|
Post by robeiae on May 25, 2017 8:16:36 GMT -5
www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-25/u-k-police-rebuke-u-s-for-leaking-information-on-terror-probeThis is pretty fucking disgraceful, imo. Also, it would seem that the NYT got hold of leaked crime scene photos, as well. And from all of the stories I saw on the suspect's identity, there was no naming of sources, no official basis. "Unnamed sources," "sources within the US government," etc. And frankly, I think it's disgraceful on two fronts: the assholes who leaked the info and the media outlets who published it, especially the bomber's name. Imo, if you're going to publicly identify someone as a suicide bomber, you don't do it on the bases of "unnamed sources." Suppose the name was wrong? Too late. And even more of a concern, releasing the name earlier than investigators wanted can compromise the investigation. Of course, it's pretty much par for the course on both of these fronts. I don't know who leaked info, whether it was someone(s) who came in with Trump or whether it was someone(s) who has been in their position for a while. Maybe it was both? Regardless, DC seems to be peopled assholes who don't understand the concepts of security or secrecy. And a lot of those assholes are in the intelligence community! Others may be in the Oval Office (including Trump)! Trump shoots his mouth off, possibly compromising an asset, right? He's an ass, we can almost all agree. But I think the leaks that have been coming out about Trump and/or people involved with him are every bit as shameful. Imo, even if you think think Trump is the antichrist and needs to be removed from office, these leaks should concern you. They're not right. And there's no reason to expect them to stop going forward, imo. This latest episode is evidence of that, I think. And I think this is also more evidence of why Comey had to go. He's partly--maybe largely--responsible for this state of affairs. He and other senior officials have allowed this leaking to the media to become largely acceptable. It's become a political weapon. And if it's not reigned in, it's only going to get worse, I think.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 25, 2017 11:31:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 25, 2017 11:35:13 GMT -5
This is actually scary stuff. And it keeps continuing. And big guns like the NYT are complicit. IMO, this is worse than Trump making a newbie mistake by bragging -- this is calculated, purposeful, and perpetrated by people who know better and don't give a shit about security or other repercussions.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 25, 2017 12:08:47 GMT -5
Why do you assume it was people in the IC responsible for the leaks? A lot of people had access to those crime scene photos and investigation details. It's not even clear to me why the British are so certain the leakers were American and not British.
Possibly (likely) they have more information that hasn't been disclosed, but I'd be looking at people in the WH before I'd assume that someone in the IC decided to hand photos to the NYT. Of course, I'm not Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 13:24:54 GMT -5
Sorry to dive in and out -- really busy today.
But I concur with Amadan. Looking at the links altogether, it seems to me the source or sources are likely within Trump's administration. At least some of them, anyway.
I concur, absolutely, that leaks like this one are appalling, dangerous, and inexcusable. They need to be stopped. Ditto for any leak that endangers the United States, its citizens, or its allies.
I must say, though, that I do not feel the same way about leaks that merely expose corruption or idiocies within the Trump administration. I think leaks like that are pretty much our only currently viable way, other than the courts, to keep some kind of leash on this president and might well be better for the country. I do not regard "leaks that make Trump look bad" as necessarily equivalent to "leaks that endager our country or its allies," though sometimes there is overlap. Is anyone sorry Deepthroat spoke up? I'm not.
ETA:
I am not saying I condone all the leaks. But I don't think we'd have a special prosecutor looking into the Russia stuff without them -- and I'm glad we do.
I don't think we'd know our president is happy to spontaneously trash our government officials and drop our allies' intelligence to the Russians, were it not for the leaks. And since I think a public outcry is the only shot at curtailing such behavior, I can't be sorry we know about it.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 25, 2017 15:15:56 GMT -5
Why do you assume it was people in the IC responsible for the leaks? A lot of people had access to those crime scene photos and investigation details. It's not even clear to me why the British are so certain the leakers were American and not British. Possibly (likely) they have more information that hasn't been disclosed, but I'd be looking at people in the WH before I'd assume that someone in the IC decided to hand photos to the NYT. Of course, I'm not Trump. Sorry to dive in and out -- really busy today. But I concur with Amadan. Looking at the links altogether, it seems to me the source or sources are likely within Trump's administration. At least some of them, anyway. If I'm too quick to go after Trump's critics, you guys are too quick to assume there's some sort of defense of Trump taking place. Nowhere did I assume it was people in the IC who were responsible for these latest leaks (on the Manchester attack). In fact, what I said was this: So back the truck up for a second and make sure you're replying to what has actually been posted. That said, I'm not sure how one can assume these leaks came from the Trump admin, per se. Maybe it did, but I don't see any logic or evidence supporting that assumption. Plus, if the Trump admin wanted to leak details, I'd bet they won't go to the NYT first. But I could be wrong, for sure. Either way, I still think there's a problem with what seems to me to be a culture of leaking. And yeah, this culture extends into the IC without a doubt, imo. Let's allow that it would be a Good Thing if a leak managed to bring down a treasonous official. The problem here is that the leaks on Trump and his people aren't smoking gun-style leaks. Because it only takes one of those, at the end of the day.
|
|
|
Post by CG Admin on May 25, 2017 15:23:43 GMT -5
Merged ce's thread into this one, deleted one post.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 25, 2017 15:43:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 25, 2017 16:55:36 GMT -5
If I'm too quick to go after Trump's critics, you guys are too quick to assume there's some sort of defense of Trump taking place. Nowhere did I assume it was people in the IC who were responsible for these latest leaks (on the Manchester attack). In fact, what I said was this: So back the truck up for a second and make sure you're replying to what has actually been posted. That said, I'm not sure how one can assume these leaks came from the Trump admin, per se. Maybe it did, but I don't see any logic or evidence supporting that assumption. Plus, if the Trump admin wanted to leak details, I'd bet they won't go to the NYT first. But I could be wrong, for sure. Either way, I still think there's a problem with what seems to me to be a culture of leaking. And yeah, this culture extends into the IC without a doubt, imo. Let's allow that it would be a Good Thing if a leak managed to bring down a treasonous official. The problem here is that the leaks on Trump and his people aren't smoking gun-style leaks. Because it only takes one of those, at the end of the day. You also said: You are not assuming that it was the IC responsible for the leaks. I'm not assuming it was one of Trump's people. I think we can agree that both are possible. But every conversation is not starting tabula rasa. You do defend Trump - all the time. Sure, you say he's an asshole and you wish he wasn't President. But then go on to explain that everyone criticizing him is being hysterical and inaccurate. The slant of your comments certainly indicates to me that you consider it at least equally likely that the leaks are coming from rogue IC employees rather than from within Trump's office. Whereas the preponderance of the evidence (exhibit A being the Leaker in Chief himself) slants me in a different direction.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 6, 2017 7:52:53 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/politics/federal-contractor-leak-prosecution/index.htmlI assume Justice is going to throw the proverbial book at her. She's looking at 10 years and has already admitted to the leaking. I Flipped on CNN this morning and they had their usual panel talking about this. CNN host Chris Cuomo--and Alisyn Camerota to some extent--was trying to push the idea that she might be protected by the "whistleblower" legislation, but I don't see how. She don't "blow the whistle" on any sort of bad behavior by US officials, she anonymously sent classified data to a website.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 6, 2017 9:22:11 GMT -5
Nope. This wasn't whistleblowing, it was just leaking. She's screwed, and screw her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 10:29:30 GMT -5
No pity here, either. This isn't whistle-blowing. It's one thing to ensure that some nefarious action by government officials isn't buried or covered up -- it's another thing to just leak to the press. We've got an investigation looking into the Russia stuff. If the investigation came out a year from now announcing that Russia hadn't done a thing, I'd be much more sympathetic to her making sure the American public knew "oh yes they did do something." But here, I've got no reason to think Meuller, et al. will try to sweep this under the rug.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jun 6, 2017 21:54:46 GMT -5
I Flipped on CNN this morning Youuuu dirty raaaaat!!!
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 7, 2017 6:11:14 GMT -5
I assume Justice is going to throw the proverbial book at her. Yep. Although if they do, it makes it look an awful lot like the Trump administration thinks the info in the document was true, at least on some level.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 9, 2017 15:38:40 GMT -5
|
|