First, most of what could go into a PDB is not super-secret, in the sense that only our spies know about it.
Second, Trump himself is unlikely to know (without someone explaining it very carefully and in exactly these terms) what the “juicy” stuff is. The subtle detail that would let Russia gain some huge advantage isn’t likely to jump off the page at him (or any other non-expert).
Third, even in the absolute worst-case scenario (Donald Trump is personally in the the direct thrall of Russia and is doing their bidding) he’s not likely to be the conduit for information. That’s not why he’s valuable to them. Rather, Russia would seek to control his actions, to their advantage and the United States’ disadvantage. This wouldn’t require him to know anything at all, and in fact, in a situation where you were a presidential stooge you’d probably want to know and think as little as possible about what was going on in the world.
All that having been said, it’s also quite likely (and not mutually exclusive with the Russian situation) that our spies simply do not, under any circumstances, trust him not to Tweet some random top secret factoid that lodges in his brain.
While thetes did serve as rowers, I don’t think their rights as citizens were predicated on their ability to do so. The Athenian state gave pensions to poor citizens with disabilities preventing them working- which implies that at least some poor disabled Athenians were citizens.
The Athenian democracy probably wouldn’t qualify as a democracy by modern standards, but then neither would the USA until 1865 or possibly 1964, or Switzerland until the 1990s!
This is what I’ve been baffled about for YEARS. Why do so many people (and this includes the left, as well as the right) want to feel like they’re voting for a “pal” who’s just like them. That’s just crazy; I want presidential candidates to be WAY smarter than I am (not to mention strategic, experienced, ethical, etc, etc.). I’ve never had any desire to actually LIKE my candidate, and I just don’t get people who have likeability as their primary criteria.
What I was trying to suggest was that the franchise in democracy is a moving target. The franchise constantly varies, sometimes widening and sometimes shrinking. When Appenzell admitted women to the franchise, they also lost something of their direct democracy because they could no longer have open air meetings of all voters. But there are two things that are specifically non-democratic; the existence of an administration that is not elected by citizens or the body of their representatives, and the existence of state bodies that are not subject to citizen oversight. The UK fails the test on both counts. The US fails on the second count. Democratic Athens passed on both but would not be recognised as a modern democracy because of the narrowly restricted franchise. The same goes for Venice as an independent state, though there the franchise was even more restricted.
Trump-related merchandise will be sold at this event. Talk about building a bigger Cult of Personality! You too can have a memento of our Great Leader’s very existence (or is that Kim Il Jung’s shtick exclusively?).
People “like me” tend to have a similar ethical system; their priorities and interests are more aligned with mine. If I feel that someone doesn’t care about things I consider important, I tend to start disliking them.
Yes, I’d want someone who’s smarter, more experienced, etc. than me, but with political power, it’s not just a matter of how well it is wielded, it is also a question of what it is used for. So wanting the candidate to “likable” and “just like me” is simply a reasonable first-order approximation to choosing a candidate who shares my values and priorities.
Do you have any non-American sources about this use of the terminology? I always considered that a distinctly American innovation in terminology, not the “original meaning of the word”.
Does that mean you’d be in favor of a military coup or a takeover by the intelligence community?
What would relevant impeachable offences be?
I see enough reasons for a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, but impeachment is about actual crimes instead of bad policies, chaos and maybe being too friendly to Russia.
One of those quotations suggested that what they are keeping from Trump isn’t so much what they know but how they know it. Given that he’s tweeting about Nordstroms 10 minutes into intelligence briefings, I think leaving out the details might not only be a strategy to keep sensitive information from him, but also it’s just necessary to get the important stuff across.
I bet if you told Obama, “Looks like the Syrians have started producing mustard gas in an underground factory,” the first question out of his mouth would be, “How sure are we about this?”
But if it was Trump, the conversation would be more like, “Mr. President, the Syrians are… are you listening? This is important - it’s about chemical weapons. Like poison gas… Yeah, poison gas, the Syrians are making it.” If you tried to tell him how you knew he’d just get bored and leave.
Leaks from the Donald aren’t the worry. By blackmailing tRump, the Russians have a puppet they can nudge in the right direction such as having him appoint Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, a position most likely to be able to end the sanctions against Russia over the invasion of Crimea thereby allowing the deal Rex Tillerson as CEO of Exxon setup with the Russian oil company Rosneft to move forward. Many believe taking over the pipelines in Crimea was the reason Russia invaded Crimea in the first place.
You misunderstand the roles: elected officials are the public servants, not the thousands upon thousands of people whose careers are based on supporting the country first without partisanship.
Our intelligence community has determined that protecting the country REQUIRES protecting it from the illegal and treasonous actions of an elected official who is not being supervised or sanctioned by other elected officials (yet another of their jobs that they are refusing to do) because they’re using his actions as cover for tearing this country apart as quickly as possible.
The only checks and balances still functional are the judiciary (within the political system), and the free press and citizen action (in the public arena).
They have two conflicting sets of rules, though. Rule A: President can know everything. Rule 1: Don’t tell anything to probable security leaks. Breaking either of those rules is a crime. They have to pick which one to break, and which breakage does the least amount of damage over the long term.
I’m sorry we’re off the map, but we’re in here be dragons territory.
Really? I thought that continued- the only change was that they now admit people to the meeting on production of a national ID, rather than requiring them to bring their bayonet (though you can still bring your bayonet instead if you like).
“I have recently heard that the Syrians are making mustard gas”
“How do you know this?”
“I know good people, like the deputy head of intelligence in Syria, he works for us! We have all kinds of good people working for us in that government. Even the president’s wife sends us stuff”
And the entire intelligence gathering system collapses as all the various assets realize they are liable to being outed by a moron.
Yes, but I thought they couldn’t get everybody in?
Thanks for the picture, reminded me of the last time I visited. Don’t forget the earrings and the upside down pipes. A bit provincial, but I rather approve of the Appenzellers, both inner and outer.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” is not very well defined, but certainly any quid-pro-quo of a change of policy that benefits Russia is treason. That seems Hc&M enough for me.
Also, an article 25 procedure wouldn’t require any crimes, just a consensus that the president was unfit to hold office because of his compromised position with Russia.
