Poll Shows How Smart The U.S. Public Thinks AI Is

 

These charts are from the YouGov Poll -- done between July 16th and 20th of a nationwide sample of 1,110 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Are Humans The Smartest Or Stupidest Species?

Whether you believe humans were created in their current form or are the result of millions of years of evolution, people seem to agree on one thing -- that humans are the smartest members of the animal kingdom.

After all, humans have built amazing things -- the Pyramids, modern skyscrapers, computers and the internet, machines that fly and some that even go to other planets. The list is endless of human accomplishments.

But a case can be made for the opposite view -- that humans are the stupidest members of the animal kingdom.

They have divided themselves into tribes and nations, creating arbitrary boundaries on the planet. And they use those boundaries to wage war with other tribes and nations. Millions have been killed in those wars, usually over greed or religion. And even within those tribes and boundaries, humans kill and maim each other. They do this even though common sense would dictate they should be helping each other.

Humans discriminate against one another because of silly reasons (like skin color, national origin, or religious preference) -- each convinced he/she is somehow better than others.

Humans, through misuse of natural elements, are in the process of making their planet uninhabitable -- deleting the forests that provide their oxygen, dirtying the water they need, and changing the climate to produce more storms, floods, droughts, and fires. And refusing to pressure their politicians into stopping or mitigating these disastrous things.

Humans allow poverty and neglect to exist -- even in countries with the wealth to eliminate both.

And humans refuse to believe their scientists and medical professional -- refusing to stop a killer pandemic by getting vaccinated or wearing masks. 

So, which is it? Are humans the smartest or stupidest species? I think a case can be made that they are both -- and unless they enhance the former and eliminate the latter, they may not survive very far into the future. The Earth doesn't care. She will survive with or without us. 

Humans must save themselves. Can they do it? They are capable of saving themselves, but do they have the will to do so? It will require putting a lot of our ignorant ideas behind us, and working together to the benefit of all. Frankly, I'm not sure we are that smart!

Intelligence Report Warns of Increase In Domestic Terrorism

 The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has issued a new report on Domestic Violence Extremism (DVE) -- more commonly called Domestic Terrorism. That office warns that there will be an increase in extremist violence this year.

Here is what the report has to say:

(U) The IC assesses that domestic violent extremists (DVEs) who are motivated by a range of ideologies and galvanized by recent political and societal events in the United States pose an elevated threat to the Homeland in 2021. Enduring DVE motivations pertaining to biases against minority populations and perceived government overreach will almost certainly continue to drive DVE radicalization and mobilization to violence. Newer sociopolitical developments—such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the US Capitol, conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence—will almost certainly spur some DVEs to try to engage in violence this year.

(U) The IC assesses that lone offenders or small cells of DVEs adhering to a diverse set of violent extremist ideologies are more likely to carry out violent attacks in the Homeland than organizations that allegedly advocate a DVE ideology. DVE attackers often radicalize independently by consuming violent extremist material online and mobilize without direction from a violent extremist organization, making detection and disruption difficult.

(U) The IC assesses that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and militia violent extremists (MVEs) present the most lethal DVE threats, with RMVEs most likely to conduct mass-casualty attacks against civilians and MVEs typically targeting law enforcement and government personnel and facilities. The IC assesses that the MVE threat increased last year and that it will almost certainly continue to be elevated throughout 2021 because of contentious sociopolitical factors that motivate MVEs to commit violence.

(U) The IC assesses that US RMVEs who promote the superiority of the white race are the DVE actors with the most persistent and concerning transnational connections because individuals with similar ideological beliefs exist outside of the United States and these RMVEs frequently communicate with and seek to influence each other. We assess that a small number of US RMVEs have traveled abroad to network with like-minded individuals.

(U) The IC assesses that DVEs exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications to recruit new adherents, plan and rally support for in- person actions, and disseminate materials that contribute to radicalization and mobilization to violence.

(U) The IC assesses that several factors could increase the likelihood or lethality of DVE attacks in 2021 and beyond, including escalating support from persons in the United States or abroad, growing perceptions of government overreach related to legal or policy changes and disruptions, and high-profile attacks spurring follow-on attacks and innovations in targeting and attack tactics.

(U) DVE lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms.

What Did Trump Promise A Foreign Leader - And Why Is He Trying To Hide It From Congress?

You have probably heard about the latest Trump administration scandal. On a call to a foreign leader (likely Putin), Trump made a promise. That promise troubled an official in the intelligence community so much that he properly filed a whistleblower report.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson found the report determined the complaint was credible and of "urgent concern" (which would require its reporting to Congress). He forwarded the complaint to Joseph Maguire (acting director of national intelligence).

Maguire, after conferring with the Justice Department (and probably the White House) is now refusing to turn over the complaint to Congress -- even though the seven day time limit to do so has expired. He did meet in secret with a congressional committee, but refused to turn over the complaint or to even tell them what it contained.

In other words, he's breaking the law -- probably on orders from the White House.

What did Trump promise that foreign leader? Would it be damaging to this country or our allies? Or just embarrassing to Trump?

This is just one more example of Trump flouting the law, and refusing to honor the Constitution's division of power. He thinks he can do whatever he wants, and refuse any oversight from Congress when questioned. He's not acting like a president. He's trying to rule like a dictator!

Here's what the editorial board of The Washington Post says:

A NEW dispute has arisen between Congress and the Trump administration over a whistleblower complaint from within the intelligence community. By law, it should be shared with Congress, but the administration is refusing to do so. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) is entirely correct to insist that the administration follow the law. He should pursue the matter until it does.

According to Mr. Schiff, on Aug. 12 a whistleblower within the intelligence community filed a complaint that met the legal description of a disclosure involving a “serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency” related to funding, administration or operation of classified intelligence activity. Neither the subject of the complaint nor the whistleblower’s agency has been disclosed, but the complaint was deemed of “urgent concern” by the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson.

Mr. Atkinson sent it to Joseph Maguire, acting director of national intelligence. According to the congressman, a preliminary review by the inspector general determined that “there are reasonable grounds to believe” the information “is credible.” So far, this is how the system is supposed to work under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 and subsequent presidential directives and laws. Mr. Maguire, the law says, “shall” forward such a whistleblower complaint to the congressional intelligence committees within seven days.

So far, that hasn’t happened. Mr. Schiff says the intelligence community’s explanation to him is that the complaint “concerns conduct by someone outside of the Intelligence Community” involving “confidential and potentially privileged communications.” The congressman says he thinks the intelligence community may be covering up misconduct involving the White House or the president. We don’t know. But Mr. Schiff says this is the first time he’s aware of that a director of national intelligence has overruled the inspector general and concealed a whistleblower complaint, for which the director has “neither the legal authority nor the discretion.” And that is suspicious. Mr. Schiff has issued a subpoena and demanded action by Tuesday, or appearance at a public hearing Thursday.

Mr. Trump has made plain his distaste for congressional oversight. Elsewhere, he’s resisting disclosure of his tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee, although the law in that case also is straightforward. Oversight is a vital function of Congress, one that’s not always performed as strenuously as it should be. At the same time, the Supreme Court has ruled that it can’t lead to boundless inquisitions, or what Mr. Trump would call witch hunts. The court said the investigating must be limited to “a legitimate task of the Congress.”

In the case of the intelligence-community whistleblower, this clearly falls under the definition of a legitimate task of Congress. Someone inside the intelligence community decided to follow the rules and filed this complaint for a reason. Neither Mr. Maguire nor Mr. Trump should be able to conceal such information. They should respect and uphold the law, not contravene it.

Intelligence Heads Disagree With Trump On Dangers To U.S.

(The photo of Intelligence officials testifying before Congress is from KALW.org. The caricature Of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

Donald Trump likes to brag about his foreign policy. He tells us that he has made America safer by making Russia our friend,  defeating ISIS, withdrawing from the Iran deal, by convincing North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons, and by naming the border with Mexico as the biggest danger to this country.

