|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
That's not illegal Doodsmack. He has the right to politely ask his FBI director to stop snooping into his former appointees background dealings. /s
|
On May 17 2017 06:24 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:09 Plansix wrote:
CNN is now reporting that the Trump administration asked them not to report on the city, citing the information was collected in. That is would reveal sources and methods that would risk getting people killed. The White House’s public statement said that Trump did not reveal sources and methods, or discuss them. But if that is true, why would they ask CNN not to discuss the city? There is an important distinction to be made between "sources and methods" (how we get intelligence: was it from electronic surveillance of emails or chat rooms, or was it from a human spy, or was it from satellite footage, or was it from an ally) and the "intelligence product" (the name of the city, in this example). According to reports from senior staffers linked a few pages earlier in this thread, DT doesn't pay enough attention to his intel briefings to actually know anything about "sources and methods" so he is literally unable to compromise those. However, he is aware of intelligence products, like the names of specific cities in the Middle East that he divulged to Russian spies. The danger of giving away highly sensitive intelligence products to U.S. enemies is that it helps those enemies figure out how "sources and methods" work as well, because they know what we know, which helps them solve the puzzle of how we obtained it in the first place. Hope this clears things up.
When my brother was deployed in Iraq, we received a pretty detailed breakdown of what we should and should not post on the internet in general. I had to keep my mouth shut about him coming back until he was in the US, even though I knew when he was leaving for months. I have no doubt ISIS could figure out where that leak came from by just knowing the city. I do appreciate you taking the time to break it down, through.
I was attempting to make a rhetorical counter argument to the posters that have been pushing the narrative that the leak might have been totally benign and no relevant information was provided. From everything that is coming out, that is not the case.
|
On May 17 2017 06:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
The Failing New York Times
Wow this is horrible. Good for Comey for documenting this stuff.
|
The most amusing part is that Trump thought that none of this would catch up to him. That the FBI staff would just roll over and not just leak everything.
|
On May 17 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:CShow nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:24 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 17 2017 06:09 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/theleadcnn/status/864574596128886784CNN is now reporting that the Trump administration asked them not to report on the city, citing the information was collected in. That is would reveal sources and methods that would risk getting people killed. The White House’s public statement said that Trump did not reveal sources and methods, or discuss them. But if that is true, why would they ask CNN not to discuss the city? There is an important distinction to be made between "sources and methods" (how we get intelligence: was it from electronic surveillance of emails or chat rooms, or was it from a human spy, or was it from satellite footage, or was it from an ally) and the "intelligence product" (the name of the city, in this example). According to reports from senior staffers linked a few pages earlier in this thread, DT doesn't pay enough attention to his intel briefings to actually know anything about "sources and methods" so he is literally unable to compromise those. However, he is aware of intelligence products, like the names of specific cities in the Middle East that he divulged to Russian spies. The danger of giving away highly sensitive intelligence products to U.S. enemies is that it helps those enemies figure out how "sources and methods" work as well, because they know what we know, which helps them solve the puzzle of how we obtained it in the first place. Hope this clears things up. When my brother was deployed in Iraq, we received a pretty detailed breakdown of what we should and should not post on the internet in general. I had to keep my mouth shut about him coming back until he was in the US, even though I knew when he was leaving for months. I have no doubt ISIS could figure out where that leak came from by just knowing the city. I do appreciate you taking the time to break it down, through. I was attempting to make a rhetorical counter argument to the posters that have been pushing the narrative that the leak might have been totally benign and no relevant information was provided. From everything that is coming out, that is not the case.
I had no idea that you had to do that. Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what the penalties would have been if you had spammed everywhere all the stuff the military told you not to post on the internet?
My comment was just trying to clarify what you said about the CNN tweet. Contrary to what you stated, CNN divulging the city would not mean that CNN was divulging "sources and methods." Rather, they would be divulging "intelligence products." So Trump can say truthfully that he did not divulge "sources and methods" to the Russians, because he didn't: he divulged intelligence products. That's still terrible though, for the reasons above.
|
Plansix knows more about handling classified information than a woman who was a senator who served for 6 years on the armed services committee and was then Sec. of State for 5 years. Plansix also knows more about handling classified information than the current president of the United States.
