Column: Trump will get millions in post-presidential benefits, thanks to Harry Truman’s lies

OH i didnt have problem with Trumans service in WW1, my grandfather was in WW1, I know about the smearing of McCarthy by the media of the time. McCarthy was right about all the infiltration of the goverment.

He sure was. It is interesting to note the tactics used by the Left against both Whittaker Chambers and Joseph McCarthy are still used to this day, with little variation.

Of course, they have different force multipliers now like FaceBook, Google, and Twitter that they leverage.

But the playbook on the Left is largely the same as it was back in the late Forties and early Fifties.

I cannot disagree with many of the points you make. You are well read. The issue with records altering, obstruction of justice, and obstructing of Joe McCarthy, are all probably as accurate as you can get. Truman was a politician, and so it goes.

Judging him by today’s standards of ‘obstruction of justice’ is like judging the founding fathers on owning slaves before 1790, it’s just not realistic. I believe the reason that Truman went after Joe McCarthy was two fold: 1) self protection as you state, and couldn’t blame it on the dead FDR 2) He was listening to his advisers. His advisers were infiltrated communists that had served under FDR, been recommended by people who had ascended under FDR, or advanced under FDR. He was surrounded and contaminated from the get go.

We can agree to disagree how big a scumbag he was, but he took the Presidency in the worst of times and totally unprepared, surrounded by wolves who were supposed to help, and he trusted the wrong people. The media and Truman have smeared Joe McCarthy, but the real problem is that he was actually correct.

McCarthy was sloppy about numbers and sources and details.

Knowing all we know about how politics works and who Truman was, of course he was going to take on McCarthy in some way.

That's what politicians do and Truman was more combative than many other politicians.

It didn't have much effect. Truman was already too unpopular. It was Eisenhower who eventually took down McCarthy.

Net Worth: Obama - $40 million

The Obamas got $60+ million alone for their book deals.

Barack and Michelle Obama most likely have a combined net worth of $135 million.

The same applies to The Obamanation of Desolation, Bush and the Clintdog, and Carter. Why single out Trump?

Trump is actually unique among modern politicians in being the only one who has left Washington DC poorer than when he arrived.

Thank you for that reasoned and civil response. I will agree with you that it was a difficult time for any President, and even though I have a very low impression of him in many respects, I do grant him respect for things he did do correctly.

I want to stress, in the same way I might criticize Harry Truman and Richard Nixon: while both may have done illegal things, both indisputably loved their country and were acting in what they thought were the best interest of America. I am not saying Truman hated America or was a communist stooge. He was more interested in saving the reputation of his political party. This, in contrast to Clinton, Obama, and Biden and all of their allies, all of whom hate this country and its laws.

And you are correct to point out that many of the people in question were indeed holdovers from the FDR administration. And some of these people were directly responsible for the Communist China we see today, and which we are in great danger from.

You do sound as if you are someone who might be familiar with the question “Who lost China?” that was asked in the years post 1947, and it is a valid one. It turns out that the State Department had people who were directly controlled by the USSR, and all three lived under the same roof in China during the war...Chi Chao-Ting (held a position in Chiang Kai-Shek nationalist government as an economic adviser), Solomon Adler (US Treasury Department and John Stuart Service (US State Department and Service was also a direct adviser to General “Vinegar” Joe Stillwell)

This has been on my mind lately with Communist China in the forefront of my mind, and we went from a China that was friendly to us, helped us fight the Japanese (as we helped them) and protected the Doolittle Raid fliers who went down over China, at great cost to themselves, with almost 250,000 killed or executed as a direct result of the raid and the Chinese help given to the downed fliers.

This saddens me greatly. Chiang Kai-Shek was as corrupt as any Chinese leader of the day at any level, but he was not the bloodthirsty tyrannical beast that Mao and his communist cronies were. He could have been at the heart of a Chinese government that may have been our friend, even up to today.