But that is a view only in his own fevered imagination, and is accepted only by his most rabid supporters. Intelligence officials (and most Americans) know the truth is far different.

On Tuesday, the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies testified before Congress -- and they sharply disagreed with Donald Trump. This should worry Americans (that Trump is unable or unwilling to accurately assess the real dangers facing this country).

Here is part of how their testimony was reported in Stars and Stripes:

Directly contradicting President Donald Trump, U.S. intelligence agencies told Congress on Tuesday that North Korea is unlikely to dismantle its nuclear arsenal, that the Islamic State group remains a threat and that the Iran nuclear deal is working. The chiefs made no mention of a crisis at the U.S.-Mexican border for which Trump has considered declaring a national emergency.

Their analysis stands in sharp contrast to Trump's almost singular focus on security gaps at the border as the biggest threat facing the United States.

Top security officials including FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats presented an update to the Senate intelligence committee on Tuesday on their annual assessment of global threats. They warned of an increasingly diverse range of security dangers around the globe, from North Korean nuclear weapons to Chinese cyberespionage to Russian campaigns to undermine Western democracies.

Coats said intelligence information does not support the idea that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will eliminate his nuclear weapons and the capacity for building more — a notion that is the basis of the U.S. negotiating strategy.

"We currently assess that North Korea will seek to retain its WMD (weapons of mass destruction) capabilities and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capability because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival," Coats told the committee. . . .

More broadly, the intelligence report on which Coats and the heads of other intelligence agencies based their testimony predicted that security threats to the United States and its allies this year will expand and diversify, driven in part by China and Russia. It says Moscow and Beijing are more aligned than at any other point since the mid-1950s and their global influence is rising even as U.S. relations with traditional allies are in flux.

"Some U.S. allies and partners are seeking greater independence from Washington in response to their perception of changing U.S. policies on security and trade," the report said, without providing examples or further explanation.

The report also said the Islamic State group "remains a terrorist and insurgent threat" inside Iraq, where the government faces "an increasingly disenchanted public."

The intelligence assessment, which is provided annually to Congress, made no mention of a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, which Trump has asserted as the basis for his demand that Congress finance a border wall. . . .

In Syria, where Trump has ordered a full withdrawal of U.S. troops, the government of Bashar Assad is likely to consolidate control, with Russia and Iran attempting to further entrench themselves in Syria, the report said. Asked for her assessment, Haspel said of the IS group: "They're still dangerous." She added that they still command "thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria."

The intelligence agencies said Iran continues to work with other parties to the nuclear deal it reached with the U.S. and other Western nations. In doing so, they said, it has at least temporarily lessened the nuclear threat. . . .

The intelligence assessment of Afghanistan, more than 17 years into a conflict that began after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., projected a continued military stalemate. Without mentioning prospects for a peace deal, which appear to have improved only in recent days, the report said, "neither the Afghan government nor the Taliban will be able to gain a strategic military advantage in the Afghan war in the coming year" if the U.S. maintains its current levels of support. Trump has ordered a partial pullback of U.S. forces this year, although no firm plan is in place.

Coats told the committee that Russia and perhaps other countries are likely to attempt to use social media and other means to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

"We expect our adversaries and strategic competitors to refine their capabilities and add new tactics as they learn from each other's experiences, suggesting the threat landscape could look very different in 2020 and future elections," the intelligence report said.

The report specifically warned about Russia's cyberattack capabilities.

"Moscow is now staging cyberattack assets to allow it to disrupt or damage U.S. civilian and military infrastructure during a crisis," it said.

Military/Intelligence Officials Stand Up To Trump

This week, Donald Trump learned he had the power to revoke security clearances -- and as with all other powers he doesn't have to clear through Congress, he was quick to use it. Of course, being the narcissistic idiot that he is, he picked someone that had publicly been critical of him -- former CIA director John Brennan. This means current intelligence officials cannot now confer with Brennan (and get the benefit of his knowledge due to his decades of service), because they wouldn't be able to fully brief him. In other words, to stoke his own fragile ego, Trump has done damage to our intelligence services.