Why did we have to choose between two such horrible people in 2016?
|
On May 17 2017 06:39 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:COn May 17 2017 06:24 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 17 2017 06:09 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/theleadcnn/status/864574596128886784CNN is now reporting that the Trump administration asked them not to report on the city, citing the information was collected in. That is would reveal sources and methods that would risk getting people killed. The White House’s public statement said that Trump did not reveal sources and methods, or discuss them. But if that is true, why would they ask CNN not to discuss the city? There is an important distinction to be made between "sources and methods" (how we get intelligence: was it from electronic surveillance of emails or chat rooms, or was it from a human spy, or was it from satellite footage, or was it from an ally) and the "intelligence product" (the name of the city, in this example). According to reports from senior staffers linked a few pages earlier in this thread, DT doesn't pay enough attention to his intel briefings to actually know anything about "sources and methods" so he is literally unable to compromise those. However, he is aware of intelligence products, like the names of specific cities in the Middle East that he divulged to Russian spies. The danger of giving away highly sensitive intelligence products to U.S. enemies is that it helps those enemies figure out how "sources and methods" work as well, because they know what we know, which helps them solve the puzzle of how we obtained it in the first place. Hope this clears things up. When my brother was deployed in Iraq, we received a pretty detailed breakdown of what we should and should not post on the internet in general. I had to keep my mouth shut about him coming back until he was in the US, even though I knew when he was leaving for months. I have no doubt ISIS could figure out where that leak came from by just knowing the city. I do appreciate you taking the time to break it down, through. I was attempting to make a rhetorical counter argument to the posters that have been pushing the narrative that the leak might have been totally benign and no relevant information was provided. From everything that is coming out, that is not the case. I had no idea that you had to do that. Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what the penalties would have been if you had spammed everywhere all the stuff the military told you not to post on the internet? My comment was just trying to clarify what you said about the CNN tweet. Contrary to what you stated, CNN divulging the city would not mean that CNN was divulging "sources and methods." Rather, they would be divulging "intelligence products." So Trump can say truthfully that he did not divulge "sources and methods" to the Russians, because he didn't: he divulged intelligence products. That's still terrible though, for the reasons above.
No. Naming the city would compromise the location of the human-intel sources and put their lives in danger. You name the city, now the enemy knows where the mole is. This isn't a hard thing to understand.
|
On May 17 2017 06:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
The Failing New York Times
Add more smoke to the fire. Excited to see how xDaunt and Danglers spin this into their ever increasing web of 'meh not seeing the importance yet'.
|
On May 17 2017 06:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
The Failing New York Times
This is absolutely insane.
|
On May 17 2017 06:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:39 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 17 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:COn May 17 2017 06:24 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 17 2017 06:09 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/theleadcnn/status/864574596128886784CNN is now reporting that the Trump administration asked them not to report on the city, citing the information was collected in. That is would reveal sources and methods that would risk getting people killed. The White House’s public statement said that Trump did not reveal sources and methods, or discuss them. But if that is true, why would they ask CNN not to discuss the city? There is an important distinction to be made between "sources and methods" (how we get intelligence: was it from electronic surveillance of emails or chat rooms, or was it from a human spy, or was it from satellite footage, or was it from an ally) and the "intelligence product" (the name of the city, in this example). According to reports from senior staffers linked a few pages earlier in this thread, DT doesn't pay enough attention to his intel briefings to actually know anything about "sources and methods" so he is literally unable to compromise those. However, he is aware of intelligence products, like the names of specific cities in the Middle East that he divulged to Russian spies. The danger of giving away highly sensitive intelligence products to U.S. enemies is that it helps those enemies figure out how "sources and methods" work as well, because they know what we know, which helps them solve the puzzle of how we obtained it in the first place. Hope this clears things up. When my brother was deployed in Iraq, we received a pretty detailed breakdown of what we should and should not post on the internet in general. I had to keep my mouth shut about him coming back until he was in the US, even though I knew when he was leaving for months. I have no doubt ISIS could figure out where that leak came from by just knowing the city. I do appreciate you taking the time to break it down, through. I was attempting to make a rhetorical counter argument to the posters that have been pushing the narrative that the leak might have been totally benign and no relevant information was provided. From everything that is coming out, that is not the case. I had no idea that you had to do that. Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what the penalties would have been if you had spammed everywhere all the stuff the military told you not to post on the internet? My comment was just trying to clarify what you said about the CNN tweet. Contrary to what you stated, CNN divulging the city would not mean that CNN was divulging "sources and methods." Rather, they would be divulging "intelligence products." So Trump can say truthfully that he did not divulge "sources and methods" to the Russians, because he didn't: he divulged intelligence products. That's still terrible though, for the reasons above. No. Naming the city would compromise the location of the human-intel sources and put their lives in danger. You name the city, now the enemy knows where the mole is. This isn't a hard thing to understand.
