US Officially Blames Russia

quadraginta said:
It appears that sharing information with him didn't work very well when they tried to warn him about Flynn. Not sure how not telling him would have made much difference.

And when they do share classified info with him it seems that his first instinct is to show it to the dozens of random people in the public dining room where he happens to be when he gets it.

Some reticence might be in order. Having the White House in general and the President in particular being one of the most glaring security vulnerabilities our intelligence community has to face is a rather unique problem.

It may take some time to sort out the best way to deal with it. For now, I think they can be forgiven a certain amount of prudence.
Click to expand...

But Hillary Clinton's e-mail server was much worse, because...
 
sunmaster14 said:
In theory, it's the President's call as to what information is classified and how it should be treated. The President has other considerations besides just keeping secrets. You can disagree with him, and that's fine, but if you're a professional in the intelligence community, I think you should voice your concerns internally (or resign and voice them publicly), but still do your job, which is to give all important information to the President (or his staff).

I didn't agree with Obama bragging about the bin Laden raid within hours of it happening, even though there could have been actionable intelligence that was compromised. I didn't agree with his administration publicly bragging about the Stuxnet attack on Iranian centrifuges either. I think he sacrificed national security for personal political gain, but those are judgment calls he's entitled to make as President.
Click to expand...


Do you know for a fact that these announcements were not vetted and approved by the intelligence community before he made them?

If you don't know this, what makes you think anything was compromised?

Compare and contrast to Trump spreading security documents all over a table in the public dining room of his Mar-A-Lago club as soon as he received them and letting anyone who happened to be around at the time take pictures.

I eagerly await your Trumpette spin on that. I haven't had a good chuckle yet this morning.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Do you know for a fact that these announcements were not vetted and approved by the intelligence community before he made them? If you don't know this, what makes you think anything was compromised?
Click to expand...

It is impossible that it made sense to let the cat out of the bag so early, when they had acquired computer hard disks, etc. that needed to be analyzed. Sure, at some point it would have leaked that the raid had happened, and far-flung al Qaeda operatives would have gotten the heads up, but not within an hour or two.

Compare and contrast to Trump spreading security documents all over a table in the public dining room of his Mar-A-Lago club as soon as he received them and letting anyone who happened to be around at the time take pictures.
Click to expand...

Do you have confirmation of this? In any case, Trump's problems with the intelligence community clearly predated such behavior. And, as I've pointed out, it's his call to make, as President. By definition, anything he does with respect to classified information is legal because it's his call to make as far as balancing security concerns with the public's need to know, as well as the need to burnish the country's reputation.

I eagerly await your Trumpette spin on that. I haven't had a good chuckle yet this morning.
Click to expand...

Actually I find the hypocrisy of the anti-Trumpers to be delicious. Before Trump, Democrats considered the intelligence community to the enemy, and not Russia. Now, all of a sudden, Democrats actually give a crap about national security. Trump has been good for the country in that way at least.
 
sunmaster14 said:
You don't think it's outrageous (in the sense of being highly inappropriate) for the intelligence agencies to be withholding information from the President because they don't trust him? If they think he's a danger to the country, they should be making the case to Congress to impeach him, or resign in protest, or both. But what they're doing instead sounds like treason to me.
Click to expand...

The willful failure of Republican Congressional leadership to investigate the corruption of Trump and his team by Russia, despite having this brought to their attention months ago, sounds like treason to me.

Your argument requires that intelligence officers knowingly provide highly classified materials to persons they are sure are security holes. That's nuts.

sunmaster14 said:
<Obama liberals liberals liberals>
Click to expand...

You are appealing to a fictional scenario based on what you think is a bad treaty to spin away from the actual willful conduct of this Admnistration. Is there any length to which you will not go to defend them?
 
sts60 said:
The willful failure of Republican Congressional leadership to investigate the corruption of Trump and his team by Russia, despite having this brought to their attention months ago, sounds like treason to me.
Click to expand...

Good grief, that's pathetic.

Your argument requires that intelligence officers knowingly provide highly classified materials to persons they are sure are security holes. That's nuts.
Click to expand...

He's the President. He has plenary authority over classified information. If you don't like his decisions in the area, or his allegedly lax attention to the matter, then advocate for his impeachment. But allegations of treason are ridiculous, especially against the people who don't agree with you.

You are appealing to a fictional scenario based on what you think is a bad treaty to spin away from the actual willful conduct of this Admnistration. Is there any length to which you will not go to defend them?
Click to expand...

Treaty? I thought the Senate had to approve treaties.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Any Trump voters still think he is better at maintaining national secrecy than Clinton would have been?
Click to expand...
Of course they do. The facts do not seem to matter to many of those guys.

Trump voters believe it's fine for Trump to use private email.

David Petraeus, a man who is literally on probation right now for pleading guilty to giving classified information to his mistress is apparently still in the running to replace Flynn.

As long as they're "winning" and liberals are mad, it's all good. :thumbsup:
 
willhaven said:
Of course they do. The facts do not seem to matter to many of those guys.

Trump voters believe it's fine for Trump to use private email.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with having a private email account, as long as it's not used for conducting government business (and specifically to avoid federal recordkeeping laws). This isn't really a subtle point, but I'm not surprised that Democrats have a hard time understanding it anyway.

David Petraeus, a man who is literally on probation right now for pleading guilty to giving classified information to his mistress is apparently still in the running to replace Flynn.
Click to expand...

Well, he's been punished for his mistakes. The security risk he represents should be looked at prospectively. I think it's not unreasonable to believe that he will adhere to the rules diligently going forward.

