US Politics: Opening Pandora's Box

[mormont]

The thing about public interest disclosures is that of course giving out confidential information is in broad terms a bad thing. It's a breach of trust! The issue is whether it's being done.for a greater good: if the damage done by not making the disclosure would be greater than that done by making it. Hence all the qualifications I mentioned before that come into play before a whistleblower gets protection, at least under UK law (which is the only area I can claim familiarity with).

I can't get on board with any suggestion that this disclosure is in any way, shape or form more significant or concerning than what it revealed. I could just about see it, if this wasn't a clear case of someone spilling the beans because the administration had already been warned and refused to take action. But as it stands, this is absolutely  a textbook case of justified whistleblowing. It's not a conspiracy by the 'deep state': that's just the Kool-Aid Trump is selling. Any time he mentions it, you need to be asking not 'is he right?' but 'why did he try to cover this up when he was warned privately?' Because I guarantee that exact situation is going to arise regularly with this administration. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

I wonder if back in the day Republicans were like "where does FDR find all this time be on tv!"

 Lulz. Yeah, I imagine they did this while they were cleaning their plasma rifles and performing routine maintenance on their time machines.

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Lulz. Yeah, I imagine they did this while they were cleaning their plasma rifles and performing routine maintenance on their time machines.

Nope! they didn't have plasma rifles! Oooohhh burnnnn!!!!

Mutherfukin mic drop!

[Kalbear]

Just now, mormont said:

I can't get on board with any suggestion that this disclosure is in any way, shape or form more significant or concerning than what it revealed. I could just about see it, if this wasn't a clear case of someone spilling the beans because the administration had already been warned and refused to take action. But as it stands, this is absolutely  a textbook case of justified whistleblowing. It's not a conspiracy by the 'deep state': that's just the Kool-Aid Trump is selling. Any time he mentions it, you need to be asking not 'is he right?' but 'why did he try to cover this up when he was warned privately?' Because I guarantee that exact situation is going to arise regularly with this administration. 

It's not about specifically spilling the beans; it's about divulging classified information with the express intent of removing a government official. This is basically akin to Flynn being blackmailed by the IC and them following through with their threat; it has no actual discernible difference between this and, say, the Russians doing the same thing. 

If they had simply stated that they had information that Flynn lied, or even that there was a report given to the WH that Flynn could be compromised via blackmail based on a lie (both of which are NOT classified) it might have been less effective, but it would have been significantly less morally complicit. 

And no, this isn't just the kool-aid that Trump is selling. It's an important part of the US Democracy and how it functions. It is important to understand that right now, the IC does not appear to be working particularly for the US government and appears to be - at least parts of it - working against it. That should be worrisome for anyone who remembers Hoover, or anyone who remembers what Comey did to Clinton. The same argument can be made that Comey released information based on a public good too - that the public has a right to know that Clinton may have violated the law - just like Flynn may have violated the law. 

I can ask both simultaneously - who has leaked classified information, AND why was Trump willing to allow someone compromised by Russia the ability to sit at security briefings for three weeks. Both of them are wrong. Both should have investigations and oversight. Both should likely result in a trial. 

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

The Senate has voted to overturn another Obama-era regulation, this time it was the one that prevented social security recipients with a severe mental illness from purchasing firearms. 

I don't know if the House has voted in favor yet, but I assume they will soon. Its really upsetting that these CAR bill are not subject to a filibuster. Also upsetting is that there had been only a single CAR bill in history prior to this Congress; there's now been at least three since Jan. 20.

I thought the House already voted on this? If they haven't, they'll definitely vote for it. There was a signal awhile ago this was happening.

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

The thing about public interest disclosures is that of course giving out confidential information is in broad terms a bad thing. It's a breach of trust! The issue is whether it's being done.for a greater good: if the damage done by not making the disclosure would be greater than that done by making it. Hence all the qualifications I mentioned before that come into play before a whistleblower gets protection, at least under UK law (which is the only area I can claim familiarity with).

I can't get on board with any suggestion that this disclosure is in any way, shape or form more significant or concerning than what it revealed. I could just about see it, if this wasn't a clear case of someone spilling the beans because the administration had already been warned and refused to take action. But as it stands, this is absolutely  a textbook case of justified whistleblowing. It's not a conspiracy by the 'deep state': that's just the Kool-Aid Trump is selling. Any time he mentions it, you need to be asking not 'is he right?' but 'why did he try to cover this up when he was warned privately?' Because I guarantee that exact situation is going to arise regularly with this administration. 

I agree with Mormont here. I was writing up a post that said similar but he said it better than I could.

In addition, Trump is holding a press conference now where he has praised Flynn and has chastised the media for unfairly treating him, called the leaks illegal and claimed they only happened to cover up Hillary's loss. This makes it abundantly clear that Flynn resigned, not because Trump and team thought he did anything wrong or that his trust had deteriorated (you don't praise and defend a guy you fire a day later) but because the public found out he was repeatedly lying about something that is seen as shady. The Trump administration clearly does not give a fuck, a fact we already knew given Trump did nothing for 3 weeks, never told the VP and allowed Flynn in the daily intelligence meeting from the moment he found out (it's clear he already knew) to the moment he resigned.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Nope! they didn't have plasma rifles! Oooohhh burnnnn!!!!