Those three men I mentioned above (Chi Chao-Ting, Solomon Adler, and John Stuart Service all three Soviet agents) living in the same house in China, consistently sent back to their superiors in the US State and Treasury Departments (Chi Chao-Ting sent reports to his government contacts in France who he was an adviser to) reports that excoriated the Nationalist Chinese under Chiang Kai-Shek as ruthlessly corrupt, inept, incapable of democratic government and not worthy of supporting, and at the same time, brazenly and astonishingly painted the Communists as “agrarian reformers” who were interested in democratic rule and capable of efficient government, overwhelmingly worthy of our support.

These overwhelmingly laudatory reports were amplified and prioritized by Soviet agents and communist sympathizers in the US State and Treasury departments and passed up the chain to THEIR superiors. All the while suppressing any positive comments about Chiang Kai-Shek and HIS government and playing up and exaggerating the negative evaluations.

Additionally, Service sent the same glowing reports about the Communists to General Stillwell (who hated Chiang Kai-Shek with a glowing hot passion) who then passed that information on to HIS superiors.

So, the decision makers in Washington were getting information coming in from State, Treasury, the military, and diplomats overseas in allied countries such as France and Great Britain, and all said exactly the same thing: back the communists, and don’t give any more aid to the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek because it was good money being thrown after bad down a rat hole. Due to these reports, coming from very focused sourced in China who were (unknown to everyone, Soviet Agents) everyone at top decision making levels in the allied countries was hearing the same thing: Back the Communists. Abandon the Nationalists. And it worked.

It is interesting to note that there is an interesting sub-dynamic here: the US competence was regarded as more experienced in China, so our reports were passed up the chain in countries like France and Great Britain where their senior leaders got the same glowing reports ours did that they based their decisions on.

However, in Yugoslavia, Great Britain was considered to be most knowledgable source there, so the exact reverse took place.

British “experts” in Yugoslavia who were supposed to supply their country with intelligence (who also happened to be spies working for the Soviet Union) did the same thing the American communist spies did in China, and English reports from a select few trusted British agents in Yugoslavia of the communists (Called the Yugoslav Partisans) under Tito were full of exaggerated praise while evaluations of the “Chetniks” who fought against the Germans as well under Draža Mihailović were written up very negatively, or suppressed, while the communist partisans were painted as the horse we should back in the future.

If you read this, it may sound somewhat familiar. Very familiar. It is said that the plot against Trump and his allies succeeded because the decision makers in the US Intelligence community and other intelligence communities around the world were being fed the same information deliberately from multiple sources, and by the time it got into the hands of people with the power to make decisions, it sounded legitimate because it was coming from multiple sources. For what it is worth, I believe this was their intent, but I believe that many of the people didn’t need to be convinced, they were in on it.

However, it did give them the patina of “consensus from intelligence sources” even though all that information originated in the same place by the same people (The Steele Dossier)

Bottom line in all of this: these forces back in 1940-1947 regarding China are ideologically the same Leftist forces we see today. Different people, same agenda. How different might history be if we had backed Chiang Kai-Shek and the Nationalists instead of Mao and the Communists, based on real and accurate information, not information massaged, manipulated, and focused by communist agents acting in the interests of The Communist Party?

LOL, anyway...history lesson over for the day. I hope you found the time to read it, but...I got something out of it too. It helps me remember this stuff to write it out.

Thanks again for the civil and reasoned response.

That was an amazing synopsis and information about how we got to this point. The CIA also blocked information to Truman regarding Vietnam, which resulted in problems under Eisenhower and the war. The ‘filtering’
System has been corrupted with communists, as well as multiple agencies for years. This has cost us our Republic, IMHO. Truman understood this AFTER he left office, which is why he lamented the formation of the CIA.

Thanks...I took the time to write it for my own benefit too (from memory) because I am having a harder time remembering things and I figured it might be easier than having to form it all up again...that was why it was so long. So thanks for bearing with it.

I know I am hard on Truman for these things, but damn, it looks so much like what we see from both the Democrat Party and Deep State today, and something tells me, that is no coincidence.

He sure was right to have reservations about the formation of the CIA, but he likely never foresaw someone like John Brennan being at the head of it.