Donald Trump is selling out American institutions and safeguards

Echo opinion letter published in the Alaska Juneau Empire newspaper: Disintegration of America’s democracy

Trump is oblivious to the consequences of any of his statements or actions.

As a 70-year-old Alaskan, I reminisce about my junior high school civics class where I was proud to learn that our country, founded 244 years ago, is populated by citizens who are granted equal status under our constitution. There is no privileged class or privileged individual. Intentionally, our government was designed to spread power among three equal branches, each with unique responsibilities and each acts as a check on the other two branches.

Imagine my dismay in observing in my lifetime the disintegration and “selling out” of a growing list of our institutions and safeguards written into our Constitution.

Every American now knows, except for those who choose sources of information which shield them from the truth, that our president initiated and directed an extortion campaign over a very vulnerable ally engaged in active combat with our preeminent adversary, Russia.

That act of extortion was clear to everyone involved to be predicated on the objective of coercing this ally, engaged in an existential struggle to free itself from a history of corruption, to commit a corrupt act by producing almost certainly manufactured evidence of unlawful and corrupt behavior of President Donald Trump’s expected political opponent. This is no stretch of the imagination for American citizens. This clearly is the man we now know Trump to be — of course he would feel uninhibited in this kind of corrupt behavior to further his personal advantage using the power of his office and illegally withholding funds appropriated by Congress to an ally in the throes of war.

Now, we American citizens have the added insult, that the Congress is complicit in this flagrant violation of the principles and high standards that have always made the United States of America a living example of democracy that peoples all over the globe want to emulate.

We have always proudly believed that our Congress would safeguard the institutions and founding principles of our democracy by rooting-out wrongdoing and corruption in our government and holding offenders accountable, even the president. We are no longer that shining example for other struggling democracies.

Trump has denigrated law enforcement officials, our national security professionals, and our diplomatic corps, favoring and promoting what National Security Council specialist Fiona Hill described as a “a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.” This is serious business; a matter concerning our own national security. Trump is oblivious to the consequences of any of his statements or actions, rather focusing only on how it might benefit his personal interests.

Now Congress has failed to call-out the president’s corrupt behavior. Surely, Congress could have at least censured the president’s corrupt acts. Some Senators have foolishly imagined that Trump has learned his lesson, but immediately he is on the war path weeding out any member of his administration who fails to be sufficiently subservient to his personal interests.

Today we learn that the president has coerced Attorney General William Barr to intervene in the lawful prosecution of Trump’s stooge and self-avowed dirty tricks operative, Roger Stone, to reduce his prison sentence. The Justice Department is apparently no longer a politically independent institution of justice for the American people, but a tool of the President.

Step-by-step we are sliding into an authoritarian form of government in which the president’s political adversaries (essentially 60% of our population) are labeled “very bad people” and “scum.”

More frighteningly, Trump has adopted the dictators’ trope of calling our news media an “enemy of the people” aligning Trump with Stalin, Mao and the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels; a chilling disintegration of Constitutionally guaranteed principles.

How far must our situation deteriorate before Congress takes a principled stand to safeguard our country’s constitutionally promised heritage?

• Alexander Hoke resides in Juneau.

Republicans irresponsibly fall victim to the fictional narrative

“This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves. The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016." 

https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2019/11/29/opinion/unite-to-fight-back-vs-foreign-disinformation-campaigns/

Fiona Hill- biogrpahy

Fiona Hill took a professional integrity risk when she served Donald Trump on the National Security Council.  

This echo editorial was published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune and re-published in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald

Fiona Hill, the former top National Security Council (NSC) expert on Russia, set the reord straight on that country’s attack on the 2016 election.

“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did,” Hill testified during the House impeachment inquiry last week.

“This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves. The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.”

America is not the only nation targeted by Russia. The Kremlin’s assault on elections — democracy’s DNA — is apparent in many Western nations. This includes the United Kingdom, where Brits will have to wait until after the Dec. 12 election for a report on the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum.

Russia will likely try again in the interest of advancing its cynical goals, which Hill starkly described as “to weaken our country — to diminish America’s global role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests. President (Vladimir) Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance.”

Russia cannot match the U.S., let alone NATO, in military spending, so it’s using asymmetric measures to disrupt the West.