The terms "intelligence product" and "sources and methods" are very clearly defined. Stating a city name that we know from intelligence work is divulging an "intelligence product." Stating HOW we figured out that dangerous people were in that city is divulging "sources and methods." This isn't a hard thing to understand.
Obviously, divulging intel products willy nilly to U.S. enemies risks compromising sources and methods, as I stated in my very first post on the matter. This is also exactly what you just said.
EDIT: I have no idea why you are trying to disagree with me.
|
On May 17 2017 06:05 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 05:59 LegalLord wrote:
I can't help but notice a consistent pattern of hypocrisy every time this shit comes up. If the DNC leaks were so bad, then why was it ok when another foreign country ("ally" or not it's still foreign influence on government) leaks to bury Flynn? And our intelligence was so evil when they were supporting mass surveillance but now that they leak against Trump they are our dear, esteemed and trustworthy intelligence branch full of good Americans. Incomplete information and hasty conclusions based on leaks are bad until it's against Trump.
I mean sure, Trump is bad, but learn to have consistent standards for fucks sake. We can't just play the "Trump is so evil that we should throw principles out the window to oppose him" game. I want you to weigh two things on the scale of importance. (1) The intellectual consistency of an amorphous group of internet hippies (not individuals by name) (2) The actions of the President of the United States If you have the worlds greatest attacks at (1), they would never be equal of important to even the smallest of Trump's screwups in (2). You can get away with spinning about standards in (1) because you never name names. But no amount of spinning there will ever justify Trump blabbing angel tier info to the Russians (2). Real policy will always matter more than previous consistency. EDIT: further, there is no amount of bad (1) that could ever provide justification for any acts in (2). No matter how many times Trump/Trumpkins make appeals to hypocrisy, they remain fallacies. Presidential acts can be judged on their own merits, no matter what some hippies said in the past.
Hypocrisy in politics is one of the smallest evils imaginable. Politics is a lot like being a lawyer, you don't blame a lawyer for raising one argument in one case and then decrying its use the next case. Everything is expendable, all that matters is the result of representing your constituency.
So liberals dislike Comey, but he suddenly is a man of great integrity because Trump fired him. I think it's good to be a bit skeptical about such things, and certainly it deserves to be mocked, but the main point is that hypocrisy in service of a larger goal is easily forgivable. So let's turn Comey into this great man and use him to put Trump in a difficult position and mobilize the FBI against him, it's for the best.
|
On May 17 2017 06:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:On May 17 2017 06:39 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 17 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:COn May 17 2017 06:24 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 17 2017 06:09 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/theleadcnn/status/864574596128886784CNN is now reporting that the Trump administration asked them not to report on the city, citing the information was collected in. That is would reveal sources and methods that would risk getting people killed. The White House’s public statement said that Trump did not reveal sources and methods, or discuss them. But if that is true, why would they ask CNN not to discuss the city? There is an important distinction to be made between "sources and methods" (how we get intelligence: was it from electronic surveillance of emails or chat rooms, or was it from a human spy, or was it from satellite footage, or was it from an ally) and the "intelligence product" (the name of the city, in this example). According to reports from senior staffers linked a few pages earlier in this thread, DT doesn't pay enough attention to his intel briefings to actually know anything about "sources and methods" so he is literally unable to compromise those. However, he is aware of intelligence products, like the names of specific cities in the Middle East that he divulged to Russian spies. The danger of giving away highly sensitive intelligence products to U.S. enemies is that it helps those enemies figure out how "sources and methods" work as well, because they know what we know, which helps them solve the puzzle of how we obtained it in the first place. Hope this clears things up. When my brother was deployed in Iraq, we received a pretty detailed breakdown of what we should and should not post on the internet in general. I had to keep my mouth shut about him coming back until he was in the US, even though I knew when he was leaving for months. I have no doubt ISIS could figure out where that leak came from by just knowing the city. I do appreciate you taking the time to break it down, through. I was attempting to make a rhetorical counter argument to the posters that have been pushing the narrative that the leak might have been totally benign and no relevant information was provided. From everything that is coming out, that is not the case. I had no idea that you had to do that. Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what the penalties would have been if you had spammed everywhere all the stuff the military told you not to post on the internet? My comment was just trying to clarify what you said about the CNN tweet. Contrary to what you stated, CNN divulging the city would not mean that CNN was divulging "sources and methods." Rather, they would be divulging "intelligence products." So Trump can say truthfully that he did not divulge "sources and methods" to the Russians, because he didn't: he divulged intelligence products. That's still terrible though, for the reasons above. No. Naming the city would compromise the location of the human-intel sources and put their lives in danger. You name the city, now the enemy knows where the mole is. This isn't a hard thing to understand. The terms "intelligence product" and "sources and methods" are very clearly defined. Stating a city name that we know from intelligence work is divulging an "intelligence product." Stating HOW we figured out that dangerous people were in that city is divulging "sources and methods." This isn't a hard thing to understand. Obviously, divulging intel products willy nilly to U.S. enemies risks compromising sources and methods, as I stated in my very first post on the matter. This is also exactly what you just said.
