"The Deep State" aka the American Intelligence Community

[old salt]

Nobody is cheering him on.

BTW, what do you think those 80%+ approval ratings for Trump among Republicans are doing, if not cheering?

The crowds at his rallies are certainly "cheering". Pretty disgusting.

Read again. afan said cheering Kushner on.

[old salt]

For Republican leadership to grow a spine and demand he be removed. Simple. And for that to happen, Republican voters like you need to tell your reps when a line has been crossed.

Or Hannity and FoxNation. If they called for Kush's head, Trump would remove him immediately. Instead, what do we get? We have to wait a decade to wait for the book to come out, detailing all the damage he's doing.

The list of "things it's ok for the next President to do" is about 100 miles long, and growing with each passing day Trump is in office......

I'll get right on that. Fire off letters to my Rep Anthony Brown & to my Senators Cardin & Van Hollen.

[old salt]

Salty keeps claiming that Comey leaked classified information. That's not what the IG found. He also keeps claiming that the issue rested on 'proving intent', but that's not what the IG found either, as the issue was instead whether classified information had actually been leaked or not. And the answer was fundamentally no. Indeed, the evidence showed that Comey took pains to exclude classified information from what was released.

He also tries to set up a false equivalency with Petraeus' errors (both mishandled sensitive and/or classified information), but Petraeus knowingly shared classified info with his lover. Not so Comey. I hope history treats Petraeus well, despite this error, but it was certainly more serious than Comey's. And, for our purposes though not the IG's, here's where intent does come in: Petraeus' intent had no honorable or patriotic aspect. Comey's did.

That said, the IG found Comey's actions deserving of sharp reprimand, as the rules and guidelines on how to handle sensitive (not classified) information were abused and that precedent needs to be rejected. I'm good with that.

You continue to inaccurately restate my positions. That is dishonest.

I clearly stated that the classified portion of what Comey shared with his lawyers was not disclosed to the public. The lawyer who leaked to the media only disclosed unclassified content. That does not absolve Comey from mishandling classified material & disclosing it to his friend & the lawyers who did not have security clearances or need to know. Comey's violation was the disclosure of classified material to unauthorized persons.
Comey's "leak" was the disclosure to his lawyer friend, which included a small amount of classified content.
This facilitated the subsequent leak to the media which did not include the classified content.

Reread my Petraeus post. I took pains to say that his case was similar to Comey's, not that their misdeeds were equal in magnitude.
I made that distinction because I anticipated that you would disingenuously say that I equated them, as you predictably did.

I see, you were just comparing them as "similar" without making clear that they're actually quite different. But nah, you don't want folks to think that "similar", without clear distinction, means "equate". Or my term "trying to set up a false equivalency".

And you want to hide behind that???

That's what seems "disingenuous" to me.

The IG had a very different finding re Comey than was found about Petraeus, and for darn good reasons...and not needing to go to "intent".

You keep repeating that Comey committed what would be understood as criminal, the disclosure of classified information, more particularly the knowing disclosure of classified information. That's NOT what the IG found. "Mishandling" sensitive information is another matter altogether. Not to be taken lightly, but not criminal.

Others are interpreting what you have said, the same as I am, including your various acolytes on this thread.

I won't call it or you "dishonest", but your word "disingenuous" does feel on point.

I posted how they were similar & included a WP link & excerpt that provided abundant detail on the Petraeus case.
Either you were too lazy to read them or TDS fever has destroyed your reading comprehension.

[MDlaxfan76]

TLD
I remember leaving ND locker room after beating them 3 in a row. ND fans lined up with beers, wine and liquor saying they could now fire Faust walking. I guess they thought we were the JV team. The following year the boys in blue competed for NC. Pretty arrogant.

MD
I had a TS/SCI and for my six years active almost 90%did. You had to have a Secret to graduate from the Academy. Not sure you are factually correct in your assumptions. Everyone I interacted with through 3 jobs had a clearance and there was a need to know. Keep the rules the same for all and no issues.

Comey and Clinton are just as big of scumbags with the handling of classified info.

