|
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. |
On June 10 2017 13:13 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 13:01 Wulfey_LA wrote:
The word leak is being seriously abused here. Unclassified stuff is never leaking period. Further, anonymous reports to the press about stuff Trump says isn't leaks either. Snowden/Manning/Winner certainly are leaks though. At this point it's clear that Trump doesn't hold any regard for what words mean when he uses them, but instead uses them because of the reaction he gets from his base. And thus American ignorance is successfully propagated. Just because you don't like a news story doesn't make fake news, and just because you don't like someone's testimony doesn't make them a leaker. I don't even know if "fake news" has an established definition.
I think "leaking information" is defined in multiple ways. After doing some research, it seems that the vast majority of "leaked information" is unclassified, passed out legally, and done purely for informational/ documentation reasons. On the other hand, people also use the same terminology for the occasional "leaking" of classified information that would be otherwise illegal, which makes things unclear. Comey made a decision to legally "leak" his notes, in the sense that he wanted to tell someone he could trust about them, in case things went from confusing to bad for him. The problem is that when most people think of a "leak" of information, it's assumed to be illegal rather than just normally private.
|
On June 10 2017 20:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 13:13 NewSunshine wrote:On June 10 2017 13:01 Wulfey_LA wrote:
The word leak is being seriously abused here. Unclassified stuff is never leaking period. Further, anonymous reports to the press about stuff Trump says isn't leaks either. Snowden/Manning/Winner certainly are leaks though. At this point it's clear that Trump doesn't hold any regard for what words mean when he uses them, but instead uses them because of the reaction he gets from his base. And thus American ignorance is successfully propagated. Just because you don't like a news story doesn't make fake news, and just because you don't like someone's testimony doesn't make them a leaker. I don't even know if "fake news" has an established definition. I think "leaking information" is defined in multiple ways. After doing some research, it seems that the vast majority of "leaked information" is unclassified, passed out legally, and done purely for informational/ documentation reasons. On the other hand, people also use the same terminology for the occasional "leaking" of classified information that would be otherwise illegal, which makes things unclear. Comey made a decision to legally "leak" his notes, in the sense that he wanted to tell someone he could trust about them, in case things went from confusing to bad for him. The problem is that when most people think of a "leak" of information, it's assumed to be illegal rather than just normally private.
I believe "leaking to the press" is usually understood much less dramatic and is done for a multitude of reasons. "An athlete is demanding a payrise to stay with the club", "a bandmember got late to a concert because he was hung over", "Sony cancelled the launch of a new model because of problems during internal testing" etc. etc. What is planned to go to the press, and what is supposed to be kept internally is even hard to tell some times. Planting information as a "leak" can some times be more effective than a press conference or a written official statement.
|
From what I remember of the hearing, Comey only "leaked" once Trump tweeted about tapes of their conversation. Basically, he figured if the President was willing to say they had had meetings and threaten to release tapes to the public, his memos could go out. Which seems reasonable to me, and trying to paint him like Reality Winner in a legal sense will not go well and could be painted as witness intimidation in an impeachment scenario.
In addition, he only sent the unclassified memos. That's why there were 9 memos, but the testimony we only saw 5 (I think those are the numbers anyway).
The hilarity of Republicans discussing this as if saying the content of the leaks don't matter because they're leaks is astronomical, though.
|
United States24803 Posts
Not that it necessarily matters in this particular case, but I want to point out that there are types of unclassified documents that are still controlled and therefore can only be shown to people who meet certain criteria (e.g., not a foreign national, have a need to know). Therefore, you could argue unauthorized release of those particular unclassified documents to the press/public would be leaking even though the documents were not classified. From what I've heard, the Comey memo is not one of those types of documents though.
|
In the bigger picture, this is also about Trump weaponize the concept of a "leaker" and leaks. Classified or not. He is attempting to paint Comey and anyone else to talks to the press as doing something improper. Regardless of the circumstances. He is attempting to assert the idea that his White House only Trump approved press releases should be given to the press. It sort of reminds me of a poor man's McCarthy, who accused anyone who spoke out against him of being a communist. This has less juice behind it because it is Trump.
|
On June 10 2017 22:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
From what I remember of the hearing, Comey only "leaked" once Trump tweeted about tapes of their conversation. Basically, he figured if the President was willing to say they had had meetings and threaten to release tapes to the public, his memos could go out. Which seems reasonable to me, and trying to paint him like Reality Winner in a legal sense will not go well and could be painted as witness intimidation in an impeachment scenario.
