"Multiple former officials, including former IDF intelligence deputy chief and INSS expert Brig.-Gen. (res.) Dr. Meir Elran said that the story was “not very significant” for Israel “unless the information was received from Israel, and there is no indication of that.”
Further, he said that intelligence sharing between the US and Israel “is too important, even if there are…glitches” where Trump or others in the US break some of the unwritten rules of the game.
Elran said that Israeli intelligence “takes into account always that this could happen” but at the end of the day “intelligence assets are national assets” and they do not get to decide how the political echelon uses their information." JPost.com
Then you are unaware of most military chains of command. The Prez is Commander in Chief, remember. Even if the other oaths don’t mention the office directly, trust me on this, he DOES legally command the military directly, if/when he cares to do so. Period.
Doubtful. What happened was (as paraphrased from multiple reports) Trump’s sharing prompted a chain of calls to the people who will have to deal with the breach. In other words, by sharing the info about what city they got the ISIS info from, they provided the ability to reverse engineer the country and source, thus putting that asset in danger. Upon realizing this, someone in the room let the codeword-cleared intel staff on NSC know that the intel was shared so that they (the true patriots in the intel community) could protect the country and in turn the country its asset.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
I didn’t say that they weren’t legally obligated to follow the orders that they were given by the President of the United States.
I just said that they had no “oath-bound allegiance” to him.
In fact, if someone had reason to view the President as an enemy of the Constitution, one could argue that the wording of the oath would compel the opposite.
Yeah, you remember back in the day when Al Gore was raked over the coals by the right for saying the phrase “no controlling legal authority” over fundraising calls made from the White House? What an innocent time that was…
Ooohhhhhh, gotcha-- so the disclosure was revealed due to more of a ‘look at all these muddy firefighter bootprints around that smoking crater’ thing vs. a ‘holy shit, Dave’s house is on fire’ thing? That makes sense, thanks for clarifying!
Yeah - looks like (anonymously sourced paraphrase) Trump stepped in shit, his staff, knowing he stepped in shit told a bunch of shitwipers that he had stepped in shit (cuz it was a big pile o’ shit), and one of those patriots told the Post: Trump stepped in shit again.
It’s inappropriate because it dampens and dilutes criticism of Trump about important issues. Which was the essential point Max_Blanke was making.
Trump actually is a potential danger to our national interests, due to his self-indulgence, petty malice, and declining mental capacity. When his political opponents indulge in constant repetitive indignation over his gaffes and gross attitude they waste their political capital. Organized, effective efforts to block Trump’s policies are damaged by self-pleasuring Twitterstorms about tripe… like his boorish dining habits.
I - and everyone else in the world - already know Trump is the type who would short-change others when dishing out ice cream. I give a shit about what executive orders he’s signing today; not who he stiffed out of 300 extra calories yesterday. I’m very confident that anyone Trump dines with is capable of making up the difference on his own dime. The people Trump fucks out of over time pay, or health coverage, or access to the voting booth… not so much.
Huh? Maybe the “They” in Bozobub’s comment and “political opponents” in yours needs to be better defined then. If your goal is about “organized effective efforts to block Trump policies” then you are referring to Republicans (who are the only politicians who are not organized in their efforts to oppose), and instead of “indulging in repetitive indignation” they instead are apologists for the behavior.
If our goal is to oppose Trump’s policies the only people needed are approximately 12 congressman and 9 senators. Not an easy task, but we can all focus our attention on.
I really wish I could take credit for that one, but it actually came from a friend of mine, who themselves picked it up somewhere else. It’s my new favorite, though
Lets please stay on topic here. There’s great discussion going on, but all members here are considered to be commenting in good faith by default (and if you think otherwsie, please flag the comments in question, don’t engage).
I know these topics are important, but usually heated as well, and I don’t want to stifle discussion by chopping up the thread. Please help me do that by being respectful all around.
LOL. You guys need to adjust your sarcasm meter. I was just repeating the party line, while pointing out that he can’t be as smart as he claims AND accidentally do something as big as this. Either he isn’t so smart and screwed up, or he is doing dumb shit on purpose for what ever reason.
