Executive Departments 3

[fraurosena]

The OIG report about the investigation into Comey has been released. You can read it in full here.

As such reports are usually long, I've quoted the conclusion for those of you who don't want to read the whole thing.

Quote

Congress has provided the FBI with substantial powers and authorities to gather evidence as part of the FBI's criminal and counterintelligence mission. The FBI uses these authorities every day in its many investigations into allegations of drug trafficking, terrorism, fraud, organized crime, public corruption, espionage, and a host of other threats to national security and public safety. In the process, the FBI lawfully gains access to a significant amount of sensitive information about individuals, many of whom have not been charged, may never be charged, or may not even be a subject of the investigation. For this reason, the civil liberties of every individual who may fall within the scope of the FBI's investigative authorities depend on the FBI's ability to protect sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure.

As Comey himself explained in his March 20, 2017 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he was unable to provide details about the nature or scope of the FBI’s ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election because

...the FBI is very careful in how we handle information about our cases and about the people we are investigating…. Our ability to share details with the Congress and the American people is limited when those investigations are still open, which I hope makes sense. We need to protect people’s privacy…. We just cannot do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we’re doing it.

However, after his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times. Memo 4 included information that was related to both the FBI's ongoing investigation of Flynn and, by Comey’s own account, information that he believed and alleged constituted evidence of an attempt to obstruct the ongoing Flynn investigation; later that same day, The New York Times published an article about Memo 4 entitled, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.”

The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties. On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.

Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information. Comey said he was compelled to take these actions “if I love this country…and I love the Department of Justice, and I love the FBI.” However, were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director's example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement 60 duties properly, as Comey himself noted in his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony. Comey expressed a similar concern to President Trump, according to Memo 4, in discussing leaks of FBI information, telling Trump that the FBI's ability to conduct its work is compromised “if people run around telling the press what we do.” This is no doubt part of the reason why Comey’s closest advisors used the words “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning what Comey had done.

We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy.103 Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism. In a country built on the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to Department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions. Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.

The OIG has provided this report to the FBI and to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility for action they deem appropriate.

The DOJ has declined prosecution.

Here's Comey's reaction:

To be honest, I don't get his reaction about not being a liar and a leaker, because the OIG conclusion clearly states that he was. They literally say:

What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.

[fraurosena]

Here's Jen Rubin's take on the Comey news. It answers my question in my post above. I should have read the whole darned report before drawing my conclusions. ?

The DOJ’s inspector general buries the real news

Quote

With William P. Barr as President Trump’s attorney general, one must always keep in mind that everything out of this Justice Department will be spun, shaded or, in the case of Robert S. Mueller III’s report, misrepresented with the sole purpose of exonerating Trump of any malfeasance and attacking his political opponents. Unfortunately, the media, as it did with Barr’s letter and news conference about the Mueller report, too often accepts the spin without examining the underlying documents.

That seems to be what is happening with the newly released inspector general’s report examining former FBI director James B. Comey’s release of memos documenting Trump’s attempt to secure his personal loyalty and to go easy on Trump’s fired ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn. At the time, Trump accused Comey of breaking the law. He tweeted: “James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION to the media. That is so illegal!” Trump’s minions in the right-wing media ran with it. The problem is that it was false.

Enter Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. His report reiterates that DOJ declined prosecution — which by Trump’s own standards is an exoneration. The DOJ could not find that Comey broke the law. The president lied when he accused Comey of violating laws protecting classified information. In a lengthy recap of the memos, Comey’s copying of the memos, his providing memos to the press via a friend and Comey’s testimony, the inspector general repeats several times that there was no prosecution.

That finding is buried in the Trump-Barr cloud of spin, which looks at whether Comey, in attempting to document gross misconduct by the president of the United States, did not follow department procedure. Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance Allen tells me, “This debunks the myth from the right that Comey would be prosecuted for his actions. The conclusion of the report questions the ethics of his conduct, but not its legality.”

One of the memos, Memo 4, contained information covering evidence of obstruction of justice. Horowitz finds a violation of an internal regulation that requires a laborious approval process for release of this type of document in Comey’s giving copies of Memo 4 to the press and to his attorneys along with three other memos. Comey, who was already fired, chose to inform the country of the president’s actions. The inspector general did not find that the memos contained classified information (meaning, they did not), but rather that they related to the Flynn investigation and to Trump’s attempted obstruction. In fact, the memos only lightly touched on Flynn; they related to the president’s illegality in handling the Flynn matter. The inspector general nevertheless concludes Comey violated department policy by not getting a sign-off for release to the media.

