John Bolton indicted on 18 counts of mishandling and sharing classified docutments

UPDATE: Thursday, October 16, 2025 – The hammer has dropped, and it's a doozy. A federal grand jury in Greenbelt, Maryland, just indicted former National Security Advisor John Bolton on 18 counts of illegally hoarding and transmitting sensitive national security information. Yes, the guy who spent years yapping about Trump's foreign policy fumbles like he was auditioning for a one-man whistleblower tour.

The charges? Bolton allegedly knew exactly what he was doing when he fired off materials tied to foreign policy matters via his personal email after Trump gave him the boot in 2019. We're talking top-shelf secrets here, the kind that make your average State Department clerk sweat through their sensible shoes. If convicted—and that's a big "if" in D.C.'s clown car of justice—Bolton could be staring down 10 years per count. Do the math: that's enough time to write a sequel to his tell-all and still have change for a prison book club.

12:56 PM – Wednesday, October 15, 2025 – Hold onto your hawkish hats, because yesterday we were still in the "expected to" phase, but the writing was on the wall thicker than one of Bolton's infamous mustaches. Sources were buzzing that a Maryland grand jury was about to slap a federal indictment on the ex-NSA for mishandling and zipping classified docs through his dusty old AOL account. No formal charges yet at the time, but the tea leaves said "soon," and boy, did they deliver overnight.This all kicked off with FBI raids on Bolton's cozy Bethesda, Maryland, pad and his D.C. office digs, where G-men hauled out a treasure trove of "classified," "confidential," and "secret" goodies. Think WMD chatter, strategic comms—the stuff that keeps the lights on at Langley. The coming indictment (now very much here) zeros in on Bolton's White House days under Trump 1.0, where he supposedly slinging classified intel via personal email for his daily "notes and summaries" from 2018-2019. Because nothing screams "secure handling" like forwarding nukes-and-diplomacy deets to your Yahoo knockoff.

That August 2025 raid? FBI agents walked out with a white binder screaming "statement and reflections to allied strikes"—complete with folders tagged "Trump I-IV," because apparently Bolton's got a flair for the dramatic. They also snagged four boxes of "printed daily activities," plus the full tech haul: two iPhones, four computers and hard drives, and a pair of USB sticks that probably hold more drama than a season of The West Wing. All per a Justice Department filing that's drier than Bolton's wit but twice as incriminating.

The whole mess traces back to 2020, when some "very specific intelligence capacity" sniffed out Bolton allegedly smuggling classified docs home right before Trump showed him the door. But poof—it got shelved under the Biden crew for "political reasons," as officials shrugged it off like a bad briefing. Fast-forward to now, and with Kash Patel running the FBI show, it's back like a bad sequel nobody asked for.

Remember, Bolton's been Trump's loudest ex-employee cheerleader... against him, that is. Post-firing in September 2019—Trump cited those "strong disagreements" on Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan—he's been the guy penning op-eds that make neocons blush. His career's a highlight reel of bipartisan eyebrow-raises: from Bush-era arm-twisting on intel analysts to hype Iraq's phantom WMDs (remember Christian Westerman getting the Bolton glare-down for calling BS?), to his Trump stint's endless policy cage matches. Hawkish? Check. Aggressive? Double check. Legal side-eye? Now it's a full-on federal stare-down.

One Justice Department official told the New York Post that the case against Bolton is “airtight.” If that's not the understatement of the fall, I don't know what is. Stay tuned—this one's got more twists than a Bolton briefing book.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

John Bolton: From Trump's War Room to the Slammer: Karma's a Bitch, right?

Oh, sweet, sweet schadenfreude. Just when you thought the swamp couldn't get any stickier, former national security adviser John Bolton – you know, the guy with the walrus mustache that looks like it was glued on by a deranged barber, is staring down the barrel of a federal indictment. A grand jury in Maryland has reportedly dropped the hammer on him, and folks, it's not for jaywalking.

Two sources spilled the beans to CNN: Bolton's accused of blabbing classified intel to his own wife and daughter via email. Because nothing says "national security pro" like turning family group chat into a top-secret briefing. Remember those whispers from earlier? Turns out the Justice Department's been sniffing around Bolton's little digital diary, an AOL email account where he'd jot down summaries of his Trump-era escapades like some wannabe Bridget Jones with nukes on the brain.

FBI G-men didn't mess around this summer, either. They raided his tony Maryland pad and DC office with search warrants hotter than JK Pritzker's bicycle seat in August. They hauled out a boat load of documents stamped "secret," "confidential," and "classified," including juicy bits on weapons of mass destruction. 

Court records don't lie, and neither does irony.This isn't even fresh dirt, mind you. Bolton's been playing fast and loose with secrets since his pre-Trump government gigs. The probe zeroed in on those private AOL scribbles, because why use a secure channel when you can risk it all for convenience? 

Classic Bolton: all hat, no cattle.

Word is, the old warmonger is set to sashay into custody by Friday. Surrender like a gentleman, John, or at least like the guy who wrote the book on tough talk.

Those FBI sweeps uncovered a pile of "confidential" papers tied to WMDs and other hush-hush horrors. Bolton has been hollering from the rooftops that he never swiped a single classified page unlawfully. Sure, and if you believe that, you might also believe that snakes have hips.

He's even pointed fingers at the Trump crew, whining it's all political payback. No wrongdoing here, he swears, just a witch hunt from the big bad Orange Man. 

Speaking of feuds, Bolton's been Trump's personal yapping chihuahua ever since he bolted from the administration in 2019. The bad blood boiled over with that tell-all turd, "The Room Where It Happened," where he basically called Trump "unfit" for the Oval. He ripped into Trump's playbook on North Korea, Russia, Afghanistan, you name it, Bolton hated it. And don't get him started on the Mar-a-Lago raid; he was right there in the front row, screeching that Trump was "reckless" for hoarding docs. Pot, meet kettle. Or should I say, anus, meet sphincter?

Trump was as classy as ever when the indictment news hit. "I think he's a bad person. Too bad." 

Boom! Mic drop. 