Here is what retired Navy Admiral William H. McRaven (commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014) had to say in response to Trump's ridiculous action:

Dear Mr. President:

Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.

Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.

Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.

A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself.

Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.

If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.

And from Axios, here is what other officials have done:

Dr. Robert Gates — who served eight presidents, including stints as CIA director, and later as Defense Secretary for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama — just added his name to a stunning list of former intelligence officials who signed a letter criticizing the Brennan slap as "ill-considered and unprecedented":

Donald Trump Is "Dimmer Than A 5-Watt Bulb"

(Illustration is by Luci Gutierrez in The New Yorker.)

Donald Trump has bragged repeatedly about having a very high IQ. His rampant narcissism demands that he try to get people to believe that. But people who have to tell you they are smart usually aren't, and that is true of Trump. In fact, he may well be the dumbest person ever to live in the White House.

Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune tells it like it is -- that Trump is really not very smart. Here's some of what he has written:

Donald Trump has many serious flaws, including incorrigible dishonesty, rampant narcissism, contempt for women and a fashion sense that makes him think that hairstyle of his is flattering. But nothing compares to his most prominent, crippling and incurable defect: He’s dimmer than a 5-watt bulb.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was reported to have called the president a “moron” — emphasizing that term with an adjective I can’t repeat here. Forced to hold a news conference to praise the president’s intelligence, Tillerson was too honest to deny what he had said.

The late William T. Kelley, who taught Trump at the University of Pennsylvania, said, “Donald Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had.” Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter of “The Art of the Deal,” says Trump had “a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance.”. . .

He’s just not bright enough to make connections between his conduct and its consequences. Trump’s travel ban has lost repeatedly in court because he has made clear he has an unconstitutional goal: shutting out Muslims because of their religion. If he had kept quiet, he might have gotten his way.

The evidence of his dimwittedness flows as continuously and voluminously as the Mississippi River. His tweets are studded with misspellings, random capitalizations and mystifying quotation marks.

He taps out tweets that flagrantly contradict what he tweeted when Barack Obama was president, making himself look ridiculous. When he holds forth on policy issues, it’s excruciatingly apparent he has no idea what he’s talking about.

Trump relies on a vocabulary the size of a second-grader’s. To combat opioid abuse among teens, he favors “telling them, ‘No good, really bad for you in every way.’ ” Those paper towels he tossed to a crowd in Puerto Rico were “very good towels.” He wanted to call the tax reform bill “the Cut Cut Cut Act.”

He pretends to be a master negotiator, but he has failed to get the Republican Congress to repeal Obamacare, enact protections for immigrants brought here illegally as children, and fund his border wall.

Trump tries to conceal his intellectual deficiency by insisting how smart he is. “I went to an Ivy League college,” he said last month. “I’m a very intelligent person.” He has to make such affirmations because all the evidence indicates his cranium contains an airless void. . . .

I’m betting Trump will never submit to any process that would document his actual intelligence for the public to see. He’s dumb. But not that dumb.

Donald Trump = Fredo Corleone

(Cartoon image is by Sally Edelstein at Envisioning The American Dream.)

From David Frum in The Atlantic:

“I can handle things. I’m smart! Not like everybody says, like dumb. I’m smart and I want respect!”

This morning’s presidential Twitter outburst recalls those words of Fredo Corleone’s in one of the most famous scenes from The Godfather series. Trump tweeted that his “two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” and in a subsequent tweet called himself a “very stable genius.”

Trump may imagine that he’s Michael Corleone, the tough and canny rightful heir—or even Sonny Corleone, the terrifyingly violent but at least powerful heir apparent—but after today he is Fredo forever.

There’s a key difference between film and reality, though: The Corleone family had the awareness and vigilance to exclude Fredo from power. The American political system did not do so well.

Genius, or just being smart, is something we easily recognize in others (just by watching how they interact with others, and with the world in general). We don't have to be told someone is smart (or dumb). It's pretty obvious to those who pay attention. And those who feel it necessary to tell the world how smart they are, probably aren't.

