When the leakers are the good guys ....

[Amelia]

What are our government's employees supposed to do when the head of the government is more loyal to dictators than he is to our own people?

Trump supporters saying that if they can't do their job without leaking then the honorable thing to do would be resign is saying that honorable employees should make way for people who would help to enable the wrong that Trump is doing. How is that a good option?


Trump Is More Loyal to Dictators Than to the U.S.
His lies about Jamal Khashoggi’s murder are a threat to national security.

Thank goodness for leakers who kept upping the ante and calling Trump's bluff whenever he doubled down on his lies about what the CIA was telling him.



There are a lot of reasons for leakers. Even if Trump behaved honorably and inspired people to help him accomplish his goals instead of making them think they needed to perpetually be doing damage control, there would still be some leaking. But there wouldn't be as much as there is now, because there wouldn't need to be as much as there is now. For now the leakers are performing an important service in vigilantly providing information about the threat in the White House and helping the right questions get asked.

 

[Captain Adverse]

What are our government's employees supposed to do when the head of the government is more loyal to dictators than he is to our own people?

Trump supporters saying that if they can't do their job without leaking then the honorable thing to do would be resign is saying that honorable employees should make way for people who would help to enable the wrong that Trump is doing. How is that a good option?


Trump Is More Loyal to Dictators Than to the U.S.
His lies about Jamal Khashoggi’s murder are a threat to national security.

Thank goodness for leakers who kept upping the ante and calling Trump's bluff whenever he doubled down on his lies about what the CIA was telling him.

There are a lot of reasons for leakers. Even if Trump behaved honorably and inspired people to help him accomplish his goals instead of making them think they needed to perpetually be doing damage control, there would still be some leaking. But there wouldn't be as much as there is now, because there wouldn't need to be as much as there is now. For now the leakers are performing an important service in vigilantly providing information about the threat in the White House and helping the right questions get asked.

The problem with your argument is that you assume these people ARE doing the "honorable thing" based on their own political viewpoints.

However, it is one thing to express your political viewpoints outside your government job, and quite another to "express" such viewpoints via ACTIONS designed to undermine the elected government you serve.

You argue from a position of alleged morality because you have judged your opponents and found them wanting (i.e., they don't agree with you so they don't deserve any consideration).

Thus, like such "leakers" you clothe yourself in "virtue," demonize your opponents, and thereby justify your actions as being morally right.

Except...they could be wrong, and their actions immoral.

I am fairly certain that what you justify as righteous when the target is something you consider a political "evil," you would decry if such were done by opponents to something/someone you supported as "morally good."

Yet those opponents would likely be using your same arguments to justify their actions too.

Think about it. :coffeepap:

 

[Beaudreaux]

What are our government's employees supposed to do when the head of the government is more loyal to dictators than he is to our own people?

Trump supporters saying that if they can't do their job without leaking then the honorable thing to do would be resign is saying that honorable employees should make way for people who would help to enable the wrong that Trump is doing. How is that a good option?


Trump Is More Loyal to Dictators Than to the U.S.
His lies about Jamal Khashoggi’s murder are a threat to national security.

Thank goodness for leakers who kept upping the ante and calling Trump's bluff whenever he doubled down on his lies about what the CIA was telling him.



There are a lot of reasons for leakers. Even if Trump behaved honorably and inspired people to help him accomplish his goals instead of making them think they needed to perpetually be doing damage control, there would still be some leaking. But there wouldn't be as much as there is now, because there wouldn't need to be as much as there is now. For now the leakers are performing an important service in vigilantly providing information about the threat in the White House and helping the right questions get asked.

Simple, follow the law, not your emotions or ideology. In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish "a government of laws and not of men." It has since been a bedrock principle of our society as a whole, and a major part of what sets us apart from other countries. Another way to put this is "No one is above the law" which would also include the government employees you describe.