Good for you, LandM, but most military definitely don't need TS/SCI clearances. Heck, many at CIA and NSA don't either.

Secret is a whole other matter, but even then it's a stretch to suggest that most military need Secret for much of their career.

On Clinton and Comey, from what I can tell Comey made a careful decision about what he was doing, and took some pains to ensure that classified information wasn't released. He weighed the costs carefully and made sure nothing actually damaging to the nation was released.

I haven't seen any suggestion that this was a pattern by Comey or that he was loose lipped about information damaging to the US or our allies.

Clinton, on the other hand, appears to have been quite cavalier about her handling of sensitive and classified information, including information that could be reasonably considered damaging to the US or our allies. I haven't seen evidence that she intentionally released or disclosed classified information, but I think it's fair to say that she was very cavalier about putting information at risk, and then covered this up when it became under investigation.

Her transgression seems to me considerably worse than Comey's. But neither of them come close to the "cavalier" treatment of information damaging to the US or our allies displayed by Trump.

When and if you and others call Trump a "scumbag" for his handling of such information, I'll take critique of Comey more seriously. Until then such critique seems grossly partisan.

[MDlaxfan76]

Salty keeps claiming that Comey leaked classified information. That's not what the IG found. He also keeps claiming that the issue rested on 'proving intent', but that's not what the IG found either, as the issue was instead whether classified information had actually been leaked or not. And the answer was fundamentally no. Indeed, the evidence showed that Comey took pains to exclude classified information from what was released.

He also tries to set up a false equivalency with Petraeus' errors (both mishandled sensitive and/or classified information), but Petraeus knowingly shared classified info with his lover. Not so Comey. I hope history treats Petraeus well, despite this error, but it was certainly more serious than Comey's. And, for our purposes though not the IG's, here's where intent does come in: Petraeus' intent had no honorable or patriotic aspect. Comey's did.

That said, the IG found Comey's actions deserving of sharp reprimand, as the rules and guidelines on how to handle sensitive (not classified) information were abused and that precedent needs to be rejected. I'm good with that.

You continue to inaccurately restate my positions. That is dishonest.

I clearly stated that the classified portion of what Comey shared with his lawyers was not disclosed to the public. The lawyer who leaked to the media only disclosed unclassified content. That does not absolve Comey from mishandling classified material & disclosing it to his friend & the lawyers who did not have security clearances or need to know. Comey's violation was the disclosure of classified material to unauthorized persons.
Comey's "leak" was the disclosure to his lawyer friend, which included a small amount of classified content.
This facilitated the subsequent leak to the media which did not include the classified content.

Reread my Petraeus post. I took pains to say that his case was similar to Comey's, not that their misdeeds were equal in magnitude.
I made that distinction because I anticipated that you would disingenuously say that I equated them, as you predictably did.

I see, you were just comparing them as "similar" without making clear that they're actually quite different. But nah, you don't want folks to think that "similar", without clear distinction, means "equate". Or my term "trying to set up a false equivalency".

And you want to hide behind that???

That's what seems "disingenuous" to me.

The IG had a very different finding re Comey than was found about Petraeus, and for darn good reasons...and not needing to go to "intent".

You keep repeating that Comey committed what would be understood as criminal, the disclosure of classified information, more particularly the knowing disclosure of classified information. That's NOT what the IG found. "Mishandling" sensitive information is another matter altogether. Not to be taken lightly, but not criminal.

Others are interpreting what you have said, the same as I am, including your various acolytes on this thread.

I won't call it or you "dishonest", but your word "disingenuous" does feel on point.

I posted how they were different & included a WP link & excerpt that provided abundant detail on the Petraeus case.
Either you were too lazy to read them or TDS fever has destroyed your reading comprehension.

Must have been "too lazy", like your various fawning followers on this thread.

So, to help them out, in your view Petraeus committed acts worthy of criminal prosecution, Comey did not?

That's what I was trying to explain to them.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nobody is cheering him on.

BTW, what do you think those 80%+ approval ratings for Trump among Republicans are doing, if not cheering?

The crowds at his rallies are certainly "cheering". Pretty disgusting.