Mutherfukin mic drop!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/132/thatsthejoke.jpg

 

/Hint: I was making fun of your shitty, anachronistic analogy.

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's not about specifically spilling the beans; it's about divulging classified information with the express intent of removing a government official. This is basically akin to Flynn being blackmailed by the IC and them following through with their threat; it has no actual discernible difference between this and, say, the Russians doing the same thing. 

If they had simply stated that they had information that Flynn lied, or even that there was a report given to the WH that Flynn could be compromised via blackmail based on a lie (both of which are NOT classified) it might have been less effective, but it would have been significantly less morally complicit. 

And no, this isn't just the kool-aid that Trump is selling. It's an important part of the US Democracy and how it functions. It is important to understand that right now, the IC does not appear to be working particularly for the US government and appears to be - at least parts of it - working against it. That should be worrisome for anyone who remembers Hoover, or anyone who remembers what Comey did to Clinton. The same argument can be made that Comey released information based on a public good too - that the public has a right to know that Clinton may have violated the law - just like Flynn may have violated the law. 

I can ask both simultaneously - who has leaked classified information, AND why was Trump willing to allow someone compromised by Russia the ability to sit at security briefings for three weeks. Both of them are wrong. Both should have investigations and oversight. Both should likely result in a trial. 

I don't really agree. How is Flynn being blackmailed? The IC knew this was bullshit since it happened. Yates told Trump after the VP went to bat for him and lied to the American public. And this was leaked 3 weeks AFTER the administration was informed and did nothing but allow Flynn to continue doing his job in the most highly classified intelligence briefings. Not sure how the IC is blackmailing anyone here. There is a very clear chain of events that lead to the leak.

Lets also be clear that the only classified information that was leaked was that Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador included talk about sanctions and there is a transcript available. No transcripts were released, nothing about how they got the information (i.e. what IC programs were used) and no real specifics. In addition, the IC isn't working for the US government because the IC doesn't trust the US government. That is a direct issue with Trump, the way he has engaged with them, the people he puts in charge and his constant denial that Russia has done anything wrong. I get your point that's an issue, but I don't think blaming the IC for it is the right perspective. It's up to the President to solve this issue and instead of doing that, he exacerbates it by chastising the IC in public, defending the people with clear ties to Russia, defending Putin and ignoring Russian activity (in Russia, Ukraine and here). It's a two way street here. The IC's first allegiance isn't to the President of the USA but to defend the Constitution of the US, at least I believe that's how their oath goes. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'll say that I do agree with you that there should be an investigation into the leaks but not at the expense of investigating Trump and his administration's ties to Russia, now and during the campaign. It's much more important to find out if the most powerful person in the world is compromised then who feels it's necessary to let the public know that shady shit is being swept under the rug and the administration is lying to the public about said shady shit.

[Mexal]

This is a response Trump just had to a question about antisemitism. It's unreal.

 

[DunderMifflin]

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/132/thatsthejoke.jpg

 

/Hint: I was making fun of your shitty, anachronistic analogy.

Yeh swifty, and I'm making fun of your complete desperation to have something to mock. It's in the same league as a grammar correction.

Hence your mic dropping attitude for achieving nothing

[Free Northman Reborn]

To Mexal

I watched the press conference where he answered that question. What's so unreal about it to you?

[Mexal]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

To Mexal

I watched the press conference where he answered that question. What's so unreal about it to you?

The fact that the question was about an increase in antisemitism and he focused on his electoral win and that he knows a few Jewish people?

What did you like about it?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Yeh swifty, and I'm making fun of your complete desperation to have something to mock. It's in the same league as a grammar correction.

Hence your mic dropping attitude for achieving nothing

No desperation here, just so long as you continue to post, Bunky. You are a vault of mockery just waiting to be opened. If you think ignorance regarding when the TV age began is somehow equal to bad grammar I'm not sure what to tell you. Read more books and less message board posts maybe?

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Mexal said:

The fact that the question was about increase in antisemitism and he focused on his electoral win and that he knows a few Jewish people?

What did you like about it?

It seemed quite obvious to me that he responded to the broader accusation, of which anti semitism is but one component, that he is causing racial division in the country. Hence him painting the broader context of 306 electoral votes showing that he has broad support across the nation, before narrowing the focus to his obvious strong ties to Jewish citizens. His son in law is Jewish, for Pete's sake, and his friendship to Israel is obvious.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

/Sad Trombone...

[Commodore]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

The Senate has voted to overturn another Obama-era regulation, this time it was the one that prevented social security recipients with a severe mental illness from purchasing firearms. 

