CIA Director Gina Haspel and the British Role in the Anti-Trump Plot

by Chris Farrell • October 6, 2020 at 5:00 am

In the next paragraph, [Washington Post reporter Scott] Shane notes breathlessly: "... Trump has accused the United Kingdom of conspiring with American intelligence to spy on his presidential campaign."
President Trump certainly has made that claim, and one believes for very good reasons that seem to compound weekly.
Having the British run an aggressive intelligence collection operation against Team Trump targets, bypassing US legal prohibitions, and then laundering the intelligence "take" back to US officials via the UK-US liaison relationship is precisely something an "honorary UK desk officer" might be good and adept at accomplishing. Certainly, these subjects and questions deserve closer examination, without the phony prophylactic defense of grave warnings about "sources and methods."
CIA Director Gina Haspel can answer all of those questions, and she does not even have to touch upon classified information to do so. The American public is due her answers.

It appears CIA Director Gina Haspel (while serving as London Chief of Station from 2014 to early 2017) was an active, knowledgeable party to the efforts to target candidate Trump with an FBI-instigated foreign counterintelligence operation. Pictured: Haspel is sworn in before the Senate Intelligence Committee during her confirmation hearing to become the CIA director, on May 9, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

We have raised and discussed serious matters of fact and questions about the role of CIA Director Gina Haspel in the Anti-Trump conspiracy. It appears Haspel (while serving as London Chief of Station from 2014 to early 2017) was an active, knowledgeable party to the efforts to target candidate Trump with an FBI-instigated foreign counterintelligence operation. That seditious conspiracy carried forward to a more sophisticated and aggressive plan to carry out a soft coup against President Donald J. Trump.

Looking back on news reporting concerning Haspel, we turn (with caution) to a Washington Post article from July 2019 by Scott Shane, titled: "The quiet director: How Gina Haspel manages the CIA's volatile relationship with Trump". We are supposed to believe that Haspel and her office did not cooperate with the reporter for the article. Shane disclaims Haspel involvement by writing:

Continue Reading Article

The Public's Right to Know about the President's Health vs. the President's Right to Medical Confidentiality

by Alan M. Dershowitz • October 6, 2020 at 4:00 am

But there is a countervailing right which few in the media have written about. All Americans have the right to medical confidentiality. This right is assured by federal law, state law, medical ethics and the long traditions of the medical profession. What a patient tells his doctor, or what the doctor observes from the patient, are confidential, subject only to a few limited exceptions.
Among these exceptions is the obligation of doctors to report threats to other people, such as a highly contagious disease. It also includes the obligations of doctors and other professionals to report when they learn of abuse of or by the patient. There is no explicit exception for high ranking public officials, including the president.
All current White Houses leak like sieves. Staff members develop quid pro quo relationships with the media: in exchange for leaking information, the media promises to treat them well. That is the reality of contemporary journalism.
Perhaps the law should be changed and government doctors should have their first obligation to the public. But such a change would come with a high cost: presidents would not disclose to these government doctors information that they did not want to be made public. That might have a negative impact on their medical treatment.

(Image source: iStock)

The pubic has a right to know the details of the president's medical situation. But the president has the right to keep his medical information confidential. There is a conflict between these rights, even when they involve the president of the United States, who is a candidate for reelection. The reason the public has the right to know about the president's medical history is self-evident. He is the most powerful person in the world and he is seeking a second term. Voters are entitled to know the truth about his medical condition. No one would dispute that.

Continue Reading Article