Donald Trump and US politics

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"""sources""" """claim"""

Yeah. Turns out that people sharing information from within the government to the press often don't wish to be publicly named, otherwise they might lose their jobs. Go figure.

Seriously, this is childish. Are you denying that we can claim that any of the three aforementioned news sources did due diligence in assuring that that person was a source worth trusting? We're talking about the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN. Two newspapers with a long, impressive record of reporting, and a news network which is not great but still doesn't tend to just make shit up (and let's be clear, that is what you seem to be alleging). Would you care if we did know who shared this information? I mean, it's not like we found out who "Deep Throat" was until decades after the fact. That didn't stop his information from being vital in uncovering the Watergate break-in.

This is the value of constant accusations of "fake news". If Trump can stop people from trusting mainstream and reliable news organizations, then one of the most valuable sources of intel we have on any presidency (but most of all that of a would-be autocrat), leaks from people who prefer to keep a low profile, becomes effectively useless. You are falling for his game. Stop it.

You are falling more than any of us are; the use of phrases like "would-be autocrat" prove it.

I'm pro-whistleblower, but this is not whistleblowing. Let me explain the difference. Let's say you go out drinking with a subordinate, and your employee later tells your wife you cheated on her that night, that's whistleblowing. Now let's say you go out drinking, and a hired private eye later tells her you cheated on her that night, that is espionage.

The "leaks" here are from agencies that were under the direction of Sally Yates and James Comey, while Sessions' confirmation to AG was stalled. (Source: The Atlantic via WaPo, scroll down to Jan 19.)

The standard of credence for espionage is higher than whistleblowing. The employee is risking their paycheck with the report; the private eye is pursuing one. As a result, anonymity is more justified for the employee than the paid investigator; the latter's case more directly rests upon personal reputation... and, more importantly, photographic evidence.

But either way, without hard evidence, we're just talking about stories here. Without those photos, your wife would be ill-advised to fully believe any anonymous claim received; the motives to lie are numerous. The reason why Wikileaks is so effective is that they deal exclusively in evidence, not narrative.

Also daily reminder that Obama literally signed an EO to make leaks easier (NSA sharing intel with the other 16 intelligence agencies). He's an intelligent guy I'll give him that.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Also daily reminder that Obama literally signed an EO to make leaks easier (NSA sharing intel with the other 16 intelligence agencies). He's an intelligent guy I'll give him that.

Yeah, but is he "like a smart person"?

https://youtu.be/uH4Tefi--FE?t=23s

https://youtu.be/51WBULEjReY?t=22s

Dem sympathizers before Jan 20 be like "It sure is a good thing our intelligence agencies are investigating Trump's ties to Russia."

Dem sympathizers after Mar 4 be like "Our intelligence agencies investigated Trump? What a baseless conspiracy theory. No evidence."

40 days. That's how long it takes you guys to forget. That's how fast the MSM can make you 180.

wtf i love dubya now

rofl libs will sleep with anyone who fit their agendas

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Dem sympathizers before Jan 20 be like "It sure is a good thing our intelligence agencies are investigating Trump's ties to Russia."

Dem sympathizers after Mar 4 be like "Our intelligence agencies investigated Trump? What a baseless conspiracy theory. No evidence."

40 days. That's how long it takes you guys to forget. That's how fast the MSM can make you 180.

Indeed.

And it happened with Hillary Clinton as well. In primaries with Bernie: investigate her! In election with Trump: don't investigate her!

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The "leaks" here are from agencies that were under the direction of Sally Yates and James Comey, while Sessions' confirmation to AG was stalled. (Source: The Atlantic via WaPo, scroll down to Jan 19.)

The standard of credence for espionage is higher than whistleblowing. The employee is risking their paycheck with the report; the private eye is pursuing one. As a result, anonymity is more justified for the employee than the paid investigator; the latter's case more directly rests upon personal reputation... and, more importantly, photographic evidence.

Two things.

1. This is the same James Comey (registered Republican) who published an extremely damaging and baseless report about Clinton's email server mere days before the election, editorialized about her actions despite concluding that they weren't illegal, but decided to sit on anything linking Trump to Russia before the election, right? That guy. That guy is going after Trump. That's bizarre.
2. You seriously think these leakers wouldn't lose their job if they were found out? Really? That's literally the entire reason they're remaining anonymous, because they know damn well it's their heads if people find out who's leaking! By your standard, there is no possible way to claim that this is anything but whistleblowing.

"

But either way, without hard evidence, we're just talking about stories here. Without those photos, your wife would be ill-advised to fully believe any anonymous claim received; the motives to lie are numerous. The reason why Wikileaks is so effective is that they deal exclusively in evidence, not narrative.

And yet, the evidence that those hacked Clinton emails were legitimate was...? Oh right, the reputation of Wikileaks. And you'll have to excuse me if I consider the freakin' New York Times more trustworthy than Wikileaks.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Dem sympathizers before Jan 20 be like "It sure is a good thing our intelligence agencies are investigating Trump's ties to Russia."

Dem sympathizers after Mar 4 be like "Our intelligence agencies investigated Trump? What a baseless conspiracy theory. No evidence."

40 days. That's how long it takes you guys to forget. That's how fast the MSM can make you 180.

Hands up, anyone who can spot the difference between "intelligence agencies are investigating Trump" and "Obama wiretapped Trump". Anyone? Anyone?

Meanwhile, according to The Intercept, if Trump had literally anything documenting this, he could release it at any time. He has full security clearance, and can declassify anything he wants at any time. Why hasn't he? See, if I heard that my political opponents were doing some skullduggery, and I knew for a fact that I could get literally any document related to this skullduggery and release it to the public with any degree of classification I desire, my first response would not be to throw out an unhinged tweet and wait a day or two. It would be to find those documents. Trump is talking out of his ass. As usual.

Also, it kinda says something that George F. W. Bush is considerably to the left of Donald Trump on social issues, doesn't it? That the guy who got us into Iraq is looking at this and saying, "Damn, that's kinda fucked up."

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Hands up, anyone who can spot the difference between "intelligence agencies are investigating Trump" and "Obama wiretapped Trump". Anyone? Anyone?

Calling for investigations of Trump is what the bulk of the Democratic party wants, and then didn't want. Obama wiretapping Trump is just a random, stupid tweet by Trump, not the whole party.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

And yet, the evidence that those hacked Clinton emails were legitimate was...? Oh right, the reputation of Wikileaks. And you'll have to excuse me if I consider the freakin' New York Times more trustworthy than Wikileaks.

Let me introduce you to our lord and saviour DKIM.

http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html