“The Russians have a really dark purpose, which is to undermine democracy,” Richard Stengel, the former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, told an editorial writer. Stengel, a former Time editor and author of “Information Wars: How We Lost The Global Battle Of Disinformation And What We Can Do About It,” added that “we’re still in an era where offensive capabilities are greater than the defensive capabilities, which is worrisome going into a really critical presidential election.”

A recent joint statement from the departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security and other federal entities warned of looming 2020 interference. “Our adversaries want to undermine our democratic institutions, influence public sentiment and affect government policies. Russia, China, Iran and other foreign malicious actors all will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions,” the statement said.

“An informed public is a resilient public,” the statement added. Stengel agreed on the need for more media literacy as well as more accountability for social media companies. “Every voter in a way is a target of entities that malignly seek to influence them,” Stengel said.

That includes voices here at home, which is a factor Hill highlighted in her testimony. “President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a super PAC,” she said. “They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each another, degrade our institutions and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy.”

Russia’s, not America’s, interests are advanced by the “fictional narrative” that it wasn’t the Kremlin that attacked the U.S. in 2016. On that point, a deeply divided Congress, and country, must agree.

— Star Tribune (Minneapolis)

Do not worry, Dad. "I will be fine for telling the truth", Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

Transcribed in Axios:  news, coverage, and insight

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's opening statement in the Donald Trump impeachment hearing:

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified on Tuesday November 19, in the House's impeachment inquiry.

Why it matters: Vindman is one of the first witnesses to testify publicly who directly listened in to President Trump's July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which he will tell the House Intelligence Committee he found "improper."

Opening Statement of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman

Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

November 19, 2019

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to address the

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with respect to the activities relating to Ukraine and my role in the events under investigation.

Background - I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America.

For more than two decades, it has been my honor to serve as an officer in the United

States Army. As an infantry officer, I served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and I was deployed to Iraq for combat operations. Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area Officer specializing in European and Eurasian politico-military affairs. I served in the United States embassies in Kiev, Ukraine and Moscow, Russia.

In Washington, D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff where I drafted the Armed Forces’ global campaign plan to counter Russian aggression and Russian malign influence. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at the White House’s National Security Council (NSC).

At the NSC, I am the principal advisor to the National Security Advisor and the President on Ukraine and the other countries in my portfolio. My role at the NSC is to develop, coordinate, and implement plans and policies to manage the full range of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic national security issues for the countries in my portfolio. My core function is to coordinate policy with departments and agencies partners.

The Committee has heard from many of my colleagues about the strategic importance of Ukraine as a bulwark against Russian aggression. It is important to note that our country’s policy of supporting Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, promoting Ukrainian prosperity, and strengthening a free and democratic Ukraine, as a counter to Russian aggression, has been a consistent, bi-partisan foreign policy objective and strategy across various administrations, both Democrat and Republican, and that President Zelenskyy’s election, in April 2019, created an unprecedented opportunity to realize our strategic objectives.

Relevant Events - and Donald Trump

In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of two disruptive actors–-primarily Ukraine’s then-Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney— promoting false information that undermined the United States’ Ukraine policy. The NSC and its inter-agency partners, including the State Department, grew increasingly concerned about the impact that such information was having on our country’s ability to achieve our national security objectives.

April 21, 2019: President Trump Calls Ukraine President Zelenskyy

On April 21, 2019, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected President of Ukraine in a landslide victory on a unity, reform, and anti-corruption platform. President Trump called President Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019, to congratulate him for his victory. I was the staff officer who produced the call materials and was one of the staff officers who listened to the call. The call was positive and President Trump expressed his desire to work with President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.

May 2019: Inauguration Delegation Goes to Ukraine

In May, I attended the inauguration of President Zelenskyy as part of the Presidential delegation led by Secretary Perry. Following the visit, the members of the delegation provided President Trump a debriefing offering a positive assessment of President Zelenskyy and his team. After this debriefing, President Trump signed a
congratulatory letter to President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.

July 10, 2019: Danylyuk Visit

On July 10, 2019, Oleksandr Danylyuk, then Ukraine’s National Security Advisor, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton.

Ambassadors Volker and Sondland and Secretary Rick Perry also attended the meeting. I attended the meeting with Dr. Hill.

We fully anticipated the Ukrainians would raise the issue of a meeting between the two presidents. Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short when Ambassador Sondland started to speak about the requirement that Ukraine deliver specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with President Trump.

