To the editor:

What is it? The following is just one of many describing this action. “Blackmail is an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain (commonly money or property) or cause loss to another unless a demand is met.” So, there it is in all its glory!

Use of this vehicle fuels many of the political stories we are hearing. These past actions can supposedly predict future performance. Does it? In many cases, yes: the intended target fears a loss of position in some category and so he/she yields to the demands.

However, if the alleged action is false in nature it provides the target with a thicker shield against future threats by blackmail.

And so we reach the purpose of this comment. Reported in the news: “Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested Tuesday night that U.S. intelligence agencies could ‘get back at’ President-elect Donald Trump after he questioned the legitimacy of the intelligence community’s probe into Russian involvement in the hacking of Democratic Party officials.”

This whole premise of revenge by the intelligence community against the Office of the President is shocking and actionable. That President-Elect Donald Trump is being subjected to yet another attempt to undermine his presidency is unconscionable! It is vicious and dangerous and not an act of “intelligence” within our government.

Great weight is given to the fact that Donald Trump has close ties to Russian officials. And this is supposed to be a bad thing? Donald Trump does business in Russia. To be successful in business one needs to have communication with individuals within the other country. This is normal and this is proper. Those unfamiliar with the process have no right to condemn this practice. It would appear that “intelligence” itself is lacking among these accusers.

So, Donald Trump voices concern over some of the actions of the intelligence agencies and now we are faced with rumblings from those agencies murmuring threats of blackmail! Whether true or not this must be exposed and a determination made on the facts of the matter.

This is not the function of these agencies to be involved with the political process in the United States.

Is it the function of these agencies to write the epitaph of politicians on political tombstones? It could be said that victory lives loud and raucous but defeat swims in silence. With this past presidential election those roles appear to be reversed.

Joseph L. Kibitlewski

Cape Coral