• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

DNI will no longer brief Congress in person on election security over leak concerns

No proof for that and there is nothing in the constitution to justify as a remedy the refusal to inform congress. If somebody leaks information, then you address the specific person who leaks the information. By the way, there is all the time leaking of information n every branch of the government, including within Trump's executive branch. Heck, they were chasing leakers inside the White House!

There is plenty of proof of leaked classified information from congressional briefings. How would you suggest I address a congress person who was part of a briefing of dozens of people, who then leaks information anonymously to the press?
 
Yes. They perform for the TV's. These briefings are behind closed doors. How do you know they act the exact same with no one watching? Hopefully you are aware that C-SPAN doesn't broadcast classified meetings?

A clown doesn't stop being a clown just because he takes off his makeup.
 
A clown doesn't stop being a clown just because he takes off his makeup.

Wow. I don't know what's sadder. If you actually believe that or if you are just saying you do.
 
There is plenty of proof of leaked classified information from congressional briefings. How would you suggest I address a congress person who was part of a briefing of dozens of people, who then leaks information anonymously to the press?

As I said, if there is proof then they can go to individuals. You do not attack an institution based on such leaks. By the way, I noticed that you did not make any comment about the proof of classified leaks that have come out of the White House's staffers themselves....In short, the idea of penalizing a whole institution based on leaks is a pretext for authoriarian practices designed to maker an administration immune from any accountability even though the Congress is a co-equal branch of government.
 
Last edited:
Not an Obama hire or appointee. Weak, even for you.

So what?

He was part of the Obama administration and he was given orders by higher ups in the Obama administration.

You can be sure that, since he was hit with a lesser charge, it's because he made a deal. He'll be singing his heart out.
 
So what?

He was part of the Obama administration and he was given orders by higher ups in the Obama administration.

You can be sure that, since he was hit with a lesser charge, it's because he made a deal. He'll be singing his heart out.

OK. So following your logic. Every last person who did anything wrong in the Trump campaign or administration was/is following orders from Trump. He is in charge. So he is responsible. I don't expect you to accept this. You can't. Trump cannot be held responsible for anything unless is it hugely successful.
 
OK. So following your logic. Every last person who did anything wrong in the Trump campaign or administration was/is following orders from Trump. He is in charge. So he is responsible. I don't expect you to accept this. You can't. Trump cannot be held responsible for anything unless is it hugely successful.

Wrong.

We know that many in Trump's administration did things on their own. They've been fired, forced to resign or retire and some of them have been indicted, tried and sentenced.

Clinesmith is not one of them.
 
Wrong.

We know that many in Trump's administration did things on their own. They've been fired, forced to resign or retire and some of them have been indicted, tried and sentenced.

Clinesmith is not one of them.

And Trump was not held accountable by supporters for any of their actions. Which was my point. Which you ignored. Which is opposite of the opinion you hold regarding Obama. There is a word for that...
 
And Trump was not held accountable by supporters for any of their actions. Which was my point. Which you ignored. Which is opposite of the opinion you hold regarding Obama. There is a word for that...

Don't worry. Obama won't be held accountable for his administration's actions, either...even though, unlike Trump, he not only did nothing to stop their criminal behavior and actions, he actually encouraged and supported them.
 
Don't worry. Obama won't be held accountable for his administration's actions, either...even though, unlike Trump, he not only did nothing to stop their criminal behavior and actions, he actually encouraged and supported them.

Damn, a minute ago the arrest warrants were coming. This isn't fun any more. You gotta focus. Night.
 
source


We can't have Congress briefed on foreign interference. They just might leak information about that interference and get people all upset again. No collusion! No collusion! Don't need to worry about Russian interference as there was no collusion, absolutely no collusion at all!

And with that, the Rethuglicans throw away ALL standing to whine and cry if China or Iran meddle in our election. Which they just might.
 
Damn, a minute ago the arrest warrants were coming. This isn't fun any more. You gotta focus. Night.

Don't worry, I expect there to be plenty of indictments.
 