Following this meeting, there was a short debriefing during which Ambassador. Sondland emphasized the importance of Ukraine delivering the investigations into the 2016, election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Ambassador Sondland that this was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security. 

Lt Col Alexander Vindman is a United States Army officer who serves as the Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council (NSC). Vindman came to national attention in October/November 2019, when he testified before the United States Congress regarding the Trump–Ukraine scandal.
Commissioned in 1999 as an infantry officer, Vindman received a Purple Heart medal for wounds he received from an IED attack in the Iraq War in 2004. Vindman became a foreign area officer specializing in Eurasia in 2008, and assumed his current position as Director for European Affairs with the NSC in 2018.

(Testimony transcript continues)

Dr. Hill also asserted that his comments were improper.

Following the meeting, Dr. Hill and I had agreed to report the incident to the NSC’s lead counsel, Mr. John Eisenberg.

July 25, 2019: Parliamentary Election Call

On July 21, 2019, President Zelenskyy’s party won parliamentary elections in another landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him.

On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with White House colleagues.

I was concerned by the call, what I heard was improper, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent. It was also
clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016, election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine U.S. national security, and advance
Russia’s strategic objectives in the region.
I want to emphasize to the Committee, that when I reported my concerns -- on July 10, relating to Ambassador Sondland, and on July 25, relating to the President -- I did so out of a sense of duty. I privately reported my concerns, in official channels, to the proper authorities in the chain of command. My intent was to raise these
concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country.

I never thought I would be sitting here testifying in front of this committee and the American public, about my actions. When I reported my concerns, my only thought was to act properly and to carry out duty. Following each of my reports to Mr. Eisenberg, I immediately returned to work to advance the President’s and our country’s foreign policy objectives. I focused on what I have done throughout my career, promoting America’s national security interests.

Conclusion

I want to take a moment to recognize the courage of my colleagues who have appeared and are scheduled to appear before this Committee. I want to state that the vile character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants is reprehensible. It is natural to disagree and engage in spirited debate, this has been
our custom since the time of our Founding Fathers, but we are better than callow and cowardly attacks.

The uniform I wear today is that of the United States Army. The members of our all volunteer force are made up of a patchwork of people from all ethnicities, religions, and socio-economic backgrounds who come together under a common oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We do not serve any particular political party, we serve the nation. I am humbled to come before you today as one of many who serve in the most distinguished and able military in the world. The Army is the only profession I have ever known. As a young man I decided that I wanted to spend my life serving the nation that gave my family refuge from authoritarian oppression, and for the last twenty years it has been an honor to represent and protect this great country.

Next month will mark 40 years since my family arrived in the United States as refugees. When my father was 47 years old he left behind his entire life and the only home he had ever known to start over in the United States so that his three sons could have better, safer lives. His courageous decision inspired a deep sense of gratitude in my brothers and myself and instilled in us a sense of duty and service. All three of us have served or are currently serving in the military. Our collective military service is a special part of our family’s story in America.

I also recognize that my simple act of appearing here today, just like the courage of my colleagues who have also truthfully testified before this Committee, would not be tolerated in many places around the world. In Russia, my act of expressing my concerns to the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions and offering public testimony involving the President would surely cost me my life.

I am grateful for my father’s brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant, where I can live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety.

Dad, my sitting here today, in the US Capitol, talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision forty years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to United State of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.* 

Thank you again for your consideration, and I would be happy to answer your questions.

*PostScript- published in NBC.com by Lily Burana: "When later asked if his father had expressed concerns about his testimony, Lt. Col. Vindman replied that his father was, indeed, 'deeply worried' about him testifying about the conduct of the president, seeing it 'as the ultimate risk'. But Vindman said he was persevering regardless, as 'this is America ... and here, right matters'."

Bravery in he military and speaking truth to power - Alexander Vindman

Opinion echo Joseph Sabino Mistick: 

The courage of patriot Alexander Vindman

As reported by The New York Times, Alexander told the committee, “I sit here, as a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, an immigrant. I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country, irrespective of party or politics.”

With all the talk out there about making America great again, here’s a happy story that shows that America has never lost its greatness, in spite of what the naysayers and crackpots want us to believe. 

It comes along just when we all could use a little boost.

Identical twin boys — Alexander and Yevgeny — were born in the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Their mother died when they were young, and once the Soviets lifted the ban on emigration, their father brought them and their older brother and grandmother to America.

