So do you pick what's behind door #1, door #2, or door #3?

On August 3rd, after being forced (Senate override guaranteed) to sign a tough sanctions position against Russia, Pres. Trump tweeted:

To which Sen. John McCain replied:

Now think about this for a second.  Which sounds more rational?  Did the US and our allies impose sanctions on Russia originally for no reason?  Did we just want to be jerks?  Or did we impose sanctions on Russia in response to their military invasion and annexation of Crimean Ukraine?  Who started this chain of events?

I can only imagine three possible explanations for Pres. Trump's position:

1.  President Trump and his campaign knew of and welcomed Russian assistance in helping their 2016 election campaign.  (The Russians would then be expecting a "thank you" easing of sanctions in return from a President Trump after his inauguration.)

2.  The Trump election campaign knew of and welcomed Russian assistance, while Pres. Trump was kept in the dark at the time, but is now trying to interfere and discredit the Special Counsel's investigation to expose the collusion.  (This is the same type of obstruction of justice vs the crime itself that brought down the Nixon White House.)

or

3.  This "smoke" is all just a coincidence and there is no "fire".  Pres. Trump simply has a serious infatuation with Putin, Russia, and their billionaire oligarchs and the organized-crime-like way they are able to conduct their business without interference from government regulators, honestly elected civil servants, and a free press.

IMO none of these three possible explanations are in the American public's best interest.  If you disagree, or can imagine a fourth possibility I haven't thought of, please state your case.  I would honestly, respectfully like to hear your opinions.

S

Heroes or villains?

Washington has been turned inside out recently by leaks to the press telling us what's REALLY going on there behind closed doors.  Meanwhile the debate heats up....are the leakers heroes or villains?

Many see the issue in black or white terms.  The hard-core Trumpsters and Tea Party-types seem to think the leakers are all traitors, no exceptions.  "We need to find those who spilled the beans about President Trump giving away intelligence secrets and send them to prison for life + 20 years."  Ummm....what about the fact that Prez Trump GAVE AWAY INTELLIGENCE SECRETS?  That doesn't seem to bother them.

Then the crowd who has no love for Mr. Trump thinks that the leakers are all saints and deserve the Medal Of Honor.  Whether it's tidbits about whether the President's feet stink or whether he has a Russian KGB mistress on the side, it's all good.  Unless it smudges the reputation of one of their favorite mobsters politicians, then they want to lock 'em away, too.

It seems to me there is a huge gray area not being considered, namely WHAT is being leaked.  If the leaker sees what is going on behind closed doors and honestly believes a crime is being committed, or if they see a blatant misuse of power, and if they also see an active coverup in progress, then I can understand why they might want to put their career and maybe even their freedom on the line for the good of the country.  

A good example would be Mark Felt, the #2 man at the FBI during the infamous Watergate scandal back in '72.  He knew what was going on, saw the nefarious efforts being taken to protect President Nixon, and knew it was wrong.  His conscience told him to feed tips to Washington Post journalists Woodward and Bernstein, enabling them to get the truth out to the American people.  If his identity had been known he would surely have lost his job at the FBI and perhaps even been prosecuted.  (His identity was kept secret for 30 years.)

This contrasts to leakers like Wikileaks' Julian Assange.  He isn't leaking what he does out of some sort of righteous indignation of a wrong going unpunished.  He's just a prick.  He wants to pick and choose who he hurts and who he helps based on his personal likes and dislikes.  He just loves causing trouble and sticking a sharp stick in the eye of anyone who he feels slighted him or someday might slight him.  Plus he's a misogynist.

IMO, leakers can be both heroes (like Mr. Felt) or villians (like Mr. Assange), depending on their motives.  So far, the leakers who are coming out with disturbing info regarding President Trump and his associates and their actions vis a vis Russia seem to fall into the category of the former.  The copycat leakers likely to eventually show up with nothing more than embarrassing gossip looking for their 15 minutes of fame deserve the latter title.

Let's look at motives carefully before we assign either medals or prison uniforms.

S

Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD

President Donald Trump signing an Executive Order

President Trump has been giving his Montblanc pen quite the workout this week signing Executive Orders.  More than a few people have had their feathers ruffled by this and have taken to the streets to VERY LOUDLY vent.  IMO many of the loudest protesters are mistaken when they insist "He [Trump] can't do that!"  From what I've read (in most cases at least) he DOES have the power to do what he's doing.

Today the big stink is his Executive Order regarding Muslim immigrants.  From the statute I read it appears he IS within his rights.  But just because he CAN doesn't mean he SHOULD.  With over three million Muslims living in the US right now, how many of them will become so incensed by this that they become some of those almost-impossible-to-detect "home-grown" jihadists we've been warned about?  Stop 3 foreign terrorists, create 10 domestic ones?

And while little publicized, the US has close working relationships with numerous Muslim countries involving intelligence gathering and matters pertaining to our national security.  Are they going to still want to work with us as closely after this?  Questionable.  If I were them I'd have some serious soul searching to do. 

Earlier in the week it was all about "The Wall".  It seems that years ago Congress voted the funds to build 700 miles (?) of border fence, but then didn't spend it all, so there's already money in the kitty.  I'm thinking Prez Trump CAN start up construction again if he wants, but SHOULD he?  If we build his border wall, 2017 might just become known as the start of the Golden Age of Mexican Tunnel Digging!  Where there's a will, there's a way.

And just as with the Muslim countries, US/Mexican cooperation on many sensitive national security issues might well be jeopardized.  You just can't kick someone in the 'nads and then expect them to act like nothing ever happened.  Secure the border, sure, but how about by another less expensive, less static, more flexible, more tactful means?

And Mexico is going to reimburse us for The Wall, or we'll put a 20% (?) tariff on their imports to the US?  Ummm....many of those products they sell to us are made with US components we sold to them!  *I think that's called shooting yourself in the foot* 

The President has historically been able to seat anyone he wants on his National Security Council.  Can Prez Trump choose to NOT give full-time NSC seats to the Chairman of of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence?  Yes he CAN, but SHOULD he?

I believe many thinking people are beginning to wonder if President Trump's decisions to date have been wise ones.  I understand he wants to honor his campaign promises to his supporters, but maybe he should slow down a bit and think of the unintentional consequences he might be creating.

S