By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Obama advisor Susan Rice criticized President Trump’s reported receipt of only twelve presidential daily briefings in over 100 days, deeming this a significant oversight. Rice highlighted the lack of a structured decision-making process within the Trump White House, questioning the President’s access to crucial intelligence information. She argued that such infrequent briefings would be considered a major scandal for any other president, raising concerns about the President’s preparedness and decision-making capabilities. Reports indicate efforts are underway to reformat the briefings to better suit Trump’s preferences.
Read the original article here
A former Obama administration official has claimed that evidence suggests the former president isn’t fully engaged with his responsibilities. The assertion centers on the claim that Trump’s infrequent engagement with daily intelligence briefings is alarmingly irregular, a pattern that would have triggered significant political upheaval under any other president.
The argument presented is that the infrequent briefings are not only unusual but also raise serious concerns. If any other president had demonstrated such a blatant disregard for crucial daily security information, it would have been met with intense scrutiny from Congress and widespread speculation about the president’s mental fitness.
However, the situation with Trump is perceived differently. The official’s concerns are framed against a backdrop of Trump’s long-standing public persona: marked by perceived incompetence, questionable financial dealings, and a generally bombastic and controversial style. This existing image, according to this line of argument, contributes to a sense of resigned acceptance rather than genuine outrage over his limited intelligence briefings.
The core argument relies on a contrast. It highlights the stark difference between the expected reaction to this behavior from any other president and the muted response to Trump’s actions. This difference itself serves as evidence, suggesting a worrying level of normalization around Trump’s controversial behavior.
The assertion of “not playing with a full deck” is interpreted in several ways. It could mean a lack of mental acuity, a lack of essential knowledge, or perhaps—and this seems most likely—a conscious attempt to remain uninformed, suggesting potential deceit or manipulation. The implication is that a deliberate avoidance of information is far more sinister than a simple inability to process it.
The lack of a significant public outcry and the absence of robust congressional inquiries are framed as additional indicators of a troubling acceptance of what would, under normal circumstances, be considered profoundly unacceptable presidential conduct. This lack of response itself is described as a concerning development. This lack of reaction, it’s argued, is deeply troubling in itself.
The assertion that the former president’s actions would be considered a “huge scandal” under normal circumstances is reinforced by suggesting that even if the president is simply lacking full information, such a deficiency would still represent a serious breach of duty and would warrant aggressive investigation.
In essence, the argument rests on this central idea: the unusual lack of public outrage and political response to a behavior that would normally trigger widespread alarm is just as significant as the behavior itself. This muted reaction is, paradoxically, presented as further evidence of the situation’s gravity.
The argument concludes with a reiteration of the need for greater transparency and scrutiny, advocating for Congress and the public to actively demand accountability for the infrequent intelligence briefings. The current level of apathy is presented as alarming.
This lack of accountability, the implication goes, is itself a danger to the nation. It is not just about the former president’s mental fitness or his level of engagement, but also about the larger implications of a system apparently willing to tolerate such blatant disregard for standard presidential conduct.
In closing, the lack of a forceful response reinforces the idea that the situation is far more serious than a simple discussion of mental capacity or competence. It speaks to a broader societal issue of normalized political dysfunction, where even blatant irregularities are met with passive acceptance rather than demanding action. The suggestion is that this acceptance is just as, if not more, disturbing than the actions of the former president himself.