Skip to main content

"He has no filter; it’s in one ear and out the mouth.”

That's the comment of one of the government officials who have told Reuters that they worry about disclosing highly classified information to Donald Trump. You may recall that Mr. Trump's tendency to speak first and think afterward raised questions duting the campaign about whether national security might be compromised by merely providing him with security briefings.

The president says that he had the "absolute right" to share classified information with the Russian ambassador and Foreign Minister. And guess what? He's right!

But that's not the point. It's a distinction many people in our society have trouble with, but just because you have a legal right to do something in the abstract doesn't mean that you have the moral right to do it in every possible situation! The president has complete authority to declassify information. But whether he has the legal authority to do so or not, he has no right to violate his oath of office by sharing information damaging to our national security with an unfriendly country in a position to exploit it to the harm of our interests or those of a friendly nation. And by constitutional precedent, a serious violation of an oath of office is grounds for impeachment even if no law was broken in the process.

U.S. intelligence officials told the Washington Post that the information the president  blurted out  to the Russians included the name of a location which could be used by the Russians to compromise intelligence assets of the United States or an ally, thereby jeopardizing "a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State."

Intelligence officials say that the ally which supplied the information Mr. Trump volunteered is located in the Middle East, and they described our relationship with that ally as "close."  Bragging is Mr. Trump's favorite sport,  and his lack of filters seems in this case to have rendered it an expensive one to our national interests. White House officials immediately called the CIA and the NSA, which have routine relations with friendly intelligence services, to warn them about the breach, and then asked the Washington Post, which broke the story, not to publish the details of what the president had told two senior Russian diplomats because it would damage national security if it became public knowledge. The Post complied. And that certainly sounds like a violation of the president's oath of office.

An aside: you may recall which the daily intelligence briefings he bragged about were dismissed by Mr. Trump as "unnecessary" during the campaign because he is "smart."

Another aside: you may remember Trump's harsh criticism of Hillary Clinton for compromising national security by storing classified emails on a private server. No evidence has yet arisen that anything on those servers represented a breach of security even close to being as serious as the information Mr. Trump seems to have impulsively blurted out directly to Russian diplomats. Yet predictably, the Hivemind is responding to criticism of Trump by reminding us, as is their custom, that Hillary was naughty, too- as if this were an excuse!

The reason why I was so dead set against Donald Trump becoming president even if the only realistic alternative was someone as awful as Hillary Clinton is becoming clearer every day, even if a great many people continue in denial. He is in way, way over his head. He's not merely a little man in a big job, but he's an immature one with poor judgment and an ego and penchant for bragging which seems incompatible with his being privy to national secrets.

And he knows all of them. All of them. And there is no telling which of them he may blurt out at any moment. Or to whom.


Popular posts from this blog

"The Handmaid's Tale" is stupid

No, Elizabeth Moss. Restricting the ability of American women to sentence their unborn children to death on a whim would not transform the United States into the misogynistic nightmare The Handmaid's Tale calls "the Republic of Gilead."

Neither Margaret Atwood's silly, paranoid tale about the Christians who are coming to get you or Hulu's adaptation of it is "timely" (Washington Post), "chillingly real" (San Francisco Chronicle), or  has any special "relevance to Trump's America" except insofar as through it the disconnect between reality and the lurid imaginations of the cultural left have demonstrated yet again that our delusional president isn't the only one who is bonkers.

No. The Christians are not out to get you. Not even the Fundamentalists. You could make a pretty good case that the "progressives" are, though.

If you go to a public university, you had better agree with the left or you will be in danger of n…

McMullin, Kasich, Hickenlooper, Huntsman, or somebody else sane in 2020!

I don't expect to be disenfranchised in 2020. I'm looking forward to Evan McMullin running against President Trump and whatever left-wing extremist the Democrats nominate. McMullin may or may not run for the Senate next year, and he may or may not run for president as an independent again next time around, but the nation can't afford to lose its most eloquent and intelligent critic of the populist takeover of the Republican party and the Executive Branch. We need the man in public life.

But interesting alternatives have developed. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been mentioned as a potential primary challenger for Mr. Trump. I hope somebody continues the fight for the soul of my former party, even though I believe it to be a lost cause. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban is reportedly also considering a challenge to Mr. Trump. While I tend to see him at this point as somewhere to the left of where a candidate I would feel comfortable supporting might be, I would wish him well. Still, I see…

A modest proposal for a shocking innovation which is completely within the rules but which would, if adopted, revolutionize college football

I call it defense.

The idea- crazy as it may sound- is to supplement the scoring of points by your offense with an attempt to stop the other team from scoring them. Yeah, I know.  Really "out there," isn't it? But it has a history of winning not only games but championships. Modern college teams should try it more.

I'm a bit bummed about the Rose Bowl outcome but amused by the score. It seems that certain conferences aren't sure whether they're playing college football or high school basketball! I've noticed that in the scores of Sooner games. Last season the nation's college teams set a record by scoring an average of slightly more than 30 points each per game. That's a lot. Historically, that's a REAL lot.

The final score of the Rose Bowl was 54-48, though to be fair that was in double overtime. But to get there, the teams had to be tied 45-45 at the end of regulation! Last year was even worse. Southern Cal beat Penn State 52-49- in regulat…