US Officially Blames Russia

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...

No, she can only refuse to defend an executive branch policy in court if she felt that there wasn't at least a colorable argument in its favor. Given that many constitutional scholars have weighed in and said that the executive order was legal, and that others have said it is a close call, and that even its opponents say that it's at least arguable, she clearly had no basis in believing that a defense of the policy would be frivolous. Lawyers have to argue stuff all the time that they don't personally agree with. They are obligated by ethics rules to do that actually. The line is at making frivolous arguments or suborning perjury or lying to the court directly.
 
quadraginta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ha ha. True that.
 
Benedict Arnold sold out his country for some gold;the GOP is apparently ready to sell out their country for some tax cuts.
Maybe a second American Revolution is needed....
 
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.....
Click to expand...



So you would be OK hiring a convicted embezzler (he's a Harvard grad after all, great credentials) to manage your finances, as long as he's done hard time for his previous offense?
Really?
 
quadraginta said:
Okay.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html

It's amazing how difficult it's become for people to use Google themselves these days.
Click to expand...

Well, first do you have any idea of how many claims we come across every day on the internet? If it's not the claimant's burden to support the claim then there's no way I can verify all of them myself.

Second, what exactly should I google? "Trump security papers table"? (ETA: that last one's a joke, by the way)
 
Last edited:
Hollow-est trolling ever:

sunmaster14 said:
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...


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...

Answer:
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.
Click to expand...



sunmaster14 said:
Actually I find the hypocrisy of the anti-Trumpers to be delicious.
Click to expand...

???????
 
quadraginta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty rough right now. But joining a cult does have its downsides.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, first do you have any idea of how many claims we come across every day on the internet? If it's not the claimant's burden to support the claim then there's no way I can verify all of them myself.
Click to expand...


Well, since it's been all over the news since yesterday, I didn't think it qualified as some random claim on the internet.

I first heard about it on CNN.

Second, what exactly should I google? "Trump security papers table"? (ETA: that last one's a joke, by the way)
Click to expand...


Not as much of a joke as you might think.

I just tried that very phrase (quotation marks and all)
as a Google query and the Trump display of security consciousness at Mar-a-Lago was the very first result in the queue.

Also the second, third, fourth, and fifth. Which included the above mentioned CNN report, as well as the Washington Post, and the NYT.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Well, since it's been all over the news since yesterday, I didn't think it qualified as some random claim on the internet.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to belittle you. That was a general principle that I think you'd agree with. But I hadn't heard about that one incodent, and didn't think it was so recent. It's hard to keep track of all the nonsense Trump puts out there.

Not as much of a joke as you might think.

I just tried that very phrase (quotation marks and all)as a Google query and the Trump display of security consciousness at Mara-a-Lago was the very first result in the queue.
Click to expand...

No, it's a joke alright, but the joke's on me.
 
A plea bargain to felony charges usually keeps you from getting a good job. Not sure why it would be an asset here. And for the record, I really liked Petraeus and was very upset when that scandal broke.
 
MuDPhuD said:
So you would be OK hiring a convicted embezzler (he's a Harvard grad after all, great credentials) to manage your finances, as long as he's done hard time for his previous offense?
Really?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be disqualifying all by itself. It would be a strike against him, but it could be offset by positive factors. Also, I would look at the details of the actual offense. From where I sit, the political optics of hiring Petraeus are probably worse than the actual security risks.
 
MuDPhuD said:
Hollow-est trolling ever:






Answer:






???????
Click to expand...

There is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about that series of posts. President Obama was entitled to release that information for partisan political purposes, because it is presumed that anything he does with respect to classified information is in the nation's best interest. I don't believe it was (instead I believe he did it for base partisan purposes), but legally, he is entitled to that presumption.
 
No, the President does not have singular authority to determine classification status. That power belongs to numerous agencies which have "Original Classification Authority."

TOP SECRET
Executive Office of the President:

The Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff
The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor)
The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
The Director of National Drug Control Policy
The Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
The Chair or Co-Chairs, President's Intelligence Advisory Board

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of State
The Secretary of the Treasury
The Secretary of Defense
The Attorney General
The Secretary of Energy
The Secretary of Homeland Security
The Director of National Intelligence
The Secretary of the Army
The Secretary of the Navy
The Secretary of the Air Force
The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Director, Information Security Oversight Office

SECRET
Executive Office of the President:

The United States Trade Representative

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of Agriculture
The Secretary of Commerce
The Secretary of Health and Human Services
The Secretary of Transportation
The Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

In simple terms, the originator of the document determines classification (according to some rather exhaustive guidelines). Anyone putting that same information into another document must maintain that level of classification (can be denoted down to paragraph level). If you want to expose that information, permission must be granted from the originator/source of the information who so classified it and there are interdepartmental procedures for reconciling that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom