A Deeply Fractured US

[mariomike]

At what point do they cut bait and get her off the oversight committees and other places where she has access to intelligence?

Good question.

 

[Remius]

Swalwell... that's rich.

So she didn’t say those things or are you in agreement with what she said?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Are ethics relative? So as long as you're not the worst offender then you get a pass?

You may be 100% correct that Democrats have been angling to oust Thomas, but that has nothing to do with any potential ethical breaches by Thomas himself (other than providing ammunition to the Democrats).

Either ethical breaches took place or they didn't. That applies equally to PM Trudeau and his acolytes as it does for Justice Thomas or Donald Trump and his acolytes.

1. Accusation is loudly blasted and repeated across various media (eg. "favours from close family friend").
2. Later, accusation is revealed to be bullsh!t (eg. no rules against it, yet).
3. Accusers quietly drop the matter, having made the initial impression they wanted to with the vast majority of people who never follow matters closely, while declining to make any prominent corrections.
4. Repeat, ad infinitum.

If people think an ethical breach took place, they ought thoroughly investigate to at least ensure there is a rule being violated and that their interpretation aligns with the customary standard of interpretation practiced by whatever group of people are subject to the standard.

Basically what we have instead are activists who fling sh!t out carelessly and then give us "oh, I didn't know" if indeed they bother to issue any follow-up statements on their mistakes at all.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Hard to find a side to support. Sometimes, apparently, leaks are vital to the health of democracy, revealing unwholesome decision-making processes and activities inside governments. I haven't figured out the standards of measurement yet, because so far the only obvious standard for judging whether leaks are wholesome is "who reaps the political advantage"?

 

[brihard]

Wow, coming out on the side of someone facing potentially 300 charges for espionage against the US is a strange new take, even for that particular lunatic.

At what point do they cut bait and get her off the oversight committees and other places where she has access to intelligence?

Majorie Taylor Greene should absolutely not have a security clearance. She's a massive liability. Leaping to the unthinking defense of a guy who likely just leaked a whole bunch of TS//SCI stuff? Come the frig on.

 

[KevinB]

Trump is under investigation for violating the same law secret-stealer Teixeira was charged with today

Airman First Class Jack Teixeira, 21, was charged today on two counts of violating federal espionage laws: one count under 18 US Code 793, for unauthorized gathering, transmitting, or losing national defense information, and one count for violating 18 US Code 1924, unauthorized removal and...

open.substack.com

 

[brihard]

Trump is under investigation for violating the same law secret-stealer Teixeira was charged with today

Airman First Class Jack Teixeira, 21, was charged today on two counts of violating federal espionage laws: one count under 18 US Code 793, for unauthorized gathering, transmitting, or losing national defense information, and one count for violating 18 US Code 1924, unauthorized removal and...

open.substack.com

I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah, the 18 USC 793 offense was on the Mar A Lago search warrant. I haven't seen the 1924 openly discussed - that's the one that specifically depends on classification, which, at least as of the search warrant affidavit, remained uncommitted-to by investigators.

Buuuuut... Yeah. there's a slight possibility that the commonality of alleged offense may colour some of the punditry in some circles.

 

[Remius]

Maybe that was the goal with MTG saying the things she did, as a way to blunt the case against Trump.

 

[kkwd]

Maybe that was the goal with MTG saying the things she did, as a way to blunt the case against Trump.

That is what we call a conspiracy theory. Or for some :

 

[Remius]

That is what we call a conspiracy theory. Or for some :

True. I’m probably giving her too much credit.

 

[kkwd]

True. I’m probably giving her too much credit.

So you just pulled that one out of thin air?

 

[brihard]

So you just pulled that one out of thin air?

I don't think he's claiming to know exactly what's inside her head.

 

[dapaterson]

I don't think he's claiming to know exactly what's inside her head.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Idle speculation isn't synonymous with conspiracy theory.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Idle speculation isn't synonymous with conspiracy theory.

Just what I'd expect a conspirator to say.

 

[Brad Sallows]

All leaks are by definition unauthorized, but there are at least three categories of permission.

There are permitted leaks, by which anonymous sources release confidential information to willing sympathetic stenographers in the media who cannot distinguish assertion from evidence-based fact. There are almost never any repercussions for the leakers. If identity is revealed, they are usually characterized as noble well-intentioned courageous altruistic whistle-blowers.

There are non-permitted leaks, by which confidential information is released which authorities consider to be harmful or embarrassing to themselves, but not necessarily to the public interest. The full weight and majesty of the legal system is brought to bear on these, shielded by triumphant rhetoric about rule of law.

In between are the leaks that authorities would like to permit, but which are so incendiary that they must appear to be non-permitted. These usually require a patsy/fall guy/pawn to be sacrificed (the non-permitted leaker), and a plausible scenario which would camouflage if not obliviate the active connivance of officials. This is where the fertile grounds for conspiracy theories lies.

 

[brihard]

All leaks are by definition unauthorized, but there are at least three categories of permission.

There are permitted leaks, by which anonymous sources release confidential information to willing sympathetic stenographers in the media who cannot distinguish assertion from evidence-based fact. There are almost never any repercussions for the leakers. If identity is revealed, they are usually characterized as noble well-intentioned courageous altruistic whistle-blowers.

There are non-permitted leaks, by which confidential information is released which authorities consider to be harmful or embarrassing to themselves, but not necessarily to the public interest. The full weight and majesty of the legal system is brought to bear on these, shielded by triumphant rhetoric about rule of law.

In between are the leaks that authorities would like to permit, but which are so incendiary that they must appear to be non-permitted. These usually require a patsy/fall guy/pawn to be sacrificed (the non-permitted leaker), and a plausible scenario which would camouflage if not obliviate the active connivance of officials. This is where the fertile grounds for conspiracy theories lies.

There are also leaks of classified information pertinent to national security, which assuredly are contrary to the public interest. These leaks consume considerable investigative and security resources, complicate intelligence sharing and dissemination, and undermine trust between organizations and allies. They may also compromise methods and sources, potentially to the point of rendering them useless or even dead.

So those are considerations too. Police and prosecutors generally aren’t going to be looking for guidance from politicians when such a thing happens.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All leaks are by definition unauthorized, but there are at least three categories of permission.

There are permitted leaks, by which anonymous sources release confidential information to willing sympathetic stenographers in the media who cannot distinguish assertion from evidence-based fact. There are almost never any repercussions for the leakers. If identity is revealed, they are usually characterized as noble well-intentioned courageous altruistic whistle-blowers.

There are non-permitted leaks, by which confidential information is released which authorities consider to be harmful or embarrassing to themselves, but not necessarily to the public interest. The full weight and majesty of the legal system is brought to bear on these, shielded by triumphant rhetoric about rule of law.

In between are the leaks that authorities would like to permit, but which are so incendiary that they must appear to be non-permitted. These usually require a patsy/fall guy/pawn to be sacrificed (the non-permitted leaker), and a plausible scenario which would camouflage if not obliviate the active connivance of officials. This is where the fertile grounds for conspiracy theories lies.

Adam Schiff

 

[Brad Sallows]

There are also leaks of classified information pertinent to national security, which assuredly are contrary to the public interest. These leaks consume considerable investigative and security resources, complicate intelligence sharing and dissemination, and undermine trust between organizations and allies. They may also compromise methods and sources, potentially to the point of rendering them useless or even dead.

So those are considerations too. Police and prosecutors generally aren’t going to be looking for guidance from politicians when such a thing happens.

Yes, but they can easily fall into either the "permitted" or "non-permitted" buckets. For example, the source of the leak to Ignatius of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak is, I think, still unknown, and therefore probably no-one was held accountable. Given the disinterest in the source and the enthusiasm for finding some way to take down Flynn, "permitted" is a charitably modest description of the leak.

 

[lenaitch]

All leaks are by definition unauthorized, but there are at least three categories of permission.

There are permitted leaks, by which anonymous sources release confidential information to willing sympathetic stenographers in the media who cannot distinguish assertion from evidence-based fact. There are almost never any repercussions for the leakers. If identity is revealed, they are usually characterized as noble well-intentioned courageous altruistic whistle-blowers.

There are non-permitted leaks, by which confidential information is released which authorities consider to be harmful or embarrassing to themselves, but not necessarily to the public interest. The full weight and majesty of the legal system is brought to bear on these, shielded by triumphant rhetoric about rule of law.

In between are the leaks that authorities would like to permit, but which are so incendiary that they must appear to be non-permitted. These usually require a patsy/fall guy/pawn to be sacrificed (the non-permitted leaker), and a plausible scenario which would camouflage if not obliviate the active connivance of officials. This is where the fertile grounds for conspiracy theories lies.

I'm confused how a non-permitted leak can be one of the categories of permission.

Public interest and national security are different cats. It's not in the public interest to leak details of a government contract, but it's not a national security matter.

So can we at least assume that by using the phrase "at least three categories", you do recognize that there are non-permitted leaks that are injurious to national security, or are you saying that Teixeira is a sacrificial fall-person for a larger scheme?