https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/p...rns/index.html
What a genuinely sad and pathetic little dingus. Imagine being so corrupt or so cowardly that you'd want to prop up this threat to national security.
Printable View
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/p...rns/index.html
What a genuinely sad and pathetic little dingus. Imagine being so corrupt or so cowardly that you'd want to prop up this threat to national security.
Yes, imagine knowing things that directly impact America's national security and doing nothing, Mr. Annoymous Official.Quote:
These officials' concerns about the calls, and particularly Trump's deference to Putin, take on new resonance with reports the President may have learned in March that Russia had offered the Taliban bounties to kill US troops in Afghanistan -- and yet took no action.
Have you seen what's in Trump NDAs? Anonymity prevents you from being joined to the tail end of a human centipede.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I doubt nda's are in use in that setting.
I imagine leaking national security secrets like that could see you end up in jail very quickly though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Trump has compelled his henchmen to sign NDAs. If "Anonymous" is one of them, there's a good chance s/he's signed one as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Is that even legal?
I doubt they could be enforced. I am going through the Bolton book and I don't think Bolton seems encumbered
Surely intelligence like this is classified anyway and covered by security laws without NDAs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
We're talking about three separate things, I think. I was responding to Steely and Being re. "Anonymous", who may have been compelled to sign a Trump-NDA (consensus seems to be that they're likely not enforceable against federal employees, but having that tested in court might be costly and inconvenient). The lawsuit against Bolton rests on standard govt. NDAs, and opinion is divided re. his likelihood of prevailing. The intelligence leaks are indeed a separate matter.
Indeed my point is that this was intelligence so whether there was an NDA involved or not is moot. Existing laws would surely apply without needing an NDA to ensure silence.
Most likely the DoJ would be the party taking action. They would have a hard time convincing a court that it's justiable at all. They'd be pushing a civil case on behalf of the administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless