|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 03 2018 12:05 KwarK wrote:
Snowden didn’t run to Russia, the US gov blocked his flight out of a Russian airport. Fortunately he had the good sense not to have any intel in his possession at that point.
I know the official Snowden line about how the US revoked his passport while he was in midair on the way to Russia, and that he never intended to end up there. I find this story highly suspect because I believe that Snowden intended to end up in Russia all along. Why?
1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were.
2. When Snowden was in Hong Kong, he repeatedly visited the Russian embassy there, even celebrated his 30th birthday party at the embassy there. That seems very odd for a whistleblower but not so odd for a Russian spy.
3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving.
4. Russia isn’t exactly the safest place for a real whistleblower who is truly committed to transparency and truth, considering how any whistleblowers in Russia would be brutally tortured and murdered.
About Snowden’s possession of his stolen documents in Russia, Team Snowden has publicly said both that he has all the stolen documents with him in Russia and that he has none of the stolen documents with him in Russia. Interesting how they can’t even keep their story straight on one of the most important details of Ed’s saga. Needlesss to say, if Snowden did bring the documents with him to Russia, the Russians certainly have them now, assuming he didn’t just give it to them at the Hong Kong embassy.
|
On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2018 12:05 KwarK wrote:
Snowden didn’t run to Russia, the US gov blocked his flight out of a Russian airport. Fortunately he had the good sense not to have any intel in his possession at that point. I know the official Snowden line about how the US revoked his passport while he was in midair on the way to Russia, and that he never intended to end up there. I find this story highly suspect because I believe that Snowden intended to end up in Russia all along. Why? 1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were. 2. When Snowden was in Hong Kong, he repeatedly visited the Russian embassy there, even celebrated his 30th birthday party at the embassy there. That seems very odd for a whistleblower but not so odd for a Russian spy. 3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. 4. Russia isn’t exactly the safest place for a real whistleblower who is truly committed to transparency and truth, considering how any whistleblowers in Russia would be brutally tortured and murdered. About Snowden’s possession of his stolen documents in Russia, Team Snowden has publicly said both that he has all the stolen documents with him in Russia and that he has none of the stolen documents with him in Russia. Interesting how they can’t even keep their story straight on one of the most important details of Ed’s saga. Needlesss to say, if Snowden did bring the documents with him to Russia, the Russians certainly have them now, assuming he didn’t just give it to them at the Hong Kong embassy.
If Snowden was a spy, would that be worse than the massive domestic spying the US was doing that he exposed?
|
On April 04 2018 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 03 2018 12:05 KwarK wrote:
Snowden didn’t run to Russia, the US gov blocked his flight out of a Russian airport. Fortunately he had the good sense not to have any intel in his possession at that point. I know the official Snowden line about how the US revoked his passport while he was in midair on the way to Russia, and that he never intended to end up there. I find this story highly suspect because I believe that Snowden intended to end up in Russia all along. Why? 1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were. 2. When Snowden was in Hong Kong, he repeatedly visited the Russian embassy there, even celebrated his 30th birthday party at the embassy there. That seems very odd for a whistleblower but not so odd for a Russian spy. 3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. 4. Russia isn’t exactly the safest place for a real whistleblower who is truly committed to transparency and truth, considering how any whistleblowers in Russia would be brutally tortured and murdered. About Snowden’s possession of his stolen documents in Russia, Team Snowden has publicly said both that he has all the stolen documents with him in Russia and that he has none of the stolen documents with him in Russia. Interesting how they can’t even keep their story straight on one of the most important details of Ed’s saga. Needlesss to say, if Snowden did bring the documents with him to Russia, the Russians certainly have them now, assuming he didn’t just give it to them at the Hong Kong embassy. If Snowden was a spy, would that be worse than the massive domestic spying the US was doing that he exposed?
What if it is possible to discuss a topic without whataboutism? What if it is possible to discuss Snowden without immediately shifting the conversation to the CIA? Both are legitimate topics, but you are trying to dissuade people from talking about the illegitimacy of Snowden. People should be able to discuss a topic without you immediately shifting the conversation using silly whataboutism comparisons. The world has a lot of bad people and bad organizations. We don't need to list them all in order of shittiness and only discuss the top 3 or whatever. Why does the idea of people discussing the idea of Snowden being a spy make you so uncomfortable? You are going out of your way to shift conversation away from an existing topic.
|
On April 04 2018 03:20 On_Slaught wrote:
The good news is Trump follows through with very few of the things he spouts. Chances are he never does it or runs into some hurdle which stops him (due to the incompetence part).
