Trump: Even If there was collusion, it's not a crime.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Article

What a dumbass. At this point, if it isn't obvious that he is a treasonous scumbag, then you must be blind.

So what is the nature of this treason, then?

Seanchaidh:
So what is the nature of this treason, then?

The people he colluded with are foreign, and that makes it worse?

Ninjamedic:

Seanchaidh:
So what is the nature of this treason, then?

The people he colluded with are foreign, and that makes it worse?

So all foreign people are exactly the same now? That's pretty racist of you. No, the accusation is that he colluded with a hostile foreign power seeking to meddle in our elections, which is most certainly illegal.

However, it's more likely at this point that Mueller is seeking to instead nail Trump to the wall with the much easier to win cases of financial crimes. Mueller's been subpoenaing Deutsche Bank for the Trump and Kushner family business records. Trump is such a shady motherfucker that there is more than one skeleton in his closet capable of putting him in prison.

The New York Times helpfully notes that Donald Trump used the words "no collusion" sixteen times over the course of the interview.

Seanchaidh:
So what is the nature of this treason, then?

Neither treason nor collusion are useful at all for describing what happened.

If Trump were to be found guilty of something, it would be either a breach of federal election law or obstruction of justice. The former hinges on how whether stolen emails can constitute a campaign contribution, and whether Trump can be shown to have been complicit in the solicitation of those emails from Russian state representatives.

The latter, as far as I'm concerned, has already been established. Donald Trump told the director of the FBI to drop their investigation into a man who has now pled guilty to the crimes he was being investigated for. When the director refused to do so, Donald Trump fired him. When questioned as to why he fired him, Donald Trump said he did it to stop the Russia investigation from proceeding. He said this in an interview with Lester Holt, because he was too dumb to realise what it was he was admitting to.

BeetleManiac:

So all foreign people are exactly the same now?

In that we can be interchangeably slotted in as badguys up to no good threatening your good old American ways. I'm disappointed y'all haven't tried to remake Invasion USA yet.

However, it's more likely at this point that Mueller is seeking to instead nail Trump to the wall with the much easier to win cases of financial crimes.

For all the hype this has gotten, that's one hell of a climbdown considering this is a challenge to an office and party that has in it's past created an organisation to spy and compromise the opposition, sold weapons to terrotists and started two illegal wars.

bastardofmelbourne:
The former hinges on how whether stolen emails can constitute a campaign contribution, and whether Trump can be shown to have been complicit in the solicitation of those emails from Russian state representatives.

See, the latter I'd go with, but the former starts heading into the overly finickety definitions area. What is the difference between Clinton's emails being leaked, and the Trump video story that made the rounds? Both originated in Russia, quite likely from within the government. Both were actively encouraged by their opponents, with no heed of where the information was from or how trustworthy it was / what purpose it served.

I mean, I would love to see politics without all the fricking smear attacks, and if they started consistently applying this sort of ruling that would be grand. But if it is just a casual wrangling of definitions to get rid of Trump before heading back to the comfortable status quo, it solves nothing.

image

So it would seem we have reached line three of the Narcissist's prayer.

Watch this space until we return.

Who wants to place bets on when we'll get to line 6/7?

Somebody please discipline that child or put him in a damn home. These aren't responsible adults, you god damn fucking idiots. Every day is a war of attrition against this bloody stupidity.

BeetleManiac:
No, the accusation is that he colluded with a hostile foreign power seeking to meddle in our elections, which is most certainly illegal.

What exactly makes Russia a "hostile foreign power" to the United States? Our tepid support of Georgia and Ukraine? The fact that Russia dares to have so much of their land so close to a wide selection of our countless foreign military bases?

Seanchaidh:

BeetleManiac:
No, the accusation is that he colluded with a hostile foreign power seeking to meddle in our elections, which is most certainly illegal.

What exactly makes Russia a "hostile foreign power" to the United States?

Seeking to meddle in US elections, perhaps. Or having the US meddle in theirs first, perhaps.

