TRUMP 2016

Between this thread, the one khan just brought back up and our older ones its almost comical how many times supporters on this board have given the GOP the benefit of the doubt only to be proven wrong by more leaks, or direct quotes, sometimes within hours of their posting.

---

Now the GOP is going to do a horse and pony show for how badly Trump handled security at Mar-a-Lago. Any official word yet on how they plan to proceed concerning possible Russian ties? Or are they hoping the eventual "hes a greenhorn" response to Mar-a-Lago will be enough to make people forget?

Ten bucks says the pony is a Russian agent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Between this thread, the one khan just brought back up and our older ones its almost comical how many times supporters on this board have given the GOP the benefit of the doubt only to be proven wrong by more leaks, or direct quotes, sometimes within hours of their posting.

---

Now the GOP is going to do a horse and pony show for how badly Trump handled security at Mar-a-Lago. Any official word yet on how they plan to proceed concerning possible Russian ties? Or are they hoping the eventual "hes a greenhorn" response to Mar-a-Lago will be enough to make people forget?

---

Look for another (seemingly) incompetent, dumbass executive order that will rile everyone up and divert media attention away from the Russia connection. See how well the Muslim Ban did in getting attention off the Russia intervention in the election? They'll try it again, you watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Also, I hope all those smug "both sides are bad!" motherfuckers (you know who you are) out there feel like idiots.

/rant

---

Glenn Greenwald does a better job of explaining this than I.

Excellent article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Glenn Greenwald does a better job of explaining this than I.

Quote:

---

It’s hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people — from both parties, across the ideological spectrum — who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn.

It’s even more surreal to watch Democrats act as though lying to the public is some grave firing offense when President Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, got caught red-handed not only lying to the public but also to Congress — about a domestic surveillance program that courts ruled was illegal.

---

---

This is how you know if your sense of morality is on the right track. Never attacked any of these leakers, in fact I defended what several of them did multiple times on this(or the other) board; and I (again) mentioned room 641A only a few weeks ago cause I've never let go of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Glenn Greenwald does a better job of explaining this than I.

---

Greenwald is characterizing the criticisms aimed at Snowden et al as 'you should never leak anything in any circumstances', because of course he is.

It is not at all inconsistent to say 'Snowden shouldn't have leaked that stuff because it damaged national security and helped Americas enemies, but it was ok for whoever leaked the Flynn stuff because they were exposing someone in the administration as (huge) national security risk - and the administration knew about it and refused to act on it'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Glenn Greenwald does a better job of explaining this than I.

---

Funnily I don't think he was talking about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Greenwald is characterizing the criticisms aimed at Snowden et al as 'you should never leak anything in any circumstances', because of course he is.

It is not at all inconsistent to say 'Snowden shouldn't have leaked that stuff because it damaged national security and helped Americas enemies, but it was ok for whoever leaked the Flynn stuff because they were exposing someone in the administration as (huge) national security risk - and the administration knew about it and refused to act on it'.

---

The central question being; 'what did the President know, and when did he know it?'. I.e. is the President guilty of treason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

This is how you know if your sense of morality is on the right track. Never attacked any of these leakers, in fact I defended what several of them did multiple times on this(or the other) board; and I (again) mentioned room 641A only a few weeks ago cause I've never let go of that.

---

Whereas others here called him a traitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki, June 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/wo...-his-fate.html

I think we can officially call Snowden a traitor now.

---

See Steely's post for clues about how the cases differ.

Yes, Loki didn't call Snowden a traitor because he leaked, he called him a traitor because of what he leaked and the consequences it had.

(which is not a view I share, as I support what Snowden did - but you'd have to be either suffering from serious myopia or actively on maneuvers to compare the Snowden leaks to the Flynn ones)

I see. One was a case where a leak involved showing the American public and Congress were being lied to and the other was about Flynn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Greenwald is characterizing the criticisms aimed at Snowden et al as 'you should never leak anything in any circumstances', because of course he is.

