Just wait until you find out that my security clearance is now expired and I occasionally browse Wikileaks!

Information should be freely accessible. I held that belief long before I joined the military. If you're interested in the SCAME approach, check it out. Baseless accusations about my integrity are uncalled for, though.

edit - for what it's worth, my calling it "PsyOp" versus "PsyOps" is a good indicator that I am what I say to be.

We’re all just names on an internet forum. Everything here is baseless. I’m not even saying I doubt you are/were involved in PsyOps. I’m saying I’m not so sure I believe the “ex” part.

Anyhow…here’s a question for you. Leading up to Jan 6, it was quite clear to me that someone with PsyOp knowledge was involved with Donald Trump’s Twitter account. Any thoughts or comments on that?

If I were still enlisted, I could get in legitimate trouble - like, UCMJ action with hard labor, docked pay, then dishonorable discharge - for the things I've simply read. I wouldn't admit to that if I were still attached.

But to your question - could you share a tweet in particular, or a theme before I answer? I'm not entirely sure what you're describing. Most of his tweets seemed from the hip, unpolished, and frankly without any point other than to stir up controversy.

As an example, in the month before Jan 6, he made regular posts showing pictures of people in other countries rioting which he claimed they were doing because they were so upset about America’s “stolen election”. He continually used terminology centered around fighting and rising up around these posts. I remember how utterly contrived it seemed to me, like the posts were intended to spur a certain idea in the minds of his followers.

This isn't the only psyops person in that orbit, but probably one of the most influential. I do find it ironically amusing that his 38-slide powerpoint is not notably worse than many official military slide decks. https://thedispatch.com/p/who-is-phil-waldron-and-why-did-th...

> I remember how utterly contrived it seemed to me, like the posts were intended to spur a certain idea in the minds of his followers.

I think that’s just textbook political ideologue.

> Most of his tweets seemed from the hip, unpolished, and frankly without any point other than to stir up controversy.

That would fit the on-going GOP/reactionary tactic of always creating disruption, fear, and crisis. Even reasonable, but controversial, communication might create more sense of calm.

It was hosted on FAS, which had/has a long history of doing such things. Steven Aftergood was its co-founder and his bona fides are quite well known: https://sgp.fas.org/aftergood.html