Thaluikhain:

Seanchaidh:

BeetleManiac:
No, the accusation is that he colluded with a hostile foreign power seeking to meddle in our elections, which is most certainly illegal.

What exactly makes Russia a "hostile foreign power" to the United States?

Seeking to meddle in US elections, perhaps. Or having the US meddle in theirs first, perhaps.

I had almost forgotten about the prohibition on foreign speech around election time.

Ninjamedic:
For all the hype this has gotten, that's one hell of a climbdown considering this is a challenge to an office and party that has in it's past created an organisation to spy and compromise the opposition, sold weapons to terrotists and started two illegal wars.

And Al Capone was brought down on charges of tax evasion.

Catnip1024:

bastardofmelbourne:
The former hinges on how whether stolen emails can constitute a campaign contribution, and whether Trump can be shown to have been complicit in the solicitation of those emails from Russian state representatives.

See, the latter I'd go with, but the former starts heading into the overly finickety definitions area. What is the difference between Clinton's emails being leaked, and the Trump video story that made the rounds? Both originated in Russia, quite likely from within the government. Both were actively encouraged by their opponents, with no heed of where the information was from or how trustworthy it was / what purpose it served.

I mean, I would love to see politics without all the fricking smear attacks, and if they started consistently applying this sort of ruling that would be grand. But if it is just a casual wrangling of definitions to get rid of Trump before heading back to the comfortable status quo, it solves nothing.

What video of Trump came from Russia? Cause that's where most of it hinge on, whether they sought aid from a foreign power (and then repeatedly lied about it). Also if the Clinton side was also guilty of that, it's just as bad, except she's not president, so it's not as important. This isn't just smear tactics, the Russian might have sought to get Trump elected in exchanges for promise that he would drop sanction against Russia and let them keep Crimea, that's a big deal.

The second cases is that he obstructed justice, by firing the FBI chief (after asking for loyalty) while it was investigating the affair. This is an even bigger deal (that's what Brough down Nixon). The constitution is pretty clear that no one is above the law, not even the president.

Third is w/e Mueller find doing the investigation, Trump is singular in modern president history in not releasing his tax return, there could be a lot of very fishy and outright illegal things going on. If Mueller find stuff he's not going to ignore them even if there only tangentially related (in the same way that if cops break into someone house on suspicion of drug possession and find a dead body, there not going to ignore it, if there's no drug found).

Meiam:
What video of Trump came from Russia? Cause that's where most of it hinge on, whether they sought aid from a foreign power (and then repeatedly lied about it).

The alleged sex act one, that was based on rumours from Russia via an ex-MI5(6?) agent who Clinton had (iirc) allegedly paid to dig up dirt on Trump. To which no evidence was ever actually issued, but which the media lapped up because it sells.

Also if the Clinton side was also guilty of that, it's just as bad, except she's not president, so it's not as important. This isn't just smear tactics, the Russian might have sought to get Trump elected in exchanges for promise that he would drop sanction against Russia and let them keep Crimea, that's a big deal.

See, imo, Russia isn't interested in a puppet President. They are more interested in stirring up chaos and spreading discord. Delegitimising the US government. Which Trump is all too eager to allow in exchange for power. Spreading shit about both sides and encouraging rhetoric which further divides your sides is their primary objective. The same reason they funded adverts targetting BLM protesters.

And it is important if Clinton was even indirectly doing the same. It shows the level of effort put into spreading shit. It shows the state of party politics that both sides actively seek out dirt rather than push policies. It's still an effort by foreign powers to delegitimise US politics. Beyond what US politics is doing to itself, that is.

The second cases is that he obstructed justice, by firing the FBI chief (after asking for loyalty) while it was investigating the affair. This is an even bigger deal (that's what Brough down Nixon). The constitution is pretty clear that no one is above the law, not even the president.

Well, it's a shitty move, but the question is is there a law against it? And technically, the President is above the law because he can pardon himself. You've got a flawed system, but it's still in place.

I agree that what he has done is incredibly dubious at best, but the only way to get rid of him is to impeach him. And then you get Pence.

