I originally shared this on my Congressional campaign Facebook, but given my professional background and that it is not really about MA-3 (frankly, with self-awareness, these issues are of far greater gravity than any Congressional race), I thought it might be of interest here. And also, with the NFL decision, North Korea summit-breakup, Planned Parenthood defunding, EPA kicking out CNN and AP and so much else — it’s crucial that we don’t let potentially institution and norm-warping actions, like delegitimizing our whole national security establishment, to go unchecked even within our own progressive circles.
“I am running for Congress to help build a better future for the working and middle class of MA-3. However, as a candidate and someone who worked in the Intelligence Community for 13 years, I have to respond to the latest unfounded accusations by the President of a conspiracy against him undertaken within our government. My former colleagues in the Intelligence Community and civil service are bound by oaths of office and professionalism to silence and quiet dignity. Now outside government, I consider it part of my oath to speak, as I have sadly had to before on this matter.
I worked under the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations. I worked with people who served since the Kennedy Administration. For 13 years, I worked with people from the agencies most frequently denigrated by the current President– the State Department, CIA, and FBI. And in all those contacts, in all that work, in different agencies and roles, including supporting seniormost national decisionmakers– I never came across a single person, or a person who had known a person, who had worked to undermine the elected representatives of our country or the President, no matter their individual politics. Now, there are those outside the Intelligence Community that have sought to politicize intelligence. And there have been times– amidst many unsung successes– when the integration or quality of intelligence failed, such as 9/11 and the assessment of WMD in Iraq. And there were times where– under the direction of elected political leaders– actions of the Intelligence Community did not meet the test of morality, such as the use of torture in the years following 9/11. But the strict non-partisanship of the analysts, collectors, agents, diplomats, and other personnel of our intel, foreign affairs and federal law enforcement agencies in the performance of their duties has never been compromised in the way the President alleges.
The Intelligence Community, the FBI, the State Department, and the public servants throughout our government do not deserve the bullying attacks by this President — who knows that if any current or former officials seek to defend themselves, he can simply twist their words, or simply make up new words, to serve his own political ends– as he did today with former Director of National Intelligence Clapper. And sadly, the tactic works with some people.
But a tactic can only work for so long.
This tactic is in service of a strategy to discredit opponents and to distract away from corruption, investigations, and most of all from the continued failure of this Administration to make lives any better for working and middle-class people. Those of any political party or none who want a better politics and actual progress for the basic economic and quality of life needs of ordinary people – from better pay to lower health and child care costs and so much more – need to see the strategy for what it is.
That is why we must briskly refute the lie, avoid endless debate within a false frame of reference or repeating his language that seeks to twist the meaning of words and institutions, and move on to have lively debates among people of good will on policies that will help ordinary people in their daily lives. I have faith that we can and will rebuild that kind of politics again– not today or this year, but soon.
For tonight, I stand with my former colleagues, their sense of mission across divisions and despite pressures, which exemplifies the way forward for our politics. I particularly stand with this former colleague, as I was proud to do on other occasions.
Thank you, Director Clapper, for standing up for our shared profession, for the truth, and for the sake of the integrity of our democracy.”
My late brother, Jimmy, a decorated U.S. Navy combat veteran, served for 25 years in the FBI Boston office. I can’t begin to express the rage I feel when I hear this bone spur draft dodger denigrate the patriotic, honorable men and women of our intelligence community who dedicate their lives every day in service to our country.
This exemplifies the importance of separating institutional from personal behavior.
I’m quite sure that “Jimmy” was a fine and upstanding man. I have no doubt that he was everything you say.
I’m equally sure that the agency he served — the Boston FBI office specifically, and the FBI in general — was a shameful disgrace to the values we all hold dear.
The Boston FBI office betrayed Jimmy and the rest of us during the Whitey Bulger years.
I hate and despise Mr. Trump as much as anyone. That doesn’t change the reality of the awful things that the FBI (and for that matter the CIA and NSA) has done. It makes me sad that fine men and women like Jimmy were betrayed by these agencies and their behavior.
Please allow me to both support and empathize with your feelings towards your brother and towards Mr. Trump, and simultaneously decline to support the FBI, CIA, or NSA.
Unless Chandler is running for Congress because she likes being lied to, thanking Clapper makes no sense.
I agree. There are plenty of ways to attack the Trump administration, but touting a relationship with Clapper, who did indeed lie to Congress, is not one. Chandler’s post reminds me of what is wrong with the current political dialogue: It resembles team sports, where the fans unflinchingly cheer on their team regardless of their obvious shortcomings.
Clapper can say what he wants and I generally agree with his comments. But his past actions do not represent my values. Those that give him a pass on lying to Congress to cover up govt intrusion into our privacy, is not putting the values of our Democracy first and foremost. We need leaders that are NOT simple cheerleaders for “our” team. Cheerleading is not leadership.
And FYI, I got no dog in this hunt. I live out of district and I am simply reacting to a post from a Congressional candidate giving unquestioned praise to a man who felt it was OK to lie to Congress…the very elected-body she aspires to become part of.
Isn’t it possible to in turn praise and criticize the same person as they deserve it? I know plenty of us feel that way about James Comey.
Trump’s attacks are bad and dumb, but we’re supposed to believe the CIA, NSA, and FBI are good? No thank you.
Are we going to hear about the honorable men and women of ICE if Trump says something mean about them?
Sure, if ICE starts acting civilized and not harsh enough for Trump, and Trump attacks them for it, I’m sure we will defend ICE in that instance.
That would be incredibly dumb and pointless. ICE is a terrorist organization and should be abolished (with charges against leaders and many officers). That doesn’t change if Trump attacks them. Their purpose is to never to act “civilized.” They did not under Bush, nor Obama, and certainly not under Trump. Anyone who works for ICE is disgusting and should be shunned.
Democrats (and I’m not entirely convinced Chandler is a real one) should not automatically embrace the American security establishment just because el caudillo Donald Trump has been unable to shape it to his own purposes.
Let us not forget that the FBI ran (still runs) the CointelPro program, spied on MLK, anti-war groups, infiltrated mosques, murdered Black Panthers, and its current darling Jim Comey called for back-doors in cellphones and encryption algorithms.
And if anyone wasn’t paying attention to Ed Snowden, the NSA and CIA did even worse — black sites, extreme rendition, torture, global surveillance. Remember that? My, how short the public memory is!
So it is with considerable annoyance that I must remind Democrats that people like Alexandra Chandler should be firmly rejected by a justifiably suspicious electorate. They have no role to play in further damaging what’s left of our democracy.
Ms. Chandler, please retreat to the dark hole you came from.
And don’t forget the now regular railroading of young men into terrorism charges. There was a recent in MA. The stories are all very similar. Young, disaffected man starts looking into radical jihadism and then there’s an FBI informant coaching them and pushing them to buy guns or showing them how to build a pipe bomb. Then there’s an arrest and 10+ year prison sentence. If not for the entrapment-like activities of the FBI these kids would probably just stop at posting dumb stuff on message boards.
The entire national security (and local security) apparatus should be viewed with (at the very least) serious suspicion by anyone who claims to be a progressive. These are not honorable and great institutions who sometimes make mistakes. The institutions are problematic, even if some great men and women work in them. Embracing them with downright affection is scary and I believe that thinking should be rejected by Democrats and progressives if we ever hope to undo some of the worst abuses this country has perpetrated.
You dug pretty far back in history for some of that didn’t you? We know the FBI in the Hoover era did not cover itself in glory, but unlike Trump most of these rank and file are dedicated professionals and patriots. If I had to make a second choice right now (Barbara L’Italien is my candidate.) it may well be Alexandra Chandler as we could use her intelligence background to hold the White House’s feet to the fire.
Uhh, he “dug” back about 1 year.
They spied on MLK and anti-war groups about a year ago?
He cited very recent and current examples of abuses. The other ones demonstrate how bad they have been consistently 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
They pressure young men into muslim-related terrorism charges today, taking sad internet posters to 10-30 years in federal prison.
It’s pretty clear to me, at least, that the FBI killed witnesses who they feared would tell the truth about the FBI involvement in the Marathon bombing fiasco. The Boston office of the FBI went out of its way to hire the thug (Aaron McFarlane) dismissed by the Oakland CA police to do its dirty work in the Florida shooting of the inconvenient Marathon bombing witness.