It's just sad that the current occupant of the White House felt the need to claim his "genius" -- to correct the nation's (and the world's) opinion of him. 

The chart below reflects the results of the latest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between December 31st and January 2nd of a random national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,277 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 3 points, and for registered voters is 2.9 points. Respondents were asked if they would use the word "intelligent" to describe Donald Trump. The results certainly don't describe a "genius".

Transcript Of Comey's Statement To Intelligence Committee

(This caricature of ex-FBI Director James Comes is by DonkeyHotey.)

James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee today. I'm sure he'll face a lot of tough questions from senators, but here is the transcript of the prepared statement he'll deliver to that committee before the questioning begins. It concerns his interactions with Donald Trump.

Chairman Burr, Ranking Member Warner, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I was asked to testify today to describe for you my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump on subjects that I understand are of interest to you. I have not included every detail from my conversations with the President, but, to the best of my recollection, I have tried to include information that may be relevant to the Committee.

January 6 Briefing

I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.

It is important to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations are different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work. The Bureau’s goal in a counter-intelligence investigation is to understand the technical and human methods that hostile foreign powers are using to influence the United States or to steal our secrets. The FBI uses that understanding to disrupt those efforts. Sometimes disruption takes the form of alerting a person who is targeted for recruitment or influence by the foreign power. Sometimes it involves hardening a computer system that is being attacked. Sometimes it involves "turning" the recruited person into a double-agent, or publicly calling out the behavior with sanctions or expulsions of embassy-based intelligence officers. On occasion, criminal prosecution is used to disrupt intelligence activities.

Because the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known, counterintelligence investigations tend to be centered on individuals the FBI suspects to be witting or unwitting agents of that foreign power. When the FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will "open an investigation" on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted.

In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on PresidentElect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance. I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone.

January 27 Dinner

The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House. He had called me at lunchtime that day and invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my whole family, but decided to have just me this time, with the whole family coming the next time. It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I assumed there would be others.

It turned out to be just the two of us, seated at a small oval table in the center of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us, only entering the room to serve food and drinks.

The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given the abuse I had taken during the previous year, he would understand if I wanted to walk away.

My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.

I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten-year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that I was not "reliable" in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.

A few moments later, the President said, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty." I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.

At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because "problems" come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.

Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, "I need loyalty." I replied, "You will always get honesty from me." He paused and then said, "That’s what I want, honest loyalty." I paused, and then said, "You will get that from me." As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase "honest loyalty" differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.

During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.

As was my practice for conversations with President Trump, I wrote a detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with the senior leadership team of the FBI.

February 14 Oval Office Meeting

On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counterterrorism briefing of the President. He sat behind the desk and a group of us sat in a semi-circle of about six chairs facing him on the other side of the desk. The Vice President, Deputy Director of the CIA, Director of the National CounterTerrorism Center, Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and I were in the semi-circle of chairs. I was directly facing the President, sitting between the Deputy CIA Director and the Director of NCTC. There were quite a few others in the room, sitting behind us on couches and chairs.

The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me. The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him, saying he wanted to speak with me.

When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, "I want to talk about Mike Flynn." Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.

The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with leaks of classified information – a concern I shared and still share. After he had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him. The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed.

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a good guy and has been through a lot." He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go."

The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President.

I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative agency.

The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect the investigative team with the President’s request, which we did not intend to abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one-on-one conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account. We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General’s role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role. After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed. The investigation moved ahead at full speed, with none of the investigative team members – or the Department of Justice lawyers supporting them – aware of the President’s request.

Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to pass along the President’s concerns about leaks. I took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened – him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained behind – was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply. For the reasons discussed above, I did not mention that the President broached the FBI’s potential investigation of General Flynn.

March 30 Phone Call

On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as "a cloud" that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to "lift the cloud." I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.

Then the President asked why there had been a congressional hearing about Russia the previous week – at which I had, as the Department of Justice directed, confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. I explained the demands from the leadership of both parties in Congress for more information, and that Senator Grassley had even held up the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General until we briefed him in detail on the investigation. I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, "We need to get that fact out." (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)

The President went on to say that if there were some "satellite" associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.