Imagine the shitshow if some soldier shoots a family crossing the border.
Considering the US vetoed the UN unified condemnation of Israeli murder of 17 and injury of 1400 at the Gaza border protest this week, it might just be this sort of behaviour the US and Trump wants in the world.
On foreign politics, Trump is rushing the US headlong towards the ranks of second and third world regimes. I do hope you yanks feel you're getting comparable gains internaly.
|
I also will express exhaustion with the whataboutism on the topic of Snowden. The NSA’s domestic spying program can be discussed separately and critiqued on its own. We are all capable of having productive discussion about both of them separately.
|
On April 04 2018 05:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 03 2018 12:05 KwarK wrote:
Snowden didn’t run to Russia, the US gov blocked his flight out of a Russian airport. Fortunately he had the good sense not to have any intel in his possession at that point. I know the official Snowden line about how the US revoked his passport while he was in midair on the way to Russia, and that he never intended to end up there. I find this story highly suspect because I believe that Snowden intended to end up in Russia all along. Why? 1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were. 2. When Snowden was in Hong Kong, he repeatedly visited the Russian embassy there, even celebrated his 30th birthday party at the embassy there. That seems very odd for a whistleblower but not so odd for a Russian spy. 3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. 4. Russia isn’t exactly the safest place for a real whistleblower who is truly committed to transparency and truth, considering how any whistleblowers in Russia would be brutally tortured and murdered. About Snowden’s possession of his stolen documents in Russia, Team Snowden has publicly said both that he has all the stolen documents with him in Russia and that he has none of the stolen documents with him in Russia. Interesting how they can’t even keep their story straight on one of the most important details of Ed’s saga. Needlesss to say, if Snowden did bring the documents with him to Russia, the Russians certainly have them now, assuming he didn’t just give it to them at the Hong Kong embassy. If Snowden was a spy, would that be worse than the massive domestic spying the US was doing that he exposed? What if it is possible to discuss a topic without whataboutism? What if it is possible to discuss Snowden without immediately shifting the conversation to the CIA? Both are legitimate topics, but you are trying to dissuade people from talking about the illegitimacy of Snowden. People should be able to discuss a topic without you immediately shifting the conversation using silly whataboutism comparisons. The world has a lot of bad people and bad organizations. We don't need to list them all in order of shittiness and only discuss the top 3 or whatever. Why does the idea of people discussing the idea of Snowden being a spy make you so uncomfortable? You are going out of your way to shift conversation away from an existing topic.
I don't consider it whataboutism so much as context. It's not like he was potentially spying on a convents shower stall, he was spying on people spying on us. That matters imo if people want to join team NSA/CIA/FBI/etc...
They are some pretty despicable organizations responsible for their own crimes against US citizens here and abroad, as well as foreign nationals. That Lord effectively said "I don't know the details because the NSA didn't tell us" reeks of a naive faith in organizations known to run massive programs and lie about them.
So okay, if people really want to waste time piling on someone like Snowden, they are free to. I just find it important to keep the context of the parties involved in mind.
|
I do not see the Snowden and NSA issue as something where we am required to pick sides or join a team. I don’t anyone in this thread it attempting to have that discussion either. Snowden could be a spy who also happened to expose a domestic spying program to undercut our intelligence services with the US public.
|
On April 04 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:
I do not see the Snowden and NSA issue as something where we am required to pick sides or join a team. I don’t anyone in this thread it attempting to have that discussion either. Snowden could be a spy who also happened to expose a domestic spying program to undercut our intelligence services with the US public.
At best you're left unable to believe either, or you've already chosen a side. So if speculating that he was a spy is what people want to do, then I find it more interesting to ask "so what?" rather than dwell on a he said she said where the intelligence agencies word is practically worthless.
|
On April 04 2018 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 03 2018 12:05 KwarK wrote:
Snowden didn’t run to Russia, the US gov blocked his flight out of a Russian airport. Fortunately he had the good sense not to have any intel in his possession at that point. I know the official Snowden line about how the US revoked his passport while he was in midair on the way to Russia, and that he never intended to end up there. I find this story highly suspect because I believe that Snowden intended to end up in Russia all along. Why? 1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were. 2. When Snowden was in Hong Kong, he repeatedly visited the Russian embassy there, even celebrated his 30th birthday party at the embassy there. That seems very odd for a whistleblower but not so odd for a Russian spy. 3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. 4. Russia isn’t exactly the safest place for a real whistleblower who is truly committed to transparency and truth, considering how any whistleblowers in Russia would be brutally tortured and murdered. About Snowden’s possession of his stolen documents in Russia, Team Snowden has publicly said both that he has all the stolen documents with him in Russia and that he has none of the stolen documents with him in Russia. Interesting how they can’t even keep their story straight on one of the most important details of Ed’s saga. Needlesss to say, if Snowden did bring the documents with him to Russia, the Russians certainly have them now, assuming he didn’t just give it to them at the Hong Kong embassy. If Snowden was a spy, would that be worse than the massive domestic spying the US was doing that he exposed?
Yes. Among the documents that Snowden took and were never disclosed to the public were 31,000 internal assessments of US intelligence targets (like Russia, China, Iran), US intelligence capabilities, and US gaps in coverage. Rick Ledgett, the former NSA Deputy Director who ran NSA's damage assessment of the Snowden Operation, stated in an interview with CBS:
John Miller: Of all the things he took is there anything in there that worries you or concerns you more than anything else?
Rick Ledgett: It's an exhaustive list of the requirements that have been levied against-- against the National Security Agency. And what that gives is, what topics we're interested in, where our gaps are. But additional information about U.S. capabilities and U.S. gaps is provided as part of that.
John Miller: So, I'm going to assume that there's one in there about China, and there's one in there about Iran, and there's another in there about Russia.
Rick Ledgett: Many more than one.
John Miller: Many more than one?
Rick Ledgett: Yes.
John Miller: How many of those are there?
Rick Ledgett: About 31,000.
John Miller: If those documents fell into their hands? What good would it do them?
Rick Ledgett: It would give them a roadmap of what we know, what we don't know, and give them-- implicitly, a way to-- protect their information from the U.S. intelligence community's view.
John Miller: For an adversary in the intelligence game, that's a gold mine?
Rick Ledgett: It is the keys to the kingdom
The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life.
If you think it isn't possible for an intelligence agency to be totally crippled by the defection of one man, I suggest you read about a guy named William Weisband. Weisband told the Soviets all about NSA's cryptographic successes against their ciphers. The result was that on October 29, 1948, the Soviets changed all of their ciphers . As a result of Weisband's defection to the Soviets, NSA lost all ability to read high level Soviet traffic for thirty years.
(For a little more information on Weisband and Black Friday see https://books.google.com/books?id=x_K2rb-OShMC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=national security agency black friday&source=bl&ots=et5wTa231E&sig=_hfIVqV3ue7ljbtCV2wGZjnz0wk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI1-yY-J7aAhWpzIMKHYqoAcM4ChDoAQg7MAU#v=onepage&q=national security agency black friday&f=false
If you really want to know more, get a copy of Matthew Aid's history of the NSA, The Secret Sentry.)
|
On April 04 2018 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 03 2018 12:05 KwarK wrote:
Snowden didn’t run to Russia, the US gov blocked his flight out of a Russian airport. Fortunately he had the good sense not to have any intel in his possession at that point. I know the official Snowden line about how the US revoked his passport while he was in midair on the way to Russia, and that he never intended to end up there. I find this story highly suspect because I believe that Snowden intended to end up in Russia all along. Why? 1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were. 2. When Snowden was in Hong Kong, he repeatedly visited the Russian embassy there, even celebrated his 30th birthday party at the embassy there. That seems very odd for a whistleblower but not so odd for a Russian spy. 3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. 4. Russia isn’t exactly the safest place for a real whistleblower who is truly committed to transparency and truth, considering how any whistleblowers in Russia would be brutally tortured and murdered. About Snowden’s possession of his stolen documents in Russia, Team Snowden has publicly said both that he has all the stolen documents with him in Russia and that he has none of the stolen documents with him in Russia. Interesting how they can’t even keep their story straight on one of the most important details of Ed’s saga. Needlesss to say, if Snowden did bring the documents with him to Russia, the Russians certainly have them now, assuming he didn’t just give it to them at the Hong Kong embassy. If Snowden was a spy, would that be worse than the massive domestic spying the US was doing that he exposed? Yes. Among the documents that Snowden took and were never disclosed to the public were 31,000 internal assessments of US intelligence targets (like Russia, China, Iran), US intelligence capabilities, and US gaps in coverage. Rick Ledgett, the former NSA Deputy Director who ran NSA's damage assessment of the Snowden Operation, stated in an interview with CBS: Show nested quote +John Miller: Of all the things he took is there anything in there that worries you or concerns you more than anything else?
