Donald Trump hit a brick wall when he made the illegal decision to invade Iran. Republicans must demand accountability but they are cowards.

 Trump was ‘shocked’ that Iran fought back. He shouldn’t have been.

A deep history of Persian resistance presaged the pushback.

Echo opinion published in the Boston Globe by Stephen Kinzer

Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University.

Future historians may tell the story of the Iran war through a quote from Donald Trump that perfectly encapsulates it. “We were shocked,” Trump said after the first US-Israeli attack failed to destroy Iran’s government. “They fought back.”

Donald Trump was fresh from an easy triumph in Venezuela, (abduction of President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas) thought Iran would fall just as easily. But instead of success, he hit a brick wall.

Only by ignoring every serious scholar and intelligence analyst was it possible for Trump to delude himself into thinking that Iran was a soft target. In fact, the opposite is true. History, religious tradition, and political culture combine to give Iranians extraordinary resilience.

Iran has one of the richest histories of any country on earth. It is 10 times as old as the United States, tracing its roots back to Persian emperors like Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes. 

Iranians consider themselves part of something that is grand and magnificent. Their attachment to their country is profoundly emotional.

One reason Iranians resist foreign intervention so fiercely is that they have had so much practice. 

• Alexander the Great 
• Genghis Khan, and 
• Tamerlane ravaged their land. 
• Arabs invaded and imposed Islam. 
• In the 19th century, Russia seized large swaths of Iran’s territory.

The name of one of the treaties by which Iran lost that territory — Turkmenchay — has become a curse word in Iran. 

As a result, any Iranian who supports a deal with the United States risks being accused of accepting “another Turkmenchay.” That is the equivalent of banishment from Iranian politics. This intense historical sensitivity makes any US-Iran accord difficult.

Another obstacle is the sorry record of relations between the two countries. Iran was an incipient democracy after World War II, but its government challenged the economic order imposed by the United States and Britain by nationalizing its oil industry. 

In 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower used the CIA to depose Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had led the drive for oil nationalization. That led to a quarter-century of royal dictatorship, followed by the 1978-9, hostage crisis and nearly a half-century of religious rule. The one seeming breakthrough, President Obama’s 2015, nuclear deal, evaporated after Trump withdrew from it. Americans may see Iran as malign and untrustworthy, but the feeling is mutual.




The binding effect of Shia Islam, which most Iranians profess, also gives them inspiration to resist. Its two most revered figures, Ali and Hussein, were 7th-century martyrs who the Shia believe died defending justice against tyranny. This legacy, enriched over centuries, has given Iranians a sense that suffering oppression at the hands of evildoers is pleasing to God. 

Even many unbelievers have absorbed the Shia principle that it is morally wrong to capitulate to iniquitous (IOW "morally wrong") power.

Shia believers do not have a “martyr complex,” as is sometimes asserted, but neither do they succumb easily. Trump’s recently announced economic sanctions — a “crushing economic operation,” he called it — will undoubtedly hurt many Iranians. It is unlikely, however, to drive them to demand that their leaders make a deal with Americans or Israelis.

Domestic Iranian politics combines with history and tradition to stiffen the country’s resistance. The country’s new leaders are decidedly more militant than those who were killed in the first wave of US-Israeli attacks. They see this war as a gift because it gives them a historic chance to kick the United States out of the Middle East. That gives them an incentive to fight on and to reject compromise or cease-fire.

Iranians do not cheer for their government. Many and perhaps most of them wish for a different kind of society. Nevertheless, at this moment, the Revolutionary Guard and its allies are the ones defending Iran against an enemy that seems to want to end its existence as a sovereign nation. People naturally support their leaders when their country is attacked. President George W. Bush’s popularity rating soared to 90 percent after the 9/11 bombings. Iran’s government is benefiting from that same rally-round-the-flag impulse.

For years the United States has pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran. Its defenders have a simple explanation for why it has failed: It hasn’t been maximum enough. Just keep turning up the pressure, they insist, and at some point Iran will collapse into America’s lap. Trump’s new sanctions, which he called “an economic D-Day” for Iran, are the latest iteration of “maximum pressure.”

Iran’s great weapon in this war is its resilience and ability to absorb pain. Americans are unhappy to read that more than a dozen US service members have been killed since this war began. Iran, by contrast, absorbed hundreds of thousands of casualties in its war with Iraq in the 1980s. While Americans grumble about rising gas prices, Iranians have endured economic devastation wrought by decades of US-sponsored sanctions. It’s clear which country is better girded for a long conflict.

Trump launched this war with the same combination of arrogance and ignorance that shaped his predecessors’ interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. All of his tactical gambits have foundered on the shoals of Iranian resistance. This war has shown the world more than tragedy. It is also a reminder that 25 centuries of Iranian history have forged a remarkably tenacious nation.

Donald Trump and maga Republicans are enabling failed incompetent foriegn policy, They have fallen in Iran and cannot get up!

Trump’s extended ceasefire shows his desperation to exit his failed and illegal Iran war — but he doesn’t know how. Americans are endangered by Trump's inability to conduct a foreign policy that goes beyond threats and military force. Echo opinion published in the Philadelphia Inquirer by Trudy Rubin.

In 1966, the famous American psychologist Abraham Maslow came up with a description of a mental bias that became known as “Maslow’s hammer.”  “If the only tool you have is a hammer, I suppose it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail,” Maslow contended. Or, as some have reworded his theorem: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

This is a good diagnosis for how Donald Trump has trapped us all in his unnecessary and illegal war with Tehran. A war from which he can’t find a good exit.

It also explains why he indefinitely extended an April 21, ceasefire deadline with Iran, announced on Tuesday evening, even though he’d just threatened to resume bombing if there was no nuclear deal by then.  (Like Douglas Shields from Pittsburg wrote in a letter to the New York Times: "seen more stable direction from a weather vane — and at least it knows which way the wind is blowing. At this point, the only consistent policy is inconsistency, and even that seems subject to revision.") 

As Maslow would no doubt have diagnosed, Trump is a bully whose modus operandi is to browbeat, insult, and threaten opponents and allies (especially those who respond with timidity). He is impatient and seeks quick hits and big headlines.