Third is w/e Mueller find doing the investigation, Trump is singular in modern president history in not releasing his tax return, there could be a lot of very fishy and outright illegal things going on. If Mueller find stuff he's not going to ignore them even if there only tangentially related (in the same way that if cops break into someone house on suspicion of drug possession and find a dead body, there not going to ignore it, if there's no drug found).

This is less your example, and more the police breaking into your house on suspicion of a dead body and finding a bit of weed.

Trump is a businessman. Most of them are canny enough to pay people canny enough to make sure everything is legitimate, if incredibly dubious. There are enough legal loopholes to avoid tax without having to use illegal ones. And companies have enough layers that you always have a fall guy or two.

BeetleManiac:

Ninjamedic:
For all the hype this has gotten, that's one hell of a climbdown considering this is a challenge to an office and party that has in it's past created an organisation to spy and compromise the opposition, sold weapons to terrotists and started two illegal wars.

And Al Capone was brought down on charges of tax evasion.

If Al Capone was President, and his opposition had been making political hay about TREASON!!!!1!!!1! for over year, putting him away on a lame charge like tax evasion would be highly destabilizing.

Seanchaidh:

What exactly makes Russia a "hostile foreign power" to the United States? Our tepid support of Georgia and Ukraine? The fact that Russia dares to have so much of their land so close to a wide selection of our countless foreign military bases?

Putin's insistence on returning Russia to superpower status complete with the same 'sphere of influence' that the USSR once had? Something that puts Russia's current foreign political goals at direct odds with several NATO countries, especially in Eastern Europe, as Russia considers those countries to be within Russia's influence. An influence which from Russia's perspective means that the US, EU or NATO should not be involved with those countries at all, because Russia needs them as a geopolitical buffert zone.

I mean, when a country directly threatens countries that are within the same military alliance as you are, that sort of makes them hostile, right? And if that's not enough, then explicitly supporting regimes that you consider to be on the blacklist because of their undemocratic political system or outright human rights violations (ie. Syria) might do the trick. Or the unlawful military seizure of neighboring countries territories and instigation and support of armed insurgencies in neighboring countries. There are plenty of reasons why the US should be considering Russia a hostile foreign power at the moment, with the threats aimed at NATO members just being the tip of the iceberg.

Seanchaidh:
What exactly makes Russia a "hostile foreign power" to the United States?

I'd add to what's already been listed repeated incursions into the airspace of allied nations, submarine escapades, a leftover cold war mentality and a populist leader who insists on having some enemy to blame things on. Backing of opposing sides in proxy wars. To name but a few reasons.

Oh, and a bunch of ICBMs which quite likely have targets for various US locations prepped.

Seanchaidh:
If Al Capone was President, and his opposition had been making political hay about TREASON!!!!1!!!1! for over year, putting him away on a lame charge like tax evasion would be highly destabilizing.

Hey, take it up with the Mueller team if it pisses you off so much. I'm just pointing out that a prosecutor is more interested in getting the job done than satisfying demands of proper optics from the internet peanut gallery.

Catnip1024:
[...]a leftover cold war mentality and a populist leader who insists on having some enemy to blame things on. [...]

These last two, true as they are of the Russian government, can also apply to some pretty solid extent to the US government.

Hell, the last one can apply to a huge number of other governments, too.

Silvanus:
These last two, true as they are of the Russian government, can also apply to some pretty solid extent to the US government.

Hell, the last one can apply to a huge number of other governments, too.

Yes, and the mutual validity just makes the hostile part even worse.

So, I take it Mueller's investigation goes well, then...

BeetleManiac:
And Al Capone was brought down on charges of tax evasion.

Al Capone wasn't part of an office and party that has in it's past created an organisation to spy and compromise the opposition, sold weapons to terrorists and started two illegal wars, and got away with all of it except for Nixon getting a slap on the wrist.

Unless this is not about fighting the corruption that created this situation and is just about getting that dastardly Drumpf out and returning the oligarch machine back to its default setting: "Steady but with a Middle-Class veneer".

Ninjamedic:
Al Capone wasn't part of an office and party that has in it's past created an organisation to spy and compromise the opposition, sold weapons to terrorists and started two illegal wars, and got away with all of it except for Nixon getting a slap on the wrist.