Former DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller skewered Horowitz for complaining that Comey’s actions put public pressure on the FBI to investigate presidential wrongdoing. “Comey did what he did because the president was actively trying to dismantle DOJ’s normal way of operating,” Miller tweeted. “The AG and the DAG were both complicit, so Comey had nowhere else to take his concerns. It must be nice to live in the context-free world inhabited by the IG.” Miller argues that this is akin to faulting Comey "for speeding on his way to tell the village that a fire was coming. Such a narrowly-scoped view of the world.”

The headlines will dutifully report Horowitz’s finding that Comey didn’t get sign off under DOJ rules. It would be helpful if they pointed out that the IG reaffirmed Trump’s lies about illegality. It would be even better if the media, which received the Comey documents and wrote stories critical to educating the public about Trump’s obstruction, reminds readers of the context for Comey’s actions.

 

[Howl]

Well, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.  

But I have to say, this is just insanity.  Was Bolton (an Iran uber hawk) not hawkish enough?  Did he tweet out that failed Iranian launch.  WTF IS GOING ON? 

[Emma]

I believe this is standard procedure for certain documents at high level classification. No note taking or recording allowed either. 

(From an article I read some time ago, couldn't find it again)

[Howl]

As noted, I have despised John Bolton for many years and was appalled when he was appointed National Security Advisor.   As noted above, he's being shut out from critical meetings that, as the Nat Sec guy, he should be leading. 

This excellent CNN post shines a light on how Trump's incompetent idiocy leads to rampant ratfuckery that adversely affects negotiations with allies, creates leverage for enemies while destroying US standing in the world. 

Leaving John Bolton out of key Trump meetings is strange

It's not especially long, but when you think about the dynamics involved, it's scary.  

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

As noted, I have despised John Bolton for many years and was appalled when he was appointed National Security Advisor.   As noted above, he's being shut out from critical meetings that, as the Nat Sec guy, he should be leading. 

This excellent CNN post shines a light on how Trump's incompetent idiocy leads to rampant ratfuckery that adversely affects negotiations with allies, creates leverage for enemies while destroying US standing in the world. 

Leaving John Bolton out of key Trump meetings is strange

It's not especially long, but when you think about the dynamics involved, it's scary.  

It's a good article, but they are going under the premiss that Trump has a rationale and a decision making process. I think it's obvious that Trump has neither. He does what he wants to do in that moment. He never thinks things through. He is heavily influenced by who he spoke to last, and by the wishes and needs that he feels at that particular time. There is not real thought process. If he believes that what he wants is at odds with somebody else, he will sideline them, deliberately ignore them and keep them out of the loop.

He just reacts, is in love with his own unpredictability, and then is stunned by all the reactions he gets. That's it. And yes, that is scary as hell.

[Howl]

Yeah, have to agree on all those points.  Twitter is.....twitter, but there was much tweeting over Pence going to Poland; Trump played golf  and rage tweeted re: Deborah Messing while a monster hurricane threatens millions of American citizens and has essentially destroyed an island nation.  Trump also appeared out of it and blathered incoherently more than usual.  Someone did some videos contrasting a 2016 Trump with an August 2019 Trump to demonstrate his obvious decline in verbal skills. 

When Pence said Trump "is where he needs to be," I think people took to mean he was safely at his golf course and not embarrassing the country on the international stage. Pence was probably trying to imply that Trump was there to address potential domestic natural disasters, but whatever. 

 

 

[Howl]

More overt thuggery.  It'd be a damned shame if anything were to happen to the Federal funding for your nice little state: Interior Department threatens lawmakers who complain about moving land management HQ

 

[JMarie]

From the White House to infomercials. Oh Sebastian.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7431419/Former-Trump-national-security-aide-hawking-fish-oil-supplements-calling-doctor.html

 

[smittykins]

Hey, gotta pay the bills somehow!

[Audrey2]

3 hours ago, smittykins said:

Hey, gotta pay the bills somehow!

