On November 8, 2016, in the gymnasium of Mills Pond Elementary School, I found myself staring at a document that presented me with a choice between two candidates for the highest office in the land. For an office that bestows upon its occupant the official titles of Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive, as well honorary appellations such as Leader of the Free World.
At the time, faced with the available options, I just couldn’t do it. I simply couldn’t allow myself to tell my children or my ancestors; our Founding Fathers; fallen service members or my third-grade teacher that I believed either of those two individuals worthy of the job.
And so, that day, my ex-wife received one vote for President of the United States when I wrote in her name at the bottom of the ballot.
I’m certain the universe appreciated the joke.
In 2020, Trump got my vote, but it was much less a vote for him than against Joe Biden. And, it’s not as if it made the slightest bit of difference since I live in the deep blue state of New York.
Yeah, I'm gonna vote for him again this November. This time around, it's sort of a no-brainer, ain’t it?
Though, it’s not like I’m a fan or anything. I don’t have the red hat, or a Trump flag on my lawn, and I'm not sure I could last 18 holes in a golf cart with him without entertaining a variety of suicidal ideations.
It’s just that I’m in a place now where I’ll hold my nose, bite my tongue, and do whatever else is required to ensure that Joe Biden and company are sent packing as soon as possible.
So, at this juncture, I think of Donald Trump in essentially the way Jerry Seinfeld thought of the Soup Nazi.
He's not easy to tolerate or listen to, his behavior is frequently disagreeable, and his rhetoric is often patently offensive.
But he makes a hell of a lobster bisque.
Yes, I wish we had other (better, more respectable, more Presidential) options, but no one can honestly deny that, as president, Donald Trump accomplished a great deal. Of course, if you pay attention only to the legacy media, there's a good chance you believe otherwise.
But, as John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things."
During Trump's presidency, poverty rates for both African and Hispanic Americans were the lowest since the government began collecting such data. Prior to the pandemic, unemployment rates for African Americans hit an all-time low.
Under his watch, the US became the world's largest producer of crude oil, surpassing Saudi Arabia and Russia, and the administration inked a deal with the EU that increased energy exports to Europe.
Soon after taking office, he withdrew the US from the pointless and counterproductive Trans-Pacific Partnership. He secured the release of dozens of hostages, relocated the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, defeated ISIS, and whacked Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, then the most wanted terrorist on the planet.
He contained the territorial ambitions of Russia and China and secured our southern border.
Ah, remember the southern border?
I also don't mind telling you, from personal experience, that he kept an important promise to overhaul the Veterans Administration.
I'm grateful for all of that. Things were better during the previous administration and I genuinely long for a return to those days.
But then I hear him repeatedly insisting that “November 5th is the most important day in the history of our country," and I start to itch.
He said it again just yesterday. "I predict that November 5 will go down as the most important day in the history of our country, that’s Election Day," he said. "It’s going to be the most important day and moment in the history of our country."
Of course, it is, Mr. President. More important even than…
Now, I'm inclined to think that it’d be just plain silly, at this point, for me to start randomly listing some of the iconically significant events that have occurred in the history of the United States, over the past 250 or so years, that might rival a date that hasn’t yet arrived.
Look, we already knew he was an off-the-rails narcissist, so that sort of self-aggrandizing hyperbole shouldn't exactly shock anyone. Just for fun, though, check out this sample of anything-but-humble self-descriptions:
“There’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am.”
“I was always the best athlete.”
“I know words. I have the best words.”
“I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me..”
"There's nobody that understands nuclear better than me."
He has claimed that there’s simply nobody other than he, "who's done as much for equality," or that "respects women more," or who’s "better to people with disabilities."
With regard to the 2020 election, he insisted, “George Washington would’ve had a hard time winning, you know that.”
In a conversation with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Trump referred to himself as, “the world’s greatest person.”
So, I’m clearly not a super-duper MAGA type, but I’d just sorta accepted all of that over-the-top bravado as (mostly) benign narcissism.
I get it. It’s just Trump being Trump.
However, when that same cluster B disorder starts venturing beyond the “I’m so great” realm and weighs in on important debates —particularly those related to national security— it might be cause for concern.
Last month, as you know, the House of Representatives voted 362-65 in favor of a measure that would force the Chinese company ByteDance to sell its social media app TikTok, or else face a ban in the US. The discussion that preceded the vote didn’t focus on things like the senseless deaths of young viewers who’d been sucked into dangerous TikTok challenges.
(I wrote about those last year, and they’re reason enough to ban the damn thing.)
The issues Congress considered in the lead-up to the March 13 vote focused on matters such as personal security, surveillance risk, espionage, influence operations, propaganda, and election interference, i.e., national security.
It’s worth knowing that, in 2022, ByteDance admitted that former employees had surveilled American TikTok users through the app. Of course, the company was also careful to point out that Chinese government officials were not involved.
So, that’s cool, right?
Last year, a former ByteDance executive revealed that, in 2018, the PRC had granted the company “superuser” credentials to allow it to spy on Hong Kong protesters.
Yeah, but that’s Hong Kong, so…
Assistant Secretary of Defense John Plumb has called the app a "potential threat vector" to the United States and last month, FBI Director Christopher Wray described “the national security concerns represented by TikTok” as “so significant.”
Now, maybe you’re something of an expert and you disagree with those intelligence assessments. Or, you’re a small business owner whose advertising and revenue streams rely heavily on the app. If either of those is the case, you might want to make your case heard in a sober, logical, and coherent manner.
Well, a couple of days before the House voted on the legislation, Donald Trump weighed in on the matter, but didn’t bother with any of those rhetorical guardrails I just suggested.
In an interview on CNBC’s Squawkbox, he argued, “Without TikTok, you can make Facebook bigger, and I consider Facebook to be an enemy of the people.”
Really, man?
Yeah, never mind the real concerns about the threats to our national security, personal privacy, and the integrity of our elections.
No, instead, he dusted off a grudge with the “weirdo” co-founder and CEO of Meta, whom he refers to as, Mark “Zuckerschmuck.”
Now, doesn’t any of that strike you as a little childish? Perhaps a smidge less than Presidential?
And, despite warnings from the likes of the Pentagon and FBI, the former president opined, “There are a lot of people on TikTok that love it. There are a lot of young kids on TikTok who will go crazy without it.”
Well, then, what else needs to be said? The kids will go crazy without it!
Anyway, all that was way back in March.
This past Tuesday evening, members of the House Rules, Intelligence and Judiciary committees were preparing for a procedural vote the next morning, over the renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
FISA was originally drafted in 1978 in order both to authorize the surveillance of foreign actors and to place a check on the information-gathering activities of domestic intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Despite what certain current (and at least one former) elected leaders would have you believe, FISA was intended to establish reins on the intelligence community, not to grant it carte blanche.
It set forth requirements that agencies obtain authorization for gathering "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers."
Of course, over the years, FISA has been the object of sins both of omission and commission.
So, we should all have been encouraged by the fact that the relevant committees were ready this week to add new restrictions, as well as more stringent penalties for violators.
For instance, under the proposed legislation, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, unauthorized surveillance of a US person (citizens, permanent residents, etc.) would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, or both.
The proposed penalty for lying or otherwise providing false information to the FISA court is a fine of up to $10,000.
Further (and I’m a particular fan of this provision), the act would prevent political appointees from approving FBI database searches. It would also require audits within 180 days following any query into a US person.
The Wall Street Journal called the bill a “surveillance compromise worth passing…that can protect Americans from foreign jihadists as well as domestic abuses of power.”
Well, not so fast.
What happened early yesterday was that You-Know-Who took to Truth Social and admonished lawmakers to, “KILL FISA,” insisting, “IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN.”
The former president was referring to the FBI’s (now proven) 2016 abuse of FISA, when, under false pretenses, the Bureau obtained a warrant wrongfully allowing it to surveil Trump campaign advisor, Carter Page.
(The new $10,000 fine for lying to the court might’ve preempted that episode.)
But, here’s the thing —what the House committees were set to discuss yesterday was the renewal —with amendments— specifically of Title VII, Section 702 of FISA.
The authority to snoop on Carter Page in 2016 was obtained pursuant to Title I of the act. So, Trump was sorta tweeting up the wrong tree.
(Is it still called a ‘tweet’ even if it’s not on Twitter?)
Look, there are reasonable and informed arguments that can be made, from both sides of the aisle, over renewing Section 702, or any legislation with a use-by date. But lawmakers need the opportunity to make their respective arguments regarding the matter.
That’s why we send them to Congress.
Instead, what happened yesterday was that 19 House Republicans toed Trump’s line and sided with Democrats, voting to prevent any such debate from taking place.
According to reports, they yelled a lot and called each other nasty things, with one Republican member referring to the scene as “pure chaos.”
But they somehow managed not to do their jobs, which is to draft, present, debate, and enact laws.
Oh, and Section 702 is set to expire on April 19.
So, unless Congress can un-ass itself in the next week, the key provision that allows the US to surveil adversaries, terrorists, hackers, cartels, and spies will no longer be in effect.
Following the bill’s defeat yesterday, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters, "We cannot allow Section 702 of FISA to expire. It's too important to national security. I think most of the members understand that."
Aren’t you glad you’re not Mike Johnson?
Brian O'Leary is a retired Marine Corps colonel, who served for 30 years, including combat deployments to Somalia and Iraq, and command of an infantry battalion in Afghanistan. Additionally, he has spent 25 years in the financial services industry. Brian earned his BA in English from Penn State University and his MA in National Security Studies from the US Army War College.
IG - @brian_oleary34 X - @brianoleary34
P.S. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/307029/20240408130715170_No.%2023-939bsacRetiredFour-StarAdmiralsAndGenerals.pdf
Brian, dear: Are you out of your fucking mind? As you wrote in this space, just under a year ago, the man is not fit to occupy the highest office in the land. TikTok and FISA are important issues but by themselves not substantial enough to justify a single vote for this man. Not one. Please write another post and talk about what his election would do to Ukraine and the next round of tasty morsels Putin is drooling over in his reclaim the former Soviet satellite states wet dreams. How about his encouragement to Putin to “do whatever the hell you want” to our NATO allies? Trump has ordered the House GOP to block all aid to Ukraine. He wants Ukraine to lose their war because Putin wants Ukraine to lose the war — so we have a private citizen working against interests of the United States in favor of his favorite despot. Nice.
Domestically, his agenda includes radical protectionism and reducing “the power of the Federal Reserve, limiting its ability to serve as a so-called lender of last resort for banks and other financial institutions facing cash crunches,”. It’s kind of arrogant to insist things would be fine in a second Trump term. You’re just rolling your eyes at the real potential for grotesque cronyism and corruption, use of the Justice Department against his perceived enemies, demolition of the professional civil service, and international disorder.
The American Enterprise Institute’s Kori Schake reminded us in 2020 that Trump “considered invoking federal authority to enforce the law and putting the military on the streets to restore order.” Worse: “Riot police forcibly cleared protesters and the president paraded through Lafayette Square, near the White House, with the leaders of the agencies representing coercive force: the attorney general, the defense secretary, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was wearing combat fatigues.” Trump, who pardoned war criminals and contemplated invoking the Insurrection Act, considers the military to be his Praetorian guard, obliged on his whim to disregard rules of war and crack down on domestic dissent. Last time, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper (subsequently fired) and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (whom Trump said deserved to be executed), objected and defended the apolitical military. Next time, instead of such professionals, imagine conspiratorialist Michael Flynn (participant in the Jan. 6 war room) as defense secretary.
I gotta say, I get voting against someone; I’ve done it myself at least once. But, like you, I was a New Yorker, so my vote was pure theater. You can vote against someone when the stakes are not so high. The stakes are sky-high now. I encourage you to think of your country, your kids and their futures, and your old aunt. You and I have argued politics since you were maybe 16 years old; I always admired your ability to articulate a conservative and coherent argument. There is simply no argument to be made for supporting a man as utterly unfit and mentally unwell as Trump.
Love, Aunt Chris