Overseas, the military hammer has become his preferred tactic so long as the strike is quick, as in Venezuela and the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June.

But, when an adversary is tougher and the fight more complex, with a strategy that outflanks his erratic tactics, POTUS is flummoxed. The illegal Iran war has laid bare how Trump’s strategic and cognitive weaknesses endanger Americans, as well as the entire world.

“Trump did not know what he was getting into,” I was told by Ryan Crocker, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria, and Lebanon, and one of the smartest Mideast analysts in the field. “This is the first real foreign policy crisis he has faced, and he has no idea what he is doing. It’s scary 😱😰😧.”

POTUS swallowed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pitch that Iran’s Islamic regime could quickly be toppled by U.S.-Israeli bombing and replaced by more malleable secular leaders. 

CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) Director John Ratcliffe called such regime-change scenarios “farcical,” and Secretary of State Marco Rubio labeled them “bullshit,” according to a New York Times investigation. But given his lack of knowledge about Iran and his conviction that his instincts trump expertise, the president picked up his military hammer.

Trump underestimated Iranian leaders’ tolerance for pain and determination to salvage their Islamic republic (even though their numbers were decimated and their country’s economy was in shambles).

But, most importantly, said Crocker, Trump failed to foresee (even though he was warned) that the Iranians had a critical card to play: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz through which about 20% of the world’s energy resources flow. Iran had never tried to close the strait before, but U.S. and Israeli bombs convinced its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that this was a necessary option.

“Iran now knows they can close the strait,” Crocker said. “Every day that the strait is closed adds to the economic pain of the U.S., Europe, and Asia. This has terrible consequences globally. They have turned the Strait of Hormuz into the Strait of Iran.”

Even Trump, with his unfettered verbosity, has referred to it by that name.

Last week, Iran offered to reopen the strait, but made clear its military would still control traffic in and out and charge tolls to passing tankers. Unsatisfied with this unpleasant option, Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to blockade Iranian ports so its oil exports were also halted.

But, Iran’s current leaders are betting, probably correctly, that they can withstand that pain longer than Trump can, with his eye on rising gas prices and midterm elections. Tehran says it won’t return to talks until the U.S. blockade is lifted.

Faced with this standoff, and the choice whether to resume bombing or extend the ceasefire deadline again,👀 Trump blinked.

Let me be clear, I am glad he backed down. But it revealed his desperation to exit the mess he has made.

“Iran has won the first round,” Crocker contended. “This is not going well.”

Trump’s problem is that he now has only bad options to reopen the strait.



Some right-wing hawks are advocating that he pick up the hammer. Fox News’ Hugh Hewitt actually recommended Trump go “full Sherman,” recalling the famed Civil War general’s scorched-earth march to Atlanta, and proposing POTUS destroy all of Iran’s oil and energy infrastructure.

Not only would this be a war crime affecting civilians and a further blow to global energy prices, but it would be unlikely to move the survival-intent hard-line IRGC, which now appears to be running the show.

Moreover, the worst possible option — which would be totally insane — would be for Trump to launch a land war in Iran to try for real “regime change.”

Iran was not an immediate threat to the United States before Trump started this war, and even he knows that sinking into such a bloody quagmire would probably set him on the path to bipartisan impeachment.

The only way out, said Crocker, is to try to swap a simultaneous end to the U.S. blockade against Iran’s ports for a full Iranian opening of the strait. Ideally, this would mean no IRGC control of shipping or tolls on vessels entering or leaving.

“This will be harder for Trump to do now, when he is weaker,” Crocker said. Especially when the Iranians know he is eager for an offramp, after he extended the deadline.

“But it is pretty apparent to everyone, except Donald Trump,” Crocker added, “that he’s not going to bomb Iran out of anything. The only way he can leave [the war] and save face is to get back to the status quo ante on the Strait of Hormuz.”

As for a return to talks on eliminating Iran’s nuclear program, Crocker believes that “at some point we will go back to the table.” However, he noted, the nuclear deal negotiated by President Barack Obama — which would have halted Iran’s nuclear program for 15 years had Trump not withdrawn from it — took two years to complete.

For future negotiations to have a chance, Trump would have to abandon his “I win, you lose” approach to diplomacy. He would finally have to assemble and listen to an expert team instead of sending his ill-informed real estate buddy and son-in-law.

Hope springs eternal, but this hope requires a suspension of disbelief.

True, Trump is desperate to end his misbegotten Iran venture, but he seems to believe he is winning. On Truth (Fake❗ ) Social, he was posting New York Times clips from 2004, citing the top ratings of “The Last Season of My Apprentice Juggernaut.” In other words, how can such a winner be wrong❓

The best we can hope for is that fear of higher gas prices will keep Trump’s hammer in abeyance — and that he will find a way to negotiate the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, declare a fake victory, and bring the troops home.

Perhaps after this Iran debacle, the U.S. public will grasp the danger of leaving a one-tool 🔨president in charge of foreign policy and the nuclear button when they vote in November — and choose legislators who are willing and able to rein him in.

Donald Trump and maga Republicans got little advantage trying to steal Venezuelan oil but no mention at all made about Iran's vast supply

 Why Hasn’t Donald Trump Mentioned Iran’s Oil❓ Iran possesses vast oil resources holding the world's third largest proven oil reserves behind Venezuela (where much of the oil is not yet accessible due to antiquated technologies) and Saudi Arabia.

Echo essay published in The Atlantic:

Oil in Iran

Usually Trump encourages the seizure of natural resources as repayment in war. By Vivian Salama and Jonathan Lemire

In 1953, when President Dwight Eisenhower authorized the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) to topple Iran’s elected prime minister, the American public was told a familiar story: Communism was creeping in, the Cold War demanded vigilance, and the United States could not afford another Moscow ally. But beneath the neat narrative of containment was a more tangible obsession—oil❗. Iran’s enormous reserves were not merely a strategic asset; they were a prize.

Seven decades later, as military action once again engulfs Iran, a different president occupies the Oval Office—but the same obsession hangs in the air. Donald Trump rarely considereds a foreign conflict without musing, sometimes bluntly, about what the United States might take in return for intervening: Iraqi oil. Syrian oil. Venezuelan oil. Seizing valuable petroleum or other natural resources as repayment for American blood was a central tenet of Trump’s worldview long before he took office. 

Yet, while bombs fall on Tehran and tensions have gripped both Washington and the Middle East, Trump has not uttered the line that once seemed to come so easily: We should take the oil.

The omission is striking. For Donald Trumpp, who has treated natural resources as both leverage and loot, Iran’s oil fields would appear to be the ultimate temptation. 

Iran has nearly 209 billion barrels of proven crude-oil reserves, making up about 12 percent of the world’s total. Seizing Iranian oil, and combining it with what could come from Venezuela, would add to U.S. energy dominance and deprive China of a vital supply of fuel. But, Donald Trump has resisted discussing it, at least publicly. 

Even if Trump is no student of history, is it possible that, in the long American romance with other nations’ petroleum, some lessons of 1953, flicker uneasily in the background❓

The question of Iran’s oil hovered over the early days of the current conflict, with Trump-administration officials anxiously watching gas prices rise. U.S. and Arab officials told us that the president has been advised to focus his public comments on the military mission—particularly given the gravity of a conflict that has already resulted in U.S. casualties. “He knows it’s all very sobering,” one senior Arab official said. “It’s bigger than Venezuela.” (Like others we spoke with, the official requested anonymity to candidly discuss policy deliberations.)

Trump and his top advisers have hardly been consistent in their messaging. The administration has offered shifting explanations for why it teamed up with Israel to target Tehran (Iran was on the verge of attacking U.S. assets! Trump was pulled along by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu!) and has been just as muddled in articulating its goals for the conflict (on one day, top officials said the U.S. was not looking for regime change; on the next, Trump said he wanted a role in determining Iran’s next leader). Yet a president known for going off script has remained remarkably disciplined in avoiding any mention of oil.

Iran threatens to stretch to weeks or months. In Caracas, the White House found a willing partner in Nicolás Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, who cooperated and gave the U.S. access to that nation’s oil. In Iran, the regime continues to fight even after losing its supreme leader. There’s no sense who his successor will be, much less whether he would be amenable to the U.S. plundering Iran’s resources.

Although Trump stayed quiet (for now) on trying to gain control of Iran’s oil, his White House is struggling with the economic fallout from the war. For months, the West Wing has had difficulty explaining away stubbornly high prices but has been able to celebrate the low cost of gas. (Trump does so frequently, including in his State of the Union address.) But the attack on Iran—and Iran’s subsequent targeting of the Persian Gulf’s energy sector, including the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil passes—has sent crude costs up by nearly $10 a barrel, lifting gasoline prices higher than when Trump took office. The president has been publicly blasé about price spikes, telling Reuters yesterday that “if they rise, they rise.” But White House officials, already daunted by bad polls ahead of the midterms, have considered a number of ideas to counteract the increase, they told us, including a temporary holiday on the gas tax and deploying the military to defend energy infrastructure in the Middle East.

Despite economic worries—which were exacerbated by a surprise bad jobs report—White House officials have publicly stuck to their non-oil-related goals for the conflict. Those include preventing Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon, wiping out its navy, and eliminating its ability to be a staging ground for terrorists.

When U.S. forces seized Maduro from Caracas in a dramatic raid back in January, Trump held a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, his private Florida club, and detailed his intention to send American oil companies back to Venezuela. He wanted to reclaim the riches of projects past—and make a lot of money for both the U.S. and a newer, friendlier Venezuela. Trump promised that doing so would drive down the price of gas, and in the days that followed, he had harsh words for oil companies that objected to new supply potentially flooding the market. The president also warned that if the head of Venezuela’s interim government objected to his plan, that person would face a similar fate as their imprisoned leader. The U.S. showed no deep interest in exploring Caracas’s democratic potential or calling for fair elections. Trump seemed solely fixated on Venezuela’s oil and minerals.

Trump’s approach to Venezuela echoed his stance on the 2003, Iraq War. Although he is now loath to acknowledge it, Trump supported the invasion in its first months, before it turned into a quagmire.

During his 2016, campaign, Trump promised to end the so-called endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and pledged to avoid any new Middle East entanglements. But even as he denounced George W. Bush for starting the Iraq War, Trump criticized him for not seizing Baghdad’s oil—which, he said, would have been fair repayment for the U.S. occupation of the country.

Trump has long mocked Bush for ruining his presidency by invading Iraq, and his administration over the past week has sought to downplay any parallels between Bush’s misadventures and its own attack on Iran. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters that the U.S. was not looking to pursue the nation-building exercises of the past, emphasizing that the Trump administration intends for this operation to be quick and efficient. But wars do not follow scripts, and there are already signs of a prolonged struggle. The current regime is still in power, although it’s unclear who is in charge, and Tehran has pummeled its neighbors with rockets and drones, straining America’s ability to defend its allies. U.S. Central Command is asking the Pentagon to send more military-intelligence officers to its headquarters to support operations against Iran for at least 100 days—and likely through September.

(History included here is new information to me. If I was about to declare war on Iran, and Donald Trump has definitely started World War III with his illegal assault- this is just the kind of spot on intelligence I would expect to understand before making the same mistake over again. Definition of "crazy": "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" a popular, non-clinical proverb.)

Two years before the Eisenhower-ordered coup, Iran’s nationalist prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, moved to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, taking control of British-run oil resources. That incensed Britain and threatened Western economic interests. Britain and the U.S. together framed Mosaddegh—who opposed communism—as a potential Soviet ally in the Cold War to justify intervention. Key Iranian military officers, bribed and instigated by the CIA, stepped in to arrest Mosaddegh and suppress his supporters, and the pro-U.S. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was restored to full power. Virtually overnight, the abrupt change in leadership gave the U.S. and its oil companies significant access to Iran’s oil wealth.