Read again. afan said cheering Kushner on.

Ohh, I saw that. He was speaking sarcastically.
And then he responded about the GOP support for Trump as "cheering".
And I responded about the crowds cheering Trump.

When you tell us that Kushner has no business being there, with any sort of clearance, we'll take you seriously when you say you're not "cheering" for these guys.

[old salt]

So, to help them out, in your view Petraeus committed acts worthy of criminal prosecution, Comey did not?

To help you out -- I agree with the AG's decision in both cases.

[MDlaxfan76]

Like the Russian investigation....not enough there. We Good.

Strzok didn't text -- " not enough there, there."

He texted -- " No there, there."

Now he's your expert...in a text to a lover. sheesh.

[MDlaxfan76]

If you follow many of our fellow poster's discussions, it's pretty apparent that they are immensely cynical about how our system works, who pulls the strings, the dishonesty of politicians, the inherent badness of 'big government', etc. I could go on and on.

I don't think this started with Trump, though clearly he's tapped into and grossly stoked these deep seated levels of cynicism. DEEP STATE, FAKE NEWS, and the constant attack and disabuse on the rule of law...again, I could go on and on. But it didn't begin with Trump.

Looking back historically, I know that in my lifetime, assassinations, civil rights abuses, Vietnam falsehoods by the military brass as well as top civilian officials, and then Watergate crushed much of the idealistic views many of us had growing up. For my part, as a student of American history and world history, I remained stubbornly idealistic about the virtues of our 'system', imperfect as it is, the 'American experiment', relative to many other approaches throughout history. I made sense of the flaws of the system through the lens of several of our founders and their philosophical progenitors who recognized that people are not all inherently good, and such people, especially those in power, have the capacity to do great harm if not constrained in their exercise of power. This led them to insist on various such constraints, balances of power under the rule of law not men, and ways in which the system could evolve in response to abuses of power.

That's why the rise of the 'strong man', the authoritarian, is such an anathema to me.

However, from all that I can glean, many others took away a different lesson from various demonstrations of corruption leading to their cynicism. They've largely given up on what I still hold onto. They instead claim a false sort of patriotism that embraces MAGA and the strong man. They expect him to be dishonest, even revel in it, as long as he gives voice to their cynicism and, in many cases, their bigotries. Or lines their pocket, or at least promises to do so.

LandM,
Sure, being in the military might give one a sense of the rules on classified information, but most military rarely get anywhere near actual classified information, much less TS SCI. A whole lot of folks other than the military go through heavy security clearances and training that most military folks never do.

...& many of us who served in the military did hold TS/SCI clearance, did not take classified material home with us, did not disclose for political purpose, & know that what Comey did would have ended our careers & resulted in Court Martial.

I agree with the historical analogy to Watergate. IMHO, we have not seen an abuse of govt power of this magnitude since Watergate.
What you dismiss as cynicism, is alarm that govt officials (career or political appointees), would resort to such extreme measures for political purpose, & think they can get away with it.

If you're concerned about the rise of an authoritarian strong man, imagine what one could do if he had compliant govt officials who would abuse the powers of their position in the manner which we are now seeing revealed. ...& how a partisan media can provide cover, rather than scrutiny.

Yup, if an authoritarian had a bunch of sycophants in positions of power who abused their responsibilities in thrall to the Der Leader's orders, yup that would be a BIG problem. More so if Der Leader could order companies who to do business with, or a media conglomerate to work for HIM, never criticize.

Yup, that would be a problem.

I keep wondering what the 'political purpose' you keep suggesting that all these lifelong R's had when they found that the Russians were interfering with an election and were putting a Presidential candidate and his team, and then the Presidential nominee and his team, and then the actual President and his team in kompromat.

[old salt]

Nobody is cheering him on.

BTW, what do you think those 80%+ approval ratings for Trump among Republicans are doing, if not cheering?

The crowds at his rallies are certainly "cheering". Pretty disgusting.

Read again. afan said cheering Kushner on.

Ohh, I saw that. He was speaking sarcastically.
And then he responded about the GOP support for Trump as "cheering".
And I responded about the crowds cheering Trump.

