The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (1 Viewer)

[MaxThreshold]

link

Look at Lil' Schumy thinking he has the majority and stuff.  How cute!

 

[Tub of Goo]

Did Russia hack the election machines?  No

Case closed.  Lift the BS sanctions already.

It's smart that Trump and his cabinet have a working relationship with Russia.  Just like it is to have a great relationship with Israel.  Unfortunately, the last guy was an idiot in this regard and thought a temper tantrum on his way out would actually matter. 

 

[timschochet]

Look at Lil' Schumy thinking he has the majority and stuff.  How cute!

Max would you like to see Trump lift the sanctions on Russia without the consent of Congress?

 

[Tub of Goo]

Max would you like to see Trump lift the sanctions on Russia without the consent of Congress?

I am not Max, but I would like to see Trump erase the last month of Obama's executive orders in total on principal.  Most were all tantrums with the specific goal of disrupting a transition.  The media will have their field day over this Russian one, but I still hope he does it just to show the world these kinds of tantrums have no place in this new administration.  

 

[fatness]

Note to self: "tantrum" is the latest Trump talking point.

 

[GoBirds]

I am not Max, but I would like to see Trump erase the last month of Obama's executive orders in total on principal.  Most were all tantrums with the specific goal of disrupting a transition.  The media will have their field day over this Russian one, but I still hope he does it just to show the world these kinds of tantrums have no place in this new administration.  

Too bad Obama waited until his last month to get anything done, where was that urgency the last 7 years? Low Energy. 

 

[Sammy3469]

Well the Flynn news certainly hit a nerve

 

[The Z Machine]

Well the Flynn news certainly hit a nerve

Is he rage-tweeting again?

 

[fatness]

From a few days ago:

The Wall Street Journal reported overnight that the president-elect is trying to “quell an uprising within his own defense and foreign-policy team,” with Flynn at the center of the dispute.

    His pick for national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, has long clashed with the intelligence-community establishment over the U.S. fight against global terrorism, and is now butting heads with members of Mr. Trump’s team, including Rex Tillerson, Mr. Trump’s pick for secretary of state, [Gen. James Mattis, the defense secretary pick] and [Mike Pompeo, his pick to run the Central Intelligence Agency].

    Officials inside and close to the transition said that Gen. Flynn has been pushing various people for jobs at State and Defense, and is perceived as overreaching in his role as national security adviser.

 

[Slapdash]

From a few days ago:

Sounds like he is doing the work of his real boss though

 

[Slapdash]

 

TRUMP’S VAINGLORIOUS AFFRONT TO THE C.I.A.


The death of Robert Ames, who was America’s top intelligence officer for the Middle East, is commemorated among the hundred and seventeen stars on the white marble Memorial Wall at C.I.A. headquarters, in Langley, Virginia. He served long years in the region’s hellholes—Beirut; Tehran; Sanaa, Yemen; Kuwait City; and Cairo—often in the midst of war or turmoil. Along the way, Ames cultivated pivotal U.S. operatives and sources, even within the Palestine Liberation Organization when it ranked as the world’s top terrorist group. In April, 1983, as chief of the C.I.A.’s Near East division, back in Washington, Ames returned to Beirut for consultations as Lebanon’s civil war raged.

Shortly after 1 p.m. on April 18th, 1983, Ames was huddling with seven other C.I.A. staff at the high-rise U.S. Embassy overlooking the Mediterranean, when a delivery van laden with explosives made a sharp swing into the cobblestone entryway, sped past a guard station, and accelerated into the embassy’s front wall. It set off a roar that echoed across Beirut. My office was just up the hill. A huge black cloud enveloped blocks.

It was the very first suicide bombing against the United States in the Middle East, and the onset of a new type of warfare. Carried out by an embryonic cell of extremists that later evolved into Hezbollah, it blew off the front of the embassy, leaving it like a seven-story, open-faced dollhouse. Sixty-four were killed, including all eight members of the C.I.A. team. It was, at the time, the deadliest attack on an American diplomatic facility anywhere in the world, and it remains the single deadliest attack on U.S. intelligence. (Only one of the thirty attacks on U.S. missions since then, in Nairobi, in 1998, has been deadlier.)