U.S. influence helped shape Iran’s oil arrangements for much of the shah’s reign, though the nature of that relationship morphed over time and was often intertwined with broader Cold War geopolitics, but it had unintended consequences. Iran leveraged its oil wealth to pursue its own economic goals, particularly in the 1970s, and the relationships with foreign companies shifted. This would fuel much of the anger against the U.S. when Iranians protested in the streets to overthrow the shah during the 1979, Islamic Revolution. The U.S. role in Iran’s coup—code name Operation Ajax—wasn’t confirmed until decades later, by Madeline Albright in 2000. But in a private diary entry dated October 8, 1953, Eisenhower explicitly wrote that the restoration of the shah was a development “that we helped bring about.” He noted that the actions were “covert” and that the U.S. would be “embarrassed” if the plot ever became public.

There is little subtlety about Operation Epic Fury, right down to its name. Trump, bolstered by his success (❓ what success- nothing changed) in Venezuela, has reveled in killing Iran’s supreme leader and is drawn to accomplishing things that his predecessors could not. The oil is tempting. But American intervention in the Middle East can yield unintended consequences for presidents. Bush is a cautionary tale, one that Trump knows. But so is Eisenhower.

Donald Trump Republicans cannot prove damage caused by the bunker busting attack on Iran without evidence

 Will Trump's Bombing Raid on Iran Prove Not Just a Bust, But a Disaster?

A longtime military and intelligence insider explains why the failure to destroy Iran’s nuclear bunkers may have weakened U.S. power far beyond the Middle East. Published in the Washington Montly Newsletter, by Paul Glastris.

Where is the Iranian enriched uranium?

Yesterday, June 24, CNN broke the news (an exclusive reportt) about a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) preliminary report showing that the Iranian nuclear programs at underground facilities targeted by U.S. airstrikes over the weekend were not “completely and fully obliterated,” as Donald Trump claimed, but instead were likely set back a matter of months. 

To get a better sense of that report and what it means, Paul Glastris spoke with a source who has had a decades-long career in the U.S. military and the intelligence community, serving both in and out of government. The source requested anonymity to speak freely. The following is an edited version of our conversation:

Are you surprised that this DIA report was leaked?  Not at all. The results would be of high interest. Hundreds of folks at least would be on the distribution list or have access to the report.

How reliable is this report?  Time will tell. But, the DIA is the key intelligence agency that does these kinds of after-action damage assessments. That’s their traditional role and they’re very good at it. Their assessments are typically based on a combination of imagery, signals intelligence largely provided by the NSA, and human intelligence that comes from the CIA, the Israelis, and other sources. The DIA would have pulled these strings together to come up with their assessment of the damage. These nuclear sites have been the focus of the United States and Israel for decades and we’ve built up considerable sources over the years. The Israelis have clearly penetrated Iran at the highest levels. So presumably, in addition to what we can see from satellites, we are hearing chatter from within the Iranian national security bureaucracies. We will see. This is only a preliminary report, but it is not encouraging.

Are you surprised at what seems to be the limited degree of damage to these facilities? No, the United States military has been toiling for several decades to develop weapons capable of destroying underground facilities. These complexes are called “Hard and Deeply Buried Targets” (HDBT). These efforts started all the way back in the Clinton administration when the Secretary of Defense was looking at options for taking out Libya’s underground chemical weapons complex at Tarhuna. At the time, none of the options on the table were palatable, so the quest began to develop air delivered munitions that could take out these targets. It proved far more difficult than anyone would have imagined. The government established a test facility, a mock underground chemical and nuclear production facility, out in the western US and bombed it literally for years. Every type of bomb or combination of bombs were used, rarely did it cause any more than superficial damage to the facility. So, this latest weapon, long in development but never deployed, has demonstrated once again that if an adversary simply digs deeply enough, the laws of physics are on their side. So, these results were disappointing, but by no means surprising, following a long history of failure against this type of target. That’s a major reason why previous administrations have been resistant to using them.

If this initial report proves true, what are the consequences? The consequences are terrible. As long as we didn’t use them, Iran didn’t know for sure how damaging they could be. That gave us leverage with them. Now, the situation is reversed. We’ve revealed or confirmed that our most fearsome weapon, or the most fearsome we’re willing to use—we could drop nukes or send in the 82nd Airborne, but that’s not going to happen—can collapse the entrances of tunnels but not destroy facilities buried deeply in a mountain. Going into any negotiations with them, they know our limits. 

That doesn’t mean Iran is in a strong position. Israel has decimated its military, and its economy is in ruins because of sanctions. In any negotiations with Trump, it’s the sanctions they want lifted. But now they’re in a much better position to get what they want than they were before this bombing run, especially considering other intel suggesting that the regime removed some or all its highly enriched uranium and centrifuges out these facilities before the attack.

And not just Iran. Every other adversarial regime now knows these weapons are essentially duds. That weakens our leverage considerably with all of them. I am sure Kim Jung Un is happy in North Korea today.

What do you make of the fact that Trump is continuing to insist that the facilities were totally destroyed? I’d say that’s not going to fly. If I’m the Iranians, I’m going to clear the rubble from the entrances of those facilities and then invite CNN and Al Jazeera to bring their cameras into the tunnels and show that they’re still there, still functional.

Paul Glastris is the editor in chief of the Washington Monthly

Donld Trump ionly interested in serving himself. He told voters "I don't care about you". Philadelphia Inquirer calls for "Dump Trump"

Trump only interested in providing for himself - he said "I do not care about you"- Philadelphia Inquirer says "Dump Trump"

June 30, 2024
Evil 👿Trump is an unserious carnival barker running for the most serious job in the world. During his last term, Trump served himself and not the American people.

Thank you Philadelphia Inquirer

Donald Trump is a carnival barker and a danger to democracy

Although President Joe Biden’s debate performance was a disaster. ( Many of his responses were disjointed with a dazed look sparked calls for him to drop out of the presidential race 😒😟)....
But lost in the hand wringing was Donald Trump’s usual bombastic litany of lies, hyperbole, bigotry, ignorance, and fear mongering. His performance demonstrated once again that he is a danger to democracy and unfit for office.