Unless this is not about fighting the corruption that created this situation and is just about getting that dastardly Drumpf out and returning the oligarch machine back to its default setting: "Steady but with a Middle-Class veneer".

Missing the point. The point is that you prosecute the charges you have the greatest chance of winning. At this point, it looks like Trump would be most likely to be convicted of financial crimes, conspiracy against the state and obstruction of justice because those would be the most effective charges in court.

As for fighting the corruption, I want reform as badly as you do, maybe moreso in fact. I also acknowledge that sometimes you have to stop the bleeding before you can begin to heal.

FalloutJack:
So, I take it Mueller's investigation goes well, then...

Heh ... I like howit has come to light that the investigation started because an Australian went to a bar and an American campaign advisor thought they could keep score. The joke almost writes itself. Australian intelligence gathering at its finest. Ahh, Alexander Downer. I still remember him in fishnet stockings and a leopard print heels. We made him High Commissioner to keep him out of the way and apparently he ends up de-stabilizing an American presidency.

Australian politics is fun.

Aussie diplomat with a few bottles of wine apparently trumps a British spy dossier.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Australian politics is fun.

Aussie diplomat with a few bottles of wine apparently trumps a British spy dossier.

In the international espionage/politics Top Trumps card game, its hard to get higher than "Aussie drinking", especially when you have "UK spy dossier", either professional or ex-professional.

Though to be fair, on the professional side its not so much the British ability to conduct espionage as the fact that imbeciles in politics get to call the shots on them (I'm looking at you Tony Blair, you Iceman-ignoring piece of crap).

ineptelephant:

In the international espionage/politics Top Trumps card game, its hard to get higher than "Aussie drinking", especially when you have "UK spy dossier", either professional or ex-professional.

Though to be fair, on the professional side its not so much the British ability to conduct espionage as the fact that imbeciles in politics get to call the shots on them (I'm looking at you, Tony Blair, you Iceman ignoring piece of crap).

It seems like a pretty bad move by the FBI to highlight where the tipoff came from.

Australia kind of has a diplomatic responsibility to inform the FBI that one of their closest advisors to a presidential candidate may be compromised by foreign elements. And the Australian government did the right thing by assuming Papadopoulos was merely talking out his arse right up until the email scandal in which case; "Holy shit, there is something here!..." and informed the FBI.

And it's kind of assumed that such tipoffs should be kept on the quiet precisely because it can cause harm to international diplomacy.

Now you'll get no shortage of political agitators using this publicity as if to paint Trump as if some symnpathetic figure facing international sabotage. There's a reason why it was kept quiet, precisely because the Australian government didn't want to seem as if meddling in U.S. elections on principle that that is bad conduct.

At the time it seemed like Trump would probably lose as well .. in which case regardless of validity the situation looked like it was going to wrap itself up all nice and tight, and the government could trust U.S. authorities to act on that tipoff at their leisure and not have to discuss at all where the tipoff came from after a few years of discreet investigation and evidence gathering.

As a roundabout way of answering your second paragraph ... I agree, but there is reasons why such things should be handled delicately.

It's the equivalent of a bull in the fine diplomacy shop by airing such things. In essence, by airing this publicly andwhere it comes from, it puts one of our diplomats inhot water simply for doing their job.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
It seems like a pretty bad move by the FBI to highlight where the tipoff came from.

Australia kind of has a diplomatic responsibility to inform the FBI that one of their closest advisors to a presidential candidate may be compromised by foreign elements. And the Australian government did the right thing by assuming Papadopoulos was merely talking out his arse right up until the email scandal in which case; "Holy shit, there is something here!..." and informed the FBI.

And it's kind of assumed that such tipoffs should be kept on the quiet precisely because it can cause harm to international diplomacy.

Now you'll get no shortage of political agitators using this publicity as if to paint Trump as if some symnpathetic figure facing international sabotage. There's a reason why it was kept quiet, precisely because Australia didn't want to seem as if meddling in U.S. elections on principle that that is bad conduct.

As a roundabout way of answering your second paragraph ... I agree, but there is reasons why such things should be handled delicately.

It's the equivalent of a bull in the fine diplomacy shop by airing such things.

Yeah I agree, I really don't understand why the FBI bothered revealing the country of origin for the tip. Frankly I've come to assume that to some degree most if not all of the U.S. departments are all leakier than a boat made of Swiss cheese and its just second nature to them by now. I certainly would be with a demoralising leader like that.

Other than as you say a Trump sympathiser looking for a martyr against the international conspiracy there doesn't seem to be any more explanations, besides massive incompetence and/or a needlessly undiplomatic SOP.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

ineptelephant:

In the international espionage/politics Top Trumps card game, its hard to get higher than "Aussie drinking", especially when you have "UK spy dossier", either professional or ex-professional.

Though to be fair, on the professional side its not so much the British ability to conduct espionage as the fact that imbeciles in politics get to call the shots on them (I'm looking at you, Tony Blair, you Iceman ignoring piece of crap).

It seems like a pretty bad move by the FBI to highlight where the tipoff came from.

I don't think it's fair to explicitly blame the FBI as the source of the leaks here. The NY Times article that broke the story says its info regarding that came from "four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians' role."

Considering the fact that there are several concurrent Congressional investigations (where Republicans are trying their damn best to find the perfect balance between making a show of having a true investigation, deflecting away from any possible wrongdoing, and finding a way to charge Clinton or her associates with a crime), it could have come from a large number of sources.

I'm willing to bet on this initially coming from someone trying to show an international/establishment/"deep state"/globalist conspiracy against Trump with the others being typical journalistic sources confirming it when the reporter(s) followed up.

Avnger:

I don't think it's fair to explicitly blame the FBI as the source of the leaks here. The NY Times article that broke the story says its info regarding that came from "four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians? role."

Considering the fact that there are several concurrent Congressional investigations (where Republicans are trying their damn best to find the perfect balance between making a show of having a true investigation, deflecting away from any possible wrongdoing, and finding a way to charge Clinton or her associates with a crime), it could have come from a large number of sources.

I'm willing to bet on this initially coming from someone trying to show an international/establishment/"deep state"/globalist conspiracy against Trump with the others being typical journalistic sources confirming it when the reporter(s) followed up.

Well, that leaves the Israelis because apparently it was an Israeli diplomat that hooked Papadopoulos up with meeting Downer. For reasons I don't quite understand, but diplomats do tend to just sort of hang out places. But Downer himself wouldn't have told anyone else beyond the ministry what Papadopoulos said, rather liaisons in the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade would have passed the tip along once enough circumstances deemed it worthy of further investigation.

After all, Papadopoulos could have been talking out his arse when insinuating some co-ordination with hostile interests to meddle in an U.S. election. And naturally back in May 2016, Trump wasn't looking like he was going to win so DFAT likely sat on it and explored elements of it on their own. And of course when you had the scandal actually emerge, and the coincidental timing of it, then decided to act.

Why jeopardise international relations for the potentiality Papadopoulos was just talking out of his arse, and risk being accused by what percentage of Trump's support base of meddling in U.S. affairs?

After all ... Australia seemingly meddling in a U.S. Election prior the vote against Trump would have been against our interests in the first place if we truly desired (and we did) a Clinton vote. So I think you'll find that there was more to it than simply Papadopoulos' words that Australia passed on. I think you'll find they did some careful thinktanking and background checks on the issue of Russian meddling in an allied power's elections.

And that's more than within the perview of the DFAT, given DFAT is highly connected, naturally, with Australian intelligence outfits.

So I don't see where else the leak could have come from except the FBI.

DFAT had nothing to gain talking to U.S. government officials outside U.S. federal authorities.

And yeah, your speculation about painting this as an international conspiracy against Trump is likely, as opposed to an Australian diplomat doing their job by informing allied powers' law enforcement of a possible threat to their democracy. If it were a conspiracy, if that was the case, why the fuck would a Trump campaign official be drinking with them in the first place?