Ryan Crocker, the embassy’s political officer, had met with Ames earlier that day. Crocker was blown against the wall by the bomb’s impact, but escaped serious injury. He spent hours navigating smoke, fires, and tons of concrete, steel, and glass debris, searching for his colleagues.

“This is seared into my mind, irretrievably,” Crocker recalled for me this weekend. “There wasn’t an organized recovery plan, not in the initial hours after the bombing. I was de facto in charge that first awful night, when you dug a little and shouted out in case there was someone alive there, and then dug a bit more. Somewhere that night, I was on that rubble heap, and a radiator caught my eye. There was an object at the foot of the radiator. It looked like a beach ball, covered thick with dust. It was Bob Ames’s head.”

Ames left behind a widow and six children. He was so clandestine that his kids did not know that he was a spy until after he was killed. President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy, saw the flag-draped coffins of the American victims arrive at Andrews Air Force Base, and met with the families of the deceased.

Reagan, who had known Ames, recounted the meetings in his diary, according to Kai Bird’s book about Ames, “The Good Spy”: “We were both in tears—I know all I could do was grip their hands—I was too choked up to speak.” More than three thousand people turned out for the memorial service at the National Cathedral for Ames and the other American victims.

On his first full day in office, President Trump spoke at the C.I.A. headquarters in front of the hallowed Memorial Wall, with Ames’s star on it. Since his election, Trump has raged at the U.S. intelligence community over its warnings about Russian meddling in the Presidential election. After CNN reported on, and BuzzFeed published, an as-yet unsubstantiated dossier about Trump’s ties to Russia and personal behavior, the President erupted on Twitter, “Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to ‘leak’ into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?”

On Saturday, speaking to about four hundred intelligence officials, Trump blamed any misunderstanding on the media. “They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth,” he said. (The official White House transcript notes “laughter” and “applause” here.) “They sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community. And I just want to let you know, the reason you’re the No. 1 stop is exactly the opposite—exactly.”

Trump vowed greater support for America’s sixteen intelligence agencies than they had received from any other President. “Very, very few people could do the job you people do,” he said. “I know maybe sometimes you haven’t gotten the backing that you’ve wanted, and you’re going to get so much backing. Maybe you’re going to say, Please don’t give us so much backing. Mr. President, please, we don’t need that much backing.” Trump said he assumed that “almost everybody” in the cavernous C.I.A. entry hall had voted for him, “because we’re all on the same wavelength, folks.”

In his remarks, Trump made passing reference to the “special wall” behind him but never mentioned the top-secret work or personal sacrifices of intelligence officers like Ames and the others who died in Beirut, including the C.I.A. station chief Kenneth Haas, and James F. Lewis, who had been a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, and his wife Monique, who was on her first day on the job at the Beirut embassy. Nor did the President refer to any of the dozens of others for whom stars are etched on the hallowed C.I.A. wall of honor. It was like going to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and not mentioning those who died in the Second World War.

Trump’s unscripted remarks were, instead, largely about himself, even as he praised Mike Pompeo—a West Point and Harvard Law School graduate, Kansas congressman, and Tea Party supporter—as his choice to lead the C.I.A.

“No. 1 in his class at West Point,” Trump said. “Now, I know a lot about West Point. I’m a person that very strongly believes in academics. In fact, every time I say I had an uncle who was a great professor at M.I.T. for thirty-five years, who did a fantastic job in so many different ways, academically—was an academic genius—and then they say, Is Donald Trump an intellectual? Trust me, I’m like a smart persona.”

Apparently as proof, the President noted that he had set an “all-time record” in Time magazine cover stories. “Like, if Tom Brady is on the cover, it’s one time, because he won the Super Bowl or something, right?” he told the intelligence officials. “I’ve been on it for fifteen times this year. I don’t think that’s a record that can ever be broken.” Time told Politico’s Playbook that it had published eleven Trump covers—and had done fifty-five cover stories about Richard Nixon.

Trump spoke briefly about eradicating “radical Islamic extremism,” a cornerstone of his foreign policy. But he devoted more than twice as many words to the dispute over the turnout at his Inauguration. “Did everybody like the speech?” Trump asked. “I’ve been given good reviews. But we had a massive field of people. You saw them. Packed. I get up this morning, I turn on one of the networks, and they show an empty field. I say, wait a minute, I made a speech. I looked out, the field was—it looked like a million, million and a half people.”