And let's not forget the roast sessions: Trump's tagged him a "lowlife" and "unpatriotic" more times than Democrats claim the end to democracy. Fair? You bet. Bolton earned every syllable. Look, if there's a silver lining to this clown show, it's that the deep state's finally eating its own. Of course the question is whether his indictment will result in prison time--I doubt it, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Bolton built his brand on forever wars and finger-wagging at anyone who dared question the forever part. Now he's the one getting wagged. Pass the popcorn; this trial's gonna be better than cable news on a slow night. What do you think, guys? Drop your best Bolton burns in the comments.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

FBI Raids John Bolton’s Home Over Alleged Classified Doc Scandal: “Air-Tight” Case Shelved by Biden Admin

Federal agents stormed the Maryland home and D.C. office of former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton on Friday, and word on the street is it's tied to some seriously shady handling of classified documents. 

We're talking "highly sensitive national security documents" allegedly emailed to his wife and daughter [possibly for their entertainment]. So now, ever Bolton’s family is in the crosshairs of this mess. According to top FBI brass spilling the beans to The New York Post, this isn't some fishing expedition. The feds have what they call an "air-tight" case, sparked by a "very specific intelligence capacity" back in 2020 that caught Bolton red-handed transferring classified files from his White House desk to his kin. This isn't about his 2020 tell-all book, The Room Where It Happened, which already had its own probe. No, this is a whole new can of worms, and it has the stink of betrayal all over it.

Here's the wild part: the Biden administration reportedly "shelved" this investigation for four years. You heard that right; four years of sitting on evidence that Bolton was allegedly jeopard enough to share our nation's secrets with his family like it's a holiday newsletter. 

A senior FBI official didn't hold back, telling the newspaper: "The [Biden administration] had probable cause to know that he had taken material that was detrimental to the national security of the United States, and they made no effort to retrieve it." That's not just dropping the ball; that's spiking it into the Potomac.

This same official went full scorched-earth: "That was a friendly administration to [Bolton.] They kept bashing [Trump] the entire time for 'weaponizing law enforcement,' and they, by politically stopping a righteous investigation, are the ones who weaponized law enforcement." It’s like watching a fox guard the henhouse while lecturing you about animal rights.

Now, let's talk about the raid. The feds didn't knock politely, they tore through Bolton's Maryland pad and D.C. office, scooping up "a lot" of evidence from his home and "a bunch" more from his office, per sources. [It's kind of reminiscent of when the FBI went full SWAT on Paul Manafort's home during Trump's first administration.]

Sounds like they hit the motherlode with Bolton. And get this: FBI Director Kash Patel only learned about this buried case a month after his February confirmation when he demanded a briefing on sensitive matters. He initially thought it was tied to the book probe, but agents set him straight: "Nah, boss, this is a different beast, and Biden’s team kept it on ice."

Bolton, who spent 17 months as Trump’s national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019, has been one of the loudest anti-Trump voices out there, trashing his former boss at every turn. Guess he thought he could skate free while pointing fingers. But the feds aren't playing favorites now. They're confident in their case, though sources say Bolton's wife and daughter aren't likely to face charges. 

And the bottom line, if the allegations hold, is that Bolton is not just a disgruntled ex-employee, he's a walking national security risk who played fast and loose with secrets that keep America safe. And the Biden crew allegedly looked the other way while preaching about "justice." 

The swamp never disappoints, folks. 

And if you want to Buy Me A Coffee, I wouldn't stop you--it supports my work and I really appreciate it. But no pressure.

Tweet

Feds Storm John Bolton’s Home and Office in Classified Docs Crackdown

The feds just turned John Bolton's world upside down. Early this morning, FBI agents kicked in the door, figuratively, I assume, at Bolton's Bethesda, Maryland, home and his D.C. office, tearing through both in a hunt for classified documents. Yes, you heard that right: the guy who spent years preaching about national security is now in the crosshairs of a federal probe. Sources say agents are convinced Bolton’s still got sensitive docs stashed somewhere, and they're not playing games.

Fox News Digital caught agents hauling boxes out of Bolton's D.C. office, with the man himself spotted in the lobby looking like he just swallowed a lemon. "NO ONE is above the law…
@FBI agents on mission," tweeted FBI Director Kash Patel, dropping a not-so-subtle hint about the raid without naming names. 

Deputy Director Dan Bongino piled on, retweeting Patel and adding, "Public corruption will not be tolerated." Attorney General Pam Bondi didn't hold back either, warning, "America’s safety isn’t negotiable. Justice will be pursued. Always." 

Sounds like the Trump-era crew is out for blood.

This entire situation stems from intel provided by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who gave Patel just enough juice to justify the search warrant. One source, dripping with sarcasm, told the outlet, "I can't give you any more details than that, but let's just say that John Bolton really had some nerve to attack Trump over his handling of classified information."

Now, let's rewind. 

Bolton, Trump's National Security Advisor from 2018 to 2019, has been a thorn in the side of just about everyone. His 2020 memoir, 'The Room Where It Happened', caused a firestorm when the Trump DOJ tried to block it, claiming it was packed with classified info, think U.S. intelligence sources, foreign policy pow-wows, and chats with world leaders. A federal judge let the book hit shelves anyway, and the Biden DOJ later dropped both a criminal probe and a civil suit against Bolton in 2021, calling it quits after a senior NSC official supposedly cleared the book of any classified material. Bolton's lawyer at the time swore up and down that the memoir was clean after a four-month review. 

But there's more. The probe into Bolton's handling of classified docs was apparently shelved by Biden's team "for political reasons" according to a senior U.S. official. Now, with Trump back in the game, it's open season again. And let's not forget the irony: Bolton had the gall to slam Trump over his classified docs mess, which led to the 2022 Mar-a-Lago raid and a 40-count indictment (later tossed in July 2024). Pot, meet kettle.

Bolton, of course, is no stranger to the spotlight. The hawkish ex-advisor, who served as U.N. ambassador under George W. Bush, has been both a Trump cheerleader and critic. He called Trump’s 2022 strike on Iran's nuclear facilities "a decisive action" and "the right thing to do," predicting "huge change in the Middle East." 

