Reply With Quote
how are they not comparable? werent you the one insisting intelligence insiders were feeding info to 4chan and wikileaks the podesta stuff that whole time, 4chanityannex? you could barely contain your boner with each new leak!
but now its troubling
even though
thats delicious
how are they not comparable? werent you the one insisting intelligence insiders were feeding info to 4chan and wikileaks the podesta stuff that whole time, 4chanityannex? you could barely contain your boner with each new leak!
but now its troubling
not at all. heroic patriotism
Nope. Not if is done for the benefit of the American people.
We'd be oblivious to any of this if these leaks hadn't come out. It's better to know than not know.
But you should be asking yourself that question. You had no problem with wikileaks. A leak is a leak regardless if its coming from a hacked email account or otherwise. If you're ok with one you're ok with both.
Gotta side with Greenwald again on this one...
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/14/...fied-felonies/The officials leaking this information acted justifiably, despite the fact that they violated the law. That’s because the leaks revealed that a high government official, Gen. Flynn, blatantly lied to the public about a material matter — his conversations with Russian diplomats — and the public has the absolute right to know this.
This episode underscores a critical point: The mere fact that an act is illegal does not mean it is unjust or even deserving of punishment. Oftentimes, the most just acts are precisely the ones that the law prohibits.
"all you did was weaken a country."
Again, We don't know this yet. I will wait.
The DOJ told a number of Trump people along with our president.
And I know there is no honor among that thieving bunch.
Do you find it disturbing that the president of the US decided to off his man ONLY AFTER the public was made aware?
I did not have a problem with Wikileaks as it wasn't the US intelligence community committing felonies and supplying them information.
Never took you for a police state supporter.
I'll side with Linker on this one.
Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. "Finally," they say, "someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!" It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.
But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials.
What if Congress won't act? What if both the Senate and the House of Representatives are held by the same party as the president and members of both chambers are reluctant to cross a newly elected head of the executive branch who enjoys overwhelming approval of his party's voters? In such a situation — our situation — shouldn't we hope the deep state will rise up to act responsibly to take down a member of the administration who may have broken the law?
The answer is an unequivocal no.
Were the leaks doctored? Yes or no?
We don't know who leaked this for Christ sakes. The DOJ briefed a number of people along with Trump.
Well sure, it sounds worse if we assume it's some kind of nefarious "deep state" but there's a huge gray area between that and whistleblowers.
I want whistleblowers on the inside. Especially when their leadership has shown an overt disregard for truth.
The public was aware weeks ago.
When you find out the intelligence community leaked the information to the press, illegally. Is that a problem yes or no? And if you think it is a problem which problem is bigger, Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador much like Obama did with Medvedev 2012 or the the US intelligence agency leaking to the press?
Ask Trump, he fired Flynn over it. The Press didn't fire him.
You are completely boffoed. What was Obama in 2012?
What was Flynn BEFORE Trump was elected?
No. And the FBI found no wrong doing with the content. Flynn wasn't asked to resign for the content of his calls.
"The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn — national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump — but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said"
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...s-with-russian
Do you think Flynn is the first NSA to contact other countries before his President is sworn in? He wasn't asked to resign for making calls to the Russian ambassador, he resigned because he was caught lying about it.
You didn't answer the question. Flynn should have been fired, and the leakers will be caught and charged as well.
Do you believe there should be independent investigations into Flynn's ties to the Russian Government?
He was actively undermining US foreign policy before assuming office. Is that a problem in your opinion, Yes or no?
Yes, even after the FBI investigated and said there was no wrong doing. Flynn won't be charged with anything criminal under the Logan act, has anyone in the history of the laws inception ever been charged? I want there to be investigation into Flynn so the leakers are exposed and charged accordingly.
What did he actually say to undermine US foreign policy, provide a direct quote.
Talking to the Russian ambassador about a sitting president's sanctions? It's not about talking, it's the content. Why should Flynn lie, it's not illegal to just talk like you stated? Why lie?
This is not a problem? An ex general who may have a job in the WH talking to the Russians about a sitting presidents plans... I guess it's not illegal so it's fine?
Trump should do what other presidents have done and succeeded at. Trump should have gone to the editors in chief and owners of said papers and told them it was a matter of National security that they not release this stuff now that he is president. . National Security. People's livelihood is on the line. Surely the press would relent.
I wonder why Trump did not plead his case to the press... hmmmm...
Last edited by pgardn; 02-15-2017 at 12:52 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