Crowd scientists who spoke to the Times estimated that about a hundred and sixty thousand people attended, compared with the record-setting 1.8 million who were estimated to have been at President Obama’s first Inauguration. Trump was defiant. “We caught them, and we caught them in a beauty,” he told the C.I.A. crowd. “And I think they’re going to pay a big price.”

Trump’s remarks caused astonishment and anger among current and former C.I.A. officials. The former C.I.A. director John Brennan, who retired on Friday, called it a “despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of C.I.A.’s Memorial Wall of Agency heroes,” according to a statement released through a former aide. Brennan said he thought Trump “should be ashamed of himself.”

Crocker, who was among the last to see Ames and the local C.I.A. team alive in Beirut, was “appalled” by Trump’s comments. “Whatever his intentions, it was horrible,” Crocker, who went on to serve as the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Kuwait, told me. “As he stood there talking about how great Trump is, I kept looking at the wall behind him—as I’m sure everyone in the room was, too. He has no understanding of the world and what is going on. It was really ugly.”

“Why,” Crocker added, “did he even bother? I can’t imagine a worse Day One scenario. And what’s next?”

John McLaughlin is a thirty-year C.I.A. veteran and a former acting director of the C.I.A. who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He also chairs a foundation that raises funds to educate children of intelligence officers killed on the job. “It’s simply inappropriate to engage in self obsession on a spot that memorializes those who obsessed about others, and about mission, more than themselves,” he wrote to me in an e-mail on Sunday. “Also, people there spent their lives trying to figure out what’s true, so it’s hard to make the case that the media created a feud with Trump. It just ain’t so.”

John MacGaffin, another thirty-year veteran who rose to become the No. 2 in the C.I.A. directorate for clandestine espionage, said that Trump’s appearance should have been a “slam dunk,” calming deep unease within the intelligence community about the new President. According to MacGaffin, Trump should have talked about the mutual reliance between the White House and the C.I.A. in dealing with global crises and acknowledged those who had given their lives doing just that.

“What self-centered, irrational decision process got him to this travesty?” MacGaffin told me. “Most importantly, how will that process serve us when the issues he must address are dangerous and incredibly complex? This is scary stuff!”

Trump could have taken a page from Reagan, whom he has often invoked. In 1984, at a groundbreaking ceremony for an addition to C.I.A. headquarters, Reagan told the intelligence community, “The work you do each day is essential to the survival and to the spread of human freedom. You remain the eyes and ears of the free world. You are the ‘trip wire’ over which totalitarian rule must stumble in their quest for global domination. . . . From Nathan Hale’s first covert operation in the Revolutionary War to the breaking of the Japanese code at Midway in World War II, America’s security and safety have relied directly on the courage and collective efforts of her intelligence personnel.”

Bruce Riedel was a protégé of Ames at the C.I.A.; they travelled together in the Middle East. For more than three decades, he has made an annual visit to Ames’s grave at Arlington National Cemetery. He noted one glaring omission from Trump’s comments: a third of the stars are from deaths that have happened since 9/11, “making it more dangerous to work for the agency now than ever before.” He faulted Trump for not visiting the Counterterrorism Center, talking to the team now tracking Al Qaeda and Islamic State leaders, and seeing how drones work—all “invaluable experience when he later needs to make life-and-death decisions,” Riedel, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told me.

Paul Pillar, a Vietnam veteran, rose to become deputy director of the Counterterrorism Center and later the National Intelligence Officer in charge of the Middle East and South Asia. He, too, was anguished by Trump’s comments. “He used the scene as a prop for another complaint about the media and another bit of braggadocio about his crowds and his support,” Pillar told me Sunday. “That the specific prop was the C.I.A.’s memorial wall, and that Trump made no mention of those whom that wall memorializes, made his performance doubly offensive.”

At 7:35 a.m. on Sunday, Trump responded on Twitter to the negative reactions to his comments. “Had a great meeting at CIA Headquarters yesterday, packed house, paid great respect to Wall, long standing ovations, amazing people. WIN!”

But it’s hard to see how America’s new leader will recoup from a performance so shallow, irreverent, and vainglorious.

Robin Wright is a contributing writer for newyorker.com, and has written for the magazine since 1988.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-vainglorious-affront-to-the-c-i-a?mbid=social_twitter

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

 


http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-vainglorious-affront-to-the-c-i-a?mbid=social_twitter

That is really sad and disheartening.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wild Hunt underway in the FSB.

 

[mr roboto]

That is really sad and disheartening.

He's the drunk uncle at the funeral who won't shut up. 

 

[shader]

That is really sad and disheartening.

One guys' negative opinion of the speech?  I watched the speech.  He seemed like a pretty nice guy just shooting the breeze with the CIA.  It seemed like most people were receptive too.  Things often sound worse when you read them.  When you watch the speech, I think you realize that, while he's obviously a bit conceited, he has a tendency to ramble a little bit and get off track.  Overall though, i thought the speech was harmless.  A "negative review" of the speech is essentially meaningless and I think is kind of Trump's point about the media (which I happen to agree with).

 

[moleculo]

One guys' negative opinion of the speech?  I watched the speech.  He seemed like a pretty nice guys just shooting the breeze off-the-cuff with the CIA.  It seemed like most people were receptive too.  Things often sound worse when you read them.  When you watch the speech, I think you realize that, while he's obviously a bit conceited, he has a tendency to ramble a little bit and get off track.  Overall though, i thought the speech was harmless.  A "negative review" of the speech is essentially meaningless and I think is kind of Trump's point about the media (which I happen to agree with).

did you notice the stars on the wall behind him?  I'd have to think that if you personally knew some of the guys who died in the line of duty, it would be pretty appalling to watch Trump self-promote in front of their memorial.

 

[shader]

did you notice the stars on the wall behind him?  I'd have to think that if you personally knew some of the guys who died in the line of duty, it would be pretty appalling to watch Trump self-promote in front of their memorial.

Maybe it was?  I don't know.  I think sometimes you take a speech for what it is.  I watched it and didn't think he was "self-promoting" in some disgusting or appalling way.  He spent half of the time talking about the great job the CIA was going to do.  I'd imagine that most presidents come in and start talking smack about how awesome things are about to be.  It just seems like more self-promoting than usual when it's Trump because you don't happen to like him, and because he's obviously conceited.  But I remember when Obama got elected, there were people who used to count all the times he said "I" in his speeches, as if this showed that all he cared about was himself.

Just the nature of the beast.  Presidents come in and talk about all the good things they are about to do.  

 

[shader]

I just went and read Obama's first speech to the CIA as a reference.  It was certainly more polished and "presidential".  https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/president-obama-at-cia.html

Trump is gonna Trump.  He's going to just sit back and shoot the breeze and at times talk about himself.  It's going to be unbelievably grating to those that hate him.  The "drunk uncle" comparison isn't a horrible comparison, but that's just him.  He's not going to go around giving polished and prepared speeches all the time, not his thing.

 

[Slapdash]

One guys' negative opinion of the speech?  I watched the speech.  He seemed like a pretty nice guy just shooting the breeze with the CIA.  It seemed like most people were receptive too.  Things often sound worse when you read them.  When you watch the speech, I think you realize that, while he's obviously a bit conceited, he has a tendency to ramble a little bit and get off track.  Overall though, i thought the speech was harmless.  A "negative review" of the speech is essentially meaningless and I think is kind of Trump's point about the media (which I happen to agree with).

Beyond the staffers Trump brings to applaud/laugh at key lines?

 

[TobiasFunke]

One guys' negative opinion of the speech?  I watched the speech.  He seemed like a pretty nice guys just shooting the breeze off-the-cuff with the CIA.  It seemed like most people were receptive too.  Things often sound worse when you read them.  When you watch the speech, I think you realize that, while he's obviously a bit conceited, he has a tendency to ramble a little bit and get off track.  Overall though, i thought the speech was harmless.  A "negative review" of the speech is essentially meaningless and I think is kind of Trump's point about the media (which I happen to agree with).

You gotta be ####ing kidding me. He stood in front of a memorial wall of people who died in the line of service, people he likened to Nazis last week and blamed the media for telling the truth instead of owning his rhetoric.  You think that's harmless?

Also, the "receptive" people you heard were probably mostly Trump's traveling band of clappers, based on pool reports.  And to the extent any actual CIA employees were clapping, keep in mind that these are employees that voluntarily came on in a Saturday (and not just any Saturday, but the second-busiest day in DC metro transit history) to hear him speak.  Both of these things are documented here.

Finally, if you spend a little time on google I think you'll find this isn't one negative review.  The negative reviews were pretty much universal.  Hell, the article above cites like five different people.

 

[shader]

Beyond the staffers Trump brings to applaud/laugh at key lines?

Is this proven?  Serious question, I don't know the answer.

 

[Sammy3469]

You gotta be ####ing kidding me. He stood in front of a memorial wall of people who died in the line of service, people he likened to Nazis last week and blamed the media for telling the truth instead of owning his rhetoric.  You think that's harmless?

Also, the "receptive" people you heard were probably mostly Trump's traveling band of clappers, based on pool reports.  And to the extent any actual CIA employees were clapping, keep in mind that these are employees that voluntarily came on in a Saturday (and not just any Saturday, but the second-busiest day in DC metro transit history) to hear him speak.  Both of these things are documented here.

Finally, if you spend a little time on google I think you'll find this isn't one negative review.  The negative reviews were pretty much universal.  Hell, the article above cites like five different people.

Pretty sure Brennan doesn't count HTH.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Is this proven?  Serious question, I don't know the answer.

I don't know how someone would "prove" this, but it was uniformly reported after his press conference and not disputed by the administration. Combine that with the fact that I can't recall ever hearing applause at a presidential press conference before and I think it's reasonable to draw the conclusion. 

If you're specifically asking about the CIA speech, reporters seem to be saying it was both Trump staffers and some CIA folks (who again were a self-selected group who came in on a Saturday to hear him).

 

[shader]

You gotta be ####ing kidding me. He stood in front of a memorial wall of people who died in the line of service, people he likened to Nazis last week and blamed the media for telling the truth instead of owning his rhetoric.  You think that's harmless?

Also, the "receptive" people you heard were probably mostly Trump's traveling band of clappers, based on pool reports.  And to the extent any actual CIA employees were clapping, keep in mind that these are employees that voluntarily came on in a Saturday (and not just any Saturday, but the second-busiest day in DC metro transit history) to hear him speak.  Both of these things are documented here.

Finally, if you spend a little time on google I think you'll find this isn't one negative review.  The negative reviews were pretty much universal.  Hell, the article above cites like five different people.

1. I'm not surprised you didn't like it

2. I'm not surprised there are many negative reviews on it.  I mean, Trump is basically bragging about his war on the media right now.  So he doesn't have many friends in the media

3. I read one thing on here last night about his ridiculous speech and so I decided to go watch it myself.  Then I woke up this morning and posted this.  No, I haven't spent hours on google getting the opinions of everybody and their brother.  It was just my meaningless opinion.  Probably not the same opinion that you have, but I can honestly say it's just my opinion.  

The negative reviews were not "pretty much universal".  That's just untrue.  I'd bet that Trump supporters loved it and Trump non-supporters hated it.  Kind of like his inauguration speech, and kind of like what will happen with any speech he gives today, or tomorrow, or later this week. 

 

[Slapdash]

Is this proven?  Serious question, I don't know the answer.

I've heard/read it reported but cannot remember where.

 

[shader]

I don't know how someone would "prove" this, but it was uniformly reported after his press conference and not disputed by the administration. Combine that with the fact that I can't recall ever hearing applause at a presidential press conference before and I think it's reasonable to draw the conclusion. 

If you're specifically asking about the CIA speech, reporters seem to be saying it was both Trump staffers and some CIA folks (who again were a self-selected group who came in on a Saturday to hear him).

From what I can tell, it was mostly CIA employees who voted for him that came.  Which isn't surprising, since the speech was on a Saturday.  I suppose that's bad?  I don't know.  I mean, was he supposed to ensure that the CIA employees that came were evenly distributed between Trump and Hilary voters?  I'd imagine the Hilary voters wouldn't have wanted to go to the speech?  I know if I was an employee, I wouldn't have gone down there on my off-day to see it.

Seems like with all the ammo Trump is giving, I'd focus on the things he's already proven to have lied about, and not try and waste time with unprovable claims regarding the make-up of the crowd at a CIA press conference.

 

[TobiasFunke]

1. I'm not surprised you didn't like it

2. I'm not surprised there are many negative reviews on it.  I mean, Trump is basically bragging about his war on the media right now.  So he doesn't have many friends in the media

3. I read one thing on here last night about his ridiculous speech and so I decided to go watch it myself.  Then I woke up this morning and posted this.  No, I haven't spent hours on google getting the opinions of everybody and their brother.  It was just my meaningless opinion.  Probably not the same opinion that you have, but I can honestly say it's just my opinion.  