As Jewish refugees, they left with a suitcase and whatever cash they could gather, looking for a better life, just like all refugees. When they got here, they settled among other immigrants like them, and their father worked more than one job at a time, while studying English at night.

In their new land, both twins wanted a military career, and like many immigrants who arrive in America, they really believed that this is the “land of opportunity.” They set their sights high and dedicated themselves to their goal, and both are now lieutenant colonels in the U.S. Army.

At this point, if you wrote this as a work of fiction, you would get an eye roll from your editor with a strong suggestion to rework your storyline to make it more believable. But the true story gets even better.

Along the way, Alexander earned a master’s degree at Harvard, served multiple tours overseas and received a Purple Heart when he was wounded by a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2004. He is a warrior and a scholar.

And in another “this can’t be true” detail, the twins most recently have occupied offices across the hall from each other in the West Wing of the White House. Alexander joined the National Security Council in 2018. Yevgeny serves on the NSC as a lawyer specializing in ethics.

On the battlefield in Iraq, Alexander knew that he could be wounded or killed. That young Americans have always stepped forward knowing there is a chance of injury or death leaves the rest of us in gratitude and wonder. In the great American tradition, Alexander accepted that chance.

And last week, Alexander had to muster a different kind of courage. This time there was more than a chance that he would be wounded. This time there was a certainty that political partisans and enemies of the truth would try to assassinate his character and love of America.

Still, Alexander spoke the truth. He testified before congressional Republicans and Democrats that his boss — the commander-in-chief and the president of the United States — tried to squeeze political dirt out of the president of Ukraine before releasing the military aid Congress had appropriated.

As reported by The New York Times, Alexander told the committee, “I sit here, as a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, an immigrant. I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country, irrespective of party or politics.”

That is the American story we have always loved.

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer. Reach him at misticklaw@gmail.com.

Making the Ukraine an offer it can't refuse - Donald Trump: the corrupter in chief

Vanity Fair Report- White House officials "Alarmed" by Donald Trump's Ukraine Dealings, even before the call to President Volodymyr Zelensky

Donald Trump created alarm among the international diplomats and intelligence operatives when he provided a "quid pro quo" offer to Uraine's Zelensky. It seems to me, it was making Zelensky "an offer he can't refuse"....OMG

At least four national security officials registered their concerns with a White House lawyer both before and immediately after the July 25 phone call. By ALISON DURKEE

For however “perfect” as he believed it to be, Donald Trump's now-infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly raised concerns among administration officials as soon as Trump hung up the phone. 

As the Washington Post reported Thursday, however, that wasn't the first time aides had raised objections about how the president was dealing with Ukraine. According to the Post, at least four national security officials were so “alarmed” by Trump's apparent attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals that they “raised concerns” with National Security Council legal adviser John Eisenberg both before and immediately after Trump's July 25 phone call. The officials “were not a swamp, not a deep state,” a former senior official told the Post—but were simply White House officials “who got concerned about this because this is not the way they want to see the government run.”

Concerns over Trump's Ukrainian dealings both before and after the call were widespread even among Trump's top advisers, the Post reports, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton and then-acting deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman. 

Indeed, the alarm bells reportedly started going off after the abrupt ouster of former Ambassador to Ukraine Masha Yovanovitch, and the Post notes NSC (National Security Council) officials “were alternately baffled and alarmed” by the behavior of Rudy Giuliani, who pressed for Yovanovitch's removal and very publicly declared his plan to press Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden. (In addition to the Biden conspiracy, Trump also “became increasingly focused” on baseless right-wing conspiracy theories regarding Ukraine's supposed role in the 2016 election.) Worry among NSC officials escalated even further after U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland—who got his job after donating $1 million to Trump's inauguration—declared that Trump had put him in charge of relations with Kiev. During a meeting with Bolton, then-U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, and Zelensky aides about corruption in Ukraine's energy sector, Sondland “blurted out that there were also ‘investigations that were dropped that need to be started up again,’” the Post reports. “Bolton went ballistic” after the meeting, one official told the Post, and senior NSC officials “huddled” about their Ukraine concerns in the ensuing days. The senior officials also looped in acting U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor, whose ensuing explosive text messages with Sondland and Volker have since been publicly released.

For as concerned as officials already were about Trump's Ukraine behavior, their concerns “soared” once Trump spoke to Zelensky. In line with previous reports, including the whistle-blower report,

the Post notes that Bolton and other senior officials were being contacted “within minutes” of the call's end by their subordinates expressing concern, and a rough transcript of the conversation was moved to a highly secure computer network meant for classified material “within hours.” “When people were listening to this in real time there were significant concerns about what was going on—alarm bells were kind of ringing,” one source told the Post. “People were trying to figure out what to do, how to get a grasp on the situation.” White House officials were reportedly seeking ways to officially report the conversation, the Post notes, which was made challenging by “the lack of a White House equivalent to the inspector general positions found at other agencies.” So they went to Eisenberg, who reportedly vowed to “follow-up.” It's not clear that Eisenberg actually took any action, though—and his lack of any clear response, the Post speculates, could have contributed to White House officials' decisions to share their concerns with the whistle-blower, a CIA employee who was first contacted by a White House official hours after Trump and Zelensky's phone call. (It is unclear whether any of the officials who spoke with Eisenberg are the same ones who spoke with the whistle-blower.)

The reports of how acute the alarm was over Trump's behavior within the White House ranks isn't great for the president as he continues to downplay the allegations and insist he was in the right—and come as damning reports concerning his and Giuliani's Ukraine scheming only continue to escalate. In addition to the fallout over Trump's phone call, new reports this week have raised concerns about how the administration handled the freezing and reinstatement of aid to Ukraine—which could suggest the existence of a “quid pro quo”—with the Washington Post reporting Thursday that political appointees intervened to freeze the aid over the objections of career staffers, who feared the move would be “improper.” The Associated Press, meanwhile, reported Thursday that Yovanovitch was fired after pushing back against Giuliani's rogue Ukraine operation, marking yet another bad story for the lawyer after his clients were arrested earlier Thursday.

While tensions are already running high in Trumpzi's world, the Trumpters and his allies also may soon face even more detrimental details coming to light, should Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top aide on Russia and Europe, testify as planned in the coming days. NBC News reports that Hill is expected to testify that Giuliani and Sondland circumvented the National Security Council to pursue their “shadow policy” on Ukraine, and her impending testimony has reportedly “stoked fear” in the White House given that she's not a Trump loyalist. If Hill, now a private citizen, is able to testify without the White House attempting to exert executive privilege over her testimony, it could also give Democrats the green light to seek testimony from other former White House officials, including Bolton—who's already been very clear that he's totally willing to trash talk his former employer.

Lt General Flynn is guilty of requesting immunity to tell the truth

Makes no sense for Lt General Mike Flynn to seek immunity to testify and tell the truth to the Senate Intelligence Committee when he swore to be loyal to the United States, as an officer. 

Although Lt. Gen Flynnis is a retired army officer, it's certainly duplicitious for him to collude with foreign nations, like Russia and Turkey, when he had a career of pledging allegience to America, as in this Officer's Pledge:

Oath of Commissioned Officers

I, _(Michael Flynn)____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _(Lt General)____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." 

Lt. General Flyn was identified as a source for poential Russian blackmail. So, as a result of this potential intelligence coopting by Russia, Donald Trump was forced to fire him, as chair of the National Security Council.  

There is no reason for a senior US Army officer to need immunity from prosecution to testify under oath, if he is, in fact, innocent of duplicitous communication with Russia. Otherwise, by seeking immunity, Lt General Flynn is acting like he's guilty of treason and, quite frankly, his request for immunity is a desperate plea for help.

Steve Bannon "look alikes" - Kim Jong-Un and Joseph Goebbels

Steve Bannon was a low ranking US Naval officer, but in his mug shot he looks more like a drunken sailor than the man Donald Trump appointed, without vetting, to sit on the National Security Council, representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In other words, low life Bannon will be in a position of being able to speak for the Generals and Admirals, who earned the privilege of being on the NSC.  

Curiously enough, Steve Bannon resembles North Korea's tyrannical dictator Kim Jong_un (probably just coincidental ya'think?)

Kim Jong-un- leader of North Korea

Joseph Goebbels - Nazi propaganda minister for Hitler

For those who believe in reincarnation- it's possible Steve Bannon is the Joseph Goebbels reincarnated, Reich Chancellor; appointed by Adolf Hitler before he committed suicide. Goebbels also died by suicide on May 1, 1945 with his wife and children.

