Some foreign officials are reportedly concerned about sharing intelligence with Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's choice for director of national intelligence.
https://bsky.app/profile/stevebenen.com/post/3ldgxw3b5tk2m
Some foreign officials are reportedly concerned about sharing sensitive information with Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's choice for director of national intelligence, and it's tough to blame them.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-pressed-foreign-fears-tulsi-gabbard-sensitive-secrets-rcna184372
When reporters from Time magazine sat down with the president-elect for the outlet's latest cover story, they asked a rather pointed question that he definitely needed to hear: “Mr. President, some foreign officials have expressed concern about sharing intelligence with Tulsi Gabbard, given her positions in support of Russia and Syria. Would her confirmation be worth the price of some of our allies not sharing intelligence with us?” Trump replied:
I’m surprised to hear it, because I think she’s, like, a really great American. Hey, look, they said I was friendly with Russia until they saw the tapes, and then they said, ‘You know, he’s not actually.’
For now, let’s not dwell on the fact that
there are no “tapes” proving that Trump is not friendly with Vladimir Putin. Let’s instead note that in the Time interview, reporters added,
“If you learn that foreign officials are withholding intelligence because she is the head of your intelligence, would that change your calculus?”
The Republican replied, “
I don’t know. I’m surprised to hear it. I heard that the first time the other day. I mean, I think she’s a great American. ... I’ve watched her for years, and she has nothing to do with Russia.”.....
As Time magazine’s line of questioning made clear, Gabbard's actions have not gone unnoticed by U.S. allies abroad, who are wondering about cooperating with the incoming administration on intelligence matters.
The joint statement came roughly a week after Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois said on CNN that she believes Gabbard is “compromised.”
My MSNBC colleague Zeeshan Aleem also recently described Trump’s prospective
Gabbard nomination as an “odd and disconcerting choice,” explaining, “
She has no formal intelligence experience, and, as someone who has a history of lapping up disinformation, she seems especially ill-suited for a position that’s all about being able to tell the difference between good and bad information.”
Assuming the president-elect goes through with his plans,
Gabbard will need Senate confirmation. Evidently, the world will be watching — and our allies’ willingness to trust the White House with sensitive intelligence might very well hang in the balance.
= new reply since forum marked as read