Just to refresh our collective memory, Mr. McFarlane is the dirty cop in Oakland CA who “retired” on a “disability pension” as he and the city of Oakland faced the consequences of his involvement with the infamous “Riders” abuse trial. He continued to collect his disability pension while on the payroll of the Boston office of the FBI. It’s clearly fraudulent, and it’s clear that nobody will do anything about it.
That wasn’t so long ago (it is still being litigated), and it was shameful.
This is the same FBI that was shamelessly corrupt during the Whitey Bulger era.
I’m not going to take a position either way in this race, because it’s not my district. I am not, however, impressed by efforts of Ms. Chandler to highlight her connections to our various intelligence agencies.
I see no evidence that either Mr. Gorbachev or Mr. Putin ever used their intelligence background to either restrain the KGB or held feet of the Kremlin to the fire. George H. W. Bush was a former CIA director and it was no accident that the perpetrators of the Iran Contra scandal were never punished. In fact, it looks to me as though public officials with ties to intelligence agencies generally work to advance the agenda of those agencies.
Ms. Chandler has posted three diaries here in connection with her candidacy, and each has emphasized her connection to the intelligence community.
I am, frankly, ready for her to move on to the rest of her qualifications.
The FBI killed witnesses? You had better have pretty strong evidence for such a charge! I remember George Tenet’s outlandish “slam dunk” comment regarding Iraqi WMDs, but didn’t get the memo that progressives were supposed to be in general anti-intelligence, anti-law enforcement, anti-security. It is an attitude I cannot abide. Someone like Chandler who has been in the trenches of that line of work may be exactly whom we need to restore respect for them.
We went through all this when it happened. You ignored the evidence then, just I’m confident you’ll ignore it now.
The victim was Ibragim Todashev. The shooter was Aaron McFarlane (emphasis mine):
Yes, the FBI cleared Mr. McFarlane after an “investigation” — this is ALWAYS the case. The facts remain what they are. Mr. Todashev was unarmed and signing a confession when he was executed — seven shots at point-blank range including one in the back of his head.
I am not “anti-intelligence, anti-law enforcement, anti-security”. I am instead opposed to government authorities who recruit known abusers, who participate in hiding their fraudulent disability scams, who use them as assassins to murder inconvenient witnesses, and who then use the power of their office to hide their behavior in self-serving “investigations” that are simply whitewashes.
If your goal is to “restore respect” for these agencies, it would be far more effective to demand that they come clean about their past offenses, purge themselves of dishonest thugs like Aaron McFarlane, and perhaps even conduct ACTUAL investigations.
The first and foremost value drilled into every man and woman who works in intelligence is loyalty to the agency they serve. There are no living “ex” CIA operatives — once a CIA operative, a man or woman is ALWAYS expected to be ready to answer the call whenever the agency needs them.
Is Mr. Putin a better official because he’s “been in the trenches” of the KGB? Was George H. W.Bush a better President because he had “been in the trenches” of the CIA?
The behavior of Mr. Bush during and after the Iran Contra scandal shows the reality of what happens when we elect CIA officials to high office. I am dumbfounded that you think Ms. Chandler would behave any differently.
I know you are not in CD3, but you clearly have not heard much from her on the campaign trail. I am confident from what I have heard from and about her that her intelligence background lends itself to rigorous oversight of the intelligence community, and especially the misuse and abuse of same by a certain POTUS.
All you have to do, Christopher is to imagine the long Meandering self praising drool that constituted Chandler’s post and imagine that she is sitting in a Committee hearing.
@Christopher “I know you are not in CD3”:
What I know about Ms. Chandler is that she has posted three diaries here (which I greatly appreciate). She has chosen to emphasize her connections to the intelligence community in each.
I encourage Ms. Chandler to tell us more about the other aspects of her background and her stances on other issues.
To wit:
1. What is your stance towards the unprecedented and intensifying wealth concentration in today’s economy? What do you think is an appropriate role for the Congress to take with respect to these changes? What do you think is an appropriate rate for the gift and estate tax?
2. What is your stance towards banking and finance legislation? Do you think Congress should do more or less to restrain “too big to fail” financial institutions?
3. What is your stance towards healthcare? What do you think is an appropriate role for government to take with respect towards healthcare? Do you agree that access to quality healthcare is a right that every person is entitled to? Do you support single-payer government-sponsored healthcare?
There are others, of course. These are the first three that came to mind for me.
