Updated: British Government Stands Behind Ambassador Who Called Trump “Inept,” “Insecure,” and “Incompetent”

UK Government

Trump may have just polled his best numbers with citizens, but one opposing view is clearly Britain’s Ambassador to Washington, Sir Kim Darroch.  Leaked secret memos shows Darroch describing Trump as “inept,” “insecure” and “incompetent.”  The disclosure could present serious problems for not just Darroch but U.S./U.K. relations. Trump is notoriously sensitive to such criticism and Great Britain will now have to consider whether Darroch should be recalled in the interests of diplomacy. Update: The British government has supported their ambassador for offering his good-faith and honest opinions. Trump later responded and said “We are not big fans of that man and he has not served the UK well … I can say things about him but I won’t bother.”

The incident shows how damaging leaks can be on diplomatic relations.  These were clearly frank assessment meant to be shared in a strictly confidential setting.

Darroch paints a bleak picture of the competency of both Trump and his Administration: “We don’t really believe this Administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept.” He express doubt that the Administration will “ever look competent” and expects it to remain “mired in scandal.” He also suggests that Trump could be under some level of influence by Russia.  In a letter to National Security Adviser Sir Mark Sedwill sent on June 22, 2017 he stressed that “the worst cannot be ruled out” in terms of Russian connections or control.

Sir Kim Darroch has an extensive diplomatic and public service record. He is highly regarded in Washington as well the world at large.  He has an impressive portfolio covering high positions with the European Union, national security agencies, and of course foreign postings.  His unvarnished views of Trump and his Administration were obviously valued in London given his accomplished history.  It is also notably that many of these communications are from the first year of the Trump Administration.

Darroch’s description of the White House as “uniquely dysfunctional” is shared by many (including supporters) who have been baffled by the continued missteps.  However, this is the person who is the point of contact for relations with Great Britain.  The damaging leak undermines the first and foremost principle for diplomats: never make yourself the issue.  Assuming that he was not the source of the leak, this is hardly the fault of Darroch who must be able to share frank thoughts with his government. Whoever leaked these messages could not have put Darroch in a worse position as a diplomat now associated with assessments that are . . . well . . . undiplomatic.

On Sunday, the government issued a defense of its ambassador: “The British public would expect our ambassadors to provide ministers with an honest, unvarnished assessment of the politics in their country. Their views are not necessarily the views of ministers or indeed the government. But we pay them to be candid. Just as the U.S. Ambassador here will send back his reading of Westminster politics and personalities.”

145 thoughts on “Updated: British Government Stands Behind Ambassador Who Called Trump “Inept,” “Insecure,” and “Incompetent””

  1. How does Darroch conclude Trump is incompetent? By accomplishments?

  2. Leader worship is not worthy of supposedly “free” human beings. It’s a good thing for “leaders” to hear what people really think of them.

    We are angering just about the entire world. If Trump doesn’t understand this, he really needs to, right now.

    I’m glad it was leaked. The US is acting like a monster and this needs to stop immediately. The more people who speak up, the better.

    1. We saw ‘leadership worship’ of a man because he was part black forgetting that he was also part white. We know he was worshipped because he was given credit for things he did not even do and before he could do them. We knew Obama was worshipped almost at day one when he was given the Nobel Peace Prize.

      There is no worship of Trump by the mass of those that support him. He is a natural leader that looks out for those he leads. He doesn’t hide his feelings and is very transparent while he stands up to face all negativity in his path without fear. His followers support him because they don’t want another false God like Obama.

      On a second point some people yeild to the majority whether moral or not. That was the excuse for many that supported the Nazi’s, everyone is supporting Hitler, so such an idea is one that belongs outside of the minds of the intelligent.

      As far as the leakage of the Ambassadors thoughts, that has negative effects on the relationship between Britain and the US but Trump is not like Obama who would throw a hissy fit. Trump will act in measured ways that will gradually push the entire world in his direction.

      1. Allan: thank you for explaining the basis for the delusions of the Trumpsters. We always knew that racism was a big part of it, because your venerated high priest–Hannity, continues to harp about Barak Obama, so you parrot the lies that he got credit for things he didn’t do, and didn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump has tried in vain to get the Nobel, as well as Time “Person of the Year”. (he even paid for a fake vanity Time cover, which is hanging at Mar-a-Lago; how pathetic). He claimed he deserved both for what he claims was his fabulous success for the first meetings with Kim Jong Un, which, as well all know, amounted to absolutely nothing. N. Korea continued with its nuclear program unabated. Trump refused to meet with former ambassadors and foreign relations people from prior administrations who could have clued him in about how to deal with Kim Jong Un. He wouldn’t listen because he knows it all, and because he believes in the power of his charm and ability to negotiate, all symptoms of his malignant narcissism. Obama has never thrown a “hissy fit” or any other type of fit. That, as us sane people know, is what Trump does.

        Truth is, Trump is stunned by the Ambassador’s spot-on statements, especially the comments about him being star-struck at being the presence of the royal family, as well as being labeled as inept, incompetent and insecure. Down deep, he knows its true, which is why he cannot handle news conferences because that requires the skill of thinking on his feet, which he doesn’t have, so he does business via hit-and-run tweeting. No follow up, no clarification, no challenging the lack of truth to what he says. When it is pointed out that he has lied, he calls it “fake news”. As to the Ambassador’s comments, he doesn’t know how to respond, because he was publicly slapped in the face good and proper and the British government has not apologized, nor will it. He has no capacity for measured responses. He is simply stunned. This isn’t like all of the polls that consistently show him as setting an unbroken record for negative presidential approval ratings by the American public that he can label “fake news”. Hannity and Rush cannot spin this one, because the Brits have confirmed the accuracy of the memo that was leaked. This isn’t fake news–it’s a spot-on assessment of him by a major ally, it’s the truth, and he knows it.

        Trump is no leader–natural or otherwise, and his sole interest is garnering attention for himself. His life is all about him–attention, praise, adulation, getting his way. It is not engaging in negativity to point out his constant lying, his human rights violations regarding migrants, especially young children, the chaotic environment he has created–for instance, removing the DOJ lawyers from the census lawsuit because the Court pointed out that the citizenship question was “contrived”, his misogyny, racism, xenophobia and arrogance. No, the “entire world” isn’t about to be pushed in Trump’s direction. He can’t even win over the majority of the American people, because they see him for what he is. The Brits know that the majority of America does not support him, as well as the fact that he will be gone in less than 2 years.

        1. Yeah, that post of Allan’s is frame-worthy, along with kurtz’s video hail mary.

          1. It’s worthy enough to deny you a substantive reply. That is a problem for those of you that rely on emotion rather than fact.

          2. i find people who say “spot on” all the time super annoying, dont you anon? tell me, do you read Natch’s silly posts or just look forward to mine? by the way here’s an update on real china news being censored by drum roll google/ youtube


            they don’t like negative coverage of the PRC, they’re hoping to sell more surveillance technology to them! maybe one day the number one alphabet customer the Chicoms, we’ll see

        2. Anonymous says: July 8, 2019 at 2:32 PM
          natacha opens mouth fartsmell wafts out


          It’s a reasonable wager that either Allan or Kurtz posted that. They hide behind anonymous when it suits them, but are generally highly critical of its use, especially the douche who calls himself “Allan.”

          1. “It’s a reasonable wager that either Allan or Kurtz posted that. They hide behind anonymous when it suits them, but are generally highly critical of its use, especially the douche who calls himself “Allan.””

            How flattering you are to me anonymous. It seems you think the world turns around my every move, but it doesn’t. No that was done likely by the other anonymous that is neither you nor your close relation, Diane. If I catch myself accidentally posting anonymously, as one might have observed in the past, as soon as possible I post my name. That is something you do not do for you like to hide in the anonymous world which is probably where you belong based on you lack of any intellectual ability what so ever.

        3. Pardon me for not reading more than the first two sentences. I don’t know which is funnier, your icon that makes you look like a barbequed chicken being sold at the local food mart or the way your mind rotates as you present your replies. For explanation of the icon, it looks like a box holding a chicken on its back with the wings, single small boxes, on top and the legs on the bottom.

          “Allan: thank you for explaining the basis for the delusions of the Trumpsters. We always knew that racism was a big part of it,”

          Your ideas have no more prophetic rational than the dead barbequed chicken in the box and requires no further response.

        4. Awesome, that’s gonna leave a mark–again.

          this is to Natacha’s creative and thoughtful explanation of the facts of life to the lurking gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make who still pose as if they just don’t get it.

    2. I don’t worship him, he’s not God

      But he is a great Leader! Hail to the Chief

        1. “Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following.” (Ps. 48:13)

  3. Truth is good, Sunlight disinfects all.
    Yea Free Speech! Wish the ‘Patriots I grew up with cared as much about the 1st amendment & other’s, instead of tellingly just the 2nd, which couls Not have been clearer, outside National Guard, no right to free & open carry, should come without regulation, Liability Insurance for Loaded Carry only sensible responsibility to State, which should Not have to carry responsibility for uninsured Victims, ever.
    GoFundMe.com for Random Gunshot victims & others, a stain on the Nation.

  4. Let’s leave the content of the leak alone for the time being. The fact of the leak is the most important thing.

    It’s clearly intended to impact relations between Great Britain and the United States of America. The very best thing that can be done now is to identify the source of the leak and to not give the leakers what they wish, discord between the US and its most steadfast partner in geopolitics.

    1. I’m wagering the source of the leak may be some bureaucratic operator with purely personal motives. This fellow Darroch is arguably an ass. He may also be an ass with people queued up to shiv him. Let Sir Frank bury Sir Humphrey.

    2. when the leaks come from inside the government with approval, nobody gets punished

      it’s only unauthorized leaks that get a spanking, viz assange

    3. But, Loupgarous, most Americans do NOT stand behind Trump. The assessment of the Ambassador is shared by most Americans. Trump should take his lumps and move on. We know, because of his mental illness, that he has no interest in being less “inept”, which is why he is insecure. Admitting limitations would be the first step in being less inept, but that would be admitting he’s not the greatest, the smartest, the bestest who knows everything there is to know and who is a “very stable genius” and masterful negotiator. His ego and narcissism won’t let him admit his shortcomings or listen to the advice of people who could help him, so he will continue to be incompetent. The Brits didn’t insult America–they insulted Trump by telling the truth. That should not have implications for US–British relations.

      1. Natch claims omniscience of what lies in most American minds.

        She’s arrogant and opinionated to the max.

        You don’t speak for “most Americans” Nuthatch. Not even close.

        1. I don’t claim to know anything other than what polls consistently show. Trump has set a record for negative polling, even in polls conducted by Faux News. That is a fact.

        2. “Most” Americans have already proven via verifiable and objective “facts” (Google the word) that they don’t support the day glo bozo.

          this is to “hannity won’t return my emails” kurtzie

  5. I’d call him into the WH and ask if he continued in that assessment. If he didn’t, I’d publicize it. If he does, I pull his diplomatic credentials and send him packing back to Westminster and Nigel Farage. I wonder how the British embassy in Yemen is these days.

    1. Because who are we if we don’t bully those who speak ill of us — even when it’s the truth.

      1. Namelesswonder:

        You ought to read a bit before you blather. Machiavelli understood the world of international relations far better than you or your ilk. He explained in advance what a catastrophic blunder this was:

        “Now, in order to execute a political commission well, it is necessary to know the character of the prince and those who sway his counsels; … but it is above all things necessary to make himself esteemed, which he will do if he so regulates his actions and conversation that he shall be thought a man of honour, liberal, and sincere. The latter point is highly essential, though too much neglected, as I have seen more than one so lose themselves in the opinion of princes by their duplicity, that they have been unable to conduct a negotiation of the most trifling importance. It is undoubtedly necessary for the ambassador occasionally to mask his game; but it should be done so as not to awaken suspicion and he ought also to be prepared with an answer in case of discovery.”

        ~The History of Florence and of the Affairs of Italy: From the Earliest Times to the Death of Lorenzo the Magnificent; Together with The Prince, and Various Historical Tracts, H.G. Bohn, Editor

        Confront this Limey and he’ll fold like a sale-priced Walmart tent. He has to.

        1. Yeah, you’re the guy who thinks he has all the answers. One day you’ll realize that “the older one gets the less one knows.” You have some road to travel, yet. son.

          1. Anonymous:
            I haven’t all the answers just good arguments for my positions. On the other hand there’s your pronouncements like the one above. And Like most of your arguments — hollow, unsupported and counterintuitive. I give you the world class father of political philosophy and Political science and you give me nada. Why am I not surprised?

        2. Sure mespo, anyone can see the problem is an experienced diplomat of our closest ally, not the incompetent WH which might be owned by the Russians he described while doing his job.

          1. anona,
            It would seem that an “experienced” British Spy- turned-businessman had a preference in the 2016 election…. actually, our election….and that this “experienced British diplomat” had his prefences as well.
            To bad no neither got what they wanted.

          2. if Trump really is “owned” by the Russians than the Deep State is the most incompetent one that ever existed. i somehow doubt that considering America is far above all previous nation-states in terms of military power and for a long time economically too.

            the idea that Trump is “owned by Russians” is even less creditable than the notion that Stalin “owned” FDR– another silly one I have heard before– and it’s such a preposterous delusion that you can’t seriously believe it, but, for fun and excitement you keep trotting it out there.

        3. Niccolò Machiavelli’s writings are full of contradictions, so don’t be too sure of yourself, mespo.

        1. Mespo, if only your passage would be read by your leader otherwise known as he “unable to conduct a negotiation of the most trifling importance.”

      1. Update: Trump dismisses Brit Ambassador who, in the now infamous secret cables, channels the exact thoughts I cited from Niccolo. I’m doing lottery numbers later tonight! 😀

    2. You’d be playing (most likely) into the hands of one or more foreign intelligence agencies. Russia and/or China are most likely, but Germany and/or France can’t be excluded (given Trump’s status as the most powerful single backer of the Brexit). A Remainer in the UK foreign ministry can’t ruled out, either.

      Obviously, the British Foreign Ministry sees nothing wrong with the remarks as they stand. There’s nothing useful about responding in kind or in any other way – all you do is reward the leaker. There would have been some benefit – future negotiating power – to the President remaining silent, or referring the matter to the Secretary of State for resolution at “working level”. Shame that POTUS didn’t see it that way.

    3. Trump might hesitate to do that, Mespo. Darroch could be one of those George Sanders type of Englishmen: the cold cynic with an acid tongue. One who cuts Trump to threads with biting wit. Causing Trump’s orange face to melt like grilled cheese.

      Imagine that happening in the Oval Office with aides looking on. Trump would be sorry he summoned the ambassador. The embarrassment would cripple Trump, he’d never get over it. And you can be sure anonymous sources would tell the Washington Post.

      1. Trump might hesitate to do that, Mespo. Darroch could be one of those George Sanders type of Englishmen: the cold cynic with an acid tongue. One who cuts Trump to threads with biting wit.

