Old Hat — I was on my way to DoubleQuote Trump & Clinton
[ by Charles Cameron — folks you might not entrust with your secrets ]
.
I was on my way to DoubleQuote two Presidential candidates that some people wouldn’t want to entrust with secret briefings from the Intelligence Community — Trump & Clinton — citing Shane Harris‘ Spies Worry Candidate Trump Will Spill Secrets piece from The Beast and Brent Scher‘s Former White House Counsel: Hillary Clinton Should Not Get Intelligence Briefings at the Washington Free Beacon — old stories, both of them, but they just now clicked together for me —
But why worry, when Kristina Wong at The Hill has done it for me?
**
**
This is all old hat, of course — Wong’s piece was posted more than a month ago — but still, as she said..
Some U.S. intelligence officials are worried about providing a routine intelligence briefing to Donald Trump once he becomes the official Republican presidential nominee, according to a report.
Eight senior security officials told Reuters they were concerned that Trump’s “shoot from the hip” style could pose national security risks, as they prepare to give him a routine pre-election briefing for presidential nominees.
They also cited his lack of foreign policy experience, and his little known team of foreign policy advisers.
“People are very nervous,” one senior U.S. security official said.However, the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss a political domestic issue, said they would not deviate from the usual “Top Secret” briefing format, to avoid any appearance of bias.
Current and formal officials also expressed concern over briefing Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, according to Reuters.
They cited the scandal over her use of emails when she was secretary of State and her handling of sensitive information. She is currently facing an FBI probe over whether she compromised security and broke laws over her use of a private email server for government work at State.
“The only candidate who has proven incapable of handling sensitive information is Hillary Clinton,” Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, told Reuters. “If there is anyone they should be worried about it is Hillary Clinton.”
**
And all of this brings me to my Totally Impractical Question — which if anything gets more interesting as the weeks go by:
If someone has loose enough lips — or email servers — to be unworthy to receive Top Secret briefings as a candidate, do they really suddenly get a whole lot more reliable, once they’re elected?
July 14th, 2016 at 12:56 pm
Hence, the idea that the President isn’t in charge but merely a figurehead, for if the candidates aren’t trustworthy, what magic transforms the toad or the frog (you know which is which) into The Prince. Un tel spectacle !
July 15th, 2016 at 1:17 pm
Pure speculation regarding Trump. A better basis to assess him is how he handles confidential information in his business. Any track record there? Probably no basis for concern.
Hillary Clinton however has a proven record of mishandling secret information in violation of legal mandates.
Totally different cases. Clinton is clearly disqualified and should not be granted access.
July 15th, 2016 at 6:16 pm
Hi Lex:
.
Proven? In which court, and with what sentence? But that’s an aside: those on the left have equally one-sided views, and express them with similar conviction.
.
My two points are that both have been suspected by relevant observers of being less than reliable, and that I don’t see where the truth of any such accusation against either one would change in the event that they were elected.
.
It’s all somewhat biblical, really: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. It’s a high bar, that.
July 15th, 2016 at 6:51 pm
Hillary failed to comply with the mandatory legal standards. That is undisputed.
Her intent is purported the issue which prevented Comey from recommending prosecution.
Hillary Clinton put secret government information into the hands of our enemies by her unlawful conduct.
Trump is accused of absolutely nothing of commensurate seriousness.
It is not a matter of all sinning. It is a matter of seriously damaging the American national security by failing to comply with mandatory rules solely for political advantage versus zero equivalent conduct.
July 15th, 2016 at 8:58 pm
“Trump is accused of absolutely nothing of commensurate seriousness.”
*
Nothing except for being a businessman, which is pretty serious. I mean how is he going to run this country, like Trump University? I think that question is worth looking at, if the FBI wants to look at Trump’s intent, as well as Hilary’s.
*
Maybe they can both get a pass.
July 17th, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Rather thatn start a new post, I’ll just drop this in here — note the poster’s emphasis on juxtaposition:
Once again, it’s the use of juxtaposition as a mode of thinking that interests me.
July 19th, 2016 at 5:42 am
Another “DoubleQuote in the Wild” — this one comparing Melania Trump’s RNC speech this evening with Michelle Obama’s speech at the 2008 DNC:
Trump shocks for applause, Democrats are shocked and appalled — it’s a pattern, and Melania fits right in.
.
**
.
More interesting to me than the fairly obvious tweaking of Michelle Obama is this paragraph, in which Melania Trump soften’s her husband’s image with regard to Muslims among others:
Thyat would be fine by me.