>Ellis’s naming, made under pressure from the White House, drew criticism from national security legal experts. It “appears to be an attempt to improperly politicize an important career position,” wrote Susan Hennessey, a former lawyer in the NSA Office of General Counsel, on Lawfare, where she is the executive editor.
Always think mirror.
They got caught trying to install a deep state mole inside the NSA.
So, to cover up the truth they create a false accusatory narrative that Nakasone was STOPPING a politicisation by the radical left, by accusing him of having politicised by NOT accepting hsi application being pushed from who exactly and who said to do it to that person and so on up the coordinated globalist network communication node?
Who ORIGINALLY recommended to the NSA to hire this guy Ellis?
I wonder if he was put under surveillance with a nice 'cushy' WH job?
These so-called 'national security experts', why are they PUBLICALLY ACCUSING the head of the NSA?
National secrets violated in the very statement that presumes knowledge of highly classified information, Q clearance.
What can anons do when they see a name associated with an accusation of publicly accusing which must presume illegally breached security to acquire such information in a totally illegal way.
So the game is, if the accusation is to have presumed knowledge and awareness of some truth of reality that proves the NSA is 'politicising' a hiring decision which is an HR matter to be handled like every other valid hiring process that protects the identity and security of the hire's personal information that must be protected and kept confidential from hostile no asking 'loud' demanders, who are why to accuse what they themselves are doing and are perpetually keep trying to themselves?
If I were applying to the NSA and my application was turned down, I could not bring myself to think I am innocent of incorrectly flipping the accusations and innocence determinations in a way that does not match actual co-occurring included realities of whether I am doing and thinking something that can be said about who is in fact doing what I could vocally accuse a consciousness not mine of doing…whether I am right or wrong, at least as in who is really DOING the accusing behavior that compels false accusations to be regarded as 'true' through threats and blackmail in the 'force' of what is being 'fought' in the world ideological flowing matrix of 'talk' as against who is really 'doing' the narrative compelling a doing of guilt in the 'information' SOURCE in the 'public' network, what if the NSA caught a network trying to politicise their decision and we 'see' the reality by identifying the 'accusers' who we can all see as guilty of it themselves?
The more they PUBLICLY push how 'politicised', i.e. 'bad', the people accused are at NSA, ok the more they are telling everyone they're guilty of it and this is how true reality reveals false accusations in a species level globally?
How many countries got caught interfering in America's elections?
How do you trap a dangerous animal?
You reveal their actions DESPITE their 'loud' accusing type coding in ANONYMOUS digital space by always asking how can the accusers even claim to KNOW the source data that backs their accusation 'publicly'?
The only way the accusation makes sense is if the source data was illegally breached and transmitted to…who is the media node?
msn?
Instantly suspect claim…if the source stream is 'trust us what we say about others' and not direct truth of everyone's true motivations vis a vis their own actions.
msn hit piece on NSA is all that was.