FTFY

Hey, gotta pay (or save up for) the legal bills somehow!

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm so glad that members of the military and their families will go without just so the mango moron can get a little bit of his precious wall (end sarcasm): "Projects defunded for Trump’s border wall include military buildings with ‘life safety violations’ and hazmat concerns"

Spoiler

The U.S. Navy has been forced to stand down on construction projects meant to fix “life safety violations” and fire risks at dilapidated ship maintenance buildings and hazardous materials warehouses in Virginia after funds were diverted to pay for President Trump’s border wall.

The pending construction projects at Norfolk Navy Shipyard are among 127 that the Pentagon has defunded to free up $3.6 billion in funding for fences and barriers on the southern border with Mexico using emergency powers.

One of the military facilities — a 1957 structure on the Portsmouth, Va., shipyard known as “Building #510” — had been cited for numerous “life safety violations” that threatened the well-being of hundreds of workers if not heavily renovated, the Navy warned in its budget request to Congress last year.

The building has been labeled a “high risk environment,” largely due to fire safety concerns. As of last year it had no sprinkler protection, inadequate fire alarm systems and not enough exits. Excessive heat and humidity inside have caused equipment problems despite a 60-ton portable HVAC system brought in to clear the air, according to Navy budget documents.

To compensate for the risk of fire, the Navy had been reassigning workers to staff “roving fire watches” around the clock, seven days a week. The budget request sought to revamp the building, including relocating personnel overseeing nuclear containment and repairing Navy life rafts from an even more dangerous building.

If the building isn’t replaced, the Navy wrote in its 2018 request, “approximately 330 personnel, working more than 256,000 manhours annually will remain in a high risk environment, with continuing significant rework, high stress, and additional operating costs due to inadequate working environment.” The Navy received $26 million from Congress for a construction project that would have upgraded the building, only to see that funding taken away to pay for Trump’s border wall project.

The project is one of eight military construction projects in Maryland and Virginia that will lose $155 million in funding being diverted to construct fencing and barriers along the southern border.

The episode highlights how long-neglected military facilities that suffered under the sequestration-induced budget restrictions are now being buffeted by a different political head wind.

The defunded projects include a Maryland child-care facility for soldiers’ children, Virginia warehouses designed to hold hazardous materials and a secure facility for classified cyberwarfare operations. They are among 127 military construction projects across 23 states, three U.S. territories and 20 countries that have been sidelined to pay for fencing and barriers on the border with Mexico. Shooting ranges, airfields, drone facilities, schools, a missile field and a treatment center for working dogs are among the projects that have seen their funding rescinded.

Members of Congress representing Maryland and Virginia said the diversion of funds will hurt U.S. national security.

“I’m deeply concerned about President Trump’s plan to pull funding from critical national security projects — including millions of dollars from important projects in Virginia — so he can build his border wall,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said in a statement. His state will lose an estimated $89 million in funded projects to pay for the wall effort, making it one of the most affected.

Trump declared a national emergency in mid-February after Congress refused to give him the sum he wanted for border barrier construction. An obscure U.S. Code section governing the military allows the defense secretary, in the event of a national emergency requiring the use of the armed forces, to carry out construction projects in support of those troops without approval from Congress. The statute permits the defense secretary to take money that Congress has given the Pentagon for other military projects that have yet to start contracting.

Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper on Tuesday determined that 11 border barrier projects proposed by the Department of Homeland Security would support troops deployed to the border, and authorized the Pentagon to divert $3.6 billion from 127 military projects to finance them. On the campaign trail, Trump regularly said Mexico would pay for his planned wall along the southern border.

For the defunded projects to proceed, Congress must once again appropriate funds for them. Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill broadly support “backfilling” the $3.6 billion worth of projects, and the Republican-led Senate has included a provision to do so in its version of the annual defense policy bill. Democrats, however, have balked at the suggestion, saying Trump’s action flies in the face of Congress’s constitutionally mandated power of the purse. Democratic lawmakers, including Kaine, have argued that “backfilling” the projects would set a precedent allowing any future president to do an end run around Congress when confronted with funding he or she deems insufficient.

Top Pentagon officials say they are committed to making sure the defunded projects are still completed, and say they will work with Congress to ensure that the funding for the projects is replenished. Still, they have admitted there is no guarantee the funding will be forthcoming.

The Portsmouth ship repair facility is part of the Norfolk Navy Shipyard, the U.S. Navy’s oldest shipyard, where workers repair and build naval vessels ranging from submarines to aircraft carriers. Among other activities, federal workers and contractors there are responsible for maintaining nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines, as well as disposing of the radioactive waste they generate. The shipyard processed approximately 8,000 cubic feet of radioactive solid waste from nuclear submarines between 2013 and 2017, according to a recent report from the Energy Department.

But the infrastructure supporting the U.S. military’s nuclear waste disposal efforts has crumbled in recent decades under successive waves of budget restrictions. In some cases, that work has been carried out using antiquated 40-year-old pipes, valves and tanks, according to a 2011 budget document.

Other projects that have been sidelined in favor of the border wall include $41 million for a pair of “noncombustible hazardous materials warehouses” at the Norfolk shipyard. One of the warehouses was to include a new storage shed for gas cylinders; according to Navy budget documents, the existing one is too small and doesn’t have the necessary fire safety systems.

The Norfolk warehouses currently being used to store hazardous materials “are World War II-era structures that are inefficient and not designed for HAZMAT warehouse operations,” Navy officials wrote.

“If this project is not provided, [the Defense Department] will continue storing hazardous materials in nonconforming storage facilities that do not meet current life safety/fire safety code requirements,” Defense officials told members of Congress in 2018.

Defense Department public affairs representatives did not respond to questions about the current status of the shipyard buildings, or whether the problems had been fixed.

Another project that is to be defunded to pay for the border wall is a $10 million cyber operations facility, planned for Joint Base Langley-Eustis, in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia.

According to 2018 budget documents, the construction project is meant to create a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility, or SCIF, a name commonly used to describe areas of U.S. government buildings designed for handling classified material. The facility is to replace a temporary leased one currently being used by the Air Force’s 185th Cyberspace Operations Squadron, a cyberwarfare division reporting to U.S. Cyber Command. A recent assessment found that the unit needs a new facility to meet its full potential.

A 2018 Air Force budget document stated that continuing use of the leased facility “is costly and represents an enhanced security risk.” As of Friday it was still leasing a facility, an Air Force public affairs representative said.

Military construction projects in Maryland took a slightly smaller economic hit, with a total of $66.5 million in funds deferred. Reps. Jamie B. Raskin and C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, both Maryland Democrats, said in published statements that the funding decision would inconvenience U.S. troops.

“This is blatantly stealing billions from crucial projects that directly benefit our military families, their quality of life and troop readiness,” Ruppersberger said.

Defunded projects in Maryland include $16.5 million from an unspecified project called “Cantonment Area Roads” at Fort Meade, which houses the headquarters of the National Security Agency. The border wall project will take $50 million from Joint Base Andrews, a military base in suburban Maryland eight miles from the D.C. border. Construction projects put on hold there include a planned cargo pad for hazardous materials, a designated training facility for U.S. service members trained to defuse and dispose of bombs, and a $13 million child development facility.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

John Bolton has just been fired, apparently via tweet.

[JMarie]

22 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

John Bolton has just been fired, apparently via tweet.

CNN and MSNBC are giving this appropriate coverage.  Fox News is talking about the North Carolina congressional election redo,

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

John Bolton has just been fired, apparently via tweet.

Just saw this.  I despise John Bolton;  however, the chaos in the White House just keeps getting worse.  There's no real foreign policy.  The proposed Taliban meeting at Camp David THE WEEK OF 9-11 and it's subsequent cancellation was an absolute, unmitigated, PR cluster fluck disaster.  

Now I'm terrified to think who Trump might have in mind as a replacement.  Ivanka? Junior? ERIK?  SEB GORKA? 

I'm thinking back fondly to the era of Molly Jong-Fast's Bolton-Sanders erotic fan fic on Twitter, which surmised that Bolton had the best positions in the kama sutra tattooed on his upper lip, under that mustache and he slow-danced the lambada with Sarah H. Sanders.  

Also, Bolton was supposedly a habitue of the swinger club Plato's Retreat, at least in the past.  Just wanted to throw that into the toxic stew that is Bolton. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Howl

[GreyhoundFan]

"Something is fishy about Trump’s John Bolton announcemen"

Spoiler

President Trump announced Tuesday that he had effectively fired national security adviser John Bolton. But two key details call into question his version of how it went down — including Bolton’s own comment.

