Twitter Questions (#2)

Sorry it took so long, been a busy week! I'll get to as many questions as possible here.

Was he really screaming at his aides, "incompetent"?

Yes. That's been an almost daily occurrence over the last two weeks at least. He's furious about the messaging problem and he still doesn't realize that it's his fault, so he's blaming everyone but himself. Even when he changes his mind and position on what seems to be an hourly basis.

Are you allowed to use your personal cell phone while working in the WH? Or are they government issue?

Both. For example, when Spicer did his last "phone check" he demanded to see the communications shop staffers' personal and government issue cell phones. They've been desperate to find who is talking to reporters, but he still doesn't seem to realize that text messages can be deleted.

Info on significance of Larkin (Senate Sergeant at Arms) being at WH?

Firstly, I can't independently confirm that this took place. The Larkin narrative makes more sense to me than the SCOTUS Marshall narrative at this point, because the Senate SAA is the only person with the authority to arrest the President, so it is logical to me that he would be the one to issue a warning or something of that magnitude to him. Remember what I said in my previous post about being skeptical and tempering expectations? I'm not saying don't believe people, because they have excellent track records, but remember that it's a marathon not a sprint. I don't see any situation in which the SCOTUS Marshall would be at the White House to warn the President - SCOTUS isn't even involved in the impeachment process until the House votes to impeach (remember, impeachment is analogous to an indictment) and then the trial is set up in the Senate. Even then, only the Chief Justice is involved, to preside over the Senate trial.

With all of that being said, it's also important for everyone to remember that rules change based on what's going on. Their reporting could be 100% accurate, even though it doesn't mesh with the norm. For example, when the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) went after Osama Bin Laden, the SEALs were actually on loan to the CIA under what's called a title 50, because JSOC doesn't have the authority to operate in Pakistan. This inherently changes nothing about their operation, but it does allow deniability to the US government. They would go in without unit patches or identifying markings. It has been widely reported that on this mission, the plan if the Pakistani military intervened was originally for our guys to surrender and the US would negotiate through back-channels to get them back. To Obama's immense credit, when he was briefed on this provision, he hit the roof. He said absolutely not - our guys would not be left to sit in some Pakistani jail and be interrogated - in the event of compromise, they were to fight their way out, or find a building to strongpoint and we would send whatever we needed to go in and get them. 

It seems like there are so many staffers in the White House. What are the various jobs and what information do they have access to?

Staff job is a term that encompasses just about everything in the White House. This is a tough question to answer, because they are literally everywhere. The First Lady has staff, the NSC has staff, the comms department has staff. Even the kitchen and custodial personnel are considered staffers. There are career (semi-permanent, generally continue on regardless of administration) staff positions and appointed staff positions. Most of the sources that you see in the media are from appointed positions, which is interesting seeing this President's displeasure with leaks. He doesn't seem to realize that they appear to be coming from his people. As far as what information they have access to, that's also hard to answer. Because people talk, quite a bit. They try to compartmentalize information, but as you've seen in the media lately, they aren't doing a great job at that. 

Who do you think will end up assuming the presidency by the time everything comes to light?

I honestly believe that we will have a President Pence for a time. Information is increasingly suggesting that he is complicit in the Russia problem, but I don't see an appetite in Congress for a double impeachment. Other people are obviously reporting otherwise and predicting a President Hatch, but once again, I would curb your expectations. It would be extraordinary for the President, the VP and the Speaker to all be removed from office at the same time.

So how deep does the Russian espionage go? How many GOPers are gonna go down? And how do you keep yourselves sane when surrounded by evil?

Tough question until the investigation plays out, but if I had to guess on who was going down: Trump, Kushner, Bannon and Sessions for sure. The Priebus revelations over the weekend are also making me wonder what is going on there. If the rumors of the GOP money laundering scheme are accurate, a lot more people would potentially be implicated, but again, I don't have any evidence that proves that so far and I don't want to get anyone's hopes up. My goal is always to be as accurate as possible. For the second part of your question, Twitter, and the staffers, particularly the mid / low level ones. I don't want people to get the impression that the entire White House is corrupt and/or complicit. It's largely full of patriots that really do love their country and have a desire to make it better with strong policy decisions. While we may disagree on the policy decisions, the chaos coming from the top should not reflect the majority.

Why haven't more staffers quit? It seems like poor conditions in addition to investigations- why continue to do it?

Please see above answer. :)

What's your #1, security concern given all that's going on? Can staffers with experience do anything? Is McMaster furious?

He is, the article that came out the other day with the senior staffer being quoted as saying "you can't tell POTUS what not to say, because then he will immediately go out and say it" is 100% accurate.

My number one security concern with all that is going on is still North Korea. They were successful with another missile test yesterday, they seem to have mastered or gotten really close to mastering re-entry, and they obviously have no desire to slow down their program. My other concern is that it would be an easy place to go to war to change the narrative, and it would give plausible deniability, because there are serious reasons to consider military action against North Korea. McMaster and Mattis are both urging caution and diplomacy, so my hope is that cooler heads will continue to prevail.

For those of you that wonder why Russia and / or Syria aren't my overarching concern: Russia is a rational actor for the most part. They understand self-preservation, and they also understand that they would lose a conventional battle with the United States, although with the devastation that would be likely, there would be no real winner. My assessment is that Russia will continue posturing and we will continue to fight them through proxy-war as we have since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, but nobody wants that conflict to escalate. Syria simply doesn't have the capability to be a legitimate concern, although on a humanitarian level the entire situation there is nothing short of heartbreaking.

What do you think of the Saudi arms deal they just announced?

It's smart from a strategic standpoint. I have no issue with it besides that Trump is taking credit for a deal that's been in the works for two years. The same with the China beef deal. The threat that Saudi Arabia faces from Yemen is real. The Iranian threat isn't going away any time soon, and perhaps most importantly, they already have US missile defense systems in country. If the rumors that a THAAD is part of that package, that is actually great news. In addition to protecting Saudi Arabia, depending on the placement of the systems, it could also help with the protection of Israel and Jordan in the event of Iranian aggression. In a previous post, The THAAD Misconception, I highlighted the strength of the radar system that comes with a THAAD battery. If deployed in forward-based mode, the THAAD very well could give us more insight into what's going on in Iran.