Rick Ledgett: It's an exhaustive list of the requirements that have been levied against-- against the National Security Agency. And what that gives is, what topics we're interested in, where our gaps are. But additional information about U.S. capabilities and U.S. gaps is provided as part of that.
John Miller: So, I'm going to assume that there's one in there about China, and there's one in there about Iran, and there's another in there about Russia.
Rick Ledgett: Many more than one.
John Miller: Many more than one?
Rick Ledgett: Yes.
John Miller: How many of those are there?
Rick Ledgett: About 31,000.
John Miller: If those documents fell into their hands? What good would it do them?
Rick Ledgett: It would give them a roadmap of what we know, what we don't know, and give them-- implicitly, a way to-- protect their information from the U.S. intelligence community's view.
John Miller: For an adversary in the intelligence game, that's a gold mine?
Rick Ledgett: It is the keys to the kingdom The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life. If you think it isn't possible for an intelligence agency to be totally crippled by the defection of one man, I suggest you read about a guy named William Weisband. Weisband told the Soviets all about NSA's cryptographic successes against their ciphers. The result was that on October 29, 1948, the Soviets changed all of their ciphers . As a result of Weisband's defection to the Soviets, NSA lost all ability to read high level Soviet traffic for thirty years. (For a little more information on Weisband and Black Friday see https://books.google.com/books?id=x_K2rb-OShMC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=national security agency black friday&source=bl&ots=et5wTa231E&sig=_hfIVqV3ue7ljbtCV2wGZjnz0wk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI1-yY-J7aAhWpzIMKHYqoAcM4ChDoAQg7MAU#v=onepage&q=national security agency black friday&f=false If you really want to know more, get a copy of Matthew Aid's history of the NSA, The Secret Sentry.)
I'm supposed to take the word of the people who lied about the programs he exposed on what he stole and it's significance?
Then I'm supposed to assume that said information was transferred to our enemies by Snowden, and that it's in no way justified/explained by whistleblowing and self-preservation?
And then hop on to the speculation that this may have been devastating to US intelligence operations without any real indication of such.
Forgive me if that's already a bridge too far. I don't think Snowden is a larger threat to my freedom, security, or justice than the people several folks here seem to think should have administered his 'justice'
EDIT: You call Snowden a traitor through and through, maybe that's true (I don't think that';s anywhere near proven), but what does it say about our country when a traitor exposes something the people working next to him should have long before he got there.
|
On April 04 2018 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:
I do not see the Snowden and NSA issue as something where we am required to pick sides or join a team. I don’t anyone in this thread it attempting to have that discussion either. Snowden could be a spy who also happened to expose a domestic spying program to undercut our intelligence services with the US public. At best you're left unable to believe either, or you've already chosen a side. So if speculating that he was a spy is what people want to do, then I find it more interesting to ask "so what?" rather than dwell on a he said she said where the intelligence agencies word is practically worthless.
Or we can to listen to what both of them say and compare it with other information and reporting by news agencies. The choice here is not binary. There is no requirement to pick teams or sides, or take one party in absolute good faith and the other party as completely deceptive.
|
Reports of an active shooter at Youtube HQ:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-respond-youtube-possible-shooter-today-2018-04-03-live-updates/
Police are responding to an active shooter situation at YouTube's headquarters in San Bruno, California. Employees evacuated the building and police are warning people to avoid the area.
The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office tells CBS News it is treating the situation as an "active shooter incident" but declined to provide more details. San Francisco General Hospital tells CBS News they are preparing to receive patients.
The San Bruno Police Department also confirmed they were responding to an active shooter. They asked people in the area to stay away from Cherry Ave and Bay Hill Drive.
|
On April 04 2018 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life.
On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were.
-------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------------
3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving.
I already covered that actually reading every document while keeping up with his actual job and not suddenly changing his behavior at home leaves taking everything and sorting it out (or leaving it for journalists to sort out) later is the only reasonable course of action to get the documents he wanted to take.