But he also trashed Trump's competence and character, saying in 2022 that the guy didn't have what it takes to sit in the Oval Office. Trump, never one to stay quiet, fired back, booting Bolton in 2019 over "strong" policy disagreements and later yanking his Secret Service detail amid Iranian death threats. Savage.

When Fox News Digital called Bolton's office for comment, a staffer chirped, "Have a nice day," and slammed the phone down. Meanwhile, agents were spotted loading bags and boxes into vehicles outside both Bolton's home and office, with one image showing an FBI agent lugging a box like it's evidence Christmas.

So, what's the deal? Is Bolton hoarding state secrets, or is this just political payback? One thing's for sure: when the feds come knocking at 7 a.m., it's going to be a bad day. 

Meanwhile, the Clintons have gone scot free.

And if you want to Buy Me A Coffee, I wouldn't stop you--it supports my work and I really appreciate it. But no pressure.

Tweet

Atlantic editor admits major claim on Trump hit piece could be wrong

Atlantic magazine Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg in a 2019 interview with

Nieman Lab’s Laura Hazard Owen said women and people of color are few and far between when it comes to writing cover stories for his magazine. And when he got pushback on Twitter for his words, he blamed the woman journalist who published the story. The theme of the interview was about recent diversity achievements of the Atlantic, the fakest of fake news magazine in America. 

Goldberg agreed that the writers of the Atlantic print edition's most important pieces are overwhelmingly White male written and it was pointed out by Nieman Lab that of the 15 issues published that year, eleven had cover stories written by men.

Here’s what Jeffrey Goldberg said:

It’s really, really hard to write a 10,000-word cover story. There are not a lot of journalists in America who can do it. The journalists in America who do it are almost exclusively white males. What I have to do — and I haven’t done this enough yet — is again about experience versus potential. You can look at people and be like, well, your experience is writing 1,200-word pieces for the web and you’re great at it, so good going! 

That’s one way to approach it, but the other way to approach it is, huh, you’re really good at this and you have a lot of potential and you’re 33 and you’re burning with ambition, and that’s great, so let us put you on a deliberate pathway toward writing 10,000-word cover stories. It might not work. It often doesn’t. But we have to be very deliberate and efficient about creating the space for more women to develop that particular journalistic muscle.

So there's that about Goldberg.

A recent anti-Trump hit piece in the Atlantic claimed that President Trump referred to soldiers who died in World War One as "losers." The piece claimed that Trump didn't want to make the helicopter trip to Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018 and "he blamed the rain for the last-minute decision, saying 'the helicopter couldn't fly' and the Secret Service wouldn't drive him there."

The hit piece even claimed that he rejected the idea of the cemetery visit because his hair would get messed up in the rain "and because he didn't think it was important to honor the American war dead," Goldberg wrote, citing only anonymous [likely make-believe] sources.

After the article was published, Goldberg went on to say that there was going to be a lot more shade thrown on Trump to follow.

But people who were with the President when the remarks were allegedly made denied he ever said them. Even John Bolton, an avid Trump-hater who wrote a book about the President, said that he never heard those words and he agreed that the reason was due to the weather:

“Marine One’s crew was saying that bad visibility could make it imprudent to chopper to the cemetery. The ceiling was not too low for Marines to fly in combat, but flying POTUS was obviously something very different. If a motorcade was necessary, it could take between ninety and a hundred and twenty minutes each way, along roads that were not exactly freeways, posing an unacceptable risk that we could not get the President out of France quickly enough in case of an emergency,” Bolton wrote. 

“It was a straightforward decision to cancel the visit but very hard for a Marine like Kelly to recommend, having originally been the one to suggest Belleau Wood… Trump agreed, and it was decided that others would drive to the cemetery instead.”

Let's not pretend if Bolton heard Trump make those remarks that he would not put it in his book. In fact, he'd probably put it on the book jacket with a cartoon bubble over Trump's head stating those words.

On Sunday, Goldberg finally admitted the White House’s account that President Trump’s trip to a cemetery of fallen World War I soldiers in France in 2018 was modified due to bad weather is probably accurate.

Probably accurate.

“I’m sure all of those things are true,” Goldberg told CNN in an interview on Friday when asked to respond to evidence a story he published saying otherwise is false.

The Atlantic's major stockholder is Laurene Jobs, the billionaire heiress to the Steve Jobs fortune and the largest Biden donor for his election campaign. So even she had a dog in this race, or in this case, a 77-year-old guy whose mental capacity has declined to the level of cabbage.

Despite conceding that the cancellation due to weather might be true, Goldberg stood by his story about President Trump’s trip to the cemetery, claiming that “the public’s interest in meeting this information outweigh the ambiguities or the difficulties of anonymous sourcing” and that he will “be continuing to make that effort to move this material directly onto the record.”

When you have a story supported only by anonymous sources in contrast to denials of the story by known sources, even some who would hope it was true, you should not go ahead and print it.

But we're just a few weeks out from the election and the mud [if that's what that funny smell is] is flying.

Yet it isn't as if The Atlantic has refused to published false stories before this one. If you believe Trump would be crazy enough to make a statement that he knows would go public and destroy his reelection hopes, then nothing could convince you otherwise, even if you were there.

President Trump denied the claims by Goldberg and his anonymous sources, saying that other people on the trip such as the Secret Service and Gen. Keith Kellogg can “refute” the allegations.

“I would be willing to swear on anything that I never said that about our fallen heroes. There is nobody that respects them more. So I just think it’s a horrible, horrible thing,” he told reporters as he deplaned from Air Force One. “We made a great evening into, frankly, a very sad evening, when I see a statement like that. No animal, nobody — what animal would say such a thing?” 

Seriously, you have to be stupid to believe this story.

C'mon, man. You know you want to follow Brain Flushings--it's free and worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a liberal sheds a tear.






Tweet

Pelosi wants Trump defense team disbarred because they disagree with her

House Leader Nancy "Hands of Fury" Pelosi claims that President Trump "cannot be acquitted" because the Republicans in the Senate did not help her Party by calling witnesses the House did not call to appear.

On Thursday, when it became obvious that the Democrats had as much chance of impeaching the president as Joe Biden has at being able to keep his hands in his pockets, Speaker Pelosi made the bizarre claim, in words and flying hands, that President Trump "cannot be acquitted," because the Senate trial lacks the witness testimony and documents [the Democrats should have subpoenaed in the House].