SomervilleTom, I am glad that you have appreciated the posts. To go back first to some of the discussion around my own roles and what I’ve posted here, and then to answer your questions in the next comment.
Part of why I do emphasize my connection to the IC is because I both know and very much understand the lack of trust my former colleagues have in many circles. And as a progressive who worked in that world for a long time I try to offer myself as a resource for the questions I can answer within classification obligations. I tried to acknowledge the past abuses (in brief) in this post without recounting them in an already long post that I wanted focused on the current moment and the dangerous (to our democracy) accusations being made by the President. Clearly, the IC has taken actions harmful to the United States and repugnant to human rights, from overthrowing Iran’s government to torturing people after 9/11, to actions in Central America. The narrow point I was making is that intel personnel hadn’t crossed the specific line of what President Trump has accused them of– conspiring to undermine or overthrow a President and inject themselves into our domestic political process. And I would also note that in the case of a number of past abuses, they were at the specific direction of political leaders, who must share in the blame.
Also, as an administrative note/clarification, I had and have colleagues at the CIA, NSA, and FBI– but I never worked at any of those places. I was an employee of the Office of Naval Intelligence (so the U.S. Navy) for my entire career.
Such as my IC background may be of value in Congress- my hope is that it can be of use to help protect the Mueller investigation, to understand its results more fully when they come out, to be of support if additional House investigations into Russian actions are undertaken, and to help push back with an understanding of our non military tools — diplomacy, development, people-to-people contacts, intelligence, etc. — against the rush to military options in places such as Iran and North Korea. I believe rigorous oversight of the intel agencies is an absolute must, and is best undertaken with a mix of people with zero history in that world whatsoever, who can bring a very necessary detached perspective to the oversight, and some like me who can help ask reveltory questions grounded in understanding from the inside.
On to your domestic policy questions next!
SomervilleTom– answers to your domestic policy questions!
1) We are in a Second Gilded Age, and like the first one it is now eclipsing in its damage to the working and middle class, we need to take big, non-incremental actions — as Roosevelt did– to stop and reverse our slide into oligarchy. Congress should have a leading role in this, because the federal government, specifically several GOP Congresses, has been the leading partner in enabling this trend. Our aim should be nothing less than that every full-time job in this country must be a living wage job. To do that– to both increase wages and the opportunities to get higher paying jobs, I’d– among other measures– raise the federal minimum wage, expand the earned income tax credit, and implement a federal job guarantee, while also capping childcare costs, providing no-cost community college / vocational training / public universities. To fund that, I’d go back to Clinton era tax rates for those over 250K a year, implement special tax brackets for those above $1 million from 45-49%, end tax breaks for corporate inversions and deferred foreign income, and implement a financial transaction tax. I haven’t studied scoring of different gift and estate tax scenarios, but I would certainly roll back the exclusion amount on estates and gifts from $11 million to something below its previous level of $5.4 million, probably closer to $1 million, above which I would support a gift/estate tax of at least 40%. I would only want to ensure that genuinely family-run businesses run as sole proprietorships or similar structures can be protected if their value/assets happen to be in that range of a few million dollars.
2. Congress should do more to address the “too big to fail” institutions, which are still not properly postured for an economic shock. I would support higher reserve limits, more rigorous use of antirust law, and the CFPB should be further strengthened to address issues like payday lending– the opposite of what is happening now. I did not support the roll-back of Dodd-Frank legislation, though it could have been worse. Part of why I support a financial transaction tax is the concept that we have already used public money to bail out these institutions, it is not only appropriate (and a long overdue recognition of the changing nature of our economy) to look to these institutions in particular to help us make critical investments to ensure we still have a working class and middle class in this country.
3. Healthcare is a human right, and the federal government should be the guarantor of that right as it is for so many others. Because of my experience as vice-chair of the board of a not profit community health center serving 16,000 patients a year, I know the limits of what is achievable in our current system. I’ve also been without health insurance, in the period of time between law school and joining the Intel Community– I went without pain medication or physical therapy for a L4/L5 herniated disc. And my father had multiple sclerosis, and we had to negotiate pre-existing condition issues– I learned that phrase when I was about 12. Finally, as a transgender woman, I had to pay for thousands of dollars of healthcare costs not covered by insurance, even though I was fortunate to have insurance period, or the ability to pay for those costs, period. So I have a lot of passion and difficult personal experience I bring to this. I support a transition to a single-payer system, though incremental expansion of the current Medicare program (with improved benefits), both reducing the eligibility age, allowing individuals in small firms to opt in to the program, and moving CHIP into that program and auto-enrolling all children at birth, with the aim of getting all Americans into the program in a transition period of a few years– basically the Sanders-Conyers proposal with the modification/addition of CHIP migration. I’d heavily invest in community health centers and give the government the ability to negotiate drug prices in Medicare– useful even if we are within the current system for a certain period of time (which I hope we can get out of sooner rather than later).
For any of these answers, I’ll be happy to elaborate further in follow on questions– I’d also encourage you to check out my platform which has further details at https://www.alexandrachandler.com/issues/
Thanks again!
@ Ms. Chandler: I appreciate your thoughtful replies.
This last comment in particular (responding to my three questions) would sway me to support you if I lived in CD3.
Thank you again for clarifying these, and welcome to BMG.
Thank you for your replies.
One thing I want to press you on is your statement about revenue. We do not need tax changes to fund any of the things you support. (We may want to tax for redistributive purposes, but we don’t need taxes to “fund” anything.)
This is the kind of thinking that we should reject as progressives. We can afford any of these things by simply passing them into law. We don’t need to have tax revenue in advance or at all because that is simply not how government spending works.
If we continue believe (incorrectly) that we must raise money from powerful interests before we can make important “investments” we help ensure they won’t happen.
Please check out the work of Stephanie Kelton, Warren Mosler, Randall Wray, Pavlina Tcherneva, and others working in MMT (Modern Monetary Theory).
A couple more things: Last I checked GHWB was a revered elder statesman, possibly the last GOP POTUS to be really qualified to be POTUS. Second, I still fail to see a deliberate execution style hit, which is what you make it sound like McFarlane did, as if he were given orders from above to deliberately seek out and assassinate a witness as if this were a mob hit.
An unarmed man shot in his own apartment seven times including at least one head-shot qualifies as an “execution style” hit in my book.
Are you ok with Mr. McFarlane’s disability fraud? Are you not suspicious about why his dark history with the Oakland CA police force didn’t disqualify him from the FBI background check? Are you not curious about why all these “investigations” into these questions have completely disappeared from the radar?
It appears to me that Mr. McFarland was, in fact, recruited as a hit-man, sent on a mission to execute his target, and was quietly removed from the FBI after his mission was accomplished.
“As if this were a mob hit”? Yes. Exactly. That’s precisely what it looks like to me. And it is not the only example of this in the recent history of the FBI.
Meanwhile, regarding GHWB, you need to check again. Were you paying attention to what happened in the Iran Contra scandal? GHWB was the connection from the illegal CIA operations to the White House. Are you not at least a bit curious about the unfortunate coincidence that CIA director William Casey died “of natural causes” literally on the eve of his testimony to the committees investigating the scandal?
This is the “revered elder statesman” who issued a blanket pardon covering the entire Iran Contra scandal.
Your reverence for Mr. Bush is, in my opinion, very misplaced.
Hm. Your implication is that the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. are all now reformed: all those crimes are a thing of the past.
So let me ask you — tell me the year, the event, and the director (for each agency) who presided over these supposed reforms. Otherwise, I think the weight of history, including recent history, is leaning against you.
No, but I don’t believe it is appropriate to paint with such a broad brush. These are agencies which call for eternal vigilance pretty much by definition, but I also think that the vast majority are in the business for the right reasons and strive to do the right thing.
I don’t think anybody has disputed the “vast majority” of the times when these agencies have done the right thing for the right reasons.
The issue is the many times that these same agencies have done the wrong thing for the all the wrong reasons. And the reality that NOT ONE internal “investigation” has ever found anything amiss. No agency is that perfect. When these agencies stop lying about themselves, I will be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when they appear to be clearly in the wrong.
It is you, Christopher, who is demanding that we paint with a broad brush. The phrase “anti-intelligence, anti-law enforcement, anti-security” is yours. It is you who refuses to admit the sins of Iran Contra and the Aaron McFarlane hit.
It is Ms. Chandler who chose to put her ties with these agencies front and center in this campaign — not once, but three times here at BMG.
It is you, Ms. Chandler, and even my good friend Mr. Lariccia who are demanding that some of us keep silent about the many evils that these organizations have done.
Please don’t accuse me of painting “with such a broad brush” on this issue. I have been very specific with my criticisms of these agencies, and it is your side of this discussion that refuses to acknowledge that.
This would be more relevant if you thought she were somehow involved in the darker side of this community. On some level, I wish we could get away with less of this activity overall, but remember they have to live with their failures being splashed all over the news while their successes often must be necessarily kept quiet.
Ms. Chandler has replied upthread, and I welcome her responses.
It is precisely because the failures of these agencies are “splashed all over the news” (although never, of course, actually followed up on) that it is so important that:
1. Candidates and officials who ask me to support these agencies acknowledge their failures
2. Internal investigations of these failures are conducted by third parties and actually mean something.
We will never know the full extent of the CIA (and perhaps other agencies) involvement in Watergate. We will never know the full extent of the CIA involvement in Iran Contra — nor will we ever know how far into the White House that scandal permeated.
Five years after Mr. McFarland killed Mr. Todashev, we still don’t know:
1. How did Mr. McFarlane pass the rigorous background check allegedly required of each FBI hire?
2. Did the Boston FBI office know that Mr. McFarlane was collecting disability payments from CA while working for the FBI?
3. Was the Boston office of the FBI aware of Mr. McFarlane’s reputation for abuse in Oakland CA?
4. What was the result of the Oakland CA investigation into the disability claim of Mr. McFarlane?
5. Is Mr. McFarlane still working for the FBI?
I have never suggested that Ms. Chandler was involved in the “darker side”. I’ve argued instead that I think all of us have to hold these agencies to a higher standard than your commentary suggests.
I, frankly, get the impression that Ms. Chandler herself agrees with me.
This thread started with Chandler praising an intelligence official who notoriously lied to Congress about spying on ordinary Americans.
That’s dark enough for me, Christopher, but if you want to argue that there are even darker things that she is somehow not involved in, I’m willing to consider your examples.
What are some of the things from the “darker side of this community” that you can assure us Chandler is not a part of?
And be specific– no broad brushes.
So he can now never be correct about anything else in your mind? If you think Chandler herself has done anything nefarious then that is an accusation you are making and thus the burden is entirely on you to prove it.
Tom, my friend, I would never demand ANYONE to “keep silent about the many evils that these organizations have done”. Least of all, one of the most vocal and prolific voices in the progressive community.
Ruby Ridge
I’m glad to hear Somerville Tom appreciating Alexandra Chandler’s response. It’s a good sign that we on the left are able to differentiate between our old suspicion of the CIA and the FBI in particular as being hotbeds of potential right-wing intrigue and today’s world in which we are relying on the intelligence community including the CIA and the FBI as well to quite literally save our democratic institutions from an executive who neither understands nor respects the rule of law.
These attacks on this site sound like the murmurings of Russian bots whether or not they are.
If you think the CIA and FBI are going to “literally save our democratic institutions” I think you are going to be sadly and catastrophically disappointed.
Intelligence community vs. this particular White House? No contest in my mind.
I think a bit of nuance is in order regarding Mr. Clapper. There is room for interpretation of a question he was asked, as well as breadth of definition of certain terms that have been thrown around. Here is Politifact’s analysis of the question. He may not have given the straightest of answers and maybe took more time than he should have to clarify the record, but that does not forever and completely negate his expertise in the intelligence field, nor make him an irredeemable devil. I certainly do not believe that it is disqualifying of Alexandra Chandler to invoke him on a separate matter.
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”
― George Orwell
1. Thanks for the link to Politifact. It is clear from that article that Clapper lied deliberately, and knew he was lying, on a question he knew about in advance, then came up with at least two more lies as excuses when Edward Snowden revealed the truth.
2. I don’t know where you got the term “irredeemable devil” but it wasn’t from me. That’s a pure straw man argument. But Clapper did lie to Congress-no nuance involved. And Chandler campaigns for Congress by thanking Clapper “for standing up for our shared profession, for the truth, and for the sake of the integrity of our democracy.”
The last line you quote is exactly what Clapper did in this instance. I would also suggest that Chandler is probably better positioned than most members of Congress would be to recognize and call out bogus answers from intelligence officials.
“And thank you , Harvey Weinstein, for promising to go after the NRA. while positioning yourself to go after sexual harassers.”