As to Hillary, she has gotten away with her crimes time and time again. That tends to have the opposite effect with respect to following the rules in the future.

As long as they're "winning" and liberals are mad, it's all good. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

There's both positive and negative aspects to making liberals mad. It's not all good. But it's at least partly good.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Good grief, that's pathetic.
Click to expand...

Your scenario is about people trying to prevent classified information from falling into hostile hands. You're calling that "treason". So, I'm not really moved by your opinion.

sunmaster14 said:
He's the President. He has plenary authority over classified information. If you don't like his decisions in the area, or his allegedly lax attention to the matter, then advocate for his impeachment. But allegations of treason are ridiculous, especially against the people who don't agree with you.
Click to expand...

I am advocating for his impeachment, and not just for "bad decisions" or "allegedly lax" handling; that's a straw man. Nor am I alleging treason because I don't agree with people. That's another straw man. I'm talking about willful actions by Trump and his campaign and Administration, and willful cover-up, mostly through deliberate inaction, by his enablers in Congress.

sunmaster14 said:
Treaty? I thought the Senate had to approve treaties.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the wrong term. Which does not change the crux of my argument.

Do you have a red line? Or is it all about seeing the libruls cry?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Sally Yates did not get fired for telling the truth. She got fired for refusing to do her job.
Click to expand...

Her job is to uphold the law. Given what has happened to the Muslim ban, it was indeed her job to refrain from enforcing that Imperial Executive Order (isn't that what they were when Obama issued them?)
 
Donal said:
Her job is to uphold the law. Given what has happened to the Muslim ban, it was indeed her job to refrain from enforcing that Imperial Executive Order (isn't that what they were when Obama issued them?)
Click to expand...

Like religion, principles are often just front for convenience; a means to an end.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It is impossible that it made sense to let the cat out of the bag so early, when they had acquired computer hard disks, etc. that needed to be analyzed. Sure, at some point it would have leaked that the raid had happened, and far-flung al Qaeda operatives would have gotten the heads up, but not within an hour or two.
Click to expand...


Impossible ... in your opinion.

Do you have confirmation of this?
Click to expand...


The confirmation is widespread.

You can't be that out of touch.

In any case, Trump's problems with the intelligence community clearly predated such behavior. And, as I've pointed out, it's his call to make, as President. By definition, anything he does with respect to classified information is legal because it's his call to make as far as balancing security concerns with the public's need to know, as well as the need to burnish the country's reputation.
Click to expand...


Not your best work.

You don't even sound like you believe that tripe yourself.

You'll need to try harder to spin this ball of crap.

Actually I find the hypocrisy of the anti-Trumpers to be delicious. Before Trump, Democrats considered the intelligence community to the enemy, and not Russia. Now, all of a sudden, Democrats actually give a crap about national security. Trump has been good for the country in that way at least.
Click to expand...


Which Democrats are you referring to?

I know that there were individuals within the intelligence community who were viewed with some distrust, do to an utter failure to behave with impartiality, but your claim looks like just so much more Trumpette straw.

As usual.
 
sunmaster14 said:
<snip>

Well, he's been punished for his mistakes. The security risk he represents should be looked at prospectively. I think it's not unreasonable to believe that he will adhere to the rules diligently going forward.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Pitiful. It's like you aren't even trying.

That's just the same old, "But, but ... they've been forgiven.", spiel that gets spouted whenever Republicans try and put their criminals and ethically bankrupt back in power.

It's disappointing. You're losing your touch.

It almost seems like your heart really isn't in it anymore.

Of course, I can't blame you for that. The Trump apologia racket looks like it's going to get pretty rough in the future.
 
sunmaster14 said:
There's nothing wrong with having a private email account, as long as it's not used for conducting government business (and specifically to avoid federal recordkeeping laws). This isn't really a subtle point, but I'm not surprised that Democrats have a hard time understanding it anyway.
Click to expand...
Which, of course, is the assumption behind the question in the first place. :cool:


sunmaster14 said:
Well, he's been punished for his mistakes. The security risk he represents should be looked at prospectively. I think it's not unreasonable to believe that he will adhere to the rules diligently going forward.

As to Hillary, she has gotten away with her crimes time and time again. That tends to have the opposite effect with respect to following the rules in the future.
Click to expand...
Which crimes relevant to this security discussion has she gotten away with, exactly? :D
 
sts60 said:
Your scenario is about people trying to prevent classified information from falling into hostile hands. You're calling that "treason". So, I'm not really moved by your opinion.



I am advocating for his impeachment, and not just for "bad decisions" or "allegedly lax" handling; that's a straw man. Nor am I alleging treason because I don't agree with people. That's another straw man. I'm talking about willful actions by Trump and his campaign and Administration, and willful cover-up, mostly through deliberate inaction, by his enablers in Congress.



Yes, that was the wrong term. Which does not change the crux of my argument.

Do you have a red line? Or is it all about seeing the libruls cry?
Click to expand...

No, I do not have a red line, since bad actions can be mitigated by good actions. I suppose I could draw a red line at his doing something clearly illegal, but for somebody so powerful, it's never going to be unambiguous without a long drawn-out investigation. I guess if he picked up a gun and shot his wife in front of the cameras, that would do it. Although I would still consider the context.
 
willhaven said:
Which, of course, is the assumption behind the question in the first place. :cool:



Which crimes relevant to this security discussion has she gotten away with, exactly? :D
Click to expand...


I think it's getting kind of weird that the Trump apologists' responses when their hero screws up are still, "Hillary!!! E-MAIL!!!??!!!

I guess weaving "BENGHAZI!!!" into it will be next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom