Showing posts with label Intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intelligence. Show all posts

July 10, 2017

Trump Does Not Know How Many Intelligence Orgs The U.S. Have. Lets Help him Out

Wether 7, 17 or 170 No matter the number  of agencies that say the Russians did it and it could only be Putin the mastermind and the one that gave the ok to do it.  It's not going to making Trump acknowledge that the Russians helped installed him as President of the U.S. because that is too much for his ego. He still saying he won the both the electral vote and the popular vote because there were 3 million + people who voted illegally.  Sure he would not refuse the gesture if it ever came in my opinion but He would never admit to that fibbing.  He s very ego-proud to be the President or king of the united States. he keeps reminding people from the Press to others; "Because I'm the Prisident."  

President Donald Trump, speaking in Poland July 6, downplayed the strength of the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to his benefit.

He justified his doubt by noting that the New York Times and the Associated Press recently corrected stories to clarify that four agencies, rather than 17, were directly involved in the January intelligence assessment about Russia’s interference in the election.

"I heard it was 17 agencies. I said, boy, that’s a lot. Do we even have that many intelligence agencies? Right, let’s check that," Trump told NBC’s Hallie Jackson. "We did some heavy research. It turned out to be three or four. It wasn’t 17. ... I agree, I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries, and I see nothing wrong with that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure."

It’s valid for Trump to criticize news organizations for not being specific enough in their reports (more on that in a bit). But this does not invalidate the report by the CIA, FBI, NSA and Director of National Intelligence, nor their "high confidence" in their judgment that Russia engaged in an influence campaign directed at the election.

Relevance over quantity
Trump asked if the federal government really does have 17 intelligence organizations. Yes, it does.

They are as follows: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Some of these are large, independent agencies, like the FBI, CIA and NSA. Others are smaller offices within agencies whose main focus is not intelligence, like the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research or the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Four out of the 17 were involved in the January assessment about Russia: CIA, FBI, NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is an umbrella agency that oversees all 17 organizations.  

This doesn’t mean the remaining 13 intelligence organizations disagree with the January assessment, nor does it mean the report was insufficient, according to multiple national security experts.

The 17 organizations differ on their missions and scope, so they wouldn’t all be expected to contribute to every intelligence assessment, including one of this import.

"What matters is the agencies that (were involved) and whether, based on their mandate and collection responsibilities, those are the agencies best positioned to make the assessment," said Carrie Cordero, counsel at law firm ZwillGen and former counsel for various federal agencies focusing on national security.

For example, the intelligence arms of the Drug Enforcement Agency or the Coast Guard would not be expected to collect intelligence related to Russian interference in an election, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

"So their endorsement or non-endorsement basically means nothing in this case," Aftergood said, adding, "In this context, the assessments that count the most are those of CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI."

The intelligence community likely limited the Russia assessment to those four agencies because they have the most to contribute on this topic, and because they wanted to contain the highly sensitive intelligence as much as possible, said Paul Pillar, senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies who served in the intelligence community for 28 years.

"The ones that participated are the ones you’d expect on this," Pillar said. "It’s hard to see any of the others having something to contribute."

"That does not vitiate the conclusions. It does not mean the jury is still out," he added.

Assessing our October rating
Back in October 2016, we rated this statement by then-candidate Hillary Clinton as True: "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

Many readers have asked us about this rating since the New York Times and Associated Press issued their corrections.

Our article referred to an Oct. 7, 2016, joint statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security that presented a preliminary conclusion about Russia’s involvement in the election.

We noted then that the 17 separate agencies did not independently declare Russia the perpetrator behind the hacks; however, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence speaks on behalf of the group.

We asked experts again this week if Clinton’s claim was correct or not.

"In the context of a national debate, her answer was a reasonable inference from the DNI statement," Cordero said, emphasizing that the statement said, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident" in its assessment.

Aftergood said it’s fair to say the Director of National Intelligence speaks for the intelligence community, but that doesn’t always mean there is unamity across the community, and it’s possible that some organizations disagree.

But in the case of the Russia investigation, there is no evidence of disagreement among members of the intelligence community.

June 9, 2017

Intelligence Agencies That Don't Answer to Congress or You

 Admiral Michael Rogers

Two top U.S. intelligence officials told a Senate committee on Wednesday they could not comment on conversations with President Donald Trump, in answer to questions on whether he tried to pressure them to curtail the government's Russia probe.

"I'm not going to talk about theoreticals and I'm not going to discuss the specifics of any interaction or conversations ... that I may or may not have had with the president of the United States," Admiral Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, said at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

Similarly, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said it would be inappropriate for him to discuss his own conversations with the president in a public forum.


I don't know how you felt about the heads of intelligence officials  refusing to answer non confidential or secret questions to the oversight committee which is in power to help when these guys were confirmed (then they were butter with a hot butter knife on their heads, they also made an oath to answer questions to oversight from congress, particularly the senate). The committee is also in power to investigate the firing of ex FBI Comey as it relates to Russia and the President.

I would like to concentrate not on the ex congressman who was a backer of Trump and was rewarded very kindly for it but about a military officer working for the President of the US, then President Obama.
I'm talking about Admiral Michael Rogers which was working for Obama but had a bad reputation with others in the White House. Maybe those people in the Obama White House felt this Admiral was navigating towards the wrong waters. Actually he wanted to pitch for another team, the incoming Trump team.

When President Obama announced there was clear and convincing evidence the Russians were involved in hacking our process of elections and then we learn the Russians were talking to Trump's team, an investigation commenced under orders from President Obama and Congress.

While this is going on Trump Tower,  The White House top staff was asking for Obama to fire the Admiral, now they know he was meeting with an incoming President elect opposing everything the current president stood for and people that were possibly being investigated for conversations or ties to Russia. More reasons to get canned. As we know from Obama he sometimes seemed like a procrastinator because he always pondered important questions sometimes to death,  action usually delayed or not taken. For what ever reason in his mind Obama kept him. When Trump came in the Admiral got not the top position he was auditioning for but still a head in the Intelligence field. 

These Intelligence heads sitting in front of the senate select committee, keeping in mind the information you just read,  just picture these guys refusing to answer the question wether anybody had ever asked them to drop. go easy an investigation or have they discussed this meeting with the president. Director Coats was asked if he talked to Admiral Rogers before this session and Coats after taking about 9-10 seconds while he pondered which answer to give, remembering he was under oath said he could not answer at that time. What? They had no intention to helping by giving any information. They were literally taking the fifth with out legally taking it since that would have made them suspects of violation something. They had no legal right not to answer. The Senators were confused, except one who was confused which earring this was and he regressed to a year back to the investigation of a server. people say he is just too old, I say retirement if you are too old unless the senate is a club of manly old white guys. Is it?

These Intelligence guys are civil servants working for the American people?? and answering simple questions in relationship to the situation of Michael Flynn-Russia and Firing of Comey.
 Obviously they are not responding to the American people and not answering to a committee in the senate with security clearance to hear classified testimony even though the questions did not require answers that were classified.

  All the information I have on WaterGate came into mind and I read on my computer information that the intelligence agencies were not involved in Watergate. All the major crimes were committed by the President's lying and cover up including the men around him obstructing justice by protecting and lying for the president. With this particular meeting in the senate I realized this scandal was so much worse than WaterGate in which the President quit so he would not be impeached and probably go to jail. This thing is like an octopus with many legs and ways to hide and blend in with the environment around it.

This scandal has to do with having Russia (GRU group) help *elect a President (wether he asked or not) even though he publicly asked for them (Russians) to break into government and political computers.

 Russia *paying at least two of Trump's top people of which one resigned and the most important one,  General Flynn (National Security Counsel to the President) was fired for other reasons; 

*Obstruction of justice by firing the person (FBI) investigating this whole mess and his 

*Connection and colluding with Russia while at the same time giving them top confidential secrets and try to establish secret connections thru the Russian embassy while also trying to 

*reward them by lifting sanctions and undoing what the previous president did to punish the Russians for hacking the DNC computers and others.

 At this time Trump has announced his decision to bring back the 38 spies Obama kicked out,(WHY?? he wants more spies coming in? Russia is got plenty here already) and also giving them back the property in New Jersey which they used as headquarters to receive and ship out spies and also spy on the nearby Navy bases. We are saving a bundle by not having to have manpower stationed nearby trying to find out what they were finding out about us. 

 He has not implemented this decision because a letter he received from congress, mainly Republicans asking him not to reward Russia without getting anything back in return. But maybe he thinks Russia already put out. What other reason can a fair person conclude?
 If Obama did this I would not be happy either and he never had any friendly-friendly bromance with Putin like this President have. Doesn't that bothers You? Does it make sense? Has it ever happened before? No is never happened, Not even with a close ally!

I would be totally confused asking for answers if Obama changed his mind about the spies he kicked out and cancelling the sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine. Trump wants to do all this because?? Better relations? You have better relations with a bully with nukes from a position of strength (learned this lesson in the Cold War), negotiate and do business. Not by opening Trump Hotels and Towers and selling Trump Beef we do this by common exchanges. "The sanctions can come down but you most withdraw from Ukraine". You must stop the Chechen killing and prosecuting anyone they suspect as gay. Them and their families if they are not turn in.  Chechnya to Russia is like Puerto Rico to the US. Different but still Russians and they are sustained by Russia. Putin Commands!! To this moment Putin denies such thing is happening. Chechen's say there are no gays in Chechnya, Putin does nothing, Trump does nothing. Trump won't even mention it. 

When you go to sleep at night don't let Chief Michael Rogers come to mind because neither he nor 
National Intelligence Director Coats answers to congress it seems and obviously to you nor me. Don't think that you have no secrets because the Intelligence agencies only answer to one man only who says he hates US Intelligence. So I guess they just keep the secrets. 

Don't think there are so many military secrets and the President would know all of them.  
They know what to feed the President while they want to protect him from the American people. The American people cannot be trusted to know too much, not because what you tell them you also telling the enemy because the enemy already knows most of our secrets only a very few ones which usually remain secret forever because they are never used or they were used and caused embarrassing damage.  Even the President is on a need to know basis. To know is power and our constitution has set up Congress to be a checkpoint for all these people making decisions nobody knows about.

Lets hope that the competent people investigating this super fiasco already has set us back as a nation and world power. If that is the worse of it then we'll be ok but there is so much more on the line. 
Lets hope that the senators investigating these issues put country ahead of all else. Politicians are criticized because they are always taking care themselves and their political life but in occasions of national distress wether it was a war or the executive branch which includes the President and these guys who thought they owe no explanations because they work for the 'man.'

WaterGate can teach us so much, particularly what was top secret then but can be found now on many neutral internet sites. We survived decisions to make war coming from the Oval Office, to decisions to obstruct justice because the President could not tell the truth, Sex on the Oval Office, Stupidity and drug use. Now this issue involves the Oval Office and most of the staff in the White House but also a nuclear adversary with grandiose ideas of coming back to a world role they had but will never be the same again, Putin does not know it yet (China does). 

Meanwhile he will shadow our ships, planes, coastline to show how reckless he is (he is a bully and can't help himself) and internationally will oppose what we support (Trump or no Trump, Putin does things for his own interests not anybody else's including Russians).

Adam Gonzalez
 adamfoxie*Int. Blog

January 12, 2017

Trump Went Livid On this CNN Account of the Intel Dossier on Him

Trump wanted the news orgs to stay quiet about this news story related to what the intelligence services learned about him. The only thing is that according to those same people it needs further investigation. But we hear about investigations that have not ended particularly about politicians all the time.
He (Trump) never felt that way when the pain was on the other foot. On CNN he was livid. He figures if he can call them names, not take their questions he will teach them a lesson. They say the press works for the American public, I am not sure about that but in any case we do need the press.

 Trump does not think so unless the published is all good, the thing is that things related to Trump are not all good, ever. Still this is the man the Electoral College voted for and elected. Four difficult years ahead! 
Adam Gonzalez, publisher

Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. 

The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.

The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs — Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.

One reason the nation’s intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.

These senior intelligence officials also included the synopsis to demonstrate that Russia had compiled information potentially harmful to both political parties, but only released information damaging to Hillary Clinton and Democrats. This synopsis was not an official part of the report from the intelligence community case about Russian hacks, but some officials said it augmented the evidence that Moscow intended to harm Clinton’s candidacy and help Trump's, several officials with knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials. 

Sources tell CNN that these same allegations about communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians, mentioned in classified briefings for congressional leaders last year, prompted then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to send a letter to FBI Director Comey in October, in which he wrote, “It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States." 

CNN has confirmed that the synopsis was included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs. 

Appearing on Late Night with Seth Meyers, Kellyanne Conway, a senior Trump adviser, dismissed the memos, as unverified and untrue. 

CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos have since been published by Buzzfeed. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.

Russia denies having "Kompromat" on Donald Tump
Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.

On the same day that the President-elect was briefed by the intelligence community, the top four Congressional leaders, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees -- the so-called "Gang of Eight" -- were also provided a summary of the memos regarding Mr. Trump, according to law enforcement, intelligence and administration sources. 

The two-page summary was written without the detailed specifics and information about sources and methods included in the memos by the former British intelligence official. That said, the synopsis was considered so sensitive it was not included in the classified report about Russian hacking that was more widely distributed, but rather in an annex only shared at the most senior levels of the government: President Obama, the President-elect, and the eight Congressional leaders.

CNN has also learned that on December 9, Senator John McCain gave a full copy of the memos -- dated from June through December, 2016 -- to FBI Director James Comey. McCain became aware of the memos from a former British diplomat who had been posted in Moscow. But the FBI had already been given a set of the memos compiled up to August 2016, when the former MI6 agent presented them to an FBI official in Rome, according to national security officials. 

The raw memos on which the synopsis is based were prepared by the former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm. His investigations related to Mr. Trump were initially funded by groups and donors supporting Republican opponents of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries, multiple sources confirmed to CNN. Those sources also said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton. 

Spokespeople for the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment. Officials who spoke to CNN declined to do so on the record given the classified nature of the material. 
Some of the allegations were first reported publicly in Mother Jones one week before the election.
One high level administration official told CNN, "I have a sense the outgoing administration and intelligence community is setting down the pieces so this must be investigated seriously and run down. I think [the] concern was to be sure that whatever information was out there is put into the system so it is evaluated as it should be and acted upon as necessary.”

By Evan PerezJim SciuttoJake Tapper and Carl Bernstein, CNN

This story has been updated to include new information.

November 9, 2016

We Don’t Understand Human Intelligence Compared to Animals

The guests lining up outside a Brisbane gallery were not your typical culture vultures; in fact, until recently they’d never seen a painting in their life. But with just a little training, they developed their own artistic taste, showing a clear preference for Picasso’s crystalline constructions or Monet’s dreamy soft focus as they wandered lazily through the different rooms.
It’s little wonder that their talents created such a buzz, considering that they were working with a brain smaller than a pin head: these bona fide art critics were your common or garden honey bees, trained to find a syrupy surprise behind one or other of the artists' work.
(Credit: Getty Images)
 We have around 100 billion neurons, giving us a huge brain compared to our relatively puny bodies (Credit: Getty Images)
In fact, the ability to recognize artistic style was just the latest in a long list of achievements. Honey bees can count up to four, read complex signs, learn from observation and talk to each other in a secret code (the famous ‘waggle dance’). When foraging, they can weigh up the distance to different flowers, planning complex routes to collect the most nectar with the least effort. And within the hive, their individual responsibilities can include cleaning, undertaking (as they tend to the dead) and even air-conditioning, as they collect water to drop on the honey comb during hot weather.

The human brain has nearly 100,000 times as many neurons as the bee brain, yet the rudiments of many of our most valued behaviours can be seen in the teeming activity of the hive. So what’s the point of all that grey matter we hold in our skulls? And how does it set us apart from other animals? These are some of the questions that will be discussed at the BBC Future’s World-Changing Ideas Summit in Sydney on 15 November.
About one-fifth of all you eat is used to power the electrical chit-chat between your 100 billion little grey cells. If a big brain didn’t give us any advantage, that would be an enormous waste.
And there are some clear benefits. If nothing else, it makes us more efficient at what we do. If honey bees are searching a scene, for instance, they will consider each object one by one, whereas larger animals have the extra brainpower to process it all at once. We can multi-task, in other words.
A bigger brain also boosts the amount we can remember: a honey bee can grasp just a handful of associations between signs signaling the presence of food, before it starts getting confused, whereas even a pigeon can learn to recognise more than 1,800 pictures, and that’s nothing compared to human knowledge. For a comparison, consider that a memory champions can remember the sequence of Pi to literally thousands of decimal places.
(Credit: Getty Images)
Magpies are known to be among some of the most cognitively advanced birds (Credit: Getty Images)
Darwin described these kinds of distinctions as “differences of degree, not kind” – a conclusion that some might find frustrating. If you look at human civilization and all we have achieved, surely we must have some particularly special ability that is completely lacking in all other animals?
Culture, technology, altruism and many other traits have all been touted as signs of human greatness – but the more you look, the narrower that list becomes.

Macaques, for instance, have long been known to pick up stones to crack nuts while New Caledonian crows can craft hooks from a broken stick to help them pick up food - both rudimentary forms of tool use. Even invertebrates are getting in on the act. Veined octopuses, for instance, appear to collect coconut shells, dragging them along the sea floor for later use as a shelter. 
A chimp in Zambia, meanwhile, has been caught wearing a fetching tuft of grass in her ear – apparently for no other reason than that she thought it looked nice. Soon, many of the other chimps in her group copied her fashion statement, a form of adornment that some researchers have interpreted as a form of cultural expression. 
Many creatures also seem to have an innate sense of fairness, and may even feel empathy for others – as our colleagues at BBC Earth recently explored – again suggesting a kind of rich emotional life that was once thought to be our specie's domain. Consider the case of a humpback whale, which was recently seen saving a seal’s life, protecting it from a killer whale attack – evidence that we are not the only animal to behave altruistically.
Perhaps the answer instead lies in a “sense of self”, a creature’s ability to recognise itself as an individual. This navel gazing would be a rudimentary
(Credit: Getty Images)
Elephants can recognise their own reflection (Credit: Getty Images)

 form of consciousness. Of all the different qualities that might make us unique, self-awareness is the toughest to measure with any certainty – but one common test involved daubing a spot of paint on the animal, and putting it in front of a mirror. If the animal notices the mark and tries to rub it off, we can assume that the animal recognises its reflection, suggesting it has formed some kind of concept about itself.
Humans don’t develop this capacity until they are around 18-months-old, but a handful of other animals appear to demonstrated this kind of awareness, including bonobos, chimps, orang-utans, gorillas, magpies, dolphins and orca whales.

