Posted on Mar 24, 2018
4
4
0
The only problem I have with this is......... "with a focus on those who have been “disloyal” to the president."
When it comes to National Security, those people should be loyal to the American People over any sitting POTUS. It should be about what is best for the citizens, not what s best for the President.
When it comes to National Security, those people should be loyal to the American People over any sitting POTUS. It should be about what is best for the citizens, not what s best for the President.
John Bolton plans to fire dozens of White House officials: report
Posted from thehill.comPosted in these groups: 
National Security
Donald Trump
National Security Donald Trump
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
3
3
0
Disloyalty to a President you are sworn to serve is disloyalty to the people. We the People elected that President and it is disloyalty to us to serve under false pretenses because, in your opinion, We the People should have elected someone else. If you don't agree with our choice, wait until We elect someone you can serve loyally.
[Note: Please don't now go off on a tangent about how he wasn't elected by most of us. He was elected according to the rules of the presidential election process and there is ample evidence that Hillary slim popular majority would dissolve under scrutiny]
[Note: Please don't now go off on a tangent about how he wasn't elected by most of us. He was elected according to the rules of the presidential election process and there is ample evidence that Hillary slim popular majority would dissolve under scrutiny]
(3)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Cpl Tom Surdi - Putin tried to interfere. No one denies that. Fact is, every nation tries to interfere with every other nation's elections. Every nation prefers to deal with someone they think they can get more out of. So what? And what the hell does that have to do with loyalty to the President? If you think this President was elected through some kind of shenanigans, does that give you the right to join his Administration in good faith with the intention to sabotage it?
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Try educating yourself. You won't accept anything that I offer. And no, I don't follow Breitbart...
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Perhaps Barrack Hussein Obama should have stopped it, or make sure Trump knew about it when he won the nomination. BTW, didn’t he confide in Hillary and the DNC? Maybe, given their preferential treatment for eight years, the assumed he was supporting the loser.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/14/obama-russia-election-interference-241547
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/14/obama-russia-election-interference-241547
Obama team was warned in 2014 about Russian interference
In 2014, the administration got a report of Russia’s intention to disrupt Western democracies, including the United States.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Why, get another reset button, confidentially (on an open mike) send a message to Vlad that he would have more latitude after the election, or maybe look the other way while Putin annexed part of Ukraine. What a dumb question, but Samo-samo.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Cpl Tom Surdi thanks for the most interesting/informative read. Wow......TSgt Joe C. SFC William Farrell PO1 William "Chip" Nagel LTC Stephen F. SMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" Thomas Maj Marty Hogan MSG Andrew White SGT (Join to see) SGT Philip Roncari SPC Margaret Higgins SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth CW5 Jack Cardwell]] COL Mikel J. Burroughs ] PO1 Tony Holland CPL Dave Hoover A1C Ian Williams SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter SFC Shirley Whitfield SPC Jovani Daviu
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
All who work at the White House complex itself, including detailees from the various Executive Branch departments and agencies, as well as the Department of Defense and the military services, serve at the pleasure of the President.
Ambassador Bolton, as the National Security Advisor effective 9 April, has the authority and the responsibility, to ensure the National Security Staff does that.
It has been over 14 months since President Trump took office; LTG McMasters has overseen the evolution and turnover of the National Security Staff for over year. At this point, there are very few, if any, “hold-over” political appointees there.
Ambassador Bolton, as the National Security Advisor effective 9 April, has the authority and the responsibility, to ensure the National Security Staff does that.
It has been over 14 months since President Trump took office; LTG McMasters has overseen the evolution and turnover of the National Security Staff for over year. At this point, there are very few, if any, “hold-over” political appointees there.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
I agree they serve at the pleasure of the President. That being said, I believe it's important to give the President differing view points, so that POTUS may make the best possible decision they can. I also believe it is a disservice to the country to only agree with him about everything. Appointing only "yes" men to be advisers is a detriment to the country. However, it is the responsibility of the Resident to take all view points under advisement and then make their decision.
(0)
(0)
CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr.
SFC Shirley Whitfield - Saying stuff may be disagreeable to you, but it is NOT criminal and there is nothing others can do about it. And just what has he DONE that is criminal?
(0)
(0)
COL Korey Jackson
To clarify, upon reviewing the underlying "Foreign Policy" magazine article, Ambassador Bolton may replace some of the current members of the National Security Staff, including those who were appointed during LTG McMasters' time as President Trump's National Security Advisor.
The Foreign Policy article specifically mentions two names: LTG McMaster's current Deputy, Deputy National Security Advisor MG Ricky Waddell; and Deputy National Security Advisor for Stratgey, Dr. Nadia Schadlow.
Replacing members of the National Security Staff is not unusual -- but, it will take some time. Those whoreplace them will still need to be closely investigated and vetted by our national security apparatus before assuming White House duties.
For the most part, members of the National Security Staff are not "yes men". Rather, they are there to assist in day-to-day inter-agency coordination and provide, through the National Security Council process, feasible options to the President regarding pressing National Security issues of the day. Individually, while they are expected to provide their best (and normally unfettered) advice, they must provide the consensus position of the Secretary of Defense, State, and other formal members of the National Security Council.
Their professional activities are expected to be consistent with applicable U.S. law.
Many of us have had plenty of opportunities to professionally disagree with our boss' orders. But because he (or she) is the boss - and if legal and do not cross a personal moral red line, we do what the boss orders.
I suspect that one of these future actions of the incoming John Bolton will be determining feasible options for President Trump to NOT certify to our Congress the continued compliance of Iran with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, aka "the Iran Deal") despite the International Atomic Energy Agency's certification, and re-imposition of sanctions on Iran and seizure of certain Iranian assets.
This story is not really about Obama Administration hold-overs; this story is about who is serving on the National Security Staff, chairing the National Security Council Staff Policy Coordination Committees and the National Security Council Deputies Committee.
Inside-the-Beltway wonky stuff.
As for who is leaking the "DO NOT CONGRATULATE" words on President Trump's briefing papers / note cards -- General Kelley and President Trump have good reason to be angered about the internal, high-level breach of trust.
The Foreign Policy article specifically mentions two names: LTG McMaster's current Deputy, Deputy National Security Advisor MG Ricky Waddell; and Deputy National Security Advisor for Stratgey, Dr. Nadia Schadlow.
Replacing members of the National Security Staff is not unusual -- but, it will take some time. Those whoreplace them will still need to be closely investigated and vetted by our national security apparatus before assuming White House duties.
For the most part, members of the National Security Staff are not "yes men". Rather, they are there to assist in day-to-day inter-agency coordination and provide, through the National Security Council process, feasible options to the President regarding pressing National Security issues of the day. Individually, while they are expected to provide their best (and normally unfettered) advice, they must provide the consensus position of the Secretary of Defense, State, and other formal members of the National Security Council.
Their professional activities are expected to be consistent with applicable U.S. law.
Many of us have had plenty of opportunities to professionally disagree with our boss' orders. But because he (or she) is the boss - and if legal and do not cross a personal moral red line, we do what the boss orders.
I suspect that one of these future actions of the incoming John Bolton will be determining feasible options for President Trump to NOT certify to our Congress the continued compliance of Iran with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, aka "the Iran Deal") despite the International Atomic Energy Agency's certification, and re-imposition of sanctions on Iran and seizure of certain Iranian assets.
This story is not really about Obama Administration hold-overs; this story is about who is serving on the National Security Staff, chairing the National Security Council Staff Policy Coordination Committees and the National Security Council Deputies Committee.
Inside-the-Beltway wonky stuff.
As for who is leaking the "DO NOT CONGRATULATE" words on President Trump's briefing papers / note cards -- General Kelley and President Trump have good reason to be angered about the internal, high-level breach of trust.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google