        Or he could be one of the scheming clowns from Yes, Minister. He’s been a public employee for 43 years. He had no specific academic or professional training at the time he was hired. (The Foreign Service in this country also makes use of examinations which do not select for specialized knowledge). They put him to work at one point as a ‘national security adviser’, even though his time in the military and his time spent working with the technical tools of espionage is just about nil. Maybe he’s had some training in foreign languages, maybe he hasn’t. He also would not be in a position to know who was fighting with who on Trump’s staff.

        Again, the stance he takes in these memoranda is drably familiar and the specific points he’s reported to have made are recycling the kultursmog.

      2. The best part of your scenario is that the day glo bozo would utterly fail to comprehend the slice-n-dice administered by the educated and competent ambassador; but the lurking henchmen of the clown in chief would be hiding their snickers.

        to hill

  6. When the Redcoats leave the EU then I will listen to them. I could throw a lot of mean words at Theresa May and I do not wait for May Day.

  7. Anyone who voted for DT should lose their right to vote forever. If you’re that easily conned, you are too stupid to make reasonable choices. Or you’re just a bunch of effing racists.

    1. Partisan Democrats cannot help but expose their essential ugliness (and, quite commonly, stupidity).

    2. Wem, you and what army’s going to accomplish your heart’s desire?

      We’ll see

    3. Anyone who posts a comment like “wem” just did is too stupid to make reasonable choices.

    4. Ah yes a true Democrat. Anyone over forty that believes the new democrat lies is an idiot. after all the old unkept promises didn’t work the lefties have the new ones free healthcare for all and free college Wem wise up nothing is free

    5. “If you’re that easily conned, you are too stupid to make reasonable choices. Or you’re just a bunch of effing racists.”
      More solid, evidence-laden argument from the virtuous Trump haters. Wem is a caricature of the opposition: belligerent, baffled and bigoted.

    6. “Anyone who voted for DT should lose their right to vote forever.” That’s Fascist to declare that people should only be permitted to vote if they do so for a candidate you endorse. Declaring that all Trump voters are racist is ignorant and bigoted.

      Sounds like a dictatorship.

      1. Karen, most likely wem’s 1st sentence is intended as sarcastic hyperbole , but his following 2 statements are defensible and logical positions, and unlike similar statements by you and TIA, limited to those who behaved in a specific way and not a blanket assessment of an entire group of Americans. While I am sympathetic to wem’s position, I am willing to forgive those who did vote for the incompetent – as described by our closest ally’s ambassador – Trump. It is those who intend to repeat that folly who are beyond all reason and glutton’s for being conned in my opinion.

        1. what’s the mentality of a person who doesn’t like their own kind? the mentality of a snitch

          snitches get what?

          i can live with blacks i just cant live with white punks who whine about white people all the time

  8. Darrouch’s sentiments are shared by a majority of Americans. Trumpsters should take a step or two back, look at the big picture here, and consider whether he is correct. What is the basis for his opinions? A majority of people, both here and abroad, cannot all be
    wrong. Darrouch’s comments are not politically motivated. The purpose is to serve as a guide on how to deal with Trump until he is finally ousted. In addition to being motally and ethically unfit, he makes the US look bad.

    1. Wrong Nuthatch, you just want to believe that.

      It’s a big country and a lot of the people who like Trump stay away from the likes of you

      Sir Kim is a goof, let him go back to the UK and run his mouth with the other Lordships.

      This American says His Lordship bugger off

    2. It’s questionable whether it’s a majority of the people, as Natacha claims, but if she’s right …….then it’s certain that a majority opinion can never be wrong😄😃😂🤣, as she claims.

      1. questionable whether it’s a majority of the people,

        she thought Hillary would win by a landslide, that Trump colluded with the Russians, that CNN, WahPutz, NYT are oracles that speak da truff, and so forth

        She represents the very tiny but violent, milkshake throwing terrorists in America in only a few select states.

        1. Hillary won the popular vote. Russians did tamper with our elections–fake social media posts have been proven. They may also have manipulated actual vote counts, especially in Florida and possibly elsewhere where there is no paper record trail, but Trump’s administration has no desire to look into this. Trump did collude with Russians, and if Mueller had been given the opportunity to depose Trump and/or Russians, which he didn’t have, that also would have been proven. It’s hard to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that parties conspired to commit a crime when you can’t get any of the actual conspirators to testify. There is plenty of collateral evidence of the multiple ties between Trump, his campaign and various Russians. Trump absolutely did obstruct justice. Read Mueller’s report. If he hadn’t colluded with Russians, why did he try to hard to obstruct justice, as described by Mueller?

          Look at various opinion polls. Doesn’t matter what organization conducted them–the majority of Americans are opposed to him, and consistently have done so since he assumed office.

    3. “Darrouch’s sentiments are shared by a majority of Americans.”

      – Nutchacha

      Ah! To be an “American.”

      “To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to be an American as established by those who established the nation and “original intent” or to falsely and desperately impose and insinuate one’s alien and extrinsic self into the national DNA through fraudulent, illegitimate, antithetical and unconstitutional means and injurious “legislation.”

      – George Shakespeare

      To wit,

      Federal naturalization laws (1790, 1795, 1802).

      United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

      “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…”

      If I go to China, will I be Chinese?

      “To be or not to be, that is the question.”

      1. Please keep on doing you.

        this is to “I traded today’s jello to the patient in the next room for his internet time” georgie

        1. we so missed these inane remarks mark, welcome back

          trial schedule lighten up? summer vacay?

    4. You mean like making Americans proud of their country again. Unlike Obama did bowing to middle eastern aholes

    5. Natacha – a majority of people cannot all be wrong?

      How many times have Socialist dictatorships been voted in, to the ruination of the country, based on a majority of people? The German National Socialists (or Nazis), are an example. I’d say that a majority of Germans got it dead wrong on that one.

        1. The lunkhead running the National People’s Party had taken that outfit in a volkisch direction and allied it with the Nazis. The Nazis and the National People’s Party won a majority of the vote in March 1933. The majority of the seats in the Reichstag went to the Nazis and the Communists at both elections held in 1932.

          1. are you talking about this guy?


            he is recalled to be abrasive and obtuse but i am not sure lunkhead is the right term for it. his strategy showed insight into the electoral situation at the time and a sense of strategy to achieve the aims he and his associates shared

            observe that strategic polarization is not a new method in electoral politics

        2. Parliamentary systems elect with pluralities on a regular basis
          But you knew that already and said what you said to smear anyways

  9. Very interesting obfuscation.

    How many Brits and Aussies are co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America? Can you pick them out?

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates,

    Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,

    Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills,

    Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile,

    Sessions (patsy?), Obama et al.


      everyone knows that Henry Kissinger, the Queen of England, and George H.W. Bush were in on it too!!

      to “I found ‘obfuscation’ in the treatment center library” georgie

      1. here is a cool wiki on bill bundy– heavy dude most folks havent heard of. Ivy Leagues, Skull and Bones, CFR, Bilderberg, he had it all covered! Allen Dulles provided references for him. that’s heavy. McGeorge’s bro.

        and a lawyer! but i never made it that far. [boo hoo]

        William Putnam “Bill” Bundy (September 24, 1917 – October 6, 2000) was an American attorney and intelligence expert, an analyst with the CIA. Bundy served as a foreign affairs advisor to both presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. He had key roles in planning the Vietnam War, serving as deputy to Paul Nitze under Kennedy and as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs under Johnson.

        After leaving government service in 1969, Bundy served as a historian of foreign affairs, teaching at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and at Princeton University, from 1972 to his death. His book A Tangled Web: The Making of Foreign Policy in the Nixon Presidency (1998) is considered his most important work.