Not so fast. A couple of mental capacities may be purely our own, and they are perhaps best understood by considering a family’s conversation around the dinner table.
The first astonishing fact is that we can speak at all, of course. No matter what you’ve been thinking and feeling throughout the day, you will be able to find words to express the experience and describe it to those around you. 
No other creature can communicate with such freedom. The honey bee’s waggle dance, for instance, can relay the location of a flower bed, and it can even warn the other bees about the presence of a dangerous insect, but it can’t express everything the bee has experienced: it is limited to a few facts about the immediate circumstances. Human language, in contrast, is open-ended. With infinite combinations of words to choose from, we can articulate our deepest feelings or lay down the rules of physics – and if we can’t quite find the right term, we can just invent a new one.
(Credit: Getty Images)
Bees may be stuck in the present, with no concept of future or past (Credit: Getty Images)
What’s even more remarkable though, is the fact that most of our conversation is not rooted in the present, but revolves around the past and the future, which brings us to one of the other traits that may define us. We’ve already explored how we may be able to recall more facts than most animals. This is ‘semantic’ memory. But as Thomas Suddendorf at the University of Queensland will point out at the World-Changing Ideas Summit, we also have ‘episodic’ recall – the ability to mentally relive past events, picturing them in multi-sensory detail. It’s the difference between knowing that Paris is the capital of France, and being able to bring back the sights and sounds of your first trip to the Louvre.

Crucially, the ability to think back to the past also allows us to imagine the future, too, as we use previous experiences to predict future scenarios. You might imagine your next holiday by recalling all your past trips, for instance, allowing you to picture what kind of hotel you like, plan the sights you want to visit and build a menu of food you want to eat.
No other animal appears to have such elaborate personal memories, combined with the ability to plan whole chains of actions in advance. Even bees, with their complicated housekeeping in the hive, are probably only responding to their present circumstances; their thoughts don’t go beyond the next flower they would like to visit or the danger of an intruder. They are not going to reminisce about what it felt like to be a larva. 
Together with language, mental ‘time travel’ allows us to share our experiences and our hopes with many other people, building networks of combined knowledge that are continually growing with each generation. Science, architecture, technology, writing – in short, everything that allows you to read this article – would be impossible without it.  
  • David Robson
David Robson is BBC Future’s feature writer. He is @d_a_robson on Twitter.

July 30, 2016

Donald Gets Intelligence Briefing Donald Divulges Intelligence Secret


Pres.Obama inspects Saudi Troops as He arrives at Airport

Despite the fact that Senator Harry Reid and other high ranking intelligence officials from both sides have asked that Donald Trump not be given access to classified information just yesterday, today, Trump was given his first shot learning sensitive information this afternoon.

Trump attended an intelligence briefing this afternoon in which he was told sensitive information for his own safety and for the safety of Americans. Within hours he was neck deep into one of his classic word salads when he proved Harry Reid and other Pentagon officials right.

In what was the biggest faux pas of his entire political career, Trump accidentally revealed sensitive and classified information about the locations of secret military bases. Trump arrogantly spoke to an audience at a Colorado Springs rally today, when he said that the U.S. should not have to pay rent for its military base in Saudi Arabia.
There’s just one problem with this. There isn’t supposed to be an American military base in Saudi Arabia. This revelation could and should mean huge consequences for Donald Trump, who has called for the arrest and indictment of Hillary Clinton for mishandling of classified emails.

According to the government, Donald Rumsfeld was supposed to have closed the American base in Saudi Arabia right after 9/11. If what Trump is saying is not just another of his made up facts, that means that a secret military base is now public.

The consequences of Trump’s actions today are not yet, and may never be, made known to the public. However, you can be certain that the location of that base was classified for a reason, and now that protection has been compromised.

Featured Posts

Thai Cabinet Backs Allowing Same Sex Unions

                Patpicha Tanakasempipat BANGKOK (Reuters) - Thailand’s cabinet approved a civil partnership bill ...