Regardless, that still means FBI leaks ... My bet maybe Comey.

Which honestly should piss off people more than just emails at this point, because if there has been intentional misuse of allied intelligence on the matter, tarnishing the reputations (as if we need any help) of an Australian diplomat for the sake of political point scoring ... that should annoy Americans more.

It jeopardises and hinders the idea of allied information sharing against a hostile power known for meddling in U.S. elections.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Avnger:

I don't think it's fair to explicitly blame the FBI as the source of the leaks here. The NY Times article that broke the story says its info regarding that came from "four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians? role."

Considering the fact that there are several concurrent Congressional investigations (where Republicans are trying their damn best to find the perfect balance between making a show of having a true investigation, deflecting away from any possible wrongdoing, and finding a way to charge Clinton or her associates with a crime), it could have come from a large number of sources.

I'm willing to bet on this initially coming from someone trying to show an international/establishment/"deep state"/globalist conspiracy against Trump with the others being typical journalistic sources confirming it when the reporter(s) followed up.

Well, that leaves the Israelis because apparently it was an Israeli diplomat that hooked Papadopoulos up with meeting Downer. For reasons I don't quite understand, but diplomats do tend to just sort of hang out places. But Downer himself wouldn't have told anyone else beyond the ministry what Papadopoulos said, rather liaisons in the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade would have passed the tip along once enough circumstances deemed it worthy of further investigation.

After all, Papadopoulos could have been talking out his arse when insinuating some co-ordination with hostile interests to meddle in an U.S. election. And naturally back in May 2016, Trump wasn't looking like he was going to win so DFAT likely sat on it and explored elements of it on their own. And of course when you had the scandal actually emerge, and the coincidental timing of it, then decided to act.

Why jeopardise international relations for the potentiality Papadopoulos was just talking out of his arse, and risk being accused by what percentage of Trump's support base of meddling in U.S. affairs?

After all ... Australia seemingly meddling in a U.S. Election prior the vote seemingly against Trump would have been against our interests in the first place if we truly desired (and we did) a Clinton vote. So I think you'll find that there was more to it than simply Papadopoulos' words that Australia passed on. I think you'll find they did some careful thinktanking on the issue of Russian meddling in an allied power's elections.

So I don't see where else the leak could have come from except the FBI.

DFAT had nothing to gain talking to U.S. government officials outside U.S. federal authorities.

And yeah, your speculation about painting this as an international conspiracy against Trump is likely, as opposed to an Australian diplomat doing their job by informing allied powers' law enforcement of a possible threat to their democracy. If it were a conspiracy, if that was the case, why the fuck would a Trump campaign official be drinking with them in the first place?

Regardless, that still means FBI leaks ... My bet maybe Comey.

I guess what I'm saying is that yes, the initial info did have to come out of the FBI, but that could have occurred in a meeting with one of these Congressional investigations. The committees running them would have every right and authorization to hear from/ask the FBI about such things. My thoughts are that it was some Congressman/Congresswoman's staffer that actually leaked it to the NYT after their boss learned it.

Avnger:

I guess what I'm saying is that yes, the initial info did have to come out of the FBI, but that could have occurred in a meeting with one of these Congressional investigations. The committees running them would have every right and authorization to hear from/ask the FBI about such things. My thoughts are that it was some Congressman/Congresswoman's staffer that actually leaked it to the NYT.

Then that should seriously piss off Americans, because DFAT passed on that information and likely more intelligence in good faith that such things would not be publicly aired and used for Republican point scoring at the cost of tarnishing an ally's diplomatic corps and possibly whatever assets they did employ to further pursue the matter and its relevancy.

Whatever people want to say, a diplomat passing on information about a possible threat to security is not uncommon, and nor should it be public because it jeopardises that relationship in the future. If it were Trump sympathizers or the like, then basically what they have done is tarnish a working relationship of trust with another allied nation for the sake of protecting their candidate.

That should leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth.

ineptelephant:

Yeah I agree, I really don't understand why the FBI bothered revealing the country of origin for the tip. Frankly I've come to assume that to some degree most if not all of the U.S. departments are all leakier than a boat made of Swiss cheese and its just second nature to them by now. I certainly would be with a demoralising leader like that.

Other than as you say a Trump sympathiser looking for a martyr against the international conspiracy there doesn't seem to be any more explanations, besides massive incompetence and/or a needlessly undiplomatic SOP.

Well as far as I'm aware Canberra is in damage control. This has grave circumstances, because decorum on this matter is not to meddle in U.S. domestic politics. So this wasn't considered a trivial thing. Particularly when it comes to elections themselves. But at the same time there should have been some form of confidentiality clause involved. This is the sort of stuff that most diplomats want to keep out ofthe news for decades, precisely because it leads to significant distrust between foreign parties.

And the gravity of this shouldn't be forgotten. Whatever was said was shocking enough that a former foreign minister decided to report it and that a department that has numerous intelligence outfits attached to it, sitting on that information for two months, felt that it needed to act and act immediately.

Effectively what those U.S. officials have done is paint a bullseye on the backsof Australian officials for simply doing their job. That does not look good for us ... because let's say we did pass on more confidential information, suddenly there is a media spotlight. Depending on exactly how much gets leaked might even jeopardise various agents involved in gathering together and investigating the issue. Compromising their total exposure to Russian information channels. Protocol on this matter should have been keeping it out of the press. That's a given. The source was already verifiable, it did not require any form of public scrutiny given it involved diplomats and likely further intelligence assets involved.

Moreover, the person in question that these revelations are shining a light on has become president. Which makes it all the more galling that people liable to have been involved in the leak did so as if to punish or divert attention from the revelation onto those that did the tip-off, despite it being in both of our nation's interests to keep counterintelligence out of the media even when it doesn't involve diplomats.

If we can't trust the U.S. government with such sensitive materials, that speaks poorly on just how we should approach working with their counterintelligence in the future and whether it is even viableto meaningfully do so.

You do not out sources of confidential materials. Russia is the enemy ... the fact that U.S. officials would rather damage mutually beneficial efforts to weed out Russian leverage for the sake of defending a presidential candidate is a gross violation of international co-operation. Particularly when the people in interest have taken the presidency and are in a position to influence foreign relations.

Needless to say, doesn't require an absurd leap of reasoning why this should have been treated as highly sensitive from the get go.

So yes... someone was being an undiplomatic SOP. After all, whatever Australia found out wouldhave gone through the Office of National Assessments ... breaching that trust is going to have longterm ramifications. And this is frightening, because essentially that information was then liable to be parsed through the United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence and thus then delivered to the FBI's counterintelligence investigation.

When there is intelligence sharing of such a political nature, it is these two organizations of ONA and ODNI that are principally involved. So by casting a spotlight on who did the tip off, it engenders a hierarchical level of affiliation that goes to the highest office of Australia ... which is still our current Prime Minister.

And now that Trump is president ... well suddenly we have a fucking problem given they're the person of interest.

Starting to see why shit like this shouldn't be publicly disclosed? Effectively it will also prejudice whether we should further disclose any more relevant materials that has come up since then. By advertising this, U.S. officials are doing Russia's work by jeopardising this exchange model of intelligence.

So congrats to whatever fuckwits thought that was a good idea.

Seanchaidh:

Thaluikhain:

Seanchaidh:

What exactly makes Russia a "hostile foreign power" to the United States?

Seeking to meddle in US elections, perhaps. Or having the US meddle in theirs first, perhaps.

I had almost forgotten about the prohibition on foreign speech around election time.

You're right, manipulating foreign citizens into eroding their own democracy so you can gain international and political clout is the epitome of free speech.

Dango:

Seanchaidh:

Thaluikhain:

Seeking to meddle in US elections, perhaps. Or having the US meddle in theirs first, perhaps.

I had almost forgotten about the prohibition on foreign speech around election time.

You're right, manipulating foreign citizens into eroding their own democracy so you can gain international and political clout is the epitome of free speech.

Funny question: Does Russia even HAVE free speech?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here