The Rise and Fall of H.R. McMaster

H.R._McMaster_ARCIC_2014One of the most damaged individuals from the various controversies surrounding President Donald Trump has been his National Security Adviser, General H.R. McMaster.  McMaster of course replaced the most damaged individual, General Michael Flynn who is now the subject of multiple investigations.  McMaster was brought in to bring professional and credibility to the position.  He was an excellent choice.  However, the use of McMaster to try (unsuccessfully) to deflect concerns of Trump’s disclosure of highly classified information to the Russians destroyed much of his reputation in Washington.  Now, what remains of that reputation seems to be rapidly evaporating with McMaster’s dismissive “not concerned” response to a high-level advisor (Jared Kushner) reportedly asking the Russians to create a secret, secure communications line  through their embassy or other location.  While that allegation does not appear a criminal violation in and of itself, it would a highly disturbing addition to an already troubling story on the close relations between the Trump officials and the Russians.  The former head of the NSA and CIA under Bush said that such a back channel would be both uncommon and dangerous.

McMaster’s problems began with the President’s bizarre decision to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.  This Russian meeting was been a cascading scandal that has grown worse by the hour. First, many felt that things could not get worse after Trump inexplicably met with the very Russian – Kislyak – at the heart of the Russian influence scandal on the day after he fired FBI Director James Comey. The world was debating whether Trump (who publicly denounced the Russian investigation) had canned Comey to try to curtail the investigation. The next morning, American woke to pictures of Trump laughing in the Oval Office with Lavrov and Kislyak.

Then Politico reported that the meeting occurred at the request of Vladimir Putin and the Russians released the photographs without notice to the White House – sending the administration into another tailspin.

Then it pulled out McMaster who walked out in front of the White House and denied something that no one alleged: that the President had released sources and methods.  The allegation was that the President told the Russians that he had read intelligence reports on the terrorist threat over computers and then inexplicable told them the name of the village that the information came from.  Later the Israelis would confirm that it was their human intelligence and that they did not approve its disclosure — and had to quickly take steps to address the disclosure.  McMaster’s statement (with no questions) was viewed as overtly misleading and calculated by many neutral observers. Obviously the release of shared intelligence from Israel (exposing an agent within ISIS) is a serious breach of protocol.  Indeed, the White House has never explained why it was necessary for the President to even give the geographic location of the intelligence.

This however is much much worse than the disclosure of the Israeli intelligence.  Once again, I have grown weary of those on both ends of this political debate in either assuming the worst about Trump or blinding themselves to real problems.  The Russian controversy at a minimum should cause concern for all Americans. It does not make it criminal but it is astonishing to see conservatives making excuses for disclosures of highly classified information to the Russian and such allegations of secret back channels.  It is all worthy of detached and dispassionate investigation.  On that we should all be able to agree.

McMaster insisted that “We have back-channel communications with any number of individual (countries). So generally speaking, about back-channel communications, what that allows you to do is communicate in a discreet manner.” He added  “we’re not concerned about it.”  If that last statement is true, we all have reason to be concerned.  Various national security experts have disagreed with that statement for obvious reasons.

I have worked around national security field for a couple decades, including holding and maintaining a TS/SCI clearance for much of that time.  I have represented officials accused of leaks and others accused of national security violations.  It is certainly true that back channels are often used as was the case in the Cuban missile crisis.  However, this is different.  Kushner could have easily asked for the creation of a secure line for discussions with the Russians from the Obama Administration.  Obama had shown a significant level of deference to Trump’s team after the election, including asking them to approve the campaign on arming the Kurds (which Flynn reportedly blocked initially).

This is different. The allegation is the Kushner went not to the American intelligence but to the Russians to create a secret line of communication. The key would be whether Kushner told American intelligence. If he did, my concerns are reduced (though not eliminated).  I expected the White House to come out with that type of statement but it has remained virtually silent for days beyond McMaster’s statement.  The most pressing question is whether Kushner shared his plans with Flynn or some other national security adviser or official. The Trump camp was already receiving regular national security briefings and had a staff of national security personnel assigned to it after the election.

I am not sure how Kushner could complete the SF-86 and other standard forms without disclosing such an effort as well as the undisclosed meetings with the Russians. It is one thing to claim (rather implausibly that these meetings were insignificant and thus unworthy of disclosure) but entirely another thing to claim that an effort to create a secret communication channel did not have to be disclosed.  This is a very big deal for people who guard our secrets.

I have heard that national security experts are appalled by the role being played by McMaster to deflect these scandals.  Most of the top officials have conspicuously removed themselves from these controversies. McMaster looks like the “designated defendant” for the White House.  His stated lack of concern over releasing Israeli intelligence to the Russians coupled with his lack of concern of secret Russian communications has left many wondering what would concern him.  The problem with being a political human shield is that it leaves little credibility in your dealings with Congress or other countries or even the U.S. military and intelligence organizations.

Once again, the lack of response from the White House has again served to magnify this latest controversy.  The White House seems to have taken a largely pedestrian view of scandals — watching the fires with the hope that they will burn themselves out.  The problem is that there are too many fires and they are beginning to combine into a runaway firestorm.  McMaster has put himself dead center in that firestorm and his credibility is rapidly melting away.


142 thoughts on “The Rise and Fall of H.R. McMaster”

  1. The former head of the NSA and CIA under Bush said that such a back channel would be both uncommon and dangerous.

    It is amazing that you chose to quote such a mendacious and duplicitous insider who was responsible for the unleashing of the total surveillance state as director of NSA and fully on board with the use of rendition, indefinite/incognito/incommunicado detention without trial and torture as director of CIA.

    Who is this fraction of an American turd stain? Why it is none other that the cretin from the black lagoon and war criminal known as Micheal Hayden.

    If it were not for the back channel diplomacy between the Kennedy administration and the Khruschev administration the US and USSR may have unleashed a nuclear holocaust that would have ended life on planet Earth as we knew it.

    Another example of back channel diplomacy would be the Nixon administrations efforts to end the war in Vietnam by talking with North Vietnam and another would be the re-opening of communist China to the US/world.

    Please read the following report:

    Secret Diplomacy: The Practice of Back Channel Diplomacy by Liberal Democracy States

    by Nick Parafait Momengoh
    A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-Newark Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey May 2013

    McMaster’s problems began with the President’s bizarre decision to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

    Why is it bizarre that the President met with another nations foreign minister and ambassador?

    It is called diplomacy.

    Talking with your enemy/competitors sure as hell beats shooting at your enemies/competitors.

    As for Trump being a Russian stooge where is the evidence? Hearsay, conjecture and innuendo are not viable reasons for destroying ourselves from within.

    1. Silly rabbit, they were attempting to set up back channel while still civilians, without the knowledge of the US intelligence services. This wasn’t just back channel to keep it from public disclosure, but back channel to keep it from other responsible US government agencies. Nice try though, but more practice needed on that 3-card monte.

      This is for nongrata.

  2. Now, what remains of that reputation seems to be rapidly evaporating with the Russians to create a secret, secure communications line through their embassy or other location.

    You realize you’re participating in a circle jerk?

  3. Your programming is worse than my dyslectic keyboards spelling. Attempts, redefining, reframing,

  4. Since our IC is so dysfunctional, I’m not sure we will ever know the truth when even the parties involved don’t agree on what went on.
    It may be a bit too premature to say that McMaster’s reputation is “destroyed”. That’s a prejudgment that is not supported by what we do or do not know.

    1. The system they use states, “If you can repeat something three times and get away with it you can quote yoor own posts. If you didn’t get away with it. Change the Robo Clone name to something like Bacon. You are debating a machine and one programmer located at 430 South Capitol St SE, Washington, D.C

  5. Dear Jonathan Turley, some sessions with a good mental health specialist will eventually relieve you of your symptoms acquired during the time you held a Top Secret clearance.

    1. Now there is the proof. Three attemtps at redefinig and reframng the programmer of RoboClone Part Number DBB is once again rejected. The forum is for humans. Not Machines. REJECTED.

  6. (music- Lawyers Guns and Money)

    …and how was I to know..
    She was with the Russians too?

    1. Hillary? She openly admiitted to being a Progressive which automatically means Marxist Leninist.

    1. Facts and evidence are entirely unnecessary in the Leftist agenda. All that is necessary are assertions coming from Leftist sources. If the sources are Leftists, then, they are inherently credible, reliable, and truthful. Are we clear on that principle?


      Anyone who opposes the Leftist agenda is by nature inherently evil and untrustworthy. The Leftist motto is “Show me the man, and I will show you the crime.” Ironically, this is a Russian proverb. But Leftists only loved Russia when it was run by Stalinists and other brutalitarians.

      1. I have never met one of your Leftists.

        Are you sure that this is not just a figment of your mind?

            1. How can a programmed Collective of machine parts meet itself. The programmer of that feeble attempt certainly is ….nine asses?

        1. Now the left wing socialist democrats followers of a Marxist Leninist ideology are denying themselves. and distanceing themselves from their own group? That seems to be the meaning of the programmers RoboClone Collective tribute to Memorial Day. Did they choose to today to commit suicide then? Nice! Can’t have it both ways RoboClone ….Your ‘truth’ of the day is REJECTED.

      2. When the facts are agin ya, denigrate the messenger. Check.

        This is for Ralph.

Comments are closed.