Steve Bannon- Brietbart_barfcart news CEO
Former Annapolis graduate low ranking Navy officer
WannaBe Joint Chiefs representative on National Security Council- is a slob.
Steve Bannon: Claims of Anti-Semitism, Ties to the Alt-Right and Now a Powerful Job

With National Security Council Shakeup, Steve Bannon Gets A Seat At The Table- "Gosh darn Dad, I always wanted to sit at the big people's table!"

President Trump has reorganized the National Security Council by elevating his chief strategist Steve Bannon (a former low ranking USN officer and Annapolis grad who served in the Navy for 7 years) and demoting the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

MERRIT KENNEDY- reported for BBC
Now, Bannon will join the NSC's principals committee, the top inter-agency group for discussing national security. The National Security Council is the staff inside the White House that coordinates decision making by the president on such matters, in coordination with outside departments including the State Department and the Pentagon.

It's an unusual decision, NPR's Mara Liasson reported. "David Axelrod, for instance, who had a similar job as Bannon in the Obama administration, never sat in on Principals meetings," she added. When such figures seen as part of the political wing of the White House have participated in broader National Security Council meetings, it's sparked sharp criticism from the national security establishment.

Before joining Donald Trump's inner circle during the 2016 campaign, Bannon was the head of Breitbart News (Breitbart_barfcart), a far-right media outlet that has promoted conspiracy theories and is a platform for the alt-right movement, which espouses white nationalism.

Bannon was extremely influential during the first week of the administration – he is said to be part of a small group inside the White House driving the flurry of executive actions this week, Mara Liasson has reported.

Some of those orders have provoked criticism that Bannon and other administration officials are not coordinating with other agencies on major policy changes, Mara says, such as the chaos and detentions at airports following Trump's (illegal) executive order on immigration.

The NSC principals committee is defined as "the Cabinet-level senior interagency forum for considering policy issues that affect the national security interests of the United States." 

The NSC is chaired either by national security advisor Michael Flynn or homeland security advisor Tom Bossert and now includes the secretaries of state, defense and the Treasury, plus the attorney general, White House chief of staff and the president's chief strategist, which is Bannon's position.

On the other hand, the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will now attend Principals Committees meetings only when "issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed," according to the presidential memorandum issued on Saturday.

As NPR national security editor Philip Ewing explains, Trump "is shaking up the wonky process by which the executive branch makes its toughest decisions on national security – the big question is how much that will matter." Here's more:

"On paper, these are big changes: Past administrations ran their National Security Councils with a Great Wall of China-separation between the political team at the White House and the nonpartisan specialists who help with decision-making. The explicit inclusion of Bannon means that Trump's top adviser on messaging, strategy and other partisan issues means he could also be part of decisions about policy toward adversaries, military actions and other such decisions.

"What does it all mean, in practical terms? It's too soon to say. 

(But it's dangerous to have this former low ranking officer in charge- like Hitler who never made sergeant ie "the little corporal" now Bannon is a self appointed senior officer NOT!) 

Former national security council staffers say their day-to-day meetings and process were not governed by whatever formal instruction issued by their respective presidents. 

Political staffers from the White House have attended meetings in the past. The committees invite who they think they need to invite given the topics under discussion – something that will likely continue under [National Security Advisor Michael] Flynn."

Top security officials from the Obama administration are blasting the decision.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served under Obama and George W. Bush, called the demotions a "big mistake" in an interview with ABC News. " I think that they both bring a perspective and judgment and experience to bear that every president, whether they like it or not, finds useful," Gates said.

Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice called the move "stone cold crazy." In a sarcastic tweet, she said: "Who needs military advice or intel to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan, DPRK?"

White House press secretary Sean Spicer (the creator of alternative facts "Spicerfacts) responded in an interview with ABC News. "That's clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador," Spicer said. "We are instilling reforms to make sure that we streamline the process for the president to make decisions on key, important intelligence matters. You've got a leader in General Flynn who understands the intelligence process and the reforms that are needed probably better than anybody else."

Spicer also defended Bannon's qualifications. "Well, he is a former naval officer (a low ranking officer- never advanced beyond junior status after 7 years). He's got a tremendous (not) understanding of the world and the geopolitical landscape that we have now," Spicer said. (Spicerfacts on steroids!)

Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told CBS News, "I am worried about the National Security Council. Who are the members of it and who are the permanent members? The appointment of Mr. Bannon is something which a radical departure from any National Security Council in history."

McCain added that, "One person who is indispensable would be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in my view."