• 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

Dittohead not! said:
So, clearly the solution is to keep Congress in the dark. Who needs Congress anyway?
Click to expand...

"The Intelligence Community (IC) is committed to keeping Congress fully and currently
informed of all intelligence activities"

"the ODNI will primarily meet
its obligation to keep Congress fully and currently informed leading into the Presidential election
through written finished intelligence products."
 
jonny5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

which does not change the fact that it makes no sense to penalize the whole branch for a leak by a perpetrator. If that is the case, then we should exclude the whole WH from classified beefing s because some staffers there also leaked classified information.
 
Mafia
 
pamak said:
which does not change the fact that it makes no sense to penalize the whole branch for a leak by a perpetrator. If that is the case, then we should exclude the whole WH from classified beefing s because some staffers there also leaked classified information.
Click to expand...

Whats the alternative? You have a way to catch the leakers?
 
MauiMan said:
Congress gets to “talk to the hand”. We need reform of the executive branch after Trump burns it to the ground.
Click to expand...

and get rid of Trump before he does burn it to the ground, or is it too late?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Why are leakers a more pressing concern then providing national security information briefings to congress?
Click to expand...

Both are a concern. The DNI change addresses both. They still provide the congress with national security information, while limiting the ability to leak it. Im sure it will still get leaked, though. Nothing stopping the congress security committee from leaking the finished intelligence the DNI is providing.
 
jonny5 said:
Both are a concern. The DNI change addresses both. They still provide the congress with national security information, while limiting the ability to leak it. Im sure it will still get leaked, though. Nothing stopping the congress security committee from leaking the finished intelligence the DNI is providing.
Click to expand...

How is congress leaking information given to it.

What if the American people deserve to know what The DNI told Congress.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
How is congress leaking information given to it.

What if the American people deserve to know what The DNI told Congress.
Click to expand...

They dont, its classified. Only cleared people get to know it. We elect reps and thats why congress has intelligence committees. However, DNI has briefed all members sometimes, and they leaked it. How? The New York Times calls them and they tell them then quotes "anonymous sources".
 
uptower said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am aware of Facebook ads. No offense, but I disagree that they are able to "waltz in and hand it to him" with Facebook ads. Since you are saying that they are able to change the outcome of the election, what method are they using to do that?
 
Mycroft said:
They "just might leak (classified) information"?

Wrong.

They "will" leak classified information. It's what they do.
Click to expand...

Information on Russian interference isn’t classified.
 
Anthony60 said:
I am aware of Facebook ads. No offense, but I disagree that they are able to "waltz in and hand it to him" with Facebook ads. Since you are saying that they are able to change the outcome of the election, what method are they using to do that?
Click to expand...
What you are arguing is that advertising has no influence on public behavior, which must be news to corporations who spend billions annually to influence public purchasing behavior.

Considering that it takes only a small shift in public sentiment to change the election result, it’s inconceivable that it has no effect.
 
uptower said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin.

This is not a secret nor does it need leaking.

We know this from the reports and because of this pronouncement by DHS and Trump.
 
Mycroft said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...

What makes you think it is classified? There is no reason why facts about Russian interference shouldn’t be public.
 
MTAtech said:
What makes you think it is classified? There is no reason why facts about Russian interference shouldn’t be public.
Click to expand...

Well, the DNI says they won't give in person briefings because they don't want classified information leaked. What does that tell you?

THAT THERE IS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION!!! (Jesus...)

If the information is classified, there is plenty of reason for it not to be public.

Seriously...what part of "classified" do you not understand? :doh :roll:
 
Anthony60 said:
I am aware of Facebook ads. No offense, but I disagree that they are able to "waltz in and hand it to him" with Facebook ads. Since you are saying that they are able to change the outcome of the election, what method are they using to do that?
Click to expand...

Propaganda, fake accounts on social media; cyberattacks, hacking, sharing that information with candidates or leaking it; undermining the faith in and legitimacy of the election system. 561 sources on the wiki page alone, and as I mentioned, 17 intelligence agencies and a senate panel have found they have interfered to help Trump. Let me guess, it's all fake news?
 
Mycroft said:
Nah...don't get all hyperbole on me. That extreme isn't necessary.

Just vote in people who are interested in the rule of law and working for the people...while abiding by the law.
Click to expand...

Rule of law includes briefing the duly elected representatives of congress.

Democracy - how does it even work!
 
Mycroft said:
Well, the DNI says they won't give in person briefings because they don't want classified information leaked. What does that tell you?

THAT THERE IS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION!!! (Jesus...)

If the information is classified, there is plenty of reason for it not to be public.

Seriously...what part of "classified" do you not understand? :doh :roll:
Click to expand...

Is your premise here that the DNI, who works for Trump, is striaght up telling the truth and even if *you* believe that the idea here is that everyone else needs to accept this without cynicism?

IF leaks are a problem, then focus on that. Denying elected representatives the ability to question intelligence is exactly what will get us more Afghanistans and Iraqs.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Rule of law includes briefing the duly elected representatives of congress.

Democracy - how does it even work!
Click to expand...

A written briefing is a briefing.
 
Mycroft said:
A written briefing is a briefing.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Our representatives have the right to question the intel. A written briefing can consist of “Nuttin goin on anywhere. Happy Labor Dayz!”

If the GOP isn’t interested in protecting our country, they should really just say that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Is your premise here that the DNI, who works for Trump, is striaght up telling the truth and even if *you* believe that the idea here is that everyone else needs to accept this without cynicism?

IF leaks are a problem, then focus on that. Denying elected representatives the ability to question intelligence is exactly what will get us more Afghanistans and Iraqs.
Click to expand...

Oh...you can be sure that the DOJ is looking at the leaking. (whether they actually take legal action is another issue...political)

And we have ample evidence that Congress leaks. They've done it numerous times.

So...if you know that leaking occurs, do you keep doing stuff that enables that leaking to continue? Or, do you take steps to minimize the possibility of leaking to occur?

And there is no denial of representative's ability to question intelligence. Any questions they might have can still be asked...in writing. Why is that a problem?
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Incorrect. Our representatives have the right to question the intel. A written briefing can consist of “Nuttin goin on anywhere. Happy Labor Dayz!”

If the GOP isn’t interested in protecting our country, they should really just say that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, if the DNI sends a letter saying "Nuttin goin on anywhere. Happy Labor Dayz!”, then Congress can pass that on to the public. If you have questions about that, send them in to your Congressmen and they can pass them on to the DNI. I'm sure the DNI will give them the answers you are looking for.

But your example is hyperbole that doesn't reflect reality. The DNI isn't going to send that kind of letter. He'll send a report that will be complete, though without classified information. If the Congressmen want more...and if they have the proper clearance...they can ask for more. But you...who doesn't have the proper clearance...won't get that classified information.

Sorry about that.
 
Mycroft said:
Oh...you can be sure that the DOJ is looking at the leaking. (whether they actually take legal action is another issue...political)

And we have ample evidence that Congress leaks. They've done it numerous times.

So...if you know that leaking occurs, do you keep doing stuff that enables that leaking to continue? Or, do you take steps to minimize the possibility of leaking to occur?

And there is no denial of representative's ability to question intelligence. Any questions they might have can still be asked...in writing. Why is that a problem?
Click to expand...

These aren’t children being refused dessert and the intelligence gathered isn’t the property of the administration. It belongs to the people.

Neither DNI Radcliffe nor Trump have any legal authority to withhold info, and without oral examination, there is no means to know if our government is lying to us about intelligence generated with *our* blood and treasure.

If you guys don’t even believe in a *republic* anymore, you should probably just say that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom