ilovefuzz.com

oscillateur wrote:

Faldoe wrote:I really hope there can be a real investigation into Russia ties and impeach Trump. The Republican Party has a chance at renewal if it can shed Trump and those that fanatically support him. If they can do that, hopefully center/classical liberals can be rid of the progressives and far-left and the country can have a somewhat sense of political normalcy.

You're aware that your "political normalcy" is basically "super right wing" and that your "far left" are almost considered centrists in most parts of the world, right ?

That's a big problem with the american system. The two party system presents a false dichotomy. When one party starts leaning towards facism while the other's simply centrist, it makes people who prefer moderation look like progressive leftists.

Faldoe wrote:I really hope there can be a real investigation into Russia ties and impeach Trump. The Republican Party has a chance at renewal if it can shed Trump and those that fanatically support him. If they can do that, hopefully center/classical liberals can be rid of the progressives and far-left and the country can have a somewhat sense of political normalcy.

You do realize that the aptitude you hold is what got us where we are right now right?

Nope, nothin' going on here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 0094554080

Well, if he's not going to be tried for treason (does that constitute treason under US law?), surely he can be dismissed for incompetence at this point?

Well, the article was saying that it probably wasn't illegal for him to've done so, but it certainly wasn't very wise.

It could compromise our relationship with the source of the intel and would probably put them in danger.

Apparently, he also wasn't authorized by the source to share that intel with others. So, not a good move.

"according to current and former U.S. officials"
How would former officials know?

Seriously, though. There should be a drinking game based on the amount of times they say "officials" without actually revealing who said "officials" are.
$10 those "officials" are low-level aides or just made up entirely.

Former government officials can still have an opinion on matters of protocol.

Also:

"advised by Federal official Dick Jordan not to leave town pending an investigation"


EDIT: … and now McMaster is saying it didn't happen.

Chankgeez wrote: Former government officials can still have an opinion on matters of protocol.

"President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State."

Yeah, that's not an opinion they're talking about.

Even with all the issues I have on how Trump is handling the press, he does have a point where it concerns anonymous sources.

You and I are interpreting that sentence differently. I think it's poorly written.

I'm taking it to mean that the current and former officials are expressing their opinion that the disclosure of the information jeopardized the source. Not that the current and former officials revealed the info to the Russians. Obviously, the former officials wouldn't be privy to that fact unless the current officials told 'em.

Should I e-mail the reporter for clarification?

Sources to the media should remain anonymous in circumstances like thesebto protect their identities, thats no big deal, and certainly sensible.
Which is why you get the term "official" used, so that nobody has to commit career suicide now by doing the right thing and alerting the public to dereliction of duty in an environment that is, unsurprisingly, not going to be accommodating to breaking rank and file or status quo.
Plus, former parties involved would have operational and procedural knowledge of policies and protocols that have probably not changed officially and can clearly spot when dereliction of duty has occurred.

Basically, if you knew your boss was doing dodgey shit, and could speak up and say something, potentially getting them fired, would you straight up do it and put your chips on the table? Or, would you anonymously tip off the appropriate body to handle it, so that it protected your job, and your boss could be replaced without sinking the company amd destroying its rep to the outside world?

Chankgeez wrote:You and I are interpreting that sentence differently. I think it's poorly written.

Yeah, that's a good point.

Chankgeez wrote:Should I e-mail the reporter for clarification?

If you could just fire the writers, that'd be great.

Sorry chank, you replied while i was typing that.
I imagine the former officials were asked for an opinion as soon as the current offials commented.
Of course, it is entirely within scope that there are people currently in positions discussing these matters (obviously not the details of confidential material itself, but the fact that it was shared without permission) with thise who used to have the same job.

Iommic Pope wrote:Basically, if you knew your boss was doing dodgey shit, and could speak up and say something, potentially getting them fired, would you straight up do it and put your chips on the table? Or, would you anonymously tip off the appropriate body to handle it, so that it protected your job, and your boss could be replaced without sinking the company amd destroying its rep to the outside world?

I mean, that's a solid argument if it's concerning reports to a government agency that's supposed to monitor this or to congress, but to The Washington Post?
Add to that, pretty much all the "supported facts" of the story comes from anonymous sources.
When your entire story has no actual sources that allow for any support of said story other than "well, a lot of people don't like that guy and, uh, it seems like something he might do, I guess, and we swear these sources exist," then there's going to be some serious questioning of the story's validity.

Yeah, former officials are often asked to comment by the media because they still have valuable insight into certain situations and don't have some of the constraints that current government employees do about speaking to the press.

Obviously, for a news story like this you wanna be able to have some sources not be anonymous. That's not always possible though.

I always question the validity of anything in the news. Whether the sources are anonymous or not.

Yeah absolutely that has to come under criticism, and thats what makes thia complicated.
But thats where trump is winning his war on misinformation.
You already distrust the media, it plants a seed of doubt and then anyrhing reportes about the administrations bunglings can be dismissed as some sort campaign against the truth. But when we know that they have officially lied and mislead the public in the face of facts, we can't trust anything they say either as not being transparent in any way, or as being blatantly false.
The question is also one of whether or not a newspaper SHOULD publish stories such as these in the interest of preserving national free speech or withold, as it seems to undermine legitimacy further (whether or not you believe the president has any legitimacy is secondary, as a state should look like it can run its shit).

Im personally of the opinion that this may be a deliberate leak of information from an agency seperate to the Trump administration to reassure the public that theyre both doing something about the situation abroad and that theyre aware the guy in charge is not passing muster.