Also, if you want to attack Snowden for spending 5 years in Russia and not showing signs of leaving, first please answer the questions "Where would he go?" and "How would he get there?"
|
On April 04 2018 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:Looks like Rosenstein's authorization to Mueller included much more than just Russian meddling. It actually authorized specific investigations including whether Manafort colluded or engaged in financial crimes. So presumably, there was some basis for those investigations in the first place. Not surprisingly, Republican attempts to cast doubt on Mueller's investigation are unfounded. Show nested quote +
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told special counsel Robert Mueller in a classified August 2, 2017, memo that he should investigate allegations that President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was "colluding with Russian government officials" to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors in the Russia probe revealed late Monday night.
Mueller was also empowered by Rosenstein to investigate Manafort's payments from Ukrainian politicians, a cornerstone of the Trump adviser's decades-long lobbying career that has resulted in several financial criminal charges so far.
The revelation of the August 2 memo comes amid a broader court filing from Mueller's prosecutors that offers a full-throated defense of their investigative powers and indictments thus far. In the filing, the special counsel's office argues that a federal judge should not throw out Manafort's case. Manafort has sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the charges against him are outside of Mueller's authority.
The filing Monday night crystallizes the extent to which Rosenstein, who has come under fire by President Donald Trump and others, has backed the investigation's actions. (Rosenstein oversees Mueller's investigation following Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal.)
The memo, attached to Monday night's court argument and not previously disclosed even to Manafort, describes how Rosenstein's public order that appointed Mueller in May left out some details so it didn't confirm "specific investigations involving specific individuals."
Most of the investigations and individuals that Rosenstein named in that memo are now redacted -- amounting to almost a full page of withheld information.
www.cnn.com
The page of redactions in the memo is pretty intriguing. Wonder who else was named in that memo.
To the posters in this thread who believe that Trump-Russia collusion is likely and also believe that Snowden is a hero:
In virtually every case, the intelligence analysts and national security law experts of all political stripes who have argued that criminal conduct in the Trump-Russia affair is probable have also argued that Edward Snowden is a traitor and Russian asset. Why do you unhesitatingly accept their words on the former and dismiss their words on the latter?
|
On April 04 2018 05:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2018 05:18 Plansix wrote:
I do not see the Snowden and NSA issue as something where we am required to pick sides or join a team. I don’t anyone in this thread it attempting to have that discussion either. Snowden could be a spy who also happened to expose a domestic spying program to undercut our intelligence services with the US public. At best you're left unable to believe either, or you've already chosen a side. So if speculating that he was a spy is what people want to do, then I find it more interesting to ask "so what?" rather than dwell on a he said she said where the intelligence agencies word is practically worthless. Or we can to listen to what both of them say and compare it with other information and reporting by news agencies. The choice here is not binary. There is no requirement to pick teams or sides, or take one party in absolute good faith and the other party as completely deceptive.
It certainly seems Lord is building a case heavily reliant on what the NSA is saying and wholly disregarding Snowden's story. So perhaps that's why the comment was directed toward his post.
I don't find a heavily influenced news media as a very honest observer either. Regardless, you still end up with not very detailed information that is virtually impossible to draw the firm conclusions LoA is, and begs the 'so what?' question I mentioned earlier even if you do.
|
WTF. Shooter was a female and is dead.
|
On April 04 2018 05:55 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life. Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were.
-------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------------
3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. I already covered that actually reading every document while keeping up with his actual job and not suddenly changing his behavior at home leaves taking everything and sorting it out (or leaving it for journalists to sort out) later is the only reasonable course of action to get the documents he wanted to take. Also, if you want to attack Snowden for spending 5 years in Russia and not showing signs of leaving, first please answer the questions "Where would he go?" and "How would he get there?"
First of all, removal of TS//SCI material from a SCIF is in itself a felony, even if you just take a paper document home and burn it immediately. People have been caught taking TS//SCI info home before and they got jail time for it even if they didn't give the info to anybody else. For instance, Matthew Aid spent a year in prison for exactly that. That NSA guy who was caught about a year ago, I think his name was Harold Martin, in on trial for exactly the same thing and is almost certainly going to prison as well. There are loads more who have gone to jail for precisely this crime, unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. EDIT: This was exactly what brought down Dave Petraeus as CIA director, for those of you who remember.
But let us set that aside for the moment and let us also assume that Snowden's intentions are pure. Would you agree that a very, very generous estimate of the number of supporting documents he read with clear evidence of illegal government spying is 10,000?
If he has identified 10k specific supporting documents that provided evidence for mass illegal domestic spying, why not just save those specific ones and get rid of the rest?? The justification of "Well, these 10k documents are the real evidence I have , but there's also 1,490,000 other documents here. I have no idea what they contain, my very possession of them is a felony, their presence in this room is a different felony, but maybe, possibly, conceivably there's a couple more in there that also have info about this domestic spying" is obviously totally ridiculous.
Where would he go? Somewhere that isn't Russia, China, or Iran would be a good start. He could just walk into the US embassy in Moscow and surrender himself for trial. He could try to walk up to Russia's border with Finland or Norway or Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania or Poland and ask for asylum there. Really, his options are endless if Russia doesn't want to keep him there by force and he's not afraid of a trial for his actions. Obama was president for 4 years after he pulled his stunt. Do you really think Obama would have given him a sham trial, because that's what you're really saying if you think that Snowden could not have returned to the USA.
|
On April 04 2018 05:59 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:Looks like Rosenstein's authorization to Mueller included much more than just Russian meddling. It actually authorized specific investigations including whether Manafort colluded or engaged in financial crimes. So presumably, there was some basis for those investigations in the first place. Not surprisingly, Republican attempts to cast doubt on Mueller's investigation are unfounded.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told special counsel Robert Mueller in a classified August 2, 2017, memo that he should investigate allegations that President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was "colluding with Russian government officials" to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors in the Russia probe revealed late Monday night.
Mueller was also empowered by Rosenstein to investigate Manafort's payments from Ukrainian politicians, a cornerstone of the Trump adviser's decades-long lobbying career that has resulted in several financial criminal charges so far.
The revelation of the August 2 memo comes amid a broader court filing from Mueller's prosecutors that offers a full-throated defense of their investigative powers and indictments thus far. In the filing, the special counsel's office argues that a federal judge should not throw out Manafort's case. Manafort has sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the charges against him are outside of Mueller's authority.
The filing Monday night crystallizes the extent to which Rosenstein, who has come under fire by President Donald Trump and others, has backed the investigation's actions. (Rosenstein oversees Mueller's investigation following Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal.)
The memo, attached to Monday night's court argument and not previously disclosed even to Manafort, describes how Rosenstein's public order that appointed Mueller in May left out some details so it didn't confirm "specific investigations involving specific individuals."
Most of the investigations and individuals that Rosenstein named in that memo are now redacted -- amounting to almost a full page of withheld information.
www.cnn.com The page of redactions in the memo is pretty intriguing. Wonder who else was named in that memo. To the posters in this thread who believe that Trump-Russia collusion is likely and also believe that Snowden is a hero: In virtually every case, the intelligence analysts and national security law experts of all political stripes who have argued that criminal conduct in the Trump-Russia affair is probable have also argued that Edward Snowden is a traitor and Russian asset. Why do you unhesitatingly accept their words on the former and dismiss their words on the latter?
An interesting detail from the guilty plea today: The Defendant(Dutch lawyer) agreed to not receive further information or discuss the case going forward. Mueller seems to be completely focused on keeping details of the scope of the investigation in house unless he is forced to release them through pleadings. And this opposition completely kills Manforts motion to dismiss the case.
|
On April 04 2018 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 05:59 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 04 2018 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:Looks like Rosenstein's authorization to Mueller included much more than just Russian meddling. It actually authorized specific investigations including whether Manafort colluded or engaged in financial crimes. So presumably, there was some basis for those investigations in the first place. Not surprisingly, Republican attempts to cast doubt on Mueller's investigation are unfounded.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told special counsel Robert Mueller in a classified August 2, 2017, memo that he should investigate allegations that President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was "colluding with Russian government officials" to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors in the Russia probe revealed late Monday night.
Mueller was also empowered by Rosenstein to investigate Manafort's payments from Ukrainian politicians, a cornerstone of the Trump adviser's decades-long lobbying career that has resulted in several financial criminal charges so far.
The revelation of the August 2 memo comes amid a broader court filing from Mueller's prosecutors that offers a full-throated defense of their investigative powers and indictments thus far. In the filing, the special counsel's office argues that a federal judge should not throw out Manafort's case. Manafort has sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the charges against him are outside of Mueller's authority.
The filing Monday night crystallizes the extent to which Rosenstein, who has come under fire by President Donald Trump and others, has backed the investigation's actions. (Rosenstein oversees Mueller's investigation following Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal.)
The memo, attached to Monday night's court argument and not previously disclosed even to Manafort, describes how Rosenstein's public order that appointed Mueller in May left out some details so it didn't confirm "specific investigations involving specific individuals."
Most of the investigations and individuals that Rosenstein named in that memo are now redacted -- amounting to almost a full page of withheld information.
www.cnn.com The page of redactions in the memo is pretty intriguing. Wonder who else was named in that memo. To the posters in this thread who believe that Trump-Russia collusion is likely and also believe that Snowden is a hero: In virtually every case, the intelligence analysts and national security law experts of all political stripes who have argued that criminal conduct in the Trump-Russia affair is probable have also argued that Edward Snowden is a traitor and Russian asset. Why do you unhesitatingly accept their words on the former and dismiss their words on the latter? An interesting detail from the guilty plea today: The Defendant(Dutch lawyer) agreed to not receive further information or discuss the case going forward. Mueller seems to be completely focused on keeping details of the scope of the investigation in house unless he is forced to release them through pleadings. And this opposition completely kills Manforts motion to dismiss the case.
I read the first couple pages of the "government's response to motion to dismiss" linked in the CNN article. These guys are really really good legal writers. It's pretty cool to read something so complicated explained so clearly and convincingly.
|
On April 04 2018 06:24 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2018 05:59 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 04 2018 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:Looks like Rosenstein's authorization to Mueller included much more than just Russian meddling. It actually authorized specific investigations including whether Manafort colluded or engaged in financial crimes. So presumably, there was some basis for those investigations in the first place. Not surprisingly, Republican attempts to cast doubt on Mueller's investigation are unfounded.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told special counsel Robert Mueller in a classified August 2, 2017, memo that he should investigate allegations that President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was "colluding with Russian government officials" to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors in the Russia probe revealed late Monday night.
Mueller was also empowered by Rosenstein to investigate Manafort's payments from Ukrainian politicians, a cornerstone of the Trump adviser's decades-long lobbying career that has resulted in several financial criminal charges so far.
The revelation of the August 2 memo comes amid a broader court filing from Mueller's prosecutors that offers a full-throated defense of their investigative powers and indictments thus far. In the filing, the special counsel's office argues that a federal judge should not throw out Manafort's case. Manafort has sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the charges against him are outside of Mueller's authority.
The filing Monday night crystallizes the extent to which Rosenstein, who has come under fire by President Donald Trump and others, has backed the investigation's actions. (Rosenstein oversees Mueller's investigation following Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal.)
The memo, attached to Monday night's court argument and not previously disclosed even to Manafort, describes how Rosenstein's public order that appointed Mueller in May left out some details so it didn't confirm "specific investigations involving specific individuals."
Most of the investigations and individuals that Rosenstein named in that memo are now redacted -- amounting to almost a full page of withheld information.
www.cnn.com The page of redactions in the memo is pretty intriguing. Wonder who else was named in that memo. To the posters in this thread who believe that Trump-Russia collusion is likely and also believe that Snowden is a hero: In virtually every case, the intelligence analysts and national security law experts of all political stripes who have argued that criminal conduct in the Trump-Russia affair is probable have also argued that Edward Snowden is a traitor and Russian asset. Why do you unhesitatingly accept their words on the former and dismiss their words on the latter? An interesting detail from the guilty plea today: The Defendant(Dutch lawyer) agreed to not receive further information or discuss the case going forward. Mueller seems to be completely focused on keeping details of the scope of the investigation in house unless he is forced to release them through pleadings. And this opposition completely kills Manforts motion to dismiss the case. I read the first couple pages of the "government's response to motion to dismiss" linked in the CNN article. These guys are really really good legal writers. It's pretty cool to read something so complicated explained so clearly and convincingly.
That was a good lunchtime read. I am very excited for when we get to the meat of this investigation and the pleadings associated with that. Considering the plea deals that have been thrown to Flynn and Gates, I cannot dream of what they must be handing over. But judging by the stuff that is leaking out, everyone associated with the Trump camp have been committing unforced errors left and right all the way up to and after the election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