In addition, he only sent the unclassified memos. That's why there were 9 memos, but the testimony we only saw 5 (I think those are the numbers anyway).
The hilarity of Republicans discussing this as if saying the content of the leaks don't matter because they're leaks is astronomical, though.
Your democracy encourages your politicians to stick to their party no matter what and highlight the few differences between the two parties. You could use more parties imo, it helps to have a way out for politicians when they have to judge the actions of the current leaders.
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I don't understand the point/significance of that photo?
|
On June 11 2017 01:59 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
I don't understand the point/significance of that photo?
I think it shows that Trump's children have stepped foot in Russia at some point within the past few decades.
|
|
|
On June 10 2017 19:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 13:14 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 13:05 m4ini wrote:On June 10 2017 12:39 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 12:34 m4ini wrote:On June 10 2017 10:49 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 10:48 Ernaine wrote:
Trump hasn't committed to article 5 since January. Are you struggling with the concept of 100%? Because he said he was committing to it 100%. Yeah, that statement is a objectively a lie though. He never said he's committing to it 100%. That's something Theresa May said, not "he". He didn't say anything in answer to that statement, neither confirmation nor declination. That's why it actually is a big deal that he confirmed to stand up for Article 5. It's the first time that he actually confirmed something. Theresa May was quoting Trump. She announced that Trump confirmed he was 100% behind NATO in their talks while summing up their talks in the mutual press conference. It was somewhat of a coup at the time, before it turned out that literally every foreign leader can get Trump in a room and change his previously stated positions and that May's achievement was nothing more than being the first NATO leader to meet him. Since then he's bitched about paying fair shares and tried to give Merkel an invoice but there was no mention of any of the "maybe we won't defend them" campaign rhetoric, as far as I know at least. Trump was shaky on article 5 in the campaign but the first time any NATO leader pushed him he stopped rocking the boat. First: again, he didn't say anything in January. He might've said something to May, who knows. Funny though, that when he was talking, he didn't mention any of it. I don't think you can state "well he made it clear he's 100% with the NATO" if you hear it from the president/PM of a different country. Can you imagine being skeptical if May had met with Obama, come out of the conference, stood alongside him talking to the press, and declared "Obama just told me that he is 100% behind NATO"? I'm just not seeing the problem here. But if that's not enough evidence for you then that's fine. If I were to answer the question of who got Trump to commit to NATO I'd say Theresa May because that was first. But if you want to go with another answer then more power to you (as long as it doesn't involve events in the month of May influencing the meeting he had four months previously). I think the issue is that Trump saying he's 100% behind something doesn't necessarily mean he's 100% behind something, because he might have said he's 100% against that same thing when talking to other people. Even with the recent clarification, I wouldn't be surprised to see him be significantly vaguer within the next two months, having a rally for his base where he says it hinges on them paying back the money they owe, or whatever.
he's 100% behind it at that moment. he's just not 100% behind it 100% of the time.
|
Neither tweet holds much signifigance to my eyes, the photo is meaningless without context in particular. It definitely will not help Trump to try and antagonize Comey though, and the FBI by extension. Trump's word has been worthless for a long time, so getting into a he said/she said is a terrible move for him. If he wants to move on and try to focus on policy, his best move is to shut up and stop tweeting any time someone says something he doesn't like.
|
|
|
On June 11 2017 06:41 Zambrah wrote:+ Show Spoiler +What in god's name are those two women wearing?
Fur coats. Looks like chinchilla coats to me.
I always thought they were pretty ugly. But they're considered stylish for some reason and it's hard to deny that they do keep you warm.
|
So the Tuesday public hearing is apparently cancelled.
|
On June 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:Fur coats. Looks like chinchilla coats to me. I always thought they were pretty ugly. But they're considered stylish for some reason and it's hard to deny that they do keep you warm.
I will certainly give them warmth. The smaller one isnt even TOTALLY hideous, but good lord almight the large one just wigs me out for some reason.
|
Irony is that the small one won't keep you warm in any real weather and is actually just a waste as used. The top is going to be a goddamn oven in anything but the coldest of winters (and that don't look like no Russian winter there) but you need to cover your buttocks to keep warm in such a winter. So it's just for fashion and it looks kind of ugly.
For coats, I find mink much more stylish.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n6vsUQk.jpg)
|
If I ever got a fur coat it would have to be a predator or something large like a bear or buffalo. Wolf fur coats are pretty boss and have a ton of colors to chose from.
|
They tend to be a lot heavier though. Hard to move around in them.
|
United States24803 Posts
Reminder that this thread is for discussing U.S. politics... not fur coats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
