The Reporter (Lansdale, PA)

Former spy rethinks attack on Trump

- Byron York Columnist

“Mr. Trump continues to exhibit paranoia about American intelligen­ce agencies,” wrote the Never Trump conservati­ve Max Boot in the New York Times a week or so before the president took office.

“Paranoia seizes Trump’s White House,” reported Politico, noting the suspicion that “career intelligen­ce operatives are working to undermine the new president.”

Actually, they were. “It’s no mystery why Trump doesn’t trust U.S. intelligen­ce agencies,” Bloomberg’s Eli Lake wrote last month.

“As the old saying goes: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. Trump understand­ably believes the intelligen­ce agencies are out to get him.”

Of course, leaders in the intelligen­ce community would deny they are out to get the president.

But in an extraordin­ary new interview, one CIA veteran who served in the agency from 1980 to 2013, who briefed presidents on the most sensitive issues of the day, and is still a prominent voice in intelligen­ce matters is at least conceding that he can understand why the president feels the way he does.

Michael Morell stayed out of politics when he served as the CIA’s number-two official. He was the classic non-partisan operative who served the office, and not the man.

“I worked at this nonpolitic­al agency, bright red line between intelligen­ce and policy, and intelligen­ce and politics,” Morell told Politico’s Susan Glasser this week.

Until Trump. In August 2016, the retired-but-still-active-in-intelligen­ce-matters Morell decided to abandon decades of non-partisansh­ip and come out in support of Hillary Clinton.

In a New York Times op-ed, he praised Clinton’s experience and called Trump a danger to the nation, a threat to its “foundation­al values,” and an “unwitting agent” for Russia.

Some of Morell’s former colleagues in the intelligen­ce community took the same step. Gen. Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, blasted Trump as Russia’s “useful fool.”

Another former top CIA officer, Michael Vickers, pronounced Trump unfit. And the agency’s then-director, John Brennan, openly clashed with Trump.

Of course, it’s safe to say that each assumed Clinton would win. But when Trump prevailed, amazingly enough, he thought the intelligen­ce agencies were against him.

“Let’s put ourselves in Donald Trump’s shoes,” Morell said. “So what does he see? Right? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden ... criticizin­g him and his policies. Right? And he would rightfully have said, ‘Huh, what’s going on with the intelligen­ce guys?’”

“And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizin­g him and endorsing his opponent,” Morell continued.

“And then he gets his first intelligen­ce briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his thennation­al security adviser Mike Flynn.”

“And so, this stuff starts to build, right? And he must have said to himself, ‘What is it with these intelligen­ce guys? Are they political?’”

The first time Trump met the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, was when the intelligen­ce chiefs chose Comey to tell Trump, then the presidente­lect, about a collection of “salacious and unverified” (Comey’s words) allegation­s about Trump, compiled by operatives working for the Clinton campaign, that has since become known as the Trump dossier.

That surely got Trump off to a good start with the FBI’s intelligen­ce-gathering operation. It was also a clever way for the intel chiefs to push the previously secret dossier into the public conversati­on, when news leaked that Comey had briefed the president on it.

Trump’s fellow New Yorker, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, warned the president against messing with spies.

“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligen­ce community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you,” Schumer said in January.

Michael Morell admits he went after the new president without even considerin­g what that might mean. “I think there was a significan­t downside to those of us who became political,” he told Glasser.

“So, if I could have thought of that, would I have ended up in a different place? I don’t know. But it’s something I didn’t think about.”

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States