When the information is published within five days of the event, it can be reasonably inferred that the suspected leak was not reported through the chain of command, investigated and concluded.
I think the sticking point here is that we are starting with the assumption that someone who would be willing to violate the espionage act for political reasons would hesitate to lie to the press.
Well, their willingness to take such a risk tends to give them some credit in my book. There are things of higher value than laws, especially tyrannical ones.
Oh, boy. I was gonna watch the video, but, well… you know.
Today’s Fresh Air interviewee addressed the issue of leaks today, as a matter of fact, and sheds some light on the kind of leaks he’s personally dealt with and how they differ - he doesn’t really address chain of command issue, however, but he’s dealing with higher level folks usually:
The leaker could also be relatively high enough up the chain of command that they view the people above them to be politically compromised in some way. [quote=“Max_Blancke, post:21, topic:101353”]
violate the espionage act for political reasons
[/quote]
What if they’re not doing it for political reasons, but for moral and ethical ones? I find the assumption that it must be political entirely dubious, especially considering we saw a major spike in prosecutions of leakers and whistle blowers under the previous administration. I’m sure that feeds into fears that people are not going to be heard when they see things that are concerns.
Again, leakers are necessary for the proper functioning of democracy when your government is so incredibly opaque (which applies to previous administrations, not just this one).
And how the current administration immediately responds to every scandal by attempting to disparage the leakers and confuse the issues rather than address the information that actually came out.
Given precedent set down by Obama, I don’t see why they wouldn’t aggressively go after leakers, too.
It shows how much Fox I watch. I had no idea that Geraldo Rivera was still alive / on television.
I guess broken clocks can be right once in a while… FOX actually addressed a Trump statement head-on:
“The Washington Post newspaper and others reported on the sharing of the intelligence, none ever claimed that President Trump identified the source as an Israeli. They never reported that he identified them. Though, apparently, [Trump] just did.”
Oh, no doubt. It just seems like there is an uptick in the focus on character assassination of the sources, in addition to any expected search for them.
I guess we will have to wait and see what their identities and motivations are. If it turns out that we have a group of nonpartisan people who have no option other than go outside the government to report wrongdoing, then I will be on their side of the issue.
But from the perspective of someone who deals with classified information, I find that very unlikely. There is a system for dealing with suspected security breaches, and knowing about those resources is a big part of getting access and clearance to deal with such info. Also, “former” government officials should not be part of the information loop.
I am sure that the leakers are convinced that they are in the right. But what that means to them might not be what it means for most people.
The only time I watch Fox is during ongoing events. Shep Smith is very good at telling what is known to be a fact and what is supposition and rumor.
But I do not watch them for opinion or their “spin” on politics. I find “Fox and Friends” to be tremendously annoying.
I think what they do also matters. If a crime is victimless, it being actually a crime is always up to examination. Your comparison is therefore totally flawed and even dishonest.
That is exactly the argument that the suicide bombers use, except substitute “tyrannical” in your statement for “blasphemous”. Misguided zeal is a terribly destructive force. We don’t really know the identity or motives of the WaPo sources, if they exist. There is some small possibility that they are going to turn out to be heroes. Or they could just be very angry Obama staffers, who thought that after HRC’s coronation, their access to almost unlimited power was at hand.
That may be the furthest out on a limb I’ve read yet.
I think they’re just not very creative.
And if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
“That’s not what they reported.” lol
You realize the rest of the government would still have been controlled by the Republicans, right…? I’m sure everyone who saw the stonewalling during Obama’s run, and the focus on running an investigation on anything and everything Clinton, was extremely aware of that.
I prefaced this with the words “they thought”. That does not imply that such beliefs were realistic. And because she was not elected, nobody will ever have a chance to see her fail to live up to everyone’s expectations. The opposite, probably. I have to think that a significant part of the anti-Trump rage comes from comparing his presidency to how they imagine HRC’s presidency would have turned out.
I, on the other hand, knew that we were screwed as soon as we had to chose between the two of them. But we have had that discussion here before.
Yes, you’re right. But it does imply that people whose job it is to know how the government works would be entirely oblivious to how it would continue to work.