The San Francisco [where homelessness is considered a status symbol] Democrat attacked President Trump's impeachment defense team. Because they did their jobs, Pelosi said they've "disgraced themselves." Technically, had they not done their jobs they would have disgraced their profession. But Speaker Pelosi even suggested that they deserve disbarment over their trial remarks.

The comments came hours before Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), said he would not back efforts by Democrats to have witnesses testify at the Senate trial – all but sealing an appropriate acquittal for Trump, who is his own worst legal client.

Pelosi, who appears to be showing signs of senile dementia, challenged whether that acquittal would be valid, in remarks that seemed a bid to undermine any Trump claim of victory.

If an acquittal is invalid, then so is the impeachment. You can't have it both ways, but that's how the Democrats operate.

"He will not be acquitted," Pelosi insanely said during her weekly news conference, according to Politico. “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that. Does the president know right from wrong? I don't think so.”

A Poli Grip fail

Of course, you can be acquitted even if you don't have a trial--Nancy is trying to blow smoke up into the nether regions of her Party, because they tend to believe what they want to believe.

Democrats have been seeking to have former national security adviser John Bolton, and possibly others, testify at the trial. But they don't want Hunter Biden to testify because he is too relevant as the catalyst of this entire charade.

Bolton, who was fired in September, is reportedly willing to provide testimony that could bolster the Democrats’ arguments that Trump abused his power by seeking a quid-pro-quo deal with Ukraine.

It is probable that Trump did seek a quid pro quo with Ukraine but what he did was not impeachable--he just should have admitted it in the first place. He could have said, "Sure, I told Ukraine to investigate Burisma back in 2016. I was even concerned the Bidens were doing something untoward. At least I didn't hire someone to get fake information from Russia to hurt my chances in 2016 like Hillary did. Sue me."

Anyway, Pelosi and her kinetic dentures made combative comments about Trump’s legal team.

"I don't know how they can retain their lawyer status, in the comments that they're making," Pelosi, turning her back and reaching for her Poli Grip, told reporters. "I don't think they made the case. I think they disgraced themselves terribly in terms of their violation of what our Constitution is about and what a president's behavior should be."

Pelosi also accused other Trump allies of attempting “to dismantle the Constitution” in order to shield the president from conviction and removal from office over two articles of impeachment that the Democrat-controlled House approved in December.

Pelosi talking about the U.S. Constitution--as if the Democrats have been religiously abiding by it--is almost as funny as Eric Swalwell farting on camera with Chris Matthews and then pretending it was his coffee cup.

“Some of them are even lawyers,” Pelosi said. “Imagine that you would say — ever, of any president, no matter who he or she is or whatever party -- if the president thinks that his or her presidency ... is good for the country, then any action is justified — including encouraging a foreign government to have an impact on our elections."

She purposely misinterpreted Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz's explanation by suggesting that a president can break any law as long as he says it's for the good of the nation. He never said, nor implied that, he said this: “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” It does not imply that the "something" can be illegal, but the left would like you to believe that this is what he meant.

She and her frenetic hands and moving dentures went on and cited the Founders, as if they would have approved of the Democrats' political impeachment hoax.

When Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NJ) was asked whether or not Hillary Clinton would have been impeached if she had won the election, due to her using the Russian-generated Steele dossier to hurt Trump's chances, he claimed that it was not impeachable because she paid for it.

So if Trump gave Zelenski a dollar, all would be fine with the Democrats.

Yeah sure.

After Dershowitz was wrongfully attacked, he pushed back on Twitter:

“I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt, citing the Lincoln and Obama examples. Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack.”

Dershowitz elaborated further during an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity.”

"The point I was making was about the senators," Dershowitz said on "Hannity." "What I said [was] if you have mixed motives if you are in the public interest and you're trying to help the public, but you're also trying to get re-elected, according to [Rep. Adam] Schiff and [Rep. Jerry] Nadler, that's a crime.

President Trump and other Republicans argued that Pelosi slowed down the impeachment process, at least in part, because she realized the Democrats’ chances of winning a conviction of Trump in the Senate to be weak because it was without merit.

But all is well in the nation today and by Wednesday, all should be even better when the acquittal is likely to be given.


Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings.





Tweet

Gillibrand wants to reach out and touch someone with a tactile nuke: Bolton nearly wets himself

U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton along with his mustache, was a guest on the  Hugh Hewitt’s show, and broke up laughing, nearly wetting himself, at silly remarks made by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (Dummy-NY) showing her tremendous grasp of nuclear weaponry in which she referred to “tactile” nuclear weapons. She apparently feels they’re dangerous because they’re something you can reach out and touch and with which you can blow someone to smithereens.

Hewitt played a clip of Gillibrand speaking at a townhall in Dover, New Hampshire, in which she repeatedly referred to “tactile” nuclear weapons, which caused Bolton to go on a laugh marathon.

Here's the exchange:

Hewitt: Last question, Ambassador Bolton. The presidential campaign is underway. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand ventured into strategic matters at a town hall in Dover. Let me play you a 40 second cut of what she had to say and ask the follow up question. Cut number 17:

Gillibrand can be heard saying, “When you say you want to develop low-yield nuclear weapons that are tactile, what you’re saying is you want to use them. Now the military will make an argument to say oh, this is just again to make, we have to have an equal threat. And this, if it’s usable, then it’s a better threat. I just found that is not believable. I just, I, they’re trying to create nuclear weapons that are usable. So I opposed the entire Defense bill because of that one provision. So if I am president, I am going to make sure we unwind that completely, and I don’t think we should be trying to create tactile nuclear weapons.”

Hewitt continued, “So the…”

Bolton, laughing so hard his mustache did the Electric Slide, “Tactile nuclear weapons?”

Hewitt: Well, I was unfamiliar with the concept, Mr. Ambassador.

Bolton can’t stop laughing.

Hewitt: What are you up to?

Bolton still laughing, “I have to say, I was unfamiliar with it as well. I wonder what Senator Gillibrand knows that I don’t.”