It is not at all inconsistent to say 'Snowden shouldn't have leaked that stuff because it damaged national security and helped Americas enemies, but it was ok for whoever leaked the Flynn stuff because they were exposing someone in the administration as (huge) national security risk - and the administration knew about it and refused to act on it'.

---

While admittedly I have not seen the content of the conversation, I somehow doubt Flynn was acting as a huge national security risk. Or do you believe that it is typical behavior for the Russian intelligence apparatus to use ambassadors to communicate secretly with their agents, using what I imagine is an insecure private cell phone?

Did he deserve to be fired, absolutely. He didn't deserve to be hired in the first place. Was it likely as serious as James Clapper lying to the American people and Congress, and the exposure of massive intelligence gathering operations on US citizens? I somehow doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade July 2013

I agree best on this issue I think with Rand Paul: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...eliana-johnson

Snowden may have broken the law but I think that the public had a right to know what was going on and when Congress is being lied to on the issue its rich Loki to claim he was going against the interests of all of America's public. If the public is being spied on while Congress and the public are explicitly being told they're not then yes I think the truth is in their interests.

---

Not changed my mind between then and now. If Congress is being lied to then telling the truth is in the public interest even if illegal.

I find it hilarious though rereading that thread in the context of the ongoing discussion of holding protests blocking a highway. Apparently revealing that Congress is being lied to is treasonous and not protected by free speech but saying protesters should assemble on the pavement next to a road and not on the road itself is an autocratic violation of the first amendment. I'm not convinced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

While admittedly I have not seen the content of the conversation, I somehow doubt Flynn was acting as a huge national security risk. Or do you believe that it is typical behavior for the Russian intelligence apparatus to use ambassadors to communicate secretly with their agents, using what I imagine is an insecure private cell phone?

Did he deserve to be fired, absolutely. He didn't deserve to be hired in the first place. Was it likely as serious as James Clapper lying to the American people and Congress, and the exposure of massive intelligence gathering operations on US citizens? I somehow doubt it.

---

Conspiring against the sitting government of the USA is not a threath to national security? Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

While admittedly I have not seen the content of the conversation, I somehow doubt Flynn was acting as a huge national security risk. Or do you believe that it is typical behavior for the Russian intelligence apparatus to use ambassadors to communicate secretly with their agents, using what I imagine is an insecure private cell phone?

Did he deserve to be fired, absolutely. He likely didn't deserve to be hired in the first place. Was it likely as serious as James Clapper lying to the American people and Congress, and the exposure of massive intelligence gathering operations on US citizens? I somehow doubt it.

---

Concern was that since he broke the law, he was vulnerable to blackmail by Russian intelligence. Obviously, that's something of a concern for anyone working for POTUS, let alone the National Security Adviser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Glenn Greenwald does a better job of explaining this than I.

---

Are you really citing Greenwald, of Snowden and Breitbart fame? And you're buying a Snowden-apologist's outrage at leaks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I see. One was a case where a leak involved showing the American public and Congress were being lied to and the other was about Flynn.

---

Are you serious? Snowden leaked information about American conversations with confidential sources in dictatorships. He leaked highly classified foreign policy doctrine and analysis. You're comparing that to info that makes Trump looks bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Concern was that since he broke the law, he was vulnerable to blackmail by Russian intelligence. Obviously, that's something of a concern for anyone working for POTUS, let alone the National Security Adviser.

---

Clapper also broke the law - a law far more significant, and enforced than the Logan Act - was he too vulnerable to blackmail by Russian intelligence?

Is there any evidence that Russian intelligence knew about the law breaking or had had any contact with Clapper?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Are you seriously citing Greenwald, of Snowden and Breitbart fame?

---

Yes. I'm sorry, did you have something meaningful to add?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Are you serious? Snowden leaked information about American conversations with confidential sources in dictatorships. He leaked highly classified foreign policy doctrine and analysis. You're comparing that to info that makes Trump looks bad?

