President Trump Appears to be Reversing His Russian Platform
New Era News limits itself to reporting and in-depth analysis/synthesis of breaking events.
Interpretation, Extrapolation and Forecasting are provided in Weekly Intelligence Reports released each Saturday
IN RECENT DAYS PRESIDENT TRUMP has engaged in some surprising behavior that has reporters and intelligence agents scratching their heads. Not only has his National Security Adviser resigned, President Trump has also indicated that he expects Russia to return Crimea to the Ukraine. This controversial and highly unexpected request came out of no where, as one Russian reporter noted: this will happen as soon as the United States gives California back to Mexico. Together, these executive actions might signal a weakening of what looked like support for a rapprochement with Russia.
Flynn was one of a few that was open to reset with Russia and a proponent of Trump’s retreat from Neocon Global Intervention (the highly vaunted American Moment), an intervention that involves the US military spread thin across the globe and involves the United States in broad international agreements brokered by international agencies involving many countries that the US must abide by. Trump prefers non-intervention, unless American interests are directly a stake, and bi-lateral agreements brokered by the United States itself. He has even indicated that he might support Russia’s acceptance of Crimea, and that the issue is a European not an America problem, but now his National Security Adviser has resigned and Trump is alleging that Putin “TOOK” Crimea from Ukraine and that Obama was “too soft” on Russia and he wants it given back to the Ukraine. What is going on?
b
President Trump indicated opening to Russia Nonintervention and possible acceptance of Crimean Referendum – What has happened?
f
National Security Adviser First
Earlier this week Michael Flynn resigned as President Trump’s National Security Adviser. Previously, he was head of military intelligence in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also served as Director of intelligence for the U.S. Central Command and was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, a position from which he was removed by President Obama following Flynn’s Congressional testimony in which he stated, contrary to President Obama’s wishes, that ISIS did not constitute a “major threat” and therefore could not be used as a justification for prolonged engagement in the Middle East.
Mr. Flynn resigned from the Trump team due to pressure for withholding information from Vice President Pence, information regarding a phone conversation that took place before inauguration (December, 29, 2016) with the Russian Ambassador, Sergei Kislyak. During that conversation Flynn responded to questions from the foreign ambassador about US sanctions imposed on Russia (on the same day that thirty-five Russian diplomats were expelled from the US), which he later left out of his report to the Vice President
Others report that sanctions were not part of the conversation. Recalling his conversation with the Russian Ambassador, Flynn himself stated:
“It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out…. So that’s what it turned out to be. It (the conversation) was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ I never said anything such as, ‘We’re going to review sanctions,’ or anything like that.”
Either way, the Vice President was not fully informed (either about the sanction conversation [if it did occur] or the expulsion of the 35), which might be interpreted as the Vice President was “misled.” According to the President’s Counselor, Kelly-Anne Conway: “Misleading the vice president really was the key here.” Flynn continues to assert that he “crossed no lines” in his conversation with the Russian ambassador:
“If I did, believe me, the FBI would be down my throat, my clearances would be pulled. There were no lines crossed.”
In his final interview before resigning, Flynn indicated that he “was most concerned” about classified information being leaked by people with security clearances; he was (and is) more concerned about information leaks than he is with his own resignation.
“In some of these cases, you’re talking about stuff that’s taken off of a classified system and given to a reporter. That’s a crime,”
“We have to wonder that people who work for our government, who are entrusted with classified information, decisional-based materials are leaking that information out. That, I do believe is a big story,” he said voicing serious concerns about the “politicization of intelligence.”
The “politicization of intelligence” (a euphemism for illegal leaks of information so highly protected that it is above “top-secret” [that is, it is off of the charts]), politicization of intelligence is a big story indeed, but not even Flynn knows where the leaks are coming from. The intelligence community was monitoring the National Security Adviser himself – that is how the information about his private conversation with the Russian ambassador made it to the desk of President Trump and then into the press. Flynn simply does not know where the information is coming from:
“One has to wonder, ‘Are they coming out of people in the National Security Council? Are they coming out of people in the intel community? Or State? Or Defense?’”
Not even the President of the United States knows how information regarding statesmen on his administrative team is being leaked. President Trump tweeted that
“The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N. Korea etc?”
In other words, the intelligence community that works for the president is spying on the president. Events such as this leave us wondering, who is in charge here?
According to Eli Lake writing for Bloomberg:
“Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets….Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.”
Before jumping to the conclusion that Eli Lake is accusing Trump of running a police state, it is necessary to be cognizant of the fact that Lake is not referring to a police state run by President Trump – unless Trump is the one ordering the monitoring and making the leaks or ordering them too. In this case, apparently, not even the President knows what is going on. Which state is in charge, the duly elected one or the so-called “deep-state” controlled by people opposed to the president? To support this contention that the police state referred to by Lake is not one overseen by Trump, Trump himself thanked Lake for his reporting. Responding to this Article, Trump Tweeted:
“Thank you to Eli Lake of The Bloomberg View — ‘The NSA & FBI…should not interfere in our politics…and is’ Very serious situation for USA.“
Thank you to Eli Lake of The Bloomberg View – “The NSA &
FBI…should not interfere in our politics…and is” Very serious
situation for USA
d
According to Devin Nunes (R), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
“There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration,” he said. “From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern.”
Retired Col. James Williamson, told The Daily Caller that,
“What is illegal is that Flynn has his conversations eavesdropped on.”
The fact is Flynn did not violate any laws; he was asked to resign for failing to fully inform the VP, which is not a criminal act. As reported and concluded by NBC News:
“There had been no finding that Flynn did anything illegal.”
Related to this incident, it has been widely reported that there are many unanswered questions regarding Trump’s connections with Russia. This could be the key to unraveling this story; it could also involve an attempt to purge Flynn before he helps the President purge the intel community: According to Bloomberg, Flynn:
“…has cultivated a reputation as a reformer and a fierce critic of the intelligence community leaders he once served with when he was the director the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama. Flynn was working to reform the intelligence-industrial complex, something that threatened the bureaucratic prerogatives of his rivals.” Flynn also “joined the crowd at the Republican National Convention from the dais calling for Hillary Clinton to be jailed.”
Asked by Richard Pollock (The Daily Caller Reporter) why he was calmly avoiding confrontation, Flynn responded:
“I haven’t been fighting back because I’m not that kind of guy. I’m behind the scenes. I’ve always been behind the scenes. But this is ridiculous. It’s so out of control. I’ve become an international celebrity for all the wrong reasons.”
Will Flynn continue to work as a highly placed “behind the scenes” intel officer? This is a question that Newera is not prepared to approach until a thorough Intel analysis of our own has been conducted. Two safe presumptions can be made at this juncture, viz., the Neocons will do everything they can to assure (1) that one of their members is pegged to replace Flynn and (2) that hostilities with Russia reach a boiling point.
l