The negative reviews were not "pretty much universal".  That's just untrue.  I'd bet that Trump supporters loved it and Trump non-supporters hated it.  Kind of like his inauguration speech, and kind of like what will happen with any speech he gives today, or tomorrow, or later this week. 

I'll grant you that "pretty much universal" was an exaggeration, although not quite as over the top as your suggestion that there was just one negative review.

The rest of my reaction was just genuine shock that a president could stand in front of a tribute to people who died in service to our country, barely recognize them, deny the easily provable fact that he likened the intelligence community to Nazis, complain about the media's accurate coverage of the size of his inaugural crowds, and praise his own intelligence, and have someone come away thinking "hey, that was pretty decent!" I know it probably shouldn't shock me any more, but it does and I suspect it always will. 

 

[mr roboto]

1. I'm not surprised you didn't like it

2. I'm not surprised there are many negative reviews on it.  I mean, Trump is basically bragging about his war on the media right now.  So he doesn't have many friends in the media

3. I read one thing on here last night about his ridiculous speech and so I decided to go watch it myself.  Then I woke up this morning and posted this.  No, I haven't spent hours on google getting the opinions of everybody and their brother.  It was just my meaningless opinion.  Probably not the same opinion that you have, but I can honestly say it's just my opinion.  

The negative reviews were not "pretty much universal".  That's just untrue.  I'd bet that Trump supporters loved it and Trump non-supporters hated it.  Kind of like his inauguration speech, and kind of like what will happen with any speech he gives today, or tomorrow, or later this week. 

This is the problem. He's not campaigning anymore. Also, the reaction TF is describing isn't the public (i.e. Voter) reaction, but the ICs reaction. That's not partisan. That's a profession's reaction to the presidents bloviating about how great he is. 

 

[Rookie_Whisperer]

Is this proven?  Serious question, I don't know the answer.

First off, this was a small self-selected group of CIA employees and staffers. There is also a hallway above the atrium which held the majority of the trump staff as well as those staffers who stood to the side.  There are a number of reports from Newsweek, Atlantic, etc which validate that the majority of the clapping was from the Trump staff.  There are some contradicting reports and tweets but the cameras pretty clearly showed the first couple of rows were definitely not clapping.  This was a horrendous display by a small-minded and weak person, from start to finish.

 

[Sammy3469]

All the proof you need that the IC community didn't like the speech was the WSJ's article on Flynn detailing the investigation into his actions.  If Trump's speech quelled their concern at all that wouldn't appear for Monday's paper.  

 

[shader]

First off, this was a small self-selected group of CIA employees and staffers. There is also a hallway above the atrium which held the majority of the trump staff as well as those staffers who stood to the side.  There are a number of reports from Newsweek, Atlantic, etc which validate that the majority of the clapping was from the Trump staff.  There are some contradicting reports and tweets but the cameras pretty clearly showed the first couple of rows were definitely not clapping.  This was a horrendous display by a small-minded and weak person, from start to finish.

Fair enough.  My attention span on this speech is rapidly fading away.  I won't spend the rest of the day trying to get camera angles, figure out where the Trump supporters were, etc.  I just happened to watch the speech last night, didn't see anything egregious, then noticed someone link a negative review talking about how horrible it was, and decided to post that I didn't see why it was "so horrible".  This is Trump. It's what he does.  He praised the CIA a number of times, talked about the great things they were going to do...and yeah, he also talked about himself a lot.  But that's Trump.  To me, it seems like a run-of-the-mill type speech that he will deliver 150+ times over the next few years.

 

[TobiasFunke]

From what I can tell, it was mostly CIA employees who voted for him that came.  Which isn't surprising, since the speech was on a Saturday.  I suppose that's bad?  I don't know.  I mean, was he supposed to ensure that the CIA employees that came were evenly distributed between Trump and Hilary voters?  I'd imagine the Hilary voters wouldn't have wanted to go to the speech?  I know if I was an employee, I wouldn't have gone down there on my off-day to see it.

Seems like with all the ammo Trump is giving, I'd focus on the things he's already proven to have lied about, and not try and waste time with unprovable claims regarding the make-up of the crowd at a CIA press conference.

