Talking tough does not make you tough

One of the key lessons about bullies concerns false bravado. Talking tough does not make someone tough. Many would describe the US President as a bully, be it toward the press, Democrats, or people he perceives as enemies. But, what is interesting is he does not like confrontation, per several books about the man or the white house.

I mention this today as he spent the weekend picking on a dead hero by the name of Senator John McCain. Not only is Trump in the wrong and lied about various events and timing, but it reveals an incredible lack of judgment. He is likely regretting this lack of judgment, in that McCain’s daughter Meghan has used the term “pathetic” to define Trump’s action. It should be noted at least two Senators (Chris Coons and Lindsey Graham) have defended their deceased colleague. Picking on a dead hero is pathetic, especially when it is done by a man who can’t seem to get his facts straight.

Yet, we should not forget this man fired James Comey and Rex Tillerson while they were away. In Comey’s situation, he learned he was fired from breaking news. If that was not poor enough, Trump fired Andrew McCabe as he was cleaning out his desk to retire, to deny him his pension. What kind of man does that?

Finally, we should not lose sight of his acquiescece to Putin, Kim and MbS. He accepted their words over that of his own intelligence people. No less than our dead hero, Senator McCain was alarmed by what he saw in Helsinki with Trump’s kowtowing to Putin.

These examples speak volumes. Picking on a dead man is not tough. Firing someone without telling him is not tough. Not standing up to someone who had an American reporter killed and chopped up in little pieces is not tough. It is the word Meghan used – pathetic. It is also weak.

It takes more than a sickle to hack like this

The CIA and now FBI have our President-elect and his supporters with their dress over their head based on their strongly held concerns that Russia attempted to influence our election in favor of the President-elect, hacking not with a sickle but something more high tech. I had a friend who would use this analogy to describe someone’s frustration based on his daughter’s example of getting madder and madder with her inability to get her dress off over her head.

The President-elect and his supporters have condemned this story as unproven and having no impact on the election. The line of attack most used by Trump and his PR people is that there is no evidence of hacked machines, conveniently ignoring the fact that the influence is more to do with what happened before the voting took place.

Trump and his PR folks also blame the liberal media and leaders, which seem to have converged as a composite evil entity. They are in cahoots against this victimized truthful man his supporters imply. And, if so important, why did the President wait until Clinton lost to bring this up his supporters say? The last statement has been said often, but also been confirmed as false as the evidence exists that proves the President-elect is being untruthful. He is saying don’t believe your own eyes and ears, believe me alone.

As for the former claim that story is being made up by the composite liberal enemy, there are several key Republican senators, including Senators Mitch McConnell. Marco Rubio, John McCain and Lindsay Graham among others, who have said this must be investigated. I have not heard the word liberal used to define these senators. And, as an Independent voter who cares about our country’s governance, I agree with these Senators.

The truth needs to be discovered as these are serious claims made by our intelligence community that must take their job seriously. We need to think of this as if the President was named John Smith and came from the ABC Party. We cannot have Russia or anyone hacking anything to influence our elections, period.

I have also seen editorialists say with conviction that this did not have any impact on the election because it did not change votes. The latter claim is unknown as I have seen security experts discuss back in July that impacting certain machines in select districts was doable and someone was pinging the machines looking for weaknesses. But, the larger issue is more clear to me as I have feared Russian involvement when I first saw reports that pointed fingers at them beginning in July.

One candidate, his team and the press got to read daily feeds of emails from a key staffer of the other candidate. They also got to read emails from larger dumps of hacked data from the other candidate’s political party. That did not seem fair then and as Senator Marco Rubio said in October, this is not right as it could be us (the GOP) the next time. My guess is the RNC emails would have been more entertaining with such infighting and angst over their candidate.

But, let me be as frank as possible. To say that reading your opponents’ emails did not have any impact on the election is a false statement. This is akin to a football coach reading key planning remarks (along with the media) made by the other team’s coaches. It had to have an impact, especially in light of fake news and biased news sources that were like rabid dogs looking to exploit information. And, given the word email becoming a leaky faucet when used with the word Clinton, more meaning was conveyed with each new daily talking point eroding her consideration drip by drip.

One final point should be noted. If the Russians did hack RNC and other emails, what assurances does our President-elect have that those emails won’t be used against him if he happens to do something that the Putin does not like. Putin is a KGB trained agent and it was not surprising to learn that he has a hand in disinformation efforts. If you do not believe this, note a senior newscaster from a Russian American News television network resigned on the air because she was being told what to say by Putin.