Just another way for Trump to undermine election integrity. Best case for him, the Russians waltz in and hand it to him. Worst case, the information is kept from the public eye or subject to congressional bickering and DHS lawsuits that allow him to muddy the waters around results. Win-win for Trump if he gets his way.

So, exactly how do "the Russians waltz in and hand it to him"? I would really love to know how that happens! You are effectively saying that the Russians control our elections, so explain that statement.

Forget the fact that it's completely ridiculous, and throw in that Trump is a nightmare for them and he's the last guy that they would want to win. Jeez, do you even listen to what you are putting out there?
 
So, exactly how do "the Russians waltz in and hand it to him"? I would really love to know how that happens! You are effectively saying that the Russians control our elections, so explain that statement.

Forget the fact that it's completely ridiculous, and throw in that Trump is a nightmare for them and he's the last guy that they would want to win. Jeez, do you even listen to what you are putting out there?

Multiple US intelligence agencies and a congressional panel have all concluded the Russians wanted to help Trump. It has also been established that whether 'knowingly' or not, the Trump campaign accepted that help.

I don't have to listen to 'myself' because the information doesn't come from me.

As for 'How the Russians waltz in", probably to some decent classical music.
 
As I said, if there is proof then they can go to individuals. You do not attack an institution based on such leaks. By the way, I noticed that you did not make any comment about the proof of classified leaks that have come out of the White House's staffers themselves....In short, the idea of penalizing a whole institution based on leaks is a pretext for authoriarian practices designed to maker an administration immune from any accountability even though the Congress is a co-equal branch of government.

Because the topic is CONGRESS. Whataboutism isnt relavent. There is proof congress routinely leak classified material for political reasons. They are anonymous. How exactly should I address that?
 
Because the topic is CONGRESS. Whataboutism isnt relavent. There is proof congress routinely leak classified material for political reasons. They are anonymous. How exactly should I address that?

The topic is the response to leaks and citing the fact that the response traditionally focus on people and not institutions is an argument for why the excuse for the proposed response is nothing more than an attempt to shield Trump from accountability. The Constitution is the relative issue here and you like it out not the Congress is a coequal branch of government.
 
"also better protect our sources and methods and most sensitive intelligence
from additional unauthorized disclosures or misuse."

As the DNI explained, congress has been leaking classified info, sometimes even DURING the breifing.

So, clearly the solution is to keep Congress in the dark. Who needs Congress anyway?
 
Multiple US intelligence agencies and a congressional panel have all concluded the Russians wanted to help Trump. It has also been established that whether 'knowingly' or not, the Trump campaign accepted that help.
In other words, Democrats are saying this, it's a load of crap, and Trump was investigated for two years, a waste of taxpayer money, and found absolutely nothing.

I don't have to listen to 'myself' because the information doesn't come from me.
Obviously.

As for 'How the Russians waltz in", probably to some decent classical music.
So ridiculous, that you can't back up your own statement. Three strikes, you're out.
 
source


We can't have Congress briefed on foreign interference. They just might leak information about that interference and get people all upset again. No collusion! No collusion! Don't need to worry about Russian interference as there was no collusion, absolutely no collusion at all!

Congress gets to “talk to the hand”. We need reform of the executive branch after Trump burns it to the ground.
 
In other words, Democrats are saying this, it's a load of crap, and Trump was investigated for two years, a waste of taxpayer money, and found absolutely nothing.

Incorrect. Both the intelligence agencies and the senate panel have found plenty of interference from the Russians and it is ongoing. they also have concluded that interference benefitted Trump.

And yes, the Russians can do it again: just look at all the legislation designed to protect elections that Moscow Mitch and his crew have shot down.
 
The topic is the response to leaks and citing the fact that the response traditionally focus on people and not institutions is an argument for why the excuse for the proposed response is nothing more than an attempt to shield Trump from accountability. The Constitution is the relative issue here and you like it out not the Congress is a coequal branch of government.

The topic is DNI changing its breifing process due to congressional leaks. As you say, they are coequal. They have the exact same responsibility not to protect our national security by not leaking secrets.
 
Back
Top Bottom