In fact, the debate about the debate is misplaced. The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump. To build himself up, Trump constantly tears the country down. There is no shining city on the hill. It’s just mourning in America.

After scheming to overturn the 2020, election, Trump refused to say if he would accept the results of the 2024 election. Unless, of course, he wins.

The debate served as a reminder of what another four years of Trump would look like. More lies, grievance, narcissism, and hate. Supporters say they like Trump because he says whatever he thinks. But he mainly spews raw sewage.

Trump attacks the military. He denigrates the Justice Department and judges. He belittles the FBI and the CIA. He picks fights with allies and cozies up to dictators.

Trump is an unserious carnival barker running for the most serious job in the world. During his last term, Trump served himself and not the American people.

Throughout the debate, Trump repeatedly said we are a “failing” country. He called the United States a “third world nation.” He said, “we’re living in hell” and “very close to World War III.”

“People are dying all over the place,” Trump said, later adding “we’re literally an uncivilized country now.”

Trump told more than 30 lies during the debate to go with the more than 30,000 mistruths told during his four years as president. He dodged the (robotic ❗) CNN moderators’ questions, took no responsibility for his actions, and blamed others, mainly Biden, for everything that is wrong in the world.

Trump’s response to the January 6, 2021, insurrection he fueled was farcical. He said a “relatively small number of people” went to the Capitol and many were “ushered in by the police.”

Trump told more than 30 lies during the debate to go with the more than 30,000 mistruths (aka- misinformation) told during his four years as president. He dodged the (robotic❗) CNN moderators’ questions, took no responsibility for his actions, and blamed others, mainly Biden, for everything that is wrong in the world.

Trump’s response to the January 6, 2021, insurrection he fueled was farcical. He said a “relatively small number of people” went to the Capitol and many were “ushered in by the police.”

After scheming to overturn the 2020, election, Trump refused to say if he would accept the results of the 2024 election. Unless, of course, he wins.

The debate served as a reminder of what another four years of Trump would look like. More lies, grievance, narcissism, and hate. Supporters say they like Trump because he says whatever he thinks. But he mainly spews raw sewage.

Trump attacks the military. He denigrates the Justice Department and judges. He belittles the FBI and the CIA. He picks fights with allies and cozies up to dictators.

Trump is an unserious carnival barker running for the most serious job in the world. During his last term, Trump served himself and not the American people.
Trump spent chunks of time watching TV, tweeting, and hanging out at his country clubs. Over his four-year term, Trump played roughly 261 rounds of golf.

As president, Trump didn’t read the daily intelligence briefs. He continued to use his personal cell phone, allowing Chinese spies to listen to his calls. During one Oval Office meeting, Trump shared highly classified intelligence with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador.

Trump’s term did plenty of damage and had few accomplishments. The much-hyped wall didn’t get built. Infrastructure week was a recurring joke. Giant tax cuts made the rich richer, while fueling massive deficits for others to pay for years. His support for coal, oil drilling and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement worsened the growing impact of climate change.

Trump stacked the judiciary with extreme judges consisting mainly of white males, including a number who the American Bar Association rated as not qualified. A record number of cabinet officials were fired or left the office. The West Wing was in constant chaos and infighting.

Many Trump appointees exited under a cloud of corruption, grifting and ethical scandals. Trump’s children made millions off the White House. His dilettante son-in-law got $2 billion from the Saudi government for his fledgling investment firm even though he never managed money before.

Trump’s mismanagement of the pandemic resulted in tens of thousands of needless deaths. He boasts about stacking the Supreme Court with extreme right-wingers who are stripping away individual rights, upending legal precedents, and making the country less safe. If elected, Trump may add to the court’s conservative majority.

Of course, there were the unprecedented two impeachments. Now, Trump is a convicted felon who is staring at three more criminal indictments. He is running for president to stay out of prison.

If anything, Trump doesn’t deserve to be on the presidential debate stage. Why even give him a platform?

Trump allegedly stole classified information and tried to overturn an election. His plans for a second term are worse than the last one. We cannot be serious about letting such a crooked clown back in the White House.

Yes, Biden had a horrible night. He’s 81 and not as sharp as he used to be. But Biden on his worst day remains lightyears better than Trump on his best.

Biden must show that he is up to the job. This much is clear: He has a substantive record of real accomplishments, fighting the pandemic, combating climate change, investing in infrastructure, and supporting working families and the most vulnerable.

Biden has surrounded himself with experienced people who take public service seriously. He has passed major bipartisan legislation despite a dysfunctional Republican House majority.

Biden believes in the best of America. He has rebuilt relationships with allies around the world and stood up to foes like Russia and China.

There was only one person at the debate who does not deserve to be running for president. The sooner Trump exits the stage, the better off the country will be.



The Inquirer Editorial Board

Former intelligence officer Matt Castelli is a formidable Democrat in NY21

An echo report in North Country Public Radio by Emily Russell

Aug 23, 2022 — Former CIA officer Matt Castelli has won the Democratic primary for New York's 21st House District. Castelli will face Republican Elise Stefanik for her seat in Congress in November.

Over nearly 15 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, he hunted down terrorists in one way or another.

Castelli kept a consistent lead over his Democratic opponent, Whitehall lawyer Matt Putorti, as unofficial election results trickled in on Tuesday night.

“It’s been pretty exciting," said Castelli from his election night party in Glens Falls. "I’m just grateful for all of the support that folks have placed in this campaign, the trust and confidence that they’ve placed in it, not just from the voters but all of our volunteers.”

Matt Putorti issued a press release Tuesday night congratulating Castelli on his win. "We are united in the mission to defeat Elise Stefanik. Matt Castelli has my support, and I ask that you give him yours too."

Castelli said on Tuesday night that he sees a path forward for his campaign, despite New York's 21st House District becoming even more Republican after redistricting earlier this year.

“The combination of my ability to build a coalition plus [Stefanik] changing and disappointing folks puts us in a strong position to actually do something really special here and deliver the win in November.”