I don't know if the House has voted in favor yet, but I assume they will soon. Its really upsetting that these CAR bill are not subject to a filibuster. Also upsetting is that there had been only a single CAR bill in history prior to this Congress; there's now been at least three since Jan. 20.

meh, one at a time repeals are fine, but these agencies issue hundreds of rules every year (that will change w Trump), no way Congress can keep up repealing a few a month

need a big structural change like REINS Act

[Mexal]

9 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It seemed quite obvious to me that he responded to the broader accusation, of which anti semitism is but one component, that he is causing racial division in the country. Hence him painting the broader context of 306 electoral votes showing that he has broad support across the nation, before narrowing the focus to his obvious strong ties to Jewish citizens. His son in law is Jewish, for Pete's sake, and his friendship to Israel is obvious.

That is a really interesting interpretation. If someone asks me about antisemitism, I think I'd talk about why it's a bad thing to have in our country, how it's not acceptable on any level and what we, as a nation and me, as the President, is going to do to stop it from rising further. I'd make it clear that it's an issue we don't condone, it's against American values and it's a relevant issue that needs to be solved.

I would not focus on the fact we're a divided nation, that I won 306 electoral votes when people thought I'd win 221 and then narrow down Jewish people to my son in law and grandchildren. I don't have an issue with him using them as an example if it's within a large context but just saying "As for Jewish people, my son in law and grandchildren are here" and then leave it at that. Literally, his only response to antisemitism or Judaism was that his son in law and grandchildren were there.

I guess we expect different things out of our President. As someone who is Jewish, I expect a lot more than I won when people didn't think I would, we're going to stop crime and you'll see a lot of love when asked about a specific, rising problem in this country that was enabled by his win.

[DunderMifflin]

17 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

No desperation here, just so long as you continue to post, Bunky. You are a vault of mockery just waiting to be opened. If you think ignorance regarding when the TV age began is somehow equal to bad grammar I'm not sure what to tell you. Read more books and less message board posts maybe?

I'm completely sure what to tell you. Your charge is petty and desperate. 

Now please lets prove how desperate you aren't by having a 5 page discussion where you try to prove something I said was stupid, at which point you will tire of it. Of course that will be the same point where you start accusing me of trolling you.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

That is a really interesting interpretation. If someone asks me about antisemitism, I think I'd talk about why it's a bad thing to have in our country, how it's not acceptable on any level and what we, as a nation and me, as the President, is going to do to stop it from rising further. I'd make it clear that it's an issue we don't condone, it's against American values and it's a relevant issue that needs to be solved.

I would not focus on the fact we're a divided nation, that I won 306 electoral votes when people thought I'd win 221 and then narrow down Jewish people to my son in law and grandchildren. I don't have an issue with him using them as an example if it's within a large context but just saying "As for Jewish people, my son in law and grandchildren are here" and then leave it at that. Literally, his only response to antisemitism or Judaism was that his son in law and grandchildren were there.

I guess we expect different things out of our President. As someone who is Jewish, I expect a lot more than I won when people didn't think I would, we're going to stop crime and you'll see a lot of love when asked about a specific, rising problem in this country that was enabled by his win.

Ok, but I honestly don't understand the issue here. You don't honestly think he is anti-Semitic do you? I mean, Trump is a lot of things, a narcisist, egotist, a bit of a creep, and a whole bunch of other not-so-flattering descriptions would fit. But I see no evidence that he is anti-Semitic. How could he be? His grandchildren are Jewish.

I don't see what people are aiming at here, other than to find yet another stick to beat him with. It is a non-issue. However, it might well be that a certain section of the Jewish population is extremely liberal in the USA - I'm talking to you, Hollywood - and he might quite naturally not like certain individuals very much. But the Jews as a collective? I honestly don't see how anyone can claim that with any credibility.

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Look at the photo record for the Fireside Chats, which you can easily do on google images and other site, including LOC.gov.  You have no idea what it took to do a live radio feed simultaneously back then-- even when there weren't that many national broadcast networks -- otherwise you wouldn't say something that stupid.

Obviously you missed the sarcasm there....

[Mexal]

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Ok, but I honestly don't understand the issue here. You don't honestly think he is anti-Semitic do you? I mean, Trump is a lot of things, a narcisist, egotist, a bit of a creep, and a whole bunch of other not-so-flattering descriptions would fit. But I see no evidence that he is anti-Semitic. How could he be? His grandchildren are Jewish.

I don't see what people are aiming at here, other than to find yet another stick to beat him with. It is a non-issue. However, it might well be that a certain section of the Jewish population is extremely liberal in the USA - I'm talking to you, Hollywood - and he might quite naturally not like certain individuals very much. But the Jews as a collective? I honestly don't see how anyone can claim that with any credibility.

No. I don't think he's antisemitic. I think he's narcissistic, incompetent and has no understanding or empathy for the issues, nor will he address them as long as the people committing the crimes are people who support him. I don't think he has a clear understanding that he enables antisemitism, that he has to work to stop it and that just saying "I'll stop crime and I have a Jewish son in law" isn't enough. He focused on himself and only himself (his win, his grandchildren) with the obligatory "everything will be ok" thrown in. This is not a good answer and not sure how you can defend it as a legitimate answer from the most powerful person in the world on the rising antisemitism in the USA.

In other news, this is the third straight press conference where Trump only called on conservative outlets and blogs. This is how you control the narrative and avoid real questions.