It would take a shift in thought...

I would like to revisit an event I have previously written about and then make comment on the firing of a prominent Department of Labor employee who was in charge of labor statistics.  Recently I wrote:


On March 25, 2025, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard testified at a Senate hearing concerning global threats. This hearing was part of the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Part of her testimony was…

“…Iran continues to seeks expansion of its influence in the Middle East, despite the degradation to its proxies and defenses during the Gaza conflict. Iran has developed and maintains ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs, including systems capable of striking U.S. targets and allies in the region. Tehran has shown a willingness to use these weapons, including during a 2020 attack on U.S. forces in Iraq and in attacks against Israel in April and October 2024. Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data.

The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. The IC is closely monitoring if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program…”
​
Today, June 20th, President Trump refuted his appointed Director of National Intelligence testimony.  Reuters reported President Trump said that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was wrong in suggesting there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

 
At the time of my writing I asked the question, “To whom is the President listening to, if not his Director of National Intelligence?
”  
First, with whom has Trump been discussing national intelligence, if he hasn’t spoken with Gabbard and her division?

Second, is there a “shadow” or black ops intelligence gathering division of government that goes unmentioned, and if that is the case, why is Gabbard and her intelligence division even in operation, if the President is relying on information from another source other than Gabbard?

Third, is this Trump just being Trump and having to be the alpha dog in the room?  The person with all of the knowledge regarding all aspects of the government? “Was the President listening to a “shadow intelligence agency” or was he just being his own alpha self?”

 
Later, when the US attacked Iranian nuclear sites, the President addressed the nation saying the Iranian sites had been “obliterated” (his word) before any formal assessment of damage could be made.  As it turns out, according to intelligence reports the damage to the Iranian sites was less than what the President had told the public.  So, the question I asked before is somewhat appropriate, “To whom is the President listening?”  Or, does he just hear what he wants to hear and disregard the rest?

And now we have a long time Department of Labor employee in charge of labor statistics being fired because of a poor jobs report created for the past month, and a revision of a previous report regarding jobs gained, which is not out of character of the Department of Labor.  Why was the employee fired?  Because the President accused the employee of “fixing” the report to make him look bad…and the real “kicker”, is, like his dealing with Gabbard, and his immediate declaration of obliterating Iranian nuclear capabilities…he has no evidence, no proof to support his acclimations.

The word “truthful” comes to mind.  Using an Oxford dictionary, I found this definition:

truthful | ˈtro͞oTHf(ə)l | adjective (of a person or statement) telling or expressing the truth; honest: 

Another word that raises an eyebrow or two is “accountable”.  And using the same dictionary I found this:

accountable | əˈkoun(t)əbəl | adjective 1 (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible: parents could be held accountable for their children's actions | government must be accountable to its citizens.

And just to provide more clarity, the word “justify” must be addressed.

justify | ˈjəstəˌfī | verb (justifies, justifying, justified) [with object] 1 show or prove to be right or reasonable: the person appointed has fully justified our confidence. • be a good reason for: the situation was grave enough to justify further investigation.

So now I pose another question.  It is a question the requires self-evaluation of one’s ethical values.  It requires an answer that is truthful to no one except yourself.  It is a question that Congress and the Courts must answer in a manner to represent the very fabric this on which this country was established.

“When will the President be held accountable for his actions of lies and deceit?”

To turn a deaf ear, or turn away from this behavior of the President is not the American way of life.  It was proven to be so when Barry Goldwater, John Rhodes, and Hugh Scott went to President Nixon and told him to resign or be impeached and removed from office.  And we all know what President Nixon did.  If it could be done then, it can be done now.