Trump tweeted around noon: “I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore … I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service. I will be naming a new National Security Advisor next week.”

But just an hour before the announcement, the White House announced that Bolton would be appearing at a 1:30 p.m. news conference alongside Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. It seems unlikely Bolton would agree to show up after effectively being fired. If Bolton was on his way out as of Monday night, why did the White House press office not seem to know about it at 11 a.m. Tuesday?

Adding to the subplot is Bolton’s comments. His tweets Monday night and Tuesday didn’t indicate anything had changed, and shortly after Trump’s tweets, he chimed in by saying, “I offered to resign last night and President Trump said, ‘Let’s talk about it tomorrow.’ ”

In addition, Bolton told The Washington Post’s Robert Costa: “Let’s be clear, I resigned, having offered to do so last night.” Pressed further, he said: “I will have my say in due course. But I have given you the facts on the resignation. My sole concern is U.S. national security.”

Those statements don’t necessarily add up to a complete contradiction of what Trump said, but they are entirely suggestive of one. Trump implied he initiated the resignation, but Bolton says he offered it. Bolton also suggests that Trump didn’t make a final determination Monday night, even as Trump claims he had already decided and made the request.

Bolton, who is apparently already talking to several media outlets, offered a fuller and more direct contradiction to the Daily Beast. After it quoted White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, who backed up Trump’s account, Bolton responded in a text: “[White House] press secretary statement is flatly incorrect.”

The plot thickens as you look at Bolton’s previous tweets. On Monday night and again Tuesday morning, Bolton tweeted remembrances of 9/11. That could simply be because this week is the 18th anniversary of the attacks. But they could also be read to suggest discord with Trump over the president’s aborted plans to meet with the Taliban at Camp David.

Trump announced this weekend that he canceled the secret planned meeting after 12 people, including an American, were killed in Afghanistan. Bolton is extremely hawkish on foreign policy and has generally abhorred negotiating with antagonistic foreign leaders. The Washington Post has reported that Bolton has been fighting against the negotiations, while Pompeo has been supportive of them.

Bolton’s pride could certainly be the reason he suggested he initiated his own exit. But it’s highly unusual for former aides to so directly challenge Trump upon their departure, with the notable exception of former veterans affairs secretary David Shulkin, who maintained that Trump fired him rather than that he resigned.

Even when departed aides have left Trump’s White House or Cabinet on bad terms, they have generally been wary of even the perception of criticizing the president. Former defense secretary Jim Mattis, for instance, resigned in protest over Trump’s later-aborted plan to completely withdraw from Syria. But even on a recent book tour, he has declined to disagree directly with Trump.

Bolton, though, has always been extremely outspoken about his foreign policy, rarely shying away from taking unpopular positions. In contrast to the growing number of yes-men and -women who surround Trump, Bolton’s a true believer who logic suggests could ruffle some feathers in the weeks and months ahead — particularly if he views Trump as capitulating to America’s enemies.

A source close to Bolton was talking in the White House shortly after the news broke, playing up the idea that he had prevented “bad deals” from being made with the likes of the Taliban, North Korea and Iran, according to CNBC reporter Eamon Javers, writing on Twitter.

It will be a fascinating dynamic, judging by Bolton’s willingness to engage on the matter in just the hour after his departure was tweeted.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Bolton is out, proving blind loyalty to a narcissist never works"

Spoiler

John Bolton should never have joined an administration in which the president was overtly corrupt, sympathetic to dictators, weirdly beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin and a pathological liar. Like so many others, Bolton will go down as someone driven by unquenchable thirst for relevance and power with the hubris to think he could bend President Trump to his will. Instead, Bolton became an enabler for a president who allowed himself to be snowed by North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and revealed he never had a game plan for Iran (and would not use force or the credible threat of force).

Rather than quit on principle at dozens of junctures, Bolton clung to his job, only to be rudely fired. The Post reports:

President Trump announced Tuesday that he had fired his national security adviser, John Bolton, saying in tweets that he “disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions.”

“I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House,” Trump said on Twitter.“I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service.”