I agree this is a fine distinction and is the difficult central assertion of the WaPo article. McMaster hung his hat on this very point. Trump plainly blurted out the intel product, but McMaster could argue that Trump didn't reveal sources and methods. The open question is whether by blurting out the city ... was that enough to reverse engineer the sources and methods? I can understand how that one is arguable either way. But from the Jake Tapper stuff, the Trump administration officials at least regard the name of the city as something that must be protected from release lest it put lives at risk.
EDIT: sometimes I argue stronger than I actually believe ... lawyer training ...
|
On May 17 2017 06:18 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:08 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:42 biology]major wrote:
The fangs from the media and liberals are ready at every moment to clinch and sustain negative coverage of Trump. Even if you subtract all of that venom and do your absolute best to give this president a fair shake, I see someone who is dishonest and detached from reality.
I don't disagree with this. There are any number of legitimate grounds on which Trump can and should be criticized. There's no need to make shit up. From your perspective, what are these legitimate criticisms? I honestly thought that you did not consider any criticism of Trump to be valid because I don't think I've ever seen you do so in the past.
A lot of things. I don't think he has surrounded himself with the right people (see Spicer and Flynn). He has been an ineffective leader so far (where are legislative accomplishments?). He's not following through on his campaign promises. The AHCA is a turd. I could go on for quite a while, and have talked about most of these things previously.
|
The thing is: I imagine the FBI has protocols for exactly this situation. The FBI was asked to stop investigating someone who then turned out absolutely needed to go. Trump is being so amazingly obvious about the fact that he is trying to protect his people. The US government, military and various intelligence agencies have protocols for this. There are ways they have been trained to respond to this.
Hint: The protocol doesn't say to stop investigating the administration. Likely not even by order of the director. ESPECIALLY after the director has been directly replaced. ESPECIALLLLYYYYYYY when the reason given for the termination of the previous director of the FBI was the investigation.
|
On May 17 2017 06:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Plansix knows more about handling classified information than a woman who was a senator who served for 6 years on the armed services committee and was then Sec. of State for 5 years. Plansix also knows more about handling classified information than the current president of the United States.
Why did we have to choose between two such horrible people in 2016?
Although Clinton violated the rules, so did Bush’s SoS. Specifically an AOL email address. And that investigation was garbage because it did not result in any substantive changes in the way congress or the executive branch handles emails.
|
On May 17 2017 06:47 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:05 Wulfey_LA wrote:On May 17 2017 05:59 LegalLord wrote:
I can't help but notice a consistent pattern of hypocrisy every time this shit comes up. If the DNC leaks were so bad, then why was it ok when another foreign country ("ally" or not it's still foreign influence on government) leaks to bury Flynn? And our intelligence was so evil when they were supporting mass surveillance but now that they leak against Trump they are our dear, esteemed and trustworthy intelligence branch full of good Americans. Incomplete information and hasty conclusions based on leaks are bad until it's against Trump.
