Wanna Know Why Trump Didn’t Tell Sec. Mattis and Lawmakers About His Travel Ban Order?

by Scott Creighton

On Morning Joe just now, they spent the first 10 minutes of the show with Jonathan Turley listening to him explain how Acting Attorney General Janet Yates was wrong and out of line yesterday evening when she ordered Justice Department lawyers to refuse to defend Trump’s new travel ban restrictions when they come to court for challenges. Turley explained how he couldn’t understand her decision since the ban is certainly supported constitutionally and the 1952 law expressly gives the president a lot of leeway in determining who can and who cannot come into the country if he perceives our nation interests are threatened. Turley’s position on this is not extraordinary. Most legal scholars agree that Trump’s executive order will hold up in federal court on both constitutional and legal grounds.

Of course, right after he was finished, Joe went off on Trump’s use of the word “betrayed” in his statement about how the administration felt about Yates’ move yesterday and explained that as the reason to fire her and replace her with Dana Boente last night. Scarborough’s position was that the use of the word “betrayed” meant Trump and his “young” advisors were acting as autocrats and they should “take that to Venezuela”

Then he went off for 10 whole minutes about how Trump actually betrayed his new cabinet picks by not informing them of this order prior to Trump signing it and it’s release. He was especially incensed by Trump’s team not informing Sec. Mattis about the order and went on and on about how Trump’s new cabinet picks should basically resign because of this “betrayal”

That, by the way, is EXACTLY what Eliot A. Cohen said in his op-ed type article on Jan. 29th… the same article I mentioned yesterday in an article I wrote about the fake left standing with a neocon PNAC war-mongering war-criminal, Eliot A. Cohen. I guess now we know who else reads and stands with neocon war-mongers, don’t we Joe?

Scarborough went on and on about how Sec. Mattis and all the other military figures in Trump’s cabinet were “heroes” and they deserved better treatment from the administration. Joe’s self-righteous indignation was nearly as profound as Ashton Kutcher’s at the opening of the SAG awards on Sunday.

If it’s true and Trump and his close team didn’t inform Sec. Mattis about this order prior to signing it, would you like to know why? I’ll tell you why:

“At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary James Mattis is compiling a list of Iraqis who helped U.S. troops during the war, whom he wants to exempt from the ban…

Iraqis who were granted what’s known as special immigrant visas have been caught in the ban, with some detained at U.S. airports over the weekend. The special immigrant visa program allows Iraqis and Afghans who helped the United States as interpreters and in other roles during the wars in their countries to resettle in America.” The Hill

Some have suggested on this website that Trump’s order could not be about denying the CIA’s and Special Operations’ terrorists entry into the states because it exempted people with ties to the military. Turns out, that isn’t true at all and in fact, some have already been detained trying to get into the country after completing their tour of service to our deep state.

Not only that but it seems Sec. Mattis immediately started crafting a list to exempt these contractors from Trump’s travel ban just as soon as he found out about it. That indicates to me, if he were kept out of the loop on this order, that was done so for a reason.

Let me explain this for you. Interpreters are important to our efforts over there but they are not something that can’t be replaced. And they don’t necessarily have to be Muslim. For that matter, why would anyone be concerned about them undergoing some enhanced screening? And just how many of them really want to leave the country after serving some time working for Uncle Sam?

On the other hand, “moderate” terrorist contractors would have some difficulty with that screening process wouldn’t they and for the most part, yes, they are all Muslim. And they would certainly want to leave and start over here in the states because 1. it was promised to them as part of the deal and 2. they are terrorists and known to be terrorists in their countries of origin and want to get out as quickly as possible because they really have no future in those countries… especially if things go south for our occupation/regime change operations.

So are these interpreters they want to give a free pass directly into the country or are they something else?

And isn’t that what I have been saying all along?

