|
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 July 27 2017 12:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:26 Plansix wrote:Please stop citing yourself. We understand your point. We are not impressed by it. On July 27 2017 12:23 Sermokala wrote:
The guys who thought robo foreclosure was an acceptable practice I'd put at the same level as child molesters and anti vaxxers. No one thought it was acceptable. They were just given unreasonable deadlines and told to get it done. And then when it all got done, no one bothered to ask how it got done that quickly. Then someone should have said "we can't do it without more people or more time". They knew it would result in what it did and they did it anyway. Any other company with a product that kills people knowingly like that and they get charged for it.
That isn't how nation wide banks work. They fire people who think that. They have time lines, dead lines and a process. The process needs a set number of people and they have provided to do the job. The problem is management or the employees. The system is not flawed, because stock holders have been shown it. This time line pleases the buisness people and stock holders, so it is the time line. The time line isn't based on reality, but it pleases the stock holders, so it is reality. Failure to meet the time line is a flaw with staff or a failure to follow the process.
The banks got in a lot of trouble for foreclosing on people on active duty(big no no, against the law, big fines and jail time). There is a public data base to look up if someone is on active duty. It is super easy to use and there is no excuse for using it wrong.
In response, the banks created a system to make sure that never happens again. Now everyone runs military checks all the time. For everything. Even things that are not foreclosures. Even when it doesn't make sense. Even when the people are 80 years old. Even when people are dead. The checks will be run. Failure to run them in a fault and there are no excuses. People will be fired due to failure. The system is designed to assure that the error never happens again. It has been sold to stock holders to prove the problem has been addressed.
|
|
|
Since we were on Trump's recent religious/state worship tweet recently.
|
On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Why is Reince Preibus mentioned in this tweet...
The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense. It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless.
I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion.
Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:30 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Plansix wrote:
Please stop citing yourself. We understand your point. We are not impressed by it. I think this forum can deal with more condensation and reorganization posts for clarity when the bulk of debate is misunderstanding the other's points. Remember, someone like Mozoku has an interest in knowing if he didn't explain himself well enough, still hasn't explained his point well enough after more attempts at elucidation, or people are being deliberately blockheaded (or cynically interested in strawmen). Although true at time, I am of the opinion that this is simply a case of him repeating himself rather than responding peoples criticism of his points.
It seemed to me all the responses were attacking it sideways rather than head on. It helped me to see it laid out differently the second time.
|
I'm sure Kansas is thrilled.
On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense. It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion.
The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default.
Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point.
|
On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense. It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point.
TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it.
|
On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense. It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it.
Sometimes the process exists to prevent endless requests. The courts don't charge 20 cents a page for copies of pleadings because they have better paper, it's because they aren't a staples. So yeah, no big deal.
|
On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense. It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it.
A process is not always a law by which you can leverage criminal charges, so I find your equivocation unfounded. If he didn't say it, probably don't assume that's what he meant.
|
On July 27 2017 13:36 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense. It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it. A process is not always a law by which you can leverage criminal charges, so I find your equivocation unfounded. If he didn't say it, probably don't assume that's what he meant.
My equivocation? I'm unequivocally asserting that his complacence at subverting the process is identical to claiming the process is meritless. Why bother following it if you might as well leak (in his case, it's not even leaking) it to the press and P6 calls it identical?
|
On July 27 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 13:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense. It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it. A process is not always a law by which you can leverage criminal charges, so I find your equivocation unfounded. If he didn't say it, probably don't assume that's what he meant. My equivocation? I'm unequivocally asserting that his complacence at subverting the process is identical to claiming the process is meritless. Why bother following it if you might as well leak (in his case, it's not even leaking) it to the press and P6 calls it identical?
Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks for making that easy on me. You can't say that, because he didn't say it, and he didn't imply it or mean it either. If you're going to act in bad faith, don't expect someone to do better for you.
|
On July 27 2017 13:45 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense. It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it. A process is not always a law by which you can leverage criminal charges, so I find your equivocation unfounded. If he didn't say it, probably don't assume that's what he meant. My equivocation? I'm unequivocally asserting that his complacence at subverting the process is identical to claiming the process is meritless. Why bother following it if you might as well leak (in his case, it's not even leaking) it to the press and P6 calls it identical? Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks for making that easy on me. You can't say that, because he didn't say it, and he didn't imply it or mean it either. If you're going to act in bad faith, don't expect someone to do better for you.
Right. Just because he can't see the logical conclusion means it isn't implied. I have a different view. Namely, if leaking something is just fine as following FOIA procedures, then he doesn't consider the procedures to have any merit in and of themselves. Follow the law, or don't, whatever. The ends are the same; and the ends justify the means.
Pathetic.
|
|
|
How many times a year does Kwark change his nationality?
|
On July 27 2017 13:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 13:45 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it. A process is not always a law by which you can leverage criminal charges, so I find your equivocation unfounded. If he didn't say it, probably don't assume that's what he meant. My equivocation? I'm unequivocally asserting that his complacence at subverting the process is identical to claiming the process is meritless. Why bother following it if you might as well leak (in his case, it's not even leaking) it to the press and P6 calls it identical? Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks for making that easy on me. You can't say that, because he didn't say it, and he didn't imply it or mean it either. If you're going to act in bad faith, don't expect someone to do better for you. Right. Just because he can't see the logical conclusion means it isn't implied. I have a different view. Namely, if leaking something is just fine as following FOIA procedures, then he doesn't consider the procedures to have any merit in and of themselves. Follow the law, or don't, whatever. The ends are the same; and the ends justify the means. Pathetic.
You really will pick a fight over anything, won't you? It was interesting for a while, now it's just old hat. But you do you.
|
On July 27 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 13:59 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:45 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know.
[quote]
Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it. A process is not always a law by which you can leverage criminal charges, so I find your equivocation unfounded. If he didn't say it, probably don't assume that's what he meant. My equivocation? I'm unequivocally asserting that his complacence at subverting the process is identical to claiming the process is meritless. Why bother following it if you might as well leak (in his case, it's not even leaking) it to the press and P6 calls it identical? Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks for making that easy on me. You can't say that, because he didn't say it, and he didn't imply it or mean it either. If you're going to act in bad faith, don't expect someone to do better for you. Right. Just because he can't see the logical conclusion means it isn't implied. I have a different view. Namely, if leaking something is just fine as following FOIA procedures, then he doesn't consider the procedures to have any merit in and of themselves. Follow the law, or don't, whatever. The ends are the same; and the ends justify the means. Pathetic. You really will pick a fight over anything, won't you? It was interesting for a while, now it's just old hat. But you do you.
Listen, when you respond "thanks for making it easy for me" and follow up with some absurd logic "You can't say that, because he didn't say it" you're frankly begging for people to reveal the logical fallacy. You and he can't see the logic; but one follows the other. If you don't care about the procedure, you might as well leak it now. Following the rules is therefore meritless (idk if you're a stickler for details, so maybe you would prefer "unnecessary"). Just because you don't like conflict in general, doesn't mean you get to go around asserting this and that don't logically follow and not get called on it. You didn't want someone to follow his policy to its logical end, but too bad.
|
|
|
And just when I was trying to find that original tweet, and wondered why the link was dead.
Thanks for clearing that up.
|
On July 27 2017 14:03 sharkie wrote:
How many times a year does Kwark change his nationality?
Hes a british expat that lives in the deserts of America for some ungodly reason. Hes only changed nationality twice. we don't talk about the first time.
|
On July 27 2017 14:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:59 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:45 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it. A process is not always a law by which you can leverage criminal charges, so I find your equivocation unfounded. If he didn't say it, probably don't assume that's what he meant. My equivocation? I'm unequivocally asserting that his complacence at subverting the process is identical to claiming the process is meritless. Why bother following it if you might as well leak (in his case, it's not even leaking) it to the press and P6 calls it identical? Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks for making that easy on me. You can't say that, because he didn't say it, and he didn't imply it or mean it either. If you're going to act in bad faith, don't expect someone to do better for you. Right. Just because he can't see the logical conclusion means it isn't implied. I have a different view. Namely, if leaking something is just fine as following FOIA procedures, then he doesn't consider the procedures to have any merit in and of themselves. Follow the law, or don't, whatever. The ends are the same; and the ends justify the means. Pathetic. You really will pick a fight over anything, won't you? It was interesting for a while, now it's just old hat. But you do you. Listen, when you respond "thanks for making it easy for me" and follow up with some absurd logic "You can't say that, because he didn't say it" you're frankly begging for people to reveal the logical fallacy. You and he can't see the logic; but one follows the other. If you don't care about the procedure, you might as well leak it now. Following the rules is therefore meritless (idk if you're a stickler for details, so maybe you would prefer "unnecessary"). Just because you don't like conflict in general, doesn't mean you get to go around asserting this and that don't logically follow and not get called on it. You didn't want someone to follow his policy to its logical end, but too bad.
This seems pretty simple to me, so tell me where this doesn't make sense:
I have a public document I want to share -> I can share it, no FOIA request necessary.
I want access to a public document I don't have -> I make a FOIA request to obtain it.
It doesn't mean the process is useless, it means it solves a different problem. Unless you can show that sharing a public document available through FOIA without using the FOIA request process is a crime, then what are you upset about?
|
how can a state's future be in jeopardy? are they going to try to sell it back to Russia or something? You can't fire Alaska from the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