---

Yes I am fully serious, Snowden leaked that after both Congress and the American public were lied to saying that this wasn't happening. Don't want your secrets revealed then don't lie to Congress, which is itself a felony.

http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Glenn Greenwald does a better job of explaining this than I.

---

I don't recall ever saying one word about Snowden. I talked about PRISM, and but didn't care about Snowden. And I've been sympathetic toward Manning (while acknowledging that the sympathy was useless because he didn't have a legal chance in hell). if you want to LEGALLY whistleblow, you have to go to someone with oversight who might or might not help and who will certainly take all the credit. If you want to illegally whistleblow, you puts down your money and you takes your chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Is there any evidence that Russian intelligence knew about the law breaking or had had any contact with Clapper?

---

Absolutely, because there's evidence that everyone knows about the law breaking. Now, can we cut the faux outrage and stop pretending that one possible violation of an obscure and rarely enforced law is somehow demonstrably more serious than lying outright to both Congress and the American people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Absolutely, because there's evidence that everyone knows about the law breaking. Now, can we cut the faux outrage and stop pretending that one possible violation of an obscure and rarely enforced law is somehow demonstrably more serious than lying outright to both Congress and the American people?

---

Precisely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Absolutely, because there's evidence that everyone knows about the law breaking.

---

I... don't think you can blackmail someone by threatening to reveal something everyone already knows. That's sort of... not how blackmail works?

This blackmail line isn't something I just made up, by the way. It's what the DOJ told Trump. He did nothing, so 'someone' leaked to force the issue.

Quote:

---

Now, can we cut the faux outrage and stop pretending that one possible violation of an obscure and rarely enforced law is somehow demonstrably more serious than lying outright to both Congress and the American people?

---

Yeah, not taking a 'faux' anything charge from you, Enoch. I honestly don't recall the last time I saw you engage in a discussion with anything remotely resembling good faith.

Twitter Link

Wikileaks framing of the Flynn story. I'm picturing an anonymous office in a business park in Moscow suburbs and a couple of Russian hoods speaking to some scruffy wikileaks types:

"A little on the nose, don't you think?"
"... No? Not really?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes I am fully serious, Snowden leaked that after both Congress and the American public were lied to saying that this wasn't happening. Don't want your secrets revealed then don't lie to Congress, which is itself a felony.

http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/

---

The American people were lied to about conversations American officials have with foreign dissidents? I have no problem with Snowden leaking details about illegal spying programs aimed at the American public. I have a problem with him leaking highly sensitive diplomatic conversations and analysis. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Yes. I'm sorry, did you have something meaningful to add?

---

You're taking seriously someone who supported Snowden's leaks and is outraged by the current ones? Someone who backed Snowden before deciding to write for Breitbart? His only constant is acting in Putin's interests. And you treating him like a normal, credible source is disgraceful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I... don't think you can blackmail someone by threatening to reveal something everyone already knows. That's sort of... not how blackmail works?

---

So, just so we are clear - it is less outrageous in your eyes to protect and allow someone who has blatantly, and publicly broken a law to stay in power without any sanction, than it is to have the possibility that an obscure law, the enforcing of which has never resulted in a single conviction in over 200 years, that might have been broken could maybe used as blackmail? That's in your mind constitutes a (huge) national security risk?

While I'm open to the possibility that it could have posed a national security risk, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Quote:

---

Yeah, not taking a 'faux' anything charge from you, Enoch. I honestly don't recall the last time I saw you engage in a discussion with anything remotely resembling good faith.

---

I'm sorry, it's entirely possible you are truly outraged. If that's the case, I apologize. I just wish we could have seen this same outrage at times that weren't so politically expedient. While I know you, and others seem to believe that a Russian sleeper agent has Manchurian candidate-d his way to the presidency, and that as we speak he's having golden shower parties with Russian hookers in the Lincoln Bedroom, those of us less inclined to sensational conspiracies still need to rely on the balance of probability, and Occam's Razor. Is it possible Trump is as you fear? I am open to it. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - evidence that I have not yet seen.