People should remember, before Sec. Mattis was Defense Secretary, he was Gen. Mattis and one of the things he did in service to our country was help run the Iraqi death squads using indigenous contractors to wipe out growing opposition to our occupation. He was also involved in a number of massacres and other war-crimes.

Gen. Mattis knows how our Special Operations system works in “program countries” and he knows a good part of the incentive we offer desperate, out of work indigenous criminal-types in those countries to get them to do what they do on behalf of the deep state is the promise of a new life here in America.

That’s why so many politicos and pundits are predicting a backlash from groups like “ISIS” or al-Nusra for example. How are they going to react when the new president breaks the deal they had with the old one and they are no longer expecting to receive their “special immigrant visas” which promise them a free pass through the screening process at the airport?

Not only that, but that particular bonus being taken from the tool bin of the recruiters will make their jobs much harder.

Our puppet regime in Iraq is angry as well. They are saying that the U.S. OWES these various regime change contractors special access across our borders because of all the fine work they have been doing killing off the opposition like good little attack dogs. They passed some form of similar ban restrictions yesterday in response to all of this.

Ultimately what we are looking at is further destabilization in Iraq which I am sure Trump will resolve by simply sending in more U.S. troops because, don’t get me wrong, Trump serves the interests of the deep state just like Obama and Bush and Clinton did before him.

My guess though is, Trump is opposed to this type of warfare, not necessarily imperialism itself. He did say we should have “taken the oil” and he did say Obama created “ISIS” by pulling out of Iraq as opposed to staying in. So The Donald isn’t some kind of anti-interventionist in any sense of the word… I just think this kind of … well, let’s call it what it is… terrorism… offends him. And my guess is it scares him as well.

We know for a fact that there have been deep state actors/contractors making hits and creating mass casualty events here in the states and in Canada over the past years. Hell, one took place just two days ago.

It’s out of control and if you don’t think Trump is wise enough to see it for what it is, you can bet your bottom dollar Trump fans that Bannon knows what’s up. Breitbart is a Zionist entity but they also publish a lot of work on all of the recent American Gladio ops and you better believe Bannon knows all about it.

Over the course of his campaign, Trump often made reference to our hiring of “moderate” terrorists overseas and said he wanted that to stop. Specifically with respect to Syria.

Trump’s efforts were deliberately undermined by the former acting Attorney General Sally Yates. By instructing her lawyers to refuse to defend the policy when it came up in court in these emergency hearings what she was doing was hoping Trump would wait a couple days before taking action against her and during that time, the opposition would win some court cases by default since the legal team defending the new order would effectively stand down and offer no defense. She knew damn good and well the constitution and the law was with Trump so the only thing she could do to help the deep state, was order her lawyers to lay down on the job and effectively let them win.

Trump saw through that and immediately fired her and replaced her with someone who would rescind that order of hers.

And in the case of Gen. Mattis, he got that right as well. This list he is cobbling together proves that point. He still has allegiances to the deep state and would probably have intervened in some fashion to make sure the advances he helped secure in Iraq and elsewhere were not lost.

Again, I am no fan of Donald Trump. Did not vote for him or Killary. But he is absolutely right on this one. And he was right not to keep Mattis in the loop because Mattis would probably have done something similar to what Yates did on behalf of the same folks.

Chuck Schumer can fake tears all he wants and Joe Scarborough can get high sniffing his own self-righteous indignation all day long for that matter. The more they screech and misrepresent the executive order and the legal standing it’s based on, the more I am convinced this was never about banning Muslims from entering the country as much as it was about keeping the CIA’s terrorist contractors from moving in next door to you or your kids.

They say once you’re in the CIA you never really leave. Same can be said I guess about their “moderate” terrorist contractors I suppose. And for that reason, I have to reluctantly give Trump credit on this one.

Yeah folks, it’s painfully clear at this time he is deliberately poking a stick in the eye of the Special Operations weapon of choice program and I gotta give him credit for it. He’s sticking to his guns and good for him for doing it.