Hewitt: Oh, they are very worried.

Bolton is still laughing uncontrollably.

Hewitt: I’ve been studying this stuff with, since President Nixon was in retirement in San Clemente. First time I’ve heard of tactile nuclear weapons. So what, is something going on at Andrew Marshall’s old office at the Pentagon we don’t know about?

Bolton: (laughing) Well, you know, Hugh, as national security advisor, I don’t get involved in politics. But I’ll just say maybe Senator Gillibrand could give me a call and tell me what she knows about those tactile nuclear weapons. I’d be interested in learning it. (laughing--see video above).

Now let's be clear. There are weapons known as "tactical" nuclear weapons. They are low-yield and destroy less stuff than the big boys [pun intended, if you get it], so there's less collateral damage. 

Former Secretary of Defense James "Mad Dog" Mattis had stated there was no such thing, asserting, "I don’t think there is any such thing as a ‘tactical nuclear weapon.’ Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game-changer."

But even if you disagree with Mattis, be assured that there are no tactile nukes in our arsenal.

Follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and will hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet

Report: WH ordered 'shocking' request for potential attack on Iran

National Security Adviser John Bolton and his mustache requested the Pentagon provide information in the form of strategic options for a strike on Iran if it ever became necessary.

Whether President Trump was aware of the request by his national security adviser for options for a strike on Iran is not known, but it seems as if the leftist media is upset with the fact that Bolton is doing his job.

Following a September mortar attack near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that was blamed on Teheran,  John Bolton requested that the Pentagon provide options for a retaliatory strike on Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.

This is exactly what he should have done.

The Pentagon is said to have followed through on the order from the White House. However, according to the newspaper report, it is not clear what became of those plans and how great the chances were of such an attack taking place. It is also not totally clear, says the Journal, whether President Donald Trump was even aware of the request made by his national security adviser.

Still, Pentagon and State Department officials were said to have been shocked by the nature of the request.

“It definitely rattled people,” [particularly Iranians who later learned that the U.S. isn't going to stand by with their thumbs stuck someplace dark] a former senior administration official told the paper. “People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”

It has nothing to do with "hitting Iran," it has to do with having a plan to hit them if it came to that. It's known as military readiness.

A spokesman for the National Security Council told the paper that the council “coordinates policy and provides the president with options to anticipate and respond to a variety of threats.”

The attack that reportedly prompted Bolton to seek information if retaliation became necessary involved three mortars fired into Baghdad’s sprawling diplomatic quarter, home to the U.S. Embassy.

The shells were said to have been launched by a group aligned with Iran.

The mortars landed in an open lot and no injuries were reported because fortunately, the group's mortar accuracy sucked, but Trump’s national security team conducted a series of meetings to discuss a forceful American response.

The operant word is "discuss."

Additionally, there was an air strike near a U.S. diplomatic facility in Basra, Iraq. In response, the U.S. announced it would close its consulate in Basra and relocate diplomatic personnel assigned there.

At the time, the White House blamed Shia militia groups and charged that “Iran did not act to stop these attacks by its proxies in Iraq, which it has supported with funding, training, and weapons.” The New York Times reported back then that the Trump administration was signaling a new phase in its confrontation with Iran, threatening to retaliate for attacks by Iranian-backed terrorists in Iraq, rather than doing nothing as former President Obama did when Iran kidnapped our sailors.

Obama on a girl's bike that identifies
as a boy's bike

Beyond warning that “America will respond swiftly and decisively in defense of American lives,” the White House offered no details about how the United States would retaliate against Iran for the attacks in Iraq. Officials at the Defense Department maintained at this point in September that there were no increased military preparations. Striking back, they warned, could provoke asymmetric attacks against American military and civilians by Iranian proxies elsewhere, according to the failing New York Times, a former newspaper.

In September, days after Trump and Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani exchanged taunts and mutual "bird-flipping" at the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly, Bolton spoke at an event elsewhere in New York and warned that “there will indeed be hell to pay” if Iran angers the United States, its allies, or harms U.S. citizens.

Finally, the United States of America has once again grown a pair. And you can bet that it puts Iran in a position that's a lot less aggressive than they were with Barry.

Will 2019 be the year you follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint? Let's hope so, because politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.




Tweet

Sens. Cotton and Cruz call on US to recognize Israel's sovereignty over Golan Heights

Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a joint statement that the United States should recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu contends.

On Sunday, Netanyahu, with U.S. national security adviser John Bolton beside him, had stated, “The Golan Heights is tremendously important for our security,” and said he'd hope to take a helicopter with Bolton to see the Golan plateau on Monday so that Bolton could "understand perfectly why we will never leave the Golan Heights, and why it is important that all countries recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights."

For his part, Bolton said the U.S. regarded the “ultimate mark of sovereignty” as a country’s ability to defend itself.

“President Trump has said repeatedly that he backs Israel’s right to self-defense," he added. "He says it proudly and unequivocally. And I would just say to any nation in this region – or not in this region – that has any doubt about America’s support for Israel’s self-defense – it better think about it again. We have the best Israel-US relationship in our history, and on our side we are certainly determined to continue that.”

Netanyahu said that Israel was grateful Trump pulled the U.S. out of “the dangerous Iran deal and imposing sanctions,” moving the capital to Jerusalem, and “unequivocally backing Israel at the United Nations.”

Netanyahu also said that the United States supports Israel’s right to self-defense “in word and in deed, and added that he was thankful “to know that we have the support and backing of our great friend and ally, the United States of America.”

Cruz and Cotton’s statement echoed the Israeli prime minister’s perspective on the Golan Heights, asserting:

Israel's northern border has become increasingly dangerous in recent weeks with the discovery of Hezbollah’s terror tunnels and Bashar al Assad’s continued efforts to consolidate control of Syria with the assistance of Iranian shock troops. Responding to the threat posed by Iran and its proxies requires ensuring that Israel can defend its territory and its citizens from attacks. To support Israel’s right to self-defense, Washington should take the long overdue step of affirming Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

Israel captured the Golan Heights in the 1967 Six Day War after Syria and other Arab nations attacked the Jewish state.