When you tell us that Kushner has no business being there, with any sort of clearance, we'll take you seriously when you say you're not "cheering" for these guys.

I don't feel the need to play your Simon says purity game.
I've seen no evidence that Kushner has violated law or damaged national security. Just supposition & innuendo.
I think Kushner is a political liability & unqualified for the position he holds.
I posted during the transition that Trump should establish a "Red Team" DC think tank of non-govt policy advisers who were too politically radioactive to serve in the WH, including Flynn, Bannon, Kushner & Ivanka. Keep them out of govt, but use them as advisers & sounding boards.

Apparently it's too complex a concept for you that it's possible to not like or approve of Trump,
while wanting him to succeed for the good of the country.

[a fan]

I'll get right on that. Fire off letters to my Rep Anthony Brown & to my Senators Cardin & Van Hollen.

Wouldn't hurt. Especially given all the acronyms by your signature line.

[a fan]

I've seen no evidence that Kushner has violated law or damaged national security. Just supposition & innuendo.

Kinda hard to tell what's going on at hundreds of closed door meetings in foreign countries, a few thousand miles away.

I think Kushner is a political liability & unqualified for the position he holds.

Yep. Imagine who the next President is going to send overseas. Picture a President Ocascio Cortez, and think about what "unqualified for the position" would look like with her in charge....and then send that person to Palestine to negotiate deals on behalf of the United States.

Good thing we have a sweet track record as to what's ok and not ok for a President to do.......

[MDlaxfan76]

Nobody is cheering him on.

BTW, what do you think those 80%+ approval ratings for Trump among Republicans are doing, if not cheering?

The crowds at his rallies are certainly "cheering". Pretty disgusting.

Read again. afan said cheering Kushner on.

Ohh, I saw that. He was speaking sarcastically.
And then he responded about the GOP support for Trump as "cheering".
And I responded about the crowds cheering Trump.

When you tell us that Kushner has no business being there, with any sort of clearance, we'll take you seriously when you say you're not "cheering" for these guys.

I don't feel the need to play your Simon says purity game.
I've seen no evidence that Kushner has violated law or damaged national security. Just supposition & innuendo.
I think Kushner is a political liability & unqualified for the position he holds.
I posted during the transition that Trump should establish a "Red Team" DC think tank of non-govt policy advisers who were too politically radioactive to serve in the WH, including Flynn, Bannon, Kushner & Ivanka. Keep them out of govt, but use them as advisers & sounding boards.

Apparently it's too complex a concept for you that it's possible to not like or approve of Trump,
while wanting him to succeed for the good of the country.

It's the definition of "succeed" with which I have a problem.

If "succeed" means that our economy grows without mortgaging our kids' future whether due to debt or pollution, If "success" means that we broaden the benefits of this growing economy to those with less means, providing more accessible opportunities for individual and family economics for the least in society, if "success" means that we minimize lives lost in military conflicts without sacrificing our long term influence internationally or risking much more catastrophic conflicts downstream, if "success" means that these accomplishments are done without diminishing the strength and trust in our representative democracy, it's check and balances, our concern for the least powerful and the "Other", and without diminishing trust in the rule of law, especially as applied to the most powerful in society, then sure, I could 'root for' those successes.

If I thought that Trump had any real interest in these "successes" rather than his own personal interests, primarily financial and ego, I'd lighten up a notch. I'd be ok with stupid or bumbling or even a level of outright incompetence, IF I was convinced that the POTUS actually had the country first and foremost in his intent. But that's simply not the case with this dishonest, corrupt jerk. IMO, he's doing huge damage to this country.

But, even for a President who I admired, I'd never root for a President's personal success, as personal success does not equal country success.

But apparently you think that getting rid of this jerk, sooner the better, through Constitutional means, is somehow not in the interest of "the good of the country".

I want him and Trumpism, this authoritarianism impulse, to be thoroughly repudiated. The country will be far better off with that repudiation.

Re Kushner, he has zero business representing our country and it's a huge red flag of the President's desire to corruptly enrich himself, his family, his friends. It is not merely a "political liability".

It's at the heart of why Trumpism needs to be thoroughly rejected, rebuked, repudiated.

[LandM]

MD,
Unless the rules have changed there is one person who can at their discretion declassify anything - that would be the person sitting in the left seat. Not sure I agree with it but that is the rule. Clinton violated pretty much every classified rule that you get monthly security briefings on and I will use a different term, Comey weaseled his way around the rules. Comey must have felt like a pinball in a pinball game. BTW, maybe you can tell me why you do not think Comey is not a snake - would you seriously trust that guy in a bad situation? His own staff said there was nothing there yet he kept pursuing it, then ensured it got leaked - bad look. As to clearances, pick a field in the military that would not require and use a clearance - let's say the chow hall crew - well you are given orders to ready five times the normal meals; box half of them and make them ready to go. Guys going threw the chow line are all talking about the event. I am not sure you could provide a scenario where a clearance is not relevant - it may never be used - but relevant, especially the last 15 years.

afan,
We had a contracting officer - I think she was like a Government Services - 14 which is pretty high up. Stanford Law and like Aunt tough as nails. Probably 5 feet, a buck and smoked liked there was no tomorrow. She had a growly voice and the smoker face. Every time we thought we need a new toy, we had to go through her. Better have your facts together......all of us hated going to her. Then she has a heart attack and ALL of us brought flowers and visited multiple times - not saying we liked her but we did respect her.

TLD,
Yep I would have played against your cousin. We will have to swap stories off-line - ND stadium is a great experience - we have friends that actually have season tickets there - three rows back from the ND bench - sad you cannot see Touchdown Jesus from the field anymore - ruined a great experience for visiting players today IMHO. Money talks.

[MDlaxfan76]

MD,
Unless the rules have changed there is one person who can at their discretion declassify anything - that would be the person sitting in the left seat. Not sure I agree with it but that is the rule. Clinton violated pretty much every classified rule that you get monthly security briefings on and I will use a different term, Comey weaseled his way around the rules. Comey must have felt like a pinball in a pinball game. BTW, maybe you can tell me why you do not think Comey is not a snake - would you seriously trust that guy in a bad situation? His own staff said there was nothing there yet he kept pursuing it, then ensured it got leaked - bad look. As to clearances, pick a field in the military that would not require and use a clearance - let's say the chow hall crew - well you are given orders to ready five times the normal meals; box half of them and make them ready to go. Guys going threw the chow line are all talking about the event. I am not sure you could provide a scenario where a clearance is not relevant - it may never be used - but relevant, especially the last 15 years.

As I said, LandM, there's a world of difference between 'clearance' and TS, much less TS/SCI. I'm pretty sure there are many, many military who never have any need for higher clearance, and I'm also pretty darn sure many would have great difficulty actually obtaining such level.

I have no argument re Clinton.

I don't see it the same way with Comey because the very little bit of sensitive information he revealed about Trump was about Trump's misbehavior, a whistleblowing intent, not something actually damaging to the US or our allies. For instance, it didn't put peoples' lives at risk. And he took pains to be sure that was the case.

I think Clinton's lack of care did potentially put lives at risk, though not intentionally. But I think she prioritized her own interests over the proper care of other's safety. So, I'm highly critical.

On Trump, I'm not saying he violated the law as currently written, nor am I debating that interpretation of the law. But I do find his actions far more egregious than Clinton's. Hugely worse.

And his (and his supporters') hypocrisy is simply amazing, using unencrypted devices to communicate with his pals, discussing US policy, domestic and foreign. Much less directly revealing classified information to foreign adversaries, information putting lives at risk, indeed the lives of our allies' undercover agents. His lack of concern about the dishonesty and corruption of those he hires, as long as they are 'loyal' to him. His insistence on meeting with Putin with no US record of what is revealed. His attacks on the credibility of our US intelligence services. Appalling.

Now, as to Comey being described as a 'snake' and whether I'd 'trust him'. Well, I certainly wouldn't 'trust him' to be blindly loyal to me as ruler, or to ignore abuses of power, or ignore foreign adversaries' influence in our elections, etc, etc.