I wouldn't call it bad.  I'd call it cowardly. If he wanted to serve the best interests of the nation he'd show his face in front of a more diverse collection of the public servants he had recently called Nazis and try to make amends so they'd move forward together, instead of just trying to make himself look good.  Of course we're talking about a man who gave his big speech about the issues facing African-Americans to an all-white suburban audience and spent most of his transitional period giving rally-style speeches in states that voted for him rather than the more traditional path of trying to unify the country after an election, so it's not like it's a surprise.

 

[Jackstraw]

First off, this was a small self-selected group of CIA employees and staffers. There is also a hallway above the atrium which held the majority of the trump staff as well as those staffers who stood to the side.  There are a number of reports from Newsweek, Atlantic, etc which validate that the majority of the clapping was from the Trump staff.  There are some contradicting reports and tweets but the cameras pretty clearly showed the first couple of rows were definitely not clapping.  This was a horrendous display by a small-minded and weak person, from start to finish.

This is getting crazy. It's like the birthday ritual at TGI Fridays. 

 

[Rookie_Whisperer]

Fair enough.  My attention span on this speech is rapidly fading away.  I won't spend the rest of the day trying to get camera angles, figure out where the Trump supporters were, etc.  I just happened to watch the speech last night, didn't see anything egregious, then noticed someone link a negative review talking about how horrible it was, and decided to post that I didn't see why it was "so horrible".  This is Trump. It's what he does.  He praised the CIA a number of times, talked about the great things they were going to do...and yeah, he also talked about himself a lot.  But that's Trump.  To me, it seems like a run-of-the-mill type speech that he will deliver 150+ times over the next few years.

All of that.....standing in front of the wall which commemorates CIA officers who have given their lives in defense of this country.....is the part which bothers everyone. He never even mentioned the hallowed ground he was standing on or those who had lost their lives.  He doesn't get it. 

 

[mr roboto]

All of that.....standing in front of the wall which commemorates CIA officers who have given their lives in defense of this country.....is the part which bothers everyone. He never even mentioned the hallowed ground he was standing on or those who had lost their lives.  He doesn't get it. 

This is what surprises me. Doesn't he have handlers that are responsible to explain to him things like this?

"Mr President, your podium will be in the rotunda right in front of a wall with stars. Those stars signify the fallen CIA agents. It's a very significant memorial for those in this line of work. We think it'd be good to mention your appreciation in light of the dangers those men and women faced."

 

[Rookie_Whisperer]

This is what surprises me. Doesn't he have handlers that are responsible to explain to him things like this?

"Mr President, your podium will be in the rotunda right in front of a wall with stars. Those stars signify the fallen CIA agents. It's a very significant memorial for those in this line of work. We think it'd be good to mention your appreciation in light of the dangers those men and women faced."

Exactly.  Anyone who has attended anything like this definitely knows that this was supposed to be an opportunity for the incoming POTUS to thank the entire agency for their service.  Maybe shake a few hands, apologize for the heated rhetoric (ex: comparing them to Nazis)....or whatever.  I guarantee, nobody in that room saw this coming except his staff.  Crowd sizes, petty squabbles, uncomfortable call outs....this man is not well and doesn't understand protocol, his role, or expectations anyone in the IC has for him in this office.

 

[Slapdash]

This is what surprises me. Doesn't he have handlers that are responsible to explain to him things like this?

"Mr President, your podium will be in the rotunda right in front of a wall with stars. Those stars signify the fallen CIA agents. It's a very significant memorial for those in this line of work. We think it'd be good to mention your appreciation in light of the dangers those men and women faced."

He isn't a man that tolerates dissenting opinions from people in his inner-circle. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One guys' negative opinion of the speech?  I watched the speech.  He seemed like a pretty nice guy just shooting the breeze with the CIA.  It seemed like most people were receptive too.  Things often sound worse when you read them.  When you watch the speech, I think you realize that, while he's obviously a bit conceited, he has a tendency to ramble a little bit and get off track.  Overall though, i thought the speech was harmless.  A "negative review" of the speech is essentially meaningless and I think is kind of Trump's point about the media (which I happen to agree with).

Here's the thing - we're just schmoes. Some in the citizenry may have very well liked it - in fact that's who I think it was directed for. Or maybe at least that's who it was written for because it seemed like his usual stump mashup.

What CIA and IC personnel thought about it is the point of the article.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

All the proof you need that the IC community didn't like the speech was the WSJ's article on Flynn detailing the investigation into his actions.  If Trump's speech quelled their concern at all that wouldn't appear for Monday's paper.  

Ding.

Message sent.

 

[jon_mx]

This is the problem. He's not campaigning anymore. Also, the reaction TF is describing isn't the public (i.e. Voter) reaction, but the ICs reaction. That's not partisan. That's a profession's reaction to the presidents bloviating about how great he is. 

So pretty much exactly like Obama's speech after OBL was caught. 

 

[mr roboto]

So pretty much exactly like Obama's speech after OBL was caught. 

Stop with this false equivalence bull#### Jon. 

 

[Sammy3469]

So pretty much exactly like Obama's speech after OBL was caught. 

Exactly...oh wait, by exactly you mean complete opposite, right?

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead

 

[Rookie_Whisperer]

So pretty much exactly like Obama's speech after OBL was caught. 

Is this a joke?  I hope so.

 

[jon_mx]

Exactly...oh wait, by exactly you mean complete opposite, right?

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead

Take out the fluff and look at the meat, where he talked specifically about OBL capture:

Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan.  Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden.  It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground.  I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan.  And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability.  No Americans were harmed.  They took care to avoid civilian casualties.  After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

It was almost exclusively I, me, my, we (meaning his staff)....One segment about the intelligence community and one line about the brave men who carried out the mission. 

 

[mr roboto]

Take out the fluff and look at the meat, where he talked specifically about OBL capture:

It was almost exclusively I, me, my, we (meaning his staff)....One segment about the intelligence community and one line about the brave men who carried out the mission. 

This has to be trolling. Place those speeches side by side and tell me which sounds like a middle school narcissist?

 

[Sammy3469]

Take out the fluff and look at the meat, where he talked specifically about OBL capture:

It was almost exclusively I, me, my, we....One segment about the intelligence community and one line about the brave men who cared out the mission. 

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome.  The American people do not see their work, nor know their names.  But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.  And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.

And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11.  I know that it has, at times, frayed.  Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete.  But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to.  That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are:  one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.  May God bless you.  And may God bless the United States of America.

and yes when the CIC takes action that could potentially lead to war it is an "I" moment on making the actual decision.  But I know this doesn't matter, so I'll stop now.  Must be nice to live in a world where facts are like smoke in the wind.   

 

[jon_mx]

Stop with this false equivalence bull#### Jon. 

And Obama has told us 100's of times how he brought us out of a depression.  The man is incredible, or so he tells us. 

 

[Rookie_Whisperer]

Take out the fluff and look at the meat, where he talked specifically about OBL capture:

It was almost exclusively I, me, my, we....One segment about the intelligence community and one line about the brave men who cared out the mission. 

That is called taking responsibility for putting service members in harm's way.  His call.  Didn't pass the buck.  I miss the part where he talked about crowd sizes I guess and his declared war on "the media".  Please stop with false equivalencies in some attempt to minimize this actual threat to our national security we now face.  

Thanks in advance.

 

[mr roboto]

And Obama has told us 100's of times how he brought us out of a depression.  The man is incredible, or so he tells us. 

Every president brags. Trump is singularly obsessed with it, has shown little to no capacity for going beyond campaign mode, and is completely tone deaf to his context. I'm not sure he knows how anything works. 

Also, Obama has 8 years of content to scroll through. Trump has 3 days. 

Amd finally, STOP POINTING AT THE OTHER ####### SIDE TO DEFLECT!  

Do you think Trump was appropriate and classy in his remarks at the CIA?

 

[jon_mx]

Every president brags. Trump is singularly obsessed with it, has shown little to no capacity for going beyond campaign mode, and is completely tone deaf to his context. I'm not sure he knows how anything works. 

Also, Obama has 8 years of content to scroll through. Trump has 3 days. 

Amd finally, STOP POINTING AT THE OTHER ####### SIDE TO DEFLECT!  

Do you think Trump was appropriate and classy in his remarks at the CIA?

I don't think Trump has much class, especially when it comes to critics.  So it is hardly news.  What is news is this new found shock that I see from the left at leaders being arrogant turds.