Bolton, to put it mildly, never played well with others and therefore was uniquely unqualified for the job of national security adviser, who is supposed to be the honest broker in government. It would be an understatement to say both anti-Trump conservatives and Democrats are positively giddy seeing the blusterous, aggressive adviser end his career in semi-disgrace. Quite apart from the double scoop of schadenfreude, many in the foreign policy community are genuinely relieved. “I’m just thankful we got through Bolton’s tenure without him starting a war,” said Max Bergmann of the Center for American Progress and a former State Department official. “He no doubt tried, but was boxed in by the administration’s own incompetence and his inability to convince others to go along.”

Others, however, are more worried now. Former ambassador to Turkey, Eric S. Edelman, told me, “For his flaws, I think John was one of the few forces really holding Trump back from doing some crazy things. This is is just one more indication that we are now facing Trump unplugged. He is really thrashing around. It is very worrisome.”

Veteran diplomat Aaron David Miller notes, “You can only play Dr. No so many times. Bolton was out of sync with Trump on Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and Venezuela." He added, “[Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo played the game of Trump whisperer better than Bolton.” Precisely because Bolton differed with Trump on all these topics, sycophantic Sens. Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and other uber-hawks who thought they, too, could bend Trump toward their view should wise up. Trump is not a valiant defender of the West and protector of our allies. He’s a dangerous and corrupt patsy in the hands of strongmen.

Likewise, Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), who served in the Obama administration, said, “No glee [here]. I’ve obviously never been a Bolton fan, and I’m glad there are still international institutions he didn’t have time to pull us out of.” However, he said, Bolton “was fired for something he was right about — his opposition to capitulating to the Taliban — and because Trump doesn’t like being laughed at and needed to lash out at someone. I worry about who and what comes next.”

Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer put out a statement which read, “Today’s action by the president is just the latest example of his government-by-chaos approach and his rudderless national security policy. When Ambassador Bolton’s extreme views aren’t enough for you, the United States is headed for even more chaotic times.” Indeed, the picture of disarray and paralysis gets worse with each new departure.

This is also a dicey move for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who sacrificed bipartisan friendship with the United States to gain favor in the eyes of Trump. Netanyahu kids himself if he thinks Trump would let Israel stand in the way of the historic deal he is itching to sign. Former Israeli ambassador Daniel Shapiro tells me, “Trump fired Bolton over disagreements they had. Chief among them was Bolton’s support for ever-escalating pressure on Iran versus Trump’s desire for talks on a new nuclear deal.” He adds, "Israel and the Gulf states have to wonder if this move presages not just a meeting between Trump and [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani, but a real move by Trump toward a modestly upgraded Iran nuclear deal. It sure looks like it.” In fact any deal is likely to be worse, given that the Iranians know Trump is the worst negotiator on the planet.

Other allies should be equally nervous since when unrestrained, even from questionable advice, Trump does things such as invite the Taliban to Camp David, side with Putin over our intelligence community, try to pullout abruptly from Syria, attack allies (even Denmark), involve us in a no-win trade war and make the United States a laughingstock on the international stage.

If Bolton wants to save his reputation, he can render one final service: Collect up all the former national security officials and tell the American people just how unfit is this president. It’s time for the sycophancy and careerism to end and the patriotism to start.

 

[fraurosena]

In light of @GreyhoundFan's previous tweet saying this:

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Bolton’s pride could certainly be the reason he suggested he initiated his own exit. But it’s highly unusual for former aides to so directly challenge Trump upon their departure, with the notable exception of former veterans affairs secretary David Shulkin, who maintained that Trump fired him rather than that he resigned.

and this: 

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Bolton, though, has always been extremely outspoken about his foreign policy, rarely shying away from taking unpopular positions. In contrast to the growing number of yes-men and -women who surround Trump, Bolton’s a true believer who logic suggests could ruffle some feathers in the weeks and months ahead — particularly if he views Trump as capitulating to America’s enemies.

I think this just might happen:

51 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Collect up all the former national security officials and tell the American people just how unfit is this president. It’s time for the sycophancy and careerism to end and the patriotism to start.

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

Another case where The Onion is our real life:

 

[fraurosena]

Oh, please Rufus, not him!

 

[JMarie]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Oh, please Rufus, not him!

 

A certain congressman? Sure he did.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]