        Born in 1917 and raised in Boston, Massachusetts, he came from a family long involved in Republican politics. His father, Harvey Hollister Bundy, served as an assistant secretary of state to Colonel Henry L. Stimson beginning in 1931, and later as his special assistant on atomic matters when Stimson was Secretary of War under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.[1][2] Bundy as a diplomat also helped implement the Marshall Plan. Bill was raised in a highly accomplished, highly intellectual family, with a brother McGeorge Bundy who was two years younger.

        After attending Groton School and Yale University (where he was one of the first presidents of the Yale Political Union and a member of Skull and Bones), Bundy entered Harvard Law School. During World War II, he left to join the Army Signal Corps. In August 1943 he led the nine-man 6813th Signals Security Detachment to the UK secret code breaking ‘Government Code and Cipher School’ at Bletchley Park. He and six other cryptanalysts worked in Hut 6 and the two translators worked in Hut 3.[3] They fitted in well and he later described his time there as “the most satisfying of my career.”[4]

        After finishing law school in 1947, Bundy joined the Washington-based law firm of Covington and Burling. While there, he contributed to Alger Hiss’s defense fund in the Hiss-Chambers Case. In 1953, Senator Joseph McCarthy cited his $400 contribution. Bundy explained that Donald Hiss, Alger’s brother, worked with him at Covington & Burling. Allen Dulles and Vice President Richard M. Nixon defended him, and the matter dropped.[5] (Bundy’s father, Harvey Hollister Bundy, Sr., served as chairman of the board at Carnegie from 1953 to 1958, not long after Hiss served as president from 1946 to 1949.)

        In the early 1950s, Bundy was recruited for the Central Intelligence Agency, serving as an analyst and as chief of staff for the Office of National Estimates. In 1960, Bundy took a leave of absence from the CIA to serve as staff director for Eisenhower’s Commission on National Goals.[6] During the Kennedy years, he was deputy to Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs Paul Nitze and worked also for the Secretary of the Navy. During much of the LBJ era, he was Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs.

        He continued to serve as an advisor on Vietnam following the election of President Richard M. Nixon, but resigned from government in 1969. Bundy moved to academia, teaching at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In 1972 he moved to Princeton University, where he served as a professor for the rest of his life. He edited the influential journal, Foreign Affairs, of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1972 to 1984, also serving as a member of the Council. He declined an offer by the Council’s chairman, David Rockefeller, to be the Council’s president.

        His brother, McGeorge Bundy (1919–1996), also attended Yale and was a member of Skull and Bones. After being involved in intelligence and the Council on Foreign Relations, he served from 1961 to 1966 as the National Security Advisor to both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

        Bill Bundy was somewhat to the left of his brother politically, and was a spirited opponent of Joseph McCarthy. He was also considered one of the administration’s more dovish members on Vietnam, and was an advisor to three presidents. In 1989 he acknowledged the complexity of the presidents’ decisionmaking, saying, “In a nutshell, my present feeling is that it was a tragedy waiting to happen, but one made much worse by countless errors along the way, in many of which I had a part.”[5]

        Bundy was Honorary American Secretary General of the Bilderberg Meetings from 1975 to 1980. [7][8]

        Bundy’s most noted work is A Tangled Web: The Making of Foreign Policy in the Nixon Presidency (1998). His papers are held by the Seeley G. Mudd Library at Princeton University.

  10. Her emails were destroyed; if one chooses to believe that 30,000 emails were bleach- bitted because they contained “unvarnished opinions” about political figures, there’s nothing to stop them from believing that.

    1. Tom, what do you think Secretary’s of State talk about all day?

      Logically their conversations reek of intrigues. Issues like the Steele Dossier come up all the time; dark, intriguing gossip concerning high level officials. Issues concerning multinational corporations arise with frequency. Arms sales are probably a much discussed subject. U S exports rely on those sales.

      All these issues are part of daily messaging for Secretary’s Of State. They can’t use measured language to ‘tint’ their discussions. Our Ambassador to Russia needs a clear idea of what Washington is telling him. Diplomats in trouble spots have to say what they think of U S allies on the ground.

      Hillary knew Republican congressional committees would find any pretext to subpoena her emails. Benghazi became that pretext after Fox News single-mindedly kept the story alive; inciting viewers to write their Republican congressmen! Hillary knew they’d find volumes of intrigues in her State Department emails. Because State Department emails are typically intriguing! Plus Hillary’s emails, no doubt, concerned leaders still in power throughout the world.

      1. Peter,
        Maybe they exclusively gossip about others in government and that’s why every one of the 30,000 gossipy Hillary emails had to be bleach-bitted away.😉

        1. Tom, Peter wrote: “Hillary knew Republican congressional committees would find any pretext to subpoena her emails.”

          Think about that comment of Peter’s. Take note that as Secretary of State she is responsible to the President. Suddenly Trump is President and Peter wants Trump’s taxes subpoened and everyone he ever dealt with subpeoned. She broke security by using unsecured emails for confidential business because she didn’t want her emails seen? Trump turned over a million or so White House documents when he could have called executive priviledge. Is there any doubt that Peter has a totalitarian mindset where there is unequal treatment under the law.

      2. I don’t know how they plan their day, and I’ll wager you don’t either Peter.

        I think Kerry was far better at the job than Hillary, anyways. But what do I know! Not much.

    1. And if they do the right thing, they won’t extradite Julian Assange.

      1. Oh we know they will. They’ve had a hand in our MIC all along. If the deep state was a hand with fingers the thumb would be fixated in England.

        1. http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-charges-does-julian-assange-face-and-whats-likely-to-happen-next-115362
          Mr. Kurtz,
          The fact that the Brits immediately arrested Assange and threw him in prison once Equador finally got sick of him does not bode well for his chances of avoiding extradition.
          I guess we’ll know in about 8 months, when he’s done serving his stint in the British prison.
          I don’t know who’ll get him first, the U.S. or Sweden, but I think you’re right that he’s “going places” after he get’s out of the slammer in England.

          1. Sweden will waive. They don’t want to end up in the same difficult position as Ecuador.

            The case against him in Sweden is very weak.

        2. Yes, Assange will in all likelihood be extradited, but if the UK were to do the right thing, he wouldn’t be.

          1. Leaving aside the U.S. charges, do you think Assange should skate on the Swedish rape allegations?

            1. Yes, unless something new comes to light. The Swedish allegations would appear to be trumped up…

                1. Mr. Kurtz,
                  I was almost done with a three-four paragraph reply when my comment disappeared, so I’ll try this again. The article that you linked addresses a Swedish Court’s decision to deny a request that Assamge be held pending extradiction to Sweden, but I don’t see that the decision deals with the merits if the rape accusation against him.
                  Since he’s serving time in a British prison, my guess is that that the Swedish Court, while recognizing that Assange is a flight risk, denied a request for the British to confine him after his sentence is served in England.
                  As I remember it, the Obama Administration did not charge Assange with any crime, nor did they seek extradiction. It was the Swedish extradiction request that prompted Assange to spend 7 years in self- imposed confinement in tiny living quarters of the Ecuadorian embassy. The British sentence seemed to be a result of Assange “skipping out” on the Swedish charges instead of following the process under British law and dealing with the Swedish allegations and extradition request.
                  I’m giving my understanding of what happened. I have no way of evaluating the merits of the Swedish tape allegations against him. You say that the charges/ potential charges in Sweden are “extremely weak”, but I don’t know what you base that on. The fact is that Assange chose to hide out in unpleadant livong conditions for 7 years rather than than face these “extremely weak” or “trumped –up” charges in Sweden.

                    1. The Intercept article that I provided a link to gives a good review of the the Assange/ Swedish allegations, and the position of Swedish prosecutors.

        1. The “right thing” is evidently not to extradite Assange to Sweden, either.

Comments are closed.