In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn’t brought up "the McCabe thing" because I had said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe’s wife) campaign money. Although I didn’t understand why the President was bringing this up, I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.

He finished by stressing "the cloud" that was interfering with his ability to make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get out that he wasn’t being investigated. I told him I would see what we could do, and that we would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we could.

Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente (AG Sessions had by then recused himself on all Russia related matters), to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later.

April 11 Phone Call

On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I "get out" that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that "the cloud" was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

He said he would do that and added, "Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know." I did not reply or ask him what he meant by "that thing." I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.

That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.

Intelligence Comm. Doesn't Trust Trump To Keep Its Secrets

(This Caricature Of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

The following is just part of an excellent article by John R. Schindler at observer.com. If it doesn't scare you, I have to question your sanity or your patriotism.

John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. 

Schindler writes:

Our spies have never liked Trump’s lackadaisical attitude toward the President’s Daily Brief, the most sensitive of all IC documents, which the new commander-in-chief has received haphazardly. The president has frequently blown off the PDB altogether, tasking Flynn with condensing it into a one-page summary with no more than nine bullet-points. Some in the IC are relieved by this, but there are pervasive concerns that the president simply isn’t paying attention to intelligence.

In light of this, and out of worries about the White House’s ability to keep secrets, some of our spy agencies have begun withholding intelligence from the Oval Office. Why risk your most sensitive information if the president may ignore it anyway? A senior National Security Agency official explained that NSA was systematically holding back some of the “good stuff” from the White House, in an unprecedented move. For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president’s eyes only, containing enormously sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets.

Since NSA provides something like 80 percent of the actionable intelligence in our government, what’s being kept from the White House may be very significant indeed. However, such concerns are widely shared across the IC, and NSA doesn’t appear to be the only agency withholding intelligence from the administration out of security fears.

What’s going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated that “since January 20, we’ve assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM,” meaning the White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. “There’s not much the Russians don’t know at this point,” the official added in wry frustration.

None of this has happened in Washington before. A White House with unsettling links to Moscow wasn’t something anybody in the Pentagon or the Intelligence Community even considered a possibility until a few months ago. Until Team Trump clarifies its strange relationship with the Kremlin, and starts working on its professional honesty, the IC will approach the administration with caution and concern.

I previously warned the Trump administration not to go to war with the nation’s spies, and here’s why. This is a risky situation, particularly since President Trump is prone to creating crises foreign and domestic with his incautious tweets. In the event of a serious international crisis of the sort which eventually befalls almost every administration, the White House will need the best intelligence possible to prevent war, possibly even nuclear war. It may not get the information it needs in that hour of crisis, and for that it has nobody to blame but itself.

Is Ben Carson Really A Very "Smart" Person ?

(This photo of Ben Carson is from CNN.com.)

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is a successful neurosurgeon. That is a field that requires a significant level of education and skill -- and because of that, many people assume that he must be a very smart person. Is that really true? I don't think so.

Let me explain myself. First, we need to understand what it means to be "smart". It is a fairly complicated thing, and has several components. In my opinion, there are five components of intelligence (being smart). They are:

* The ability to take in facts and be able to regurgitate them on demand. We commonly call this MEMORY. Some people are born with an extraordinary gift for this, but it is also something that can be improved by most people through practice or the use of memory devices.

* The ability to perform a certain task extremely well (such as surgery). This is something that is learned through the repeated performing of the skill. We commonly call this EXPERIENCE. No one is born with this ability, but it can be learned by almost everyone.

* The ability to take facts and use them to come up with a logical conclusion. We commonly call this RATIONAL THINKING. This can be learned somewhat, but is beyond the capacity of those who cannot or will not question what they are told or taught.

* The ability to take facts and use to in a different way to find a solution -- to think outside the box. We commonly call this CREATIVITY. This may be the most difficult to teach, and in my opinion, the most indicative of true intelligence.