In 1981, Israel annexed the Golan Heights, but since then, the U.S. has refused to recognize the region as sovereign territory of Jewish state in spite of the fact that it is usually understood that, in the spoils of war, the country that wins gets to keep the spoils, not the losers. And Israel didn't even start the war.

In mid-December, Cotton and Cruz introduced a resolution that urged the Senate to recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The resolution stated that the United States would support Israel’s right to defend itself; that it is in
United States’ national security interest to ensure Israel’s security, and that Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights would ensure that the Assad regime “faces diplomatic and geopolitical consequences for the killing of civilians, the ethnic cleansing of Syrian Sunnis, and the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

When you consider that Israel is the only civilized country in all the Middle East, and our only real ally, you simply have to give Trump the credit he deserves for having their back against all the surrounding nations that want to destroy Israel.

It's a new year and the world still hasn't come to an end with President Trump in the White House, in spite of what the media and the left [but I repeat myself] would have you believe.

I hope that you will follow Brain Flushings throughout the year and feel free to comment on any issues of concern. Please subscribe and check out the sponsors on these pages too.




Tweet

POTUS and FLOTUS make 1st visit to Iraq

President Trump and first lady Melania showed up in Iraq on Wednesday for a surprise visit with our troops and senior military leadership at Al Asad Air Base. He told officials that he has "no plans at all" to remove any of our 5,000 troops from the country.

This is the Commander in Chief's first visit as president to a combat zone and it comes soon after he announced that he was pulling all our troops from Syria, is spite of his policy to be unpredictable "unlike Obama." There were rumors that he planned to remove thousands of troops in Afghanistan but he cleared that up right away.

The president was joined at the air base by National Security Adviser John Bolton and his mustache for meetings with political and military leaders.

Trump spent around three hours on the ground with First Lady Melania visiting U.S. Troops, according to Reuters.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted:

"President Trump and the First Lady traveled to Iraq late on Christmas night to visit with our troops and Senior Military leadership to thank them for their service, their success, and their sacrifice and to wish them a Merry Christmas," 

Trump's surprise visit to the region came a week after he declared ISIS had been “defeated” in Syria in a tweet and ordered all American diplomats and soldiers out of the country. The reason for surprise should be obvious since the territory can be dangerous.

The Obama administration first deployed troops to Syria in 2015 in partnership with Kurdish-led forces fighting ISIS. Before the deployment, the U.S. flew airstrikes in Syria.

Outgoing Defense Secretary James Mattis signed orders on Sunday to pull all American troops out of Syria in the coming weeks, a senior defense official told Fox News. Pentagon officials at the time refused to discuss specifics, including the timeline, citing operational security for the roughly 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria.

The president told reporters traveling with him that he wants to get U.S. soldiers home from Syria and that Iraq can still be used as a base to stage attacks on Islamic State militants if needed, according to the Associated Press.

Trump added that if needed, the U.S. can attack IS "so fast and so hard" that they "won't know what the hell happened."

Yes, Mr. Trump, it would make their head spin.


Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do.




Tweet

First lady's office seeks firing of deputy security adviser

The office of first lady Melania Trump said on Tuesday that Mira Ricardel, the deputy national security adviser, a position just below that of John Bolton, should be given her walking papers. This is a rather bold move coming after President Trump is contemplating further firings of his Cabinet after the attorney general Jeff Sessions was forced to resign.

Stephanie Grisham, Melania's communication director and not related to writer John Grisham as far as we can tell, said in a statement, "It is the position of the Office of the First Lady that [Ricardel] no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House."

Why?

Because it is alleged by the Wall Street Journal that Ricardel and Melania Trump's staff had a dispute over seating arrangement on a plane during the first lady's trip to Africa last month. The Journal also added that Grisham's office suspects Ricardel of leaking negative stories about Mrs. Trump and her staff.

"If so, she should be waterboarded and fired thereafter," an anonymous source told CNN's Jim Acosta.

It was further reported that Ricardel fought with Defense Secretary Mad Dog Mattis over policy differences, staffing decisions, and the best way to kill someone to neutralize the threat.

Ricardel assumed the deputy national security adviser in May, one month after POTUS appointed John Bolton as national security adviser to replace Henry McMaster.

The angst over Ricardel comes at a time Trump is considering changes to his Cabinet that might include the firings of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and first lady Melania Trump, although that's somewhat doubtful at this time.

WJS reported Tuesday that Trump is "resigned" to the possibility of a Kelly canning if Nielsen is made to resign.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Iran goes bug-bang ballistic over sanctions: Rouhani grabs his crotch and talks all bellicose and stuff

The Trump administration snapped back sanctions on Iran and they liked it about as much as a beaver with dentures.

The Islamic Republic of Iran went ballistic on Monday and began the day with air defense drills and an acknowledgement from President Hassan Rouhani that the country now faces a "war situation." This has obviously increased tensions as our tough approach to the s***hole country takes hold.

The sanctions now have ended all the economic benefits the US has granted the nation that chants "Death to America!" "Death to Israel!" with their morning tea that we granted them since the 2015 crappy nuclear deal.

Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam and buddies with Obama and Keith Ellison, to name a few, led the same "Death to America" chant in Iran, and even with his multitude of anti Semitic rhetoric, has still not been banned from Twitter or Facebook.

Ostensibly, Iran continues to abide by the accord that limits its enrichment of uranium, but hey, you never know. Iran's officials threaten they could resume enrichment at the drop of a turban.

The sanctions we've imposed really hurt Iran's vital oil industry, a source where much of their feeble economy depends. Their money has plummeted over the last year, and prices have skyrocketed as a result.

"Today, Iran is able to sell its oil and it will sell," Rouhani bragged Monday as the sanctions began.

The military drill was televised on state TV. It was to continue through Tuesday as Americans go to the polls. Iranian army Gen. Habibillah Sayyari [his Jewish friends call him "Hi Bubbalah"] said the country's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, the same crap-weasels who kidnapped our sailors a few years ago in the Straits of Hormuz, were taking part in the exercise. And while many of them needed a shower before the exercises began, all will surely need one afterward.