Castelli is running to unseat Representative Elise Stefanik

Tuesday's primary election appears to have had a low turnout. In Saranac Lake, just seven people per hour were trickling into the town hall to vote Tuesday morning. One of those people was Paul Herrmann, a retired lawyer from Saranac Lake.

“I’ve voted every time I’ve gotten a chance and I just hope I get to keep voting," said Herrmann. "It’s the hallmark of a democracy.”

Herrmann cast his ballot on Tuesday for Matt Putorti. He said he liked that Putorti grew up in the district.

Beatrice Beguin also showed up early to vote on Tuesday. She cast her ballot for Matt Castelli, but didn’t seem super excited about her vote, so I asked her why that was.

“Well, you know, I’m not really feeling connected to a political party. I choose it because it makes it possible for me to vote in the primary.”

Beguin said her values don’t line up completely with Castelli’s but she thinks he’s got the best shot against Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. Stefanik has won by an increasingly wide margin in recent years. She defeated Democrat Tedra Cobb in 2020 by nearly 18%.

Beguin said she hopes Castelli can do better than that. “I think in this climate someone with a law enforcement background is probably competitive.”

Castelli served in the CIA for years and worked as the Director for Counterterrorism under Obama and for a year under Trump. He’s campaigned more as a moderate, touting his support for the second amendment and not committing to an assault rifle ban. He’ll also be on the moderate party line in November.

It’s an attempt to appeal to more conservative voters. Dwight Stevenson, who teaches government and economics at Saranac Lake High School, says Democrat voters in the North Country shouldn’t be too picky.

“You’re not going to get everything that you want in a candidate, so being able to compromise and know what is that you’re willing to compromise on is a really important thing as a voter.”

Stevenson said he's met Castelli a couple of times and appreciates that Castelli has been campaigning across the district. He doesn’t see Stefanik engaging in that way.

“She’s not really listening to the voters around here," said Stevenson. "Matt Castelli is a fresh face and a fresh change and an opportunity to have someone listening to the people in the district, not looking to further their own political aspirations.” ❗

Stefanik has the highest profile she’s ever had since she was first elected in 2014. She is now the third-ranking Republican in the House and has raised more than $7 million this election cycle, according to federal campaign finance data.

Castelli’s campaign has raised about $1.1 million. He’s never held public office and just recently moved to the North Country, so doesn’t have deep roots in the district.

Paul Herrmann, the retired lawyer from Saranac Lake, says it’s a long shot for any Democrat in this district. “It doesn’t look great at the moment, but between now and November is an eternity.”

“Look like th'innocent flower, But be the serpent under't” 

Maine Writer Post Script- Are voters in NYDistict21 asking Stefanik about her position for legalized abortion?  I have "nicknamed" Ms. Stefanik the "Lady MacBeth" of the Congress, precisely because of her mean spirited and insatiable ambition. 

Stereo opinion echo - Donald Trump and his dangerous policies

A guest editorial and reader response from the Addison County Independent newspaper, located in Middlebury, Vermont and also in other state newspapers.

Donald Trump is a danger to the world! He should be impeached and put in prison.

There is absolutely no way to explain much of what Donald Trump does nationally or internationally, largely because he changes his mind so often on so many things. What can be said is that his actions are almost invariably consistent with the goals of Russia. Equally, up until this moment, there is absolutely no way to know what the motivation for his policies truly is.

Some have speculated that he is motivated by his own personal economic goals. He would like to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Others have speculated that his past dalliances in Moscow have compromised him and that he has been blackmailed into his current behaviors. It is further speculated, given his clear admiration of and support for today’s worst world dictators, that his goal is to become one of their colleagues, changing this country forever. He has, after all, spoken (jokingly?) of serving for an additional 16 years.

To be fair about this, let’s look at Trump without partisan political speculation. What policies has he followed that have favored the Russians?

In order to fully understand this, we have to have a reasonable assessment of Russian motivation in the world. It is clear that Putin, a former committed KGB colonel, deeply mourns the death of the Soviet Union. He has said a number of times that it was one of the greatest tragedies in history and that it is his wish that the USSR return to Russia.

So, what has Putin done that would support that goal? 

Recognizing the ongoing power and influence of the United States in the world, he has done everything humanly possible to weaken the U.S. both internally and internationally.

Internally, he has interfered in our 2016 elections and continues to do so today. Whether it was his doing or not, Putin has an American President who has attempted and often succeeded in overturning just about everything his predecessor did to try to make this country a fairer, safer place.

One of the results of this policy is that it has further exacerbated the deep political divisions that exist in our country. Trump has basically destroyed the effectiveness of much of the Federal Government. The State Department, the Intelligence Community, and the regulatory agencies (particularly the Environmental Protection Agency) have all been denigrated and humiliated. Critical substantive jobs requiring real expertise have been purposely left unoccupied or occupied by Trump sycophants. Top management jobs are often left “acting,” leaving true power to the president.

Internationally, he has treated European heads of state with disdain and occasional rudeness. He has spoken against the European Union, NATO and just about every other western originated international agreement. He has shown his distrust for our involvement with international agreements by withdrawing from the Trans Pacific Partnership (PTT), The Paris Climate Accord, The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear agreement.

None of these moves have strengthened the United States and in the process of acting out his disdain for international cooperation, he has gone a long way toward removing us from our decades-long preeminence in international affairs and limiting our ability to positively influence world affairs.

One further clue to his motivation could be Trump’s admiration for and support of some of the world’s most conservative, autocratic leaders, starting with Russia’s Putin who clearly occupies a special place in Trump’s heart. From there we go on to North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Xi Jinping of China, Abdel Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, the Saudi Royal family and Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela. In the past, Trump has even had kind words for Saddam Hussein.

Trump’s current crusade on behalf of his Russian friends appears to be the reinstatement of Russia in the G7. Russia was expelled from that organization when it annexed the Crimea in 2014. It is fascinating that just this week, Trump announced that he would not sign off on the $250 million in U.S. military aid to the Ukraine, already approved by Congress, which was designed to help the Ukraine confront the Russian occupation.

Trump appears to be the only elected leader in the United States who thinks Russia can do no harm and who believes that Russia is a friend rather than the often-hostile rival she has traditionally been.

Even without knowing why he takes that position, it can be said without equivocation, that is no position for any President of the United States to take, particularly a Republican. He is not making the world a safer place in which to live, but he is certainly helping the Russians.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA Station Chief who served in East and West Europe and the Middle East, as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff and as Executive Assistant in the Director’s office.

Trump infatuated with despots- response: 

The guest editorial by former CIA station chief Haviland Smith was excellent (Addison Independent, Sept. 9). In straightforward terms, it highlighted Trump’s relationship (or infatuation) with Putin, and his foreign policy activities. As the author said, this is outside the left-right arguments about which way to move the country. This is a leader who is completely flipping the relationships that have been in place for years. Trump’s preference for dictators is obvious on multiple fronts.

Trump must go. He has damaged democracy by his dictatorial style of leadership. The chaos and the politicizing of all operations of the government has made us less secure and less stable. His base-oriented actions and his personal traits (“nasty”) have made our daily lives less enjoyable and more dangerous. The political divide is worse, the societal dialogue is worse, the respect for truth and honesty is less, the trust in the media is hyper-divided, and two of the heavyweights in Trump’s world are TV personalities (like himself). Decency and respect for others are on the decline.

Trump and his minions do not want democracy. Trump has expressed desire to be president for life, and there is legitimate worry about what happens if the 2020 election is close and Trump loses. This is on top of gerrymandering, voter suppression and foreign influences.

Trump must go and it is not a left right issue anymore. It is a democracy or dictatorship question. Sorry to be so stark, but that is how it appears to me.

Van Talmage, Lincoln, Vermont

Let's talk "Truth" on President's Day

An Idaho State Journal opinion by columnist Jim Jones

Judge Jim Jones of Idaho

As we observe the 210th anniversary of the birth of America’s greatest president on Feb. 12, we should reflect on Abraham Lincoln’s reputation for truthfulness. 

After all, we fondly recall him as “Honest Abe.” He first gained that nickname as a young store clerk in New Salem, Illinois, and carried it through his entire life.

Lincoln famously said, “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.” He was absolutely right — the solution of any crisis depends upon knowing the true facts. It is the sacred duty of our leaders to tell us the truth.

This great country has developed a reliable infrastructure for gathering intelligence from around the world in order to advise our leadership of threats to our national security.

The U.S. intelligence community is not perfect or foolproof. 

In fact, it has been wrong in the past. Nevertheless, I would submit that most of the instances where it appears to have erred were the result of presidential pressure or obfuscation.

When intel reports were privately warning him of trouble ahead in Vietnam, President Johnson ignored the cautionary advice and substantially increased our troop commitment. The public was not provided with the true facts about what was happening in Vietnam and was not able to critically evaluate his policy. 

"Trump is troubling and dangerous to America’s national security"- Jim Jones

Richard Nixon also had trouble telling us the truth about Vietnam.

President George W. Bush jumped into a disastrous war in Iraq based on cooked up intelligence. The CIA tried on several occasions to convince the administration that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States, but was ignored. After unrelenting pressure brought to bear on the agency by Dick Cheney, the CIA gave in and said Iraq probably possessed weapons of mass destruction. So, America went to war on faulty intel.

The present obfuscation by Trump is every bit as troubling and dangerous to America’s national security. Trump has rejected the intelligence community’s assessment of the serious threats posed to the U.S. by Russia, North Korea and the Islamic State. Instead, he has ridiculed the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of the CIA and FBI for speaking truthfully to him.

It is no secret that North Korea does not intend to give up its nuclear weapons and the intel chiefs made that clear to Trump. 

Trump's irresposible rejection of their intel assessment puts Kim Jong-un in the driver’s seat. Knowing he has Trump's idiotic trust, Kim can continue to lead Trump down the primrose path to more concessions.

The intel community knows that the Islamic State will be a serious danger to the U.S., even after the terrorists have been dislodged from their remaining enclaves in Syria. The intelligence experts had little success in disavowing Trump of the misconception that ISIS has been defeated. Ignoring the truth in Syria will come back to haunt us.

Of course, Trump continues to disregard the intelligence community’s warnings about Russia’s malevolent actions. 

Rather than treating Russia like the enemy it is, Trump continues to do favors for Vladimir Putin. The U.S. has just disavowed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that was negotiated by President Ronald Reagan — something that has been near the top of Putin’s wish list.

Vladimir must also be tickled pink that Trump blasted the veracity and competence of our intelligence establishment for all of the world to hear. Rather than discrediting our intelligence professionals for speaking the truth, he should be praising them. We have the right to expect our President to follow in the footsteps of Honest Abe and speak the truth to the American people on important national security issues.

Jim Jones served as an Army artillery officer in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969 and received an Army Commendation Medal for his work with an orphanage there. 

He served for eight years as Idaho Attorney General and was a justice on the Idaho Supreme Court for 12 years. He currently resides in Boise. 

His previous columns can be found at www.JJCommonTater.com.

Donald Trump is a crises acceleration machine

It's difficult to understand how many more scandals and indictments can be piled on to the "crises du jour" by the failed Donald Trump administration.  In an interview reported in The Daily Beast, the political cauldron being stirred by Trump and his chaotic management is as bad (and getting worse) as anything in American history.

BE AFRAID ~ echo reported in The Daily Beast reported by Marlow Stern

Ex-CIA Director John Brennan to Bill Maher: Trump Is ‘A Real Threat to Our National Security’

The former CIA director under President Obama—and the architect of the bin Laden raid—sat down with Bill Maher on ‘Real Time’ to discuss Trump revoking his security clearance.

John Brennan is pissed.

John Owen Brennan is an American intelligence official who served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from March 2013 to January 2017

The former CIA director under President Obama, and the architect of the bin Laden raid, sat down with host Bill Maher on Friday night’s Real Time to vent about President Trump, who last week took it upon himself to revoke his security clearance. 

In a statement delivered by press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump pointed to Brennan’s “frenzied commentary” and “unfounded and outrageous allegations” as the reason for the revocation—without, of course, getting into any specifics.