Which doesn't mean that I think he didn't err multiple times over the course of 2105-2017. So, if you mean would I 'trust' him to always make the right decisions, to not let his sense of personal importance cause him to overstep important institutional processes, then the answer would be 'no'.

History will tell how this is judged.
However, when I look at the corruption in the White House I'm glad that there have been some in positions of power, from the same political party, who have stepped up and taken action to bring attention to that corruption.

I wish there were more, especially those in elected office, those in the media who have otherwise favored conservative ideals, and the common voters with heads on their shoulders.

[MDlaxfan76]

BTW, LandM, you keep saying that his staff told him there was nothing there re the Russian interference and Trump Campaign.

But that was just a comment in a text between Strozk and Page, not with Comey, and it is taken out of context as it is.

We've certainly learned that there was indeed a lot 'there'. The Russian interference was real and sweeping, multi-faceted, including efforts to engage with the Trump Campaign, both to align interests and to create kompromat. And we've learned that the Trump Campaign welcomed that interference, sought to engage with the Russians to align interests, shared data with the Russians, and lied repeatedly about all of the same.

So, if any staff ever did tell Comey he was barking up the wrong tree (and there's no basis to suggest they did), they would have been wrong.

[LandM]

MD,
As much as people try and make me a partisan, I am not rule of law in certain cases guilty as charged.

The Russian thing is old and tiring. He is never going to jail and there was enough there is no there - even Bruce Ohr stated that.

What are you hoping to accomplish by keeping the pedal to the metal. Seems like intent is the word of the week what do you hope to accomplish. To me it was the Apple Dumpling gang probably knew the rules better. Tough to prosecute stupid. So what is your and others angle? Create more divided politics? To me and many in the vast country you guys are the Apple Dumpling gang. Btw that was a great movie.

[Typical Lax Dad]

MD,
As much as people try and make me a partisan, I am not rule of law in certain cases guilty as charged.

The Russian thing is old and tiring. He is never going to jail and there was enough there is no there - even Bruce Ohr stated that.

What are you hoping to accomplish by keeping the pedal to the metal. Seems like intent is the word of the week what do you hope to accomplish. To me it was the Apple Dumpling gang probably knew the rules better. Tough to prosecute stupid. So what is your and others angle? Create more divided politics? To me and many in the vast country you guys are the Apple Dumpling gang. Btw that was a great movie.

Let’s see if China gets behind a Democrat this election cycle. The “Dems” should be open to campaign enhancements from the Chinese government. So long as there is no agreement, it’s not illegal.

[old salt]

MD,
As much as people try and make me a partisan, I am not rule of law in certain cases guilty as charged.

The Russian thing is old and tiring. He is never going to jail and there was enough there is no there - even Bruce Ohr stated that.

What are you hoping to accomplish by keeping the pedal to the metal. Seems like intent is the word of the week what do you hope to accomplish. To me it was the Apple Dumpling gang probably knew the rules better. Tough to prosecute stupid. So what is your and others angle? Create more divided politics? To me and many in the vast country you guys are the Apple Dumpling gang. Btw that was a great movie.

Let’s see if China gets behind a Democrat this election cycle. The “Dems” should be open to campaign enhancements from the Chinese government. So long as there is no agreement, it’s not illegal.

Some things never change.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

MD,
As much as people try and make me a partisan, I am not rule of law in certain cases guilty as charged.

The Russian thing is old and tiring. He is never going to jail and there was enough there is no there - even Bruce Ohr stated that.

What are you hoping to accomplish by keeping the pedal to the metal. Seems like intent is the word of the week what do you hope to accomplish. To me it was the Apple Dumpling gang probably knew the rules better. Tough to prosecute stupid. So what is your and others angle? Create more divided politics? To me and many in the vast country you guys are the Apple Dumpling gang. Btw that was a great movie.

Let’s see if China gets behind a Democrat this election cycle. The “Dems” should be open to campaign enhancements from the Chinese government. So long as there is no agreement, it’s not illegal.

Some things never change.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

Were they on the World Wide Web in 1996?