal and state agencies, special interest groups, and eventual employers. Even fictional “mental disorders” follow a child for life. Without parental consent, DNA data collected on newborns through KIDSNET in Rhode Island are linked to educational databases." -
Coddling millennial snowflakes, Part Two: Social emotional learning in public education
By Debra Rae
web posted December 19, 2016
-
2016 elections and mental health - Google News
Comments
Post a Comment