Brennan, who is an MSNBC analyst, was very critical of Trump’s cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin, branding the president’s ring-kissing during their (failed!) Helsinki summit “nothing short of treasonous.”

This is what Brennon posted on Twitter: Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

“There are two principal reasons why I used that term,” Brennan explained to Maher of the “treasonous” comment. “One, I think I exhausted all the other adjectives in the English language to describe Donald Trump’s failures to fulfill his responsibilities as president of the United States. And two, I saw him on that stage in Helsinki failing to be able to say to the world and to Vladimir Putin that Russia tried to interfere in our election, that it never should have happened and it never should happen again, and if it does Russia is going to pay some very severe consequences as a result, but he didn’t do that.”

He went on to describe how unique the revocation was. “I didn’t ask to keep my security clearances—former directors don’t do that. We keep those clearances because sometimes, those in government want to avail themselves of our experience, our expertise, our knowledge about certain issues,” Brennan said. “This is the first time in 38 years that I haven’t had a security clearance, and the basis for the revocation is bogus. Mr. Trump and the administration didn’t adhere even to the process that they reaffirmed last year, and the politicization of security clearances, either the granting or the revocation, is a real threat to our national security.”

The 62-year-old Jersey native blamed Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for being “the one that put this idea in Donald Trump’s head,” even though, according to Brennan, “Rand Paul has never served on the intelligence committee. He knows not of what he speaks, but yet he has this impression that I’m ‘monetizing’ security clearances, so he continues to spout out on these issues.”

“But again,” he continued, “I believe very strongly in the principle that national security is one of the most sacred and solemn professions in this government, and every American citizen deserves to have national security professionals—intelligence professionals—who are not going to be politicized, and no president ever should take that capability away from them.”

Later on, Maher claimed that Trump’s presidency is “the third great crisis in American history” behind the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, before asking Brennan if he agreed with that ranking.

“I would,” said Brennan. “And I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better, because don’t forget: Donald Trump has the authority of the president of the United States in his hands, in terms of what he can do domestically here and as well as what he can do internationally to try to distract attention, whether or not he’s going to try to pursue some type of foreign adventure, military or otherwise. But fundamentally though, what he’s doing to this country: he’s dividing us.”

Marlow Stern

John Brennan describes the security dangers caused by Donald Trump

Opinion echo published in The New York Times, an eloquent criticism about Donald Trump's failed leadership: 

When Alexander Bortnikov, the head of Russia’s internal security service, told me during an early August 2016 phone call that Russia wasn’t interfering in our presidential election, I knew he was lying. 

John O. Brennan was director of the Central Intelligence Agency from March 2013 to January 2017.

Over the previous several years I had grown weary of Mr. Bortnikov’s denials of Russia’s perfidy — about its mistreatment of American diplomats and citizens in Moscow, its repeated failure to adhere to cease-fire agreements in Syria and its paramilitary intervention in eastern Ukraine, to name just a few issues.

When I warned Mr. Bortnikov that Russian interference in our election was intolerable and would roil United States-Russia relations for many years, he denied Russian involvement in any election, in America or elsewhere, with a feigned sincerity that I had heard many times before. President Vladimir Putin of Russia reiterated those denials numerous times over the past two years, often to Donald Trump’s seeming approval.

Russian denials are, in a word, hogwash.

Before, during and after its now infamous meddling in our last presidential election, Russia practiced the art of shaping political events abroad through its well-honed active measures program, which employs an array of technical capabilities, information operations and old-fashioned human intelligence spycraft. Electoral politics in Western democracies present an especially inviting target, as a variety of politicians, political parties, media outlets, think tanks and influencers are readily manipulated, wittingly and unwittingly, or even bought outright by Russian intelligence operatives. The very freedoms and liberties that liberal Western democracies cherish and that autocracies fear have been exploited by Russian intelligence services not only to collect sensitive information but also to distribute propaganda and disinformation, increasingly via the growing number of social media platforms.

Having worked closely with the F.B.I. over many years on counterintelligence investigations, I was well aware of Russia’s ability to work surreptitiously within the United States, cultivating relationships with individuals who wield actual or potential power. Like Mr. Bortnikov, these Russian operatives and agents are well trained in the art of deception. They troll political, business and cultural waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who become pliant in the hands of their Russian puppet masters. Too often, those puppets are found.

In my many conversations with James Comey, the F.B.I. director, in the summer of 2016, we talked about the potential for American citizens, involved in partisan politics or not, to be pawns in Russian hands. We knew that Russian intelligence services would do all they could to achieve their objectives, which the United States intelligence community publicly assessed a few short months later were to undermine public faith in the American democratic process, harm the electability of the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, and show preference for Mr. Trump. We also publicly assessed that Vladimir Putin’s intelligence services were following his orders. Director Comey and I, along with the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael Rogers, pledged that our agencies would share, as appropriate, whatever information was collected, especially considering the proven ability of Russian intelligence services to suborn United States citizens.

The already challenging work of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities was made more difficult in late July 2016, however, when Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, publicly called upon Russia to find the missing emails of Mrs. Clinton. By issuing such a statement, Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent.

Such a public clarion call certainly makes one wonder what Mr. Trump privately encouraged his advisers to do — and what they actually did — to win the election. While I had deep insight into Russian activities during the 2016 election, I now am aware — thanks to the reporting of an open and free press — of many more of the highly suspicious dalliances of some American citizens with people affiliated with the Russian intelligence services.

Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash.

The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of “Trump Incorporated” attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets. A jury is about to deliberate bank and tax fraud charges against one of those people, Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman. And the campaign’s former deputy chairman, Rick Gates, has pleaded guilty to financial fraud and lying to investigators.

Mr. Trump clearly has become more desperate to protect himself and those close to him, which is why he made the politically motivated decision to revoke my security clearance in an attempt to scare into silence others who might dare to challenge him. Now more than ever, it is critically important that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his team of investigators be allowed to complete their work without interference — from Mr. Trump or anyone else — so that all Americans can get the answers they so rightly deserve.

John O. Brennan was director of the Central Intelligence Agency from March 2013 to January 2017.