Intelligence Chief Suffers Intelligence Failure Over Team’s Willingness to Brief Donald Trump

(start at 11:40)

The country’s top intelligence official, James Clapper, insisted on Thursday that there has been no hesitation within the intelligence community when it comes to giving classified briefings to the presidential candidates, including Donald Trump.

Source

There has been a growing concern over whether or not Trump is capable of being trusted. This is mildly amusing considering we have a guy that is plagued by the same uncertainty that has granted him much success and a proven criminal who lied under oath and ironically doesn’t feel the need to secure sensitive information.


Clinton and Trump Will Receive Classified Briefings

It’s tradition dating back to former President Harry Truman. The presidential and vice presidential nominees of both parties are presented with the option to be briefed by top intelligence officials about broad threats facing the nation. Clapper, as the highest-ranking intelligence official, oversees the process.

“There’s a long tradition that the intelligence community at the appropriate time—and now is the appropriate time since both candidates have been officially anointed—that both camps will be reached out to and offered briefings,” Clapper said. “We’ve got a team all prepared,” he added.

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, Clapper noted that there is no security clearance required for the briefings. “The fact that they’re a candidate qualifies,” he said, adding it would be inappropriate if it were otherwise. “And I’ll tell you really it’s not up to the administration and certainly not up to me personally to decide on the suitability of a presidential candidate.

The problem is, if Clapper is doing the briefing, he’s only as good as what he knows. His staff may intentionally misinform or limit the information he should be privy or have access to, potentially reducing any candidate's ability to "stay ahead of the curve."

Clapper’s remarks came amid new signs of deep discomfort with Trump among the upper ranks of the intelligence community. In a measure of that growing animosity, one senior intelligence official said Wednesday that he would decline to participate in any session with Trump.

“I would refuse,” the official said, citing not only concern with Trump’s expressions of admiration for Russian President Vladi­mir Putin but seeming uninterest in acquiring a deeper or more nuanced understanding of world events.

“He’s been so uninterested in the truth and so reckless with it when he sees it,” the official said. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing a desire to speak candidly about domestic political issues that intelligence officials typically refuse to discuss.

As Hillary has shown us (in some capacity), that she is capable (most of the time), of handling classified information, her latest e-mail scandal seems to be clearly overlooked amid the growing fear surrounding Trump's competency as a leader.


With that said, his comments in the past regarding Russia and other foreign dignitaries have only helped fuel their doubt. Trump must find a way to ease the pain of his critics while cutting through the BS (his own included). Hopefully, what he learns during his briefing will make for a better, more appealing candidate.

In June, Reuters reported that eight senior security officials were worried about Trump having access to classified information.
“People are very nervous,” one senior U.S. security official told Reuters, speaking under the condition of anonymity. “We’ve never had a situation like this before. Ever.”

Some officials worry about briefing Trump, fearing spilled secrets

There is a common theme amongst those willing to speak up and that is their severe distaste for Donald Trump. Again, this is strange considering Hillary's actions have already materialized their concerns, by lying and compromising the security of the American people.


A former CIA analyst:

If Trump were the nominee, a man famously without filter will be privy to national secrets — and compartmentalizing his thoughts from his public utterances has never been one of his strengths. He has tweeted random, and sometimes untrue, items he read on the internet; he’s trumpeted false crime statistics; he’s even been fine with quoting Benito Mussolini. So far, he’s been able to get away with much of it by disavowing responsibility afterward.

A former senior intelligence official:

“My concern with Trump will be that he inadvertently leaks, because as he speaks extemporaneously, he’ll pull something out of his hat that he heard in a briefing and say it.”

A senate majority leader:

“I would suggest to the intelligence agencies, if you’re forced to brief this guy, don’t tell him anything, just fake it, because this man is dangerous.”

A former deputy CIA director:

“As an intelligence briefer, you’d probably be telling him a fair number of things that are at odds with his stated views,” he said. “And then you would find out how well he absorbs discordant information. … Trump’s public statements don’t suggest that he’s someone who easily deals with things that strongly disagree with his view.”

To his detriment, Trump responds poorly to getting his feelings hurt. He must show more restraint and be accessible to the people. We have come to know him as a celebrity figure considering the length of his political resume. He has character, I'll give him that.

The candidates will receive top secret information during these briefings, but nothing more than what Congress would normally have access to. Specific operations and identities of those affiliated are only revealed to the president.

For example,

Statement for the Record Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community

How this information will affect each candidate's campaign trajectory is uncertain. A few topic are mentioned below, offering a sneak peak at what will be discussed during the briefings.

...at the Aspen Security Forum, Mr. Clapper said that the three most significant topics for the candidate briefings would be the threat of cyberattacks, the Islamic State and Russia.

At the moment, I'm reserving serious judgment outside of what can be a proven contentious factor, but do wish that both candidates be given the same opportunity to be their best. With so much at stake (for Americans), and the previous onset of impending globalism, I'm afraid there are too many variables outside of the candidate's own control to ensure such a possibility. Lets just hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Both have similar security issues yet one of them will be President... Then what? lol I think the top is over dramatized.

Dude is a security threat.He spouts off with no filter.I.e If He's "offended"thin skinned" He'll leak classified info..

Politics aside,
Trump is just a snake-oil carnival barker wanna-be entertainer buffoon & should NOT have ANY knowledge or authority over American Intelligence assets or Military Operations.

Damn I'm just so disgusted that my country has been reduced to this sideshow.

K~

Both Trump AND Clinton are risks. Huge risks. I really don't see how one is any better than the other.

So really it's a matter of you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Yah difficult choice. One builds buildings and the other destroys nations.

Guess who they want running things?

The destroyer.

More money can be earned blowing stuff up and rebuilding it than just building it.

a reply to: eisegesis

Putin is briefing Trump directly so he has the upper hand :>) . Even the FBI has learned that if you want lost or hidden Emails then Putin is your go to guy :>)

I wonder at which "briefing" the candidates are shown the film of the JFK assassination from an angle they've never seen before?

Well he should resign. Trump needs to be fully informed of situations day 1 of his Presidency. So does Hillary. Both are major candidates for office, and both should receive the same, accurate intelligence briefings.

originally posted by: eisegesis

These two pics are all that I need to know your whole post is not a well-reasoned, carefully researched essay, but just more partisan crap.

a reply to: eisegesis

These people are in charge of our national security. That is their job. If they, for the first time ever, can't manage to muster enough trust for a candidate to uphold a long-standing tradition... we need to really take this seriously.

I totally get their fear of how Trump will process facts that run counter to his pet conspiracies. It would be like when some of the die-hard science deniers on ATS get faced with facts and they refuse to believe it. We can't have a president doing that.

neither of these candidates are good choices, and that's just the way the real powers want it.

Them running is just a big waggly TPTB dong waiving in our faces.

a reply to: eisegesis

Imagine if they told him: "Mr. Trump, those are the radical islamists we support."

"I don't care, bomb them."

"We can't. It would displease the Saudis and we need them, else we need a new currency."

"I don't care. You're fired" ... boom. Melt down.



**on second thought - vote Trump2016!

Why should a candidate be given info anyway. If he isn't elected, he may know information he doesn't need or should know and be a security risk.

Trump is a concern when Hillary has shown she can't even use a computer and e-mail properly? Everything she is involved in has security problems. She is so negligent that they couldn't even charge her with a crime because of how ignorant she is when it comes to security protocol.

The only thing Hillary has on Trump is her ability to lie. Is this what they are referring to? They are worried about Trump's inability to lie excessively?

a reply to: eisegesis

If they do what's in the article I can't say I agree. Dictatorships are where advisors tell the leader what they want to hear, while the higher up's secretly get everything done, letting the dictator exist in a state of false belief. In the US we're not supposed to do that. We tell the President and potential Presidents the reality of the situation and let them decide on a course of action.

If this happens it amounts to the security agencies lying to the President because they have no confidence in the President being able to do his job. That is not an acceptable outcome and the solution isn't to not elect that person President, it's to fire everyone involved.

For what it's worth I hold the same opinion of the Pentagon officials who conducted their own foreign policy behind Hillary's back while she was SoS due to a lack of confidence.

What's wrong with Hillary's server security or the DNC's?

Their both using the latest in firewall technology available to liberals...




What's the problem?

originally posted by: greydaze
Dude is a security threat.He spouts off with no filter.I.e If He's "offended"thin skinned" He'll leak classified info..

There's already been attempts made to accuse him of that. Surprising to some, Snopes came to Trump's defense and found the allegation "baseless."

Claim: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump leaked classified information about a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia after receiving his first national security intelligence briefing.

This would've required Trump to receive the briefing prior to his speech in Colorado Springs on the 29th, a day after the Democratic convention.

In fact, on the same day as Trump's speech, the Washington Post reported that candidate briefings could take place "perhaps as early as next week."

He's either ignorant to the fact that the base was closed in 2003, strictly assumes there is a base there, or knows of a base and unintentionally leaked the information as he does repeatedly in his foreign policy speeches.

www.snopes.com...

I'm sure they will find ways to test his allegiance.

originally posted by: Orionx2
Both have similar security issues yet one of them will be President... Then what? lol I think the top is over dramatized.

Similar? Wow! What alternate reality do you live. Business is business for Trump. Hillary however, pilfering 2 billion plus while using a pay-to-play scam, while she was a PUBLIC SERVANT, yeah, that's trustworthy lol.

Cheers - Dave

He has no expeirence in military or politics and mouths off at random likw someone who's no respect for anything but himself. Ya he's trustworthy. Lets give him all the nation's secrets.