* The ability to put yourself in another person's place and understand how they are feeling and/or thinking. We commonly call this EMPATHY, and it reaches it true height when a person can use it to understand those of a different race, religion, or culture.

So, how does Carson stack up using these guidelines for being smart? I think we'll have to admit that he excels in the first two -- memory and experience. His ability to learn the facts of medicine through his schooling, and to acquire neurosurgical skills, show that his ability is high in both memory and experience.

It is in the other three where his intelligence quotient seems  to be sub-par. His rational thinking seems to be limited to his professional field (where he can take facts and reach a logical medical conclusion). In other areas, he is not at all logical (saying the pyramids were grain storage facilities, that prison makes people homosexual, Obamacare is slavery, a president can ignore the Constitution, protesting police violence helps ISIS and al-Queda, etc.). His ability to think rationally outside his professional field is severely deficient.

I also question his creative ability. He did come up with some innovative ways to perform neurosurgery (thanks in large part to his experience in that field), but he has not shown any ability to come up with innovative solutions to solve problems outside his professional field. He either has no solutions (which is true on most issues), or he has blindly accepted the failed policies of his party (and his religion). I think he is also severely deficient in creative ability.

Perhaps his worst failing is his inability to empathize with those who do not share his religious or cultural views. He made this very clear with his pronouncement that a muslim should not be president. He assumes that all muslims think alike, and could not be good citizens or capable leaders because of their religion -- and compounds that by believing his own religion makes him better or more capable than those who do not share his religious beliefs.

In short, Carson score high on only two of the intelligence criteria, while scoring low on the other three. Is he a very smart person. I would have to say NO. At best, he is of average intelligence, and at worst, he is sub-par in intelligence.

I think he would make a terrible president because of his deficiency in rational thinking, creativity, and empathy. Someone might say he does show an ability to learn from experience -- but do we really want a president who must learn almost everything through on-the-job experience? In this dangerous world, can we afford the mistakes he would make while gaining that experience? I think not.

All of the above is just my own opinion, but I believe it is true. What do you think? Is Ben Carson a really smart person?

Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People ?

Atheists think most religious people are not very bright because they sacrifice logic for faith. The religious think atheists are not very bright because they deny what seems to be obvious to them -- that there is a god.  Who is right? Are they both wrong?

I admit that I am prejudiced, being an atheist -- but I have met some very smart people (and some dumb people) in both camps. But the question is not one that judges individuals. It is about group generalities. A researcher at the University of Rochester believes the smarter people are the atheists. Without comment from me, here is the article in medicaldaily.com describing those findings. Make of it what you will.

A review of scientific studies finds that people who hold a more naturalistic view of the world are generally smarter than those who believe in god.

In an analysis of 63 studies conducted since 1928, a researcher at the University of Rochester found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 of the studies. While 10 of the studies showed a positive correlation, only two of them showed a significant link.

Thirty-five of the studies, however, showed a significantly negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, according to researcher Miron Zuckerman.

"Most extant explanations [of a negative relation] share one central theme —the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who 'know better,’” Zuckerman wrote in a paper published this month.

Zuckerman and two other psychologists reviewing the literature defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn experience.” Religiosity is defined by psychologists as participation in some facets of worship, which might range from passive attendance at weekly services to the sort of messianic fervor depicted in Robert Duvall’s 1997 film The Apostle.

Other factors such as sex or education made no difference in the correlation between intelligence and religiosity, although some variance was seen with age. The association of lower intelligence with religiousness was weakest among teenagers in the “pre-college population,” however.

Yet, a lifelong association between higher intelligence and atheism, or naturalistic worldview, remains constant in a continuing study — begun in 1928 — of 1,500 gifted children with intelligence quotients (IQs) over 135. Even in extreme old age and closer to death (and some would say God), these children remained steady in their beliefs, or non-belief.

The higher intelligence of non-believers was attributed by researchers to a greater propensity to seek education and higher employment, when available, thus assuming more personal control over their direction in life. "Intelligent people typically spend more time in school — a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits," Zuckerman wrote. "More intelligent people get higher level jobs and better employment may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs."