Foundations

This is something Fox News analyst Erick Erickson wrote in response to reports that DJT leaked classified information received from an important ally to Russian officials when they met him in the White House at his invitation:

What sets this story apart for me, at least, is that I know one of the sources. And the source is solidly supportive of President Trump, or at least has been and was during Campaign 2016. But the President will not take any internal criticism, no matter how politely it is given. He does not want advice, cannot be corrected, and is too insecure to see any constructive feedback as anything other than an attack.

So some of the sources are left with no other option but to go to the media, leak the story, and hope that the intense blowback gives the President a swift kick in the butt. Perhaps then he will recognize he screwed up. The President cares vastly more about what the press says than what his advisers say. That is a real problem and one his advisers are having to recognize and use, even if it causes messy stories to get outside the White House perimeter.

I am told that what the President did is actually far worse than what is being reported. The President does not seem to realize or appreciate that his bragging can undermine relationships with our allies and with human intelligence sources. He also does not seem to appreciate that his loose lips can get valuable assets in the field killed.

Aside from the known fact that I don't think DJT is capable of being POTUS and should be impeached for any number of ethics violations prior to taking office, I have nothing to add to the actual scandal. What I find interesting is Erickson's faith in the truthfulness of the 'source'. His source is someone he knows and trusts on a personal level. This sounds a lot like the indoctrination of religion & faith. From a young age, the people children trust the most - their parents - indoctrinate them into belief in 'God'. For church attendees, the circle of trusted people grows from parents to those deemed trustworthy by parents - often clergy and their officialdom. It becomes an insular trustworthy in-group (church community) and the untrustworthy out-group (all others). Trustworthiness is subjectively determined by knowledge of someone on a personal level. Contrast this to trust in a process such as science or law. People who trust processes are less influenced by personal knowledge; the objective conclusions/knowledge gained by the process is accepted even when the person conducting the exercise is unknown. For example, even when we don't agree with a Supreme Court Decision, there is generally belief that it will be corrected at some later time.

At the moment, the Republican rank and file are more rabidly inclined towards subjective attachment that Democrats. If Fox News is anything to go by, they are still sticking to DJT despite the many reports of highly questionable judgement. Many Democrats also have a cult of personality; to some them, Hilary can do no wrong; to another group, Bernie is the 'one'. If science has any lessons to offer, it's that predictions based on objective reasoning have proven to be more accurate than those base on religion.