Rouhani pledged to government officials on state TV that Iran would overcome the sanctions, and Kyrsten Sinema, along with some of her anti-Trump friends, sang "We Shall Overcome" for the Iranian cause, but added, "Let's not forget about the Taliban! Let's give them a big hand!"

Iran's national currency, the rial, currently trades at 145,000 to a U.S. buck, down from 40,500 to the US dollar from last year. The chaos it caused resulted in mass anti-government protests leading to 5,000 arrests and only 25 people killed, as some demonstrations continue to this day.

The Trump administration say the sanctions are aimed at persuading the government of Iran to radically change its bellicose policies, including support for regional militant groups and its development of long-range ballistic missiles that they would love to use on the US and Israel.

On the other hand, both National Security Advisor John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal lawyer, made public statements supporting the overthrow of Iran's theocratic, dictatorial government.


Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Trump says of Mattis: 'He's sort of a Democrat' and might leave administration

In a "60 Minutes" interview host Lesley Stahl asked President Trump whether Secretary of Defense James Mattis might leave his administration just a few weeks since journalist Bob Woodward wrote in his book "Fear" that Mattis compared the POTUS to a "fifth-or-sixth-grader."

Trump responded, "Well, I don't know. He hasn't told me that."

"I have a very good relationship with him," Trump continued. "I had lunch with him two days ago. ...It could be that he is. I think he's sort of a Democrat, if you want to know the truth. But General Mattis is a good guy. We get along very well. He may leave. I mean, at some point, everybody leaves. Everybody. People leave. That's Washington."

Leave, leave, leave--everybody. They leave.

Regarding reports that the White House is in chaos, Trump called the claim "so false" and "fake news," adding, "I have people now on standby that will be phenomenal. They'll come into the administration.

"Yeah, other people will go, sure. We have a great Cabinet. There are some people I'm not happy with. I have some people that I'm not thrilled with. And I have other people that I'm beyond thrilled with."

He has people he's not happy with, nor thrilled with, but he has others that he's beyond thrilled with, which brings to mind many questions.

President Trump's repetitive comments came soon after U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley abruptly announced her resignation, to take effect at year's end. The left-leaning media  claimed the departure indicated an extraordinarily high number of high-level departures from the Trump administration, but after looking at the numbers, the nonprofit Brookings Institution found that previous administrations lost a similar number of top officials.

After chinless Syrian dictator Bashar Assad launched a chemical attack on Syrians in April of last year, Woodward's book claimed that Trump demanded Mattis launch an assassination attempt.

"Let's f**king kill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the f**king lot of them," Trump allegedly said. According to Woodward, Mattis told an aide, "We're not going  to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured."

Mattis, according to the book, was also caught by surprise while on vacation when Trump proposed a ban on transgender troops. Mattis, who opposed the policy, has since unveiled a policy much more aligned with Trump's requests, but several lawsuits have temporarily put a hold on enforcing it.

Mattis said in a statement that "the contemptuous words about the president attributed to me in Woodward's book were never uttered by me or in my presence."

Woodward is known to document "facts" that are uncorroborated. Kind of sounds like the Kavanaugh debacle. Trump openly wondered if Woodward is a "Dem operative." He also posted on Twitter in September calling his book a "con on the public."

Mattis worked as head of the U.S. Central Command under former President Barack Hussein Obama, replacing David Petraeus. Mattis openly disagreed with Trump on several issues, favoring the preservation of certain aspects of the Obama Iran nuclear deal. Trump had called that deal a "horrible, one-sided" giveaway, basically the worst deal any human being has ever made in the history of the world, and maybe even the universe. Mattis believed the deal included "robust" measures and overall, it helped our interests [like not dying in a blinding nuclear blast].

Mattis views NATO as an alliance that's key to maintaining international order, while Trump criticized member nations for not paying their fair share of their GDP for national defense.

Secretary Mattis was able to change Trump's mind in certain areas. He convinced POTUS to abandon his stated desire to torture terror detainees and also got him to send more troops to Afghanistan.

There are no overt indications that Mattis has been withdrawing from his normal duties, and he will be heading to Vietnam on Tuesday, where he will visit Ho Chi Minh City [aka: Saigon] as the administration is attempting to counter China's military assertiveness.

Some see the arrival of Deputy National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel to the White House in May, as a sign Trump is planning to fire Mattis after the midterms next month. Ricardel and Mattis have often sparred in the past.

Also, Trump's hiring of U.N. ambassador John Bolton as national security adviser is a sign Trump's shift to a more hardline stance than Mattis supports, shows that the president is looking to change tactics and may want Mattis to go.

"I heard you're actually the Devil incarnate and I wanted to meet you," Mattis told Bolton in an open mic exchange when they met at the Pentagon earlier in the year.

In September, Mattis downplayed reports that he'd be leaving the Defense Department.

But we shall see.


Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Trump closing PLO's Washington office in pro-Israel move

WASHINGTON -- President Trump is closing the Palestinian Liberation Organization's mission in Washington, D.C. It is the latest blow against the terrorist organization and an international court during the stalled Middle East peace process. The PLO rejected the U.S. peace proposal without even reading it, so Trump took the next logical step and told them to "get outta Dodge."

The administration's move to close the PLO office isn't directly connected to the White House's opposition to the International Criminal Court (ICC), however, the administration is trying to make it seem like it is connected.

This weekend is Rosh Hashana, the "Head of the Jewish New Year, and the Trump administration is talking about the holiday and the ICC in order to piss off the Palestinians, and boy, is it ever working.

On Monday, the State Department said that the administration is closing down the PLO office in Washington because the Palestinians are avoiding dealing with the peace agreement with Israel. In fact, there's a provision in a U.S. law that says the PLO mission must close if the peace process does not go forward.

National Security Adviser John Bolton made it emphatically clear that the U.S. will not recognize the ICC and it has been effectively "dead" to us. The Palestinians are trying to use the ICC to prosecute Israel for war crimes, evidently because they are not allowing the Palestinians to kill them without a fight.

The Trump administration is attempting to connect the two and pressure the Palestinians to have direct talks with Israel. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert called the two situations "consistent."

Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said that "This is yet another affirmation of the Trump administration's policy to collectively punish the Palestinian people." [Rockets, fire balloons, Molotov cocktails and knife attacks to follow.]

For decades, the U.S. policy toward the region has been to position itself as a neutral party, although we've always had close ties with Israel. The U.S. has been willing to call out both sides when they take steps viewed as bellicose or contrary to the pursuit of peace. President Obama would even go so far as to blame Israel for all the problems in the region as he reminds us how the Islamic call to prayer from the mosque was the most beautiful sound he has ever heard.

The U.S. doesn't recognize Palestinian territories as an independent state, but the U.N. General Assembly with its Islamic anti-Zionist majority, overwhelmingly voted in 2012 to recognize Palestine as a "non-member observer state."

How can Israel have peace when 
this is how Palestinians 
raise their children

Closing the PLO mission will likely create stronger Palestinians' opposition to the Trump peace plan now being stitched together by Trump's Middle East mavens, son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Jason Greenblatt.

The Palestinian leadership is openly hostile to any proposal by the Trump administration due to their pro-Israel bias. [By 'pro-Israel bias' the PLO means the desire not to see Israel destroyed by Hamas or any other Islamic country.]

In another strong move, the State Department announced that the US is ending its years of funding for the U.N. agency that helps Palestinian refugees--mainly because the money mostly goes to fund families of terrorists who died in the cause of jihad. The Palestinians have even used money meant for education for the same funding purpose. The administration said the money they cut went to "high priority projects elsewhere."

PLO Executive Committee Member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi called the U.S. policy "blackmail" that "once again seeks to punish the Palestinian people as a whole who are already victims of the ruthless Israeli military occupation."

Dr. Ashrawi speaks as if we owe those morons the money as he portrays his terrorist organization as 'victims' rather than 'victimizers.' When Hamassholes throw Molotov cocktails at IDF troops, they aren't going to stand by and do nothing.

That's what President Obama did.


Please follow Brain Flushings and take a moment to visit the sponsors on this page. Thank you.



Tweet

Bolton suggest Brennan may have misused classified info.

National Security Adviser John Bolton suggested on Sunday that former CIA director John "Verbose" Bolton may have misused classified information and that the "unprecedented leaks" from this administration may be the catalyst for broader change in how security clearances are handled.

It's about time.

Bolton was in the Jewish State for the first time in his role as a Trump administration official. He was there to discuss national security issues with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu along with other top officials.

"In terms of what [Brennan] said, since he left, a number of people have commented that he couldn't be in the position he is in, criticizing Trump, unless he did use classified info," Bolton told the leftist ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "I don't know the specifics, but I do know when he was [CIA] director, I was troubled by comments in public, and the politicization."

The mustachioed Bolton added: "My opinion is that he was politicizing intelligence," and saying that Brennan failed to keep intact the "wall of separation between intelligence and policy."

POTUS revoked Brennan's unnecessary security clearance on Wednesday, saying [Trump never suggests, he says] that Brennan has politicized his security clearance and misled Congress about CIA spying in the Senate.

He also voted for the Communist Party and called Trump treasonous, which is a death penalty offense.

Bolton suggested that a broader review of who should retain their security clearance after leaving government service may be needed.

"I think it's certainly appropriate in a time of unprecedented leaks of classified info," he said. "I don't see that there would be anything wrong if it were determined to go that way to review the policies about former officials having clearances. Sometimes it can be useful."

Please consider following Brain Flushings and take a moment to visit the sponsors on this page. Thank you.



Tweet

Are Obama's sanctions a limp-wristed slap?

Now that he's a lame duck, President Obama grew a pair and finally made a stronger gesture than he's used to making to Russia: he expelled 35 Russian intelligence officers and imposed sanctions as part of a "necessary and appropriate response" to Moscow's alleged hacking into the DNC email system and interfering with the presidential election.

It isn't as if the Obama administration had no clue the Russians do this kind of stuff, they just waited until after Hillary Clinton lost the election to do anything about it. If Clinton would have won, aside from Americans having to listen to that shrew for 4 years, the administration would have done nothing and would have denied they influenced the election.

Experts are questioning whether the limp-wristed sanctions are strong enough to deter Putin, but it's doubtful.

Former UN ambassador John Bolton told "Fox & Friends"on Friday, "I don't think they will have much impact at all." He added that Russia's behavior was an "attack on our constitutional system" and "it is not enough to say, and people should be very careful about this, to say, well, it didn't actually have an impact on the election."

Yes, what Russia did was very serious business and something has to be done. But getting Obama to be tough on our enemies is as frustrating as getting him to be supportive of our allies.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) issued a joint statement saying that the sanctions are "long overdue." They added that it was a "small price for Russia to pay for its brazen attack on American democracy."

McCain as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee scheduled a hearing on foreign cyber threats and intends to toughen sanctions. The meeting is scheduled for next Thursday.

When Obama initiated the sanctions, Putin condemned the actions and vowed to retaliate, but subsequently issued a statement saying he was "reserving the right to retaliate."

Smart.

He further said that Russia "wouldn't stoop to the level of 'kitchen' irresponsible diplomacy," but he's as honest as a Clinton not under oath.

Olga Oliker (her friends call her "Oh Oh") director of Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that sanctions would have an immediate impact by showing Putin "what can be done," such as imposing sanctions on firms that deal with Russian intelligence.

"In terms of the measures responding to harassment of US diplomats, the real proof of the pudding will be Russian actions going forward," she told FoxNews.com.

While experts agree that Obama's decision sends a message, it's uncertain how it will affect Putin. 

Probably not very much.

Personally, I suspect Putin is laughing to himself over Obama's impotence and lack of foreign affairs finesse. 

Lee Zeldin (R-NY) said the report that accompanied Obama's executive order was "miserably brief" and lacked the transparency he is known for in his own mind.

"It uses big font and pictures and leaves certain holes in it that are bigger than the paper it is written on. Frankly, it raises more questions than it answers about Russia's activities," Zeldin said. He added that he thinks the intelligence briefings President-elect Trump will get next week will help shape his strategy for dealing with Putin.

Once in office, Trump will have the authority to overturn this, and other, executives orders by Obama. But he needs to make any executive order he pens, a lot stronger than Obama's.



Tweet