Who is the real threat to the national security?<\/p>\n
Is it President Trump who shared with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov the intelligence that ISIS was developing laptop bombs to put aboard airliners?<\/p>\n
Or is it The Washington Post that ferreted out and published this code-word intelligence, and splashed the details on its front page, alerting the world, and ISIS, to what we knew.<\/p>\n
President Trump has the authority to declassify security secrets. And in sharing that intel with the Russians, who have had airliners taken down by bombs, he was trying to restore a relationship.<\/p>\n
On fighting Islamist terror, we and the Russians agree.<\/p>\n
Five years ago, Russia alerted us that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become a violent radical Islamist. That was a year and a half before Tsarnaev carried out the Boston Marathon bombing.<\/p>\n
But upon what authority did The Washington Post reveal code-word intelligence secrets? Where in the Constitution or U.S. law did the Post get the right to reveal state secrets every U.S. citizen is duty bound to protect?<\/p>\n
The source of this top secret laptop-bomb leak that the Post published had to be someone in the intel community who was violating an oath that he had sworn to protect U.S. secrets, and committing a felony by leaking that secret.<\/p>\n
Those who leaked this to hurt Trump, and those who published this in the belief it would hurt Trump, sees themselves as the “Resistance” \u00e2\u20ac\u201d like the French Resistance to Vichy in World War II.<\/p>\n
And they seemingly see themselves as above the laws that bind the rest of us.<\/p>\n
“Can Donald Trump Be Trusted With State Secrets?” asked the headline on the editorial in The New York Times.<\/p>\n
One wonders: Are these people oblivious to their own past?<\/p>\n
In 1971, The New York Times published a hoard of secret documents from the Kennedy-Johnson years on Vietnam. Editors spent months arranging them to convince the public it had been lied into a war that the Times itself had supported, but had turned against.<\/p>\n
Purpose of publication: Damage and discredit the war effort, now that Richard Nixon was commander in chief. This was tantamount to treason in wartime.<\/p>\n
When Nixon went to the Supreme Court to halt publication of the Pentagon Papers until we could review them to ensure that sources and methods were not being compromised, the White House was castigated for failing to understand the First Amendment.<\/p>\n
And for colluding with the thieves that stole them, and for publishing the secret documents, the Times won a Pulitzer.<\/p>\n
Forty years ago, the Post also won a Pulitzer \u00e2\u20ac\u201d for Watergate.<\/p>\n
The indispensable source of its stories was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who repeatedly violated his oath and broke the law by leaking the contents of confidential FBI interviews and grand jury testimony.<\/p>\n