I mean sure, Trump is bad, but learn to have consistent standards for fucks sake. We can't just play the "Trump is so evil that we should throw principles out the window to oppose him" game. I want you to weigh two things on the scale of importance. (1) The intellectual consistency of an amorphous group of internet hippies (not individuals by name) (2) The actions of the President of the United States If you have the worlds greatest attacks at (1), they would never be equal of important to even the smallest of Trump's screwups in (2). You can get away with spinning about standards in (1) because you never name names. But no amount of spinning there will ever justify Trump blabbing angel tier info to the Russians (2). Real policy will always matter more than previous consistency. EDIT: further, there is no amount of bad (1) that could ever provide justification for any acts in (2). No matter how many times Trump/Trumpkins make appeals to hypocrisy, they remain fallacies. Presidential acts can be judged on their own merits, no matter what some hippies said in the past. Hypocrisy in politics is one of the smallest evils imaginable. Politics is a lot like being a lawyer, you don't blame a lawyer for raising one argument in one case and then decrying its use the next case. Everything is expendable, all that matters is the result of representing your constituency. So liberals dislike Comey, but he suddenly is a man of great integrity because Trump fired him. I think it's good to be a bit skeptical about such things, and certainly it deserves to be mocked, but the main point is that hypocrisy in service of a larger goal is easily forgivable. So let's turn Comey into this great man and use him to put Trump in a difficult position and mobilize the FBI against him, it's for the best.
I have no problem with hypocrisy if it is this honest, and if people understand and are aware of it's purpose. It's those that fool themselves, which there is really no way to verify, that irks me.
|
On May 17 2017 06:41 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
The Failing New York Times Add more smoke to the fire. Excited to see how xDaunt and Danglers spin this into their ever increasing web of 'meh not seeing the importance yet'.
He only asked him to stop the investigation, he didn't tell him to. The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the President, he doesn't actually pleasure the President. Only liberal hacks have their employees do that.
|
|
|
On May 17 2017 06:39 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:COn May 17 2017 06:24 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 17 2017 06:09 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/theleadcnn/status/864574596128886784CNN is now reporting that the Trump administration asked them not to report on the city, citing the information was collected in. That is would reveal sources and methods that would risk getting people killed. The White House’s public statement said that Trump did not reveal sources and methods, or discuss them. But if that is true, why would they ask CNN not to discuss the city? There is an important distinction to be made between "sources and methods" (how we get intelligence: was it from electronic surveillance of emails or chat rooms, or was it from a human spy, or was it from satellite footage, or was it from an ally) and the "intelligence product" (the name of the city, in this example). According to reports from senior staffers linked a few pages earlier in this thread, DT doesn't pay enough attention to his intel briefings to actually know anything about "sources and methods" so he is literally unable to compromise those. However, he is aware of intelligence products, like the names of specific cities in the Middle East that he divulged to Russian spies. The danger of giving away highly sensitive intelligence products to U.S. enemies is that it helps those enemies figure out how "sources and methods" work as well, because they know what we know, which helps them solve the puzzle of how we obtained it in the first place. Hope this clears things up. When my brother was deployed in Iraq, we received a pretty detailed breakdown of what we should and should not post on the internet in general. I had to keep my mouth shut about him coming back until he was in the US, even though I knew when he was leaving for months. I have no doubt ISIS could figure out where that leak came from by just knowing the city. I do appreciate you taking the time to break it down, through. I was attempting to make a rhetorical counter argument to the posters that have been pushing the narrative that the leak might have been totally benign and no relevant information was provided. From everything that is coming out, that is not the case. I had no idea that you had to do that. Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what the penalties would have been if you had spammed everywhere all the stuff the military told you not to post on the internet? My comment was just trying to clarify what you said about the CNN tweet. Contrary to what you stated, CNN divulging the city would not mean that CNN was divulging "sources and methods." Rather, they would be divulging "intelligence products." So Trump can say truthfully that he did not divulge "sources and methods" to the Russians, because he didn't: he divulged intelligence products. That's still terrible though, for the reasons above.
Nothing. I am a civilian and they can’t do anything. It would be impossible to prove that an attack happened because of me posting on Facebook. The date they are leaving isn't not classified, otherwise we would not have been told.
I’m sure I would have gotten a nasty call from my brother to knock it off.
|
On May 17 2017 06:49 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 06:41 crms wrote:On May 17 2017 06:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
The Failing New York Times Add more smoke to the fire. Excited to see how xDaunt and Danglers spin this into their ever increasing web of 'meh not seeing the importance yet'. He only asked him to stop the investigation, he didn't tell him to. The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the President, he doesn't actually pleasure the President. Only liberal hacks have their employees do that.
This dinner was explicitly to determine if Comey would be staying in his job. It wasn't even innuendo that Comey's job was on the line when Trump asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.
EDIT: for the record, I blame the NY Field Office and their leaks to Guiliani and Chaffetz for Comey's actions regarding Clinton. They were leaking the Anthony Weiner stuff and forced Comey's hand. Comey should have stood up to that and shut it down without doing the Oct 28th hearing ... but he wasn't the central villain in that affair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