 

[DaveFagan]

I held my nose and voted for Trump because I despise Hillary and Bernie got screwed. I think Trump tries to do the right thing, but having been raised with a silver spoon up his arse, his perspective does not represent USA common values. He is Corporate centric and believes in the old disproved "Trickle Down economics," and his policies reflect that perspective. He has had to ally with the old NeoCon/CIA/Goodol'Boy network within the White House. Trump thinks we just need the "robber baron" policies of the past to cure the ills of the present. It ain't gonna' happen. AGW, disastrous long term Energy policy, disastrous Trade policy, reneging on agreements and treaties, attempting to invest in Corporate level infrastructure instead ol local level infrastructure, tariffs, sanctions, embargoes, weaponized currency and banking, and prepare for blowback. We don't have the power to implement the PNAC NeoCon dream World where the USA Big Money and allied Central Banks runs everything and the people just want to feed their babies and follow their dreams. I can't identify a single positive virtue that Trump represents. Worse, I think he has shown the Republican agenda for what it is and that is not supporting the people, but Corporate as the true sweetheart. We be screwed! You, me, Grandma, and probably the dog.
/

 

[Cardinal]

The problem with your argument is that you assume these people ARE doing the "honorable thing" based on their own political viewpoints.

However, it is one thing to express your political viewpoints outside your government job, and quite another to "express" such viewpoints via ACTIONS designed to undermine the elected government you serve.

You argue from a position of alleged morality because you have judged your opponents and found them wanting (i.e., they don't agree with you so they don't deserve any consideration).

Thus, like such "leakers" you clothe yourself in "virtue," demonize your opponents, and thereby justify your actions as being morally right.

Except...you could be wrong, and your actions immoral.

I am fairly certain that what you justify as righteous when the target is something you consider a political "evil," you would decry if such were done by opponents to something/someone you supported as "morally good."

Yet those opponents would likely be using your same arguments to justify their actions too.

Think about it. :coffeepap:

Those are beautiful words. They're so compelling, in fact, that they almost made me forget that the Trump administration was engaging in a coverup in order to play defense for MBS ordering the murder of a journalist.

 

[Amelia]

....

Think about it. :coffeepap:

You think about it. Trump trusts and respects murderous dictators more than he does our intelligence agencies, and he lies about what our intelligence agencies are saying. And then he tried to block the CIA director from even appearing before the legislature, attempting to prevent them from learning what it was their right and responsibility to know.

It's not ideological to feel a need to set the record straight when your boss is undermining your work and holding up dictators as more trustworthy than our own intelligence agencies.

The president shouldn't be an "opponent". He shouldn't be lying in order to provide cover for dictators. He shouldn't be denigrating our intelligence. He shouldn't according dictators more respect than he does U.S. government workers.

If you think that is an "ideological" position, then you're bending common sense into pretzels to try to defend the indefensible.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You think about it. Trump trusts and respects murderous dictators more than he does our intelligence agencies, and he lies about what our intelligence agencies are saying. And then he tried to block the CIA director from even appearing before the legislature, attempting to prevent them from learning what it was their right and responsibility to know.

It's not ideological to feel a need to set the record straight when your boss is undermining your work and holding up dictators as more trustworthy than our own intelligence agencies.

The president shouldn't be an "opponent". He shouldn't be lying in order to provide cover for dictators. He shouldn't be denigrating our intelligence. He shouldn't according dictators more respect than he does U.S. government workers.

If you think that is an "ideological" position, then you're bending common sense into pretzels to try to defend the indefensible.

NO.

What I am saying is that it is very easy for individuals with no more knowledge of the situation, or responsibility for acts taken, to judge their leaders and find them wanting if they don't portray themselves as desired.

Who knows what issues are trying to be resolved behind the scenes by those with greater knowledge, things that might prevent knee-jerk reactions that you and I can express because our reactions have no tangible effect on the world scene.

Trump has his own agenda, he also has more information than we do about things...that's where all those government employees come in. So demanding he take certain steps because YOU think it is "the right thing to do" may not be the right thing at that particular time to do.

Easy to judge, blame, and demand action, when you don't have the power, knowledge, or responsibility for such actions and dealing with their countereffects.

 

[Cardinal]

NO.

What I am saying is that it is very easy for individuals with no more knowledge of the situation, or responsibility for acts taken, to judge their leaders and find them wanting if they don't portray themselves as desired.

Who knows what issues are trying to be resolved behind the scenes by those with greater knowledge, things that might prevent knee-jerk reactions that you and I can express because our reactions have no tangible effect on the world scene.

Trump has his own agenda, he also has more information than we do about things...that's where all those government employees come in. So demanding he take certain steps because YOU think it is "the right thing to do" may not be the right thing at that particular time to do.

Easy to judge and demand action, when you don't have the power, knowledge, or responsibility for such actions.

Okay, I won't judge the President who said that he makes millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and then defends the prince who ordered a journalist's murder.

You know who benefits from withholding that judgment? You guessed it: the guy who said that he makes millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and then defends a prince who ordered a journalist's murder.

Sorry, but seeing as my moral compass hasn't been smashed repeatedly with a hammer, I'm going to judge the **** out of the mofo.

 

[Mr Person]

I wouldn't go as far as "dictator" with Trump. As for how he's behaved towards other dictators - who? Putin, Kim, Xi, Salman - yes he's provided an unhealthy number of rims - but I don't think it is in the sense of him wanting to be a true dictator himself. It's just his same old pattern: do something jarring, take credit for something. Maybe it involves him creating than "solving" a crisis by appeasing people he pissed off while creating the crisis. Other times, he shakes a dictator's hand and announces that he's solved everything, then ignored that dictator's utter failing to give a hundreth of a **** about whatever they supposedly agreed on.

It's always about look for Trump. And while that overlaps with what dictators tend to rely on, it doesn't mean he's doing it to be a dictator.







He's an utter scumbag, vile swine and then some. He won where slimeball maneuvering and a love of shady deals are virtues. I speak of N.Y.C. (Well, I say "won" but basically failed to go broke despite bankrupting how many ventures, six was it?).

Being that way also overlaps. I suspect he would be just self-conscious enough to realize that doing dictator-like things properly might be over the line, even here. He sort of plays with the edges.





^
Famous last words?

:sigh:

Trust me, I'm not happy about the situation. But I'm going to talk to and argue with people. If I have to go try to get people to register to vote in 2019-20, well, perhaps I'll do just that.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Okay, I won't judge the President who said that he makes millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and then defends the prince who ordered a journalist's murder.

You know who benefits from withholding that judgment? You guessed it: the guy who said that he makes millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and then defends a prince who ordered a journalist's murder.

Sorry, but seeing as my moral compass hasn't been smashed repeatedly with a hammer, I'm going to judge the **** out of the mofo.

As is your right.

However, as I say, such is easy to do from your armchair when it not your job and not your responsibility. :shrug:

 

[Cardinal]

As is your right.

However, as I say, such is easy to do from your armchair when it not your job and not your responsibility. :shrug:

And I say that if you're not judging him then you need to look at your moral compass to see if it's still working.

 

[Mr Person]

As is your right.

However, as I say, such is easy to do from your armchair when it not your job and not your responsibility. :shrug:

Wait, what?

In every thread you've started you make arguments from armchairs. We all do. If it disqualifies his opinion, it disqualifies yours and mine.

When he expresses his own opinion, you return with stuff like "Who knows what issues are trying to be resolved behind the scenes by those with greater knowledge, things that might prevent knee-jerk reactions that you and I can express because our reactions have no tangible effect on the world scene. Trump has his own agenda, he also has more information than we do about things...that's where all those government employees come in. So demanding he take certain steps because YOU think it is "the right thing to do" may not be the right thing at that particular time to do." you are still making inferences.

You aren't in his campaign, are you? You don't know what may or may not be in his agenda. In fact, his agenda could very well be to wake up at 5 am tomorrow and watch Fox to see if a political initiative might win voters. You wouldn't note it. And most assuredly if someone argued he did know it because of how this hypothetical tweet followed this hypothetical broadcast, couldn't that just be dismissed as an armchair guess?





Why on Earth should it be OK to defend actions as potentially reasonable based on a lack of data plus a likelihood of an undefined additional amount of unknown data........

...but the NOT OK to work with the available data to predict a conclusion or range of conclusions? It's all speculation. Trump is probably not aiming to be a literal dictator (but then, that reasoning can backfire), but he's also probably not kissing Saudi ass merely out of a love of dictators. However he is a giant scumbag who has a long history of acts casting a poor light on him, justly so. And yes, most US presidents would approach their buttocks with lips well-puckered, but they also probably wouldn't be quite so enthusaistic......especially not right this moment.

 

[Amelia]

As is your right.

However, as I say, such is easy to do from your armchair when it not your job and not your responsibility. :shrug:

I'm not talking about people in armchairs. I'm talking about informed government employees whose work is being subverted by the biggest fanboy dictators ever had.

Those informed employees are making the decision to do an end run around Trump's attempts to suppress or otherwise undermine the work of our intelligence agencies.

 

[Conaeolos]

I love when people get morally puffed up when the narrative brings reports of a tragic murder but that well known 150 people beheaded in public every year - no biggy…them just criminals facing justice…

If you can't do your job in a public capicity with politics which may differ from you own - go private - if you witness a crime whistleblow. Leaking to feed a narrative is never moral. It's just passive-aggressive unprofessionality.

Edit: Can't wait till the sudden outrage mob gets reason to bring up what goes on in Afganistan on the daily....bone chilling...

 

[Oborosen]

What are our government's employees supposed to do when the head of the government is more loyal to dictators than he is to our own people?

Trump supporters saying that if they can't do their job without leaking then the honorable thing to do would be resign is saying that honorable employees should make way for people who would help to enable the wrong that Trump is doing. How is that a good option?


Trump Is More Loyal to Dictators Than to the U.S.
His lies about Jamal Khashoggi’s murder are a threat to national security.

Thank goodness for leakers who kept upping the ante and calling Trump's bluff whenever he doubled down on his lies about what the CIA was telling him.



There are a lot of reasons for leakers. Even if Trump behaved honorably and inspired people to help him accomplish his goals instead of making them think they needed to perpetually be doing damage control, there would still be some leaking. But there wouldn't be as much as there is now, because there wouldn't need to be as much as there is now. For now the leakers are performing an important service in vigilantly providing information about the threat in the White House and helping the right questions get asked.

Seeing as Trump isn't more loyal to dictators than the offices of his own administration and the "sources" revealing this information are so unknown, that we can probably guess a good amount of this was possibly made up on the spot. I would have to say that your and this articles opinion are as invalid as they can both get at this point.

I don't hold it against you, much like I don't hold Trump' opinion against him either.

So as long as he doesn't outwardly cater to them in mass. I'm not going to have much of an issue here.

 

[Kobie]

The problem with your argument is that you assume these people ARE doing the "honorable thing" based on their own political viewpoints.

However, it is one thing to express your political viewpoints outside your government job, and quite another to "express" such viewpoints via ACTIONS designed to undermine the elected government you serve.

You argue from a position of alleged morality because you have judged your opponents and found them wanting (i.e., they don't agree with you so they don't deserve any consideration).

Thus, like such "leakers" you clothe yourself in "virtue," demonize your opponents, and thereby justify your actions as being morally right.

Except...they could be wrong, and their actions immoral.

I am fairly certain that what you justify as righteous when the target is something you consider a political "evil," you would decry if such were done by opponents to something/someone you supported as "morally good."

Yet those opponents would likely be using your same arguments to justify their actions too.

Think about it. :coffeepap:

Two words: Deep Throat. No, not the movie.

 

[Kobie]

I love when people get morally puffed up when the narrative brings reports of a tragic murder but that well known 150 people beheaded in public every year - no biggy…them just criminals facing justice…

If you can't do your job in a public capicity with politics which may differ from you own - go private - if you witness a crime whistleblow. Leaking to feed a narrative is never moral. It's just passive-aggressive unprofessionality.

Edit: Can't wait till the sudden outrage mob gets reason to bring up what goes on in Afganistan on the daily....bone chilling...

Who is shrugging off Saudi Arabia's barbaric practices as "meh, criminals facing justice"?

 

[Kobie]

As is your right.

However, as I say, such is easy to do from your armchair when it not your job and not your responsibility. :shrug:

Nor is he the recipient of Saudi largesse.

This is a really ****ing stupid argument even by your bottom-scraping standards, Cap. Isn't ALL WE DO HERE just armchair quarterbacking?

 

[Xelor]

What are our government's employees supposed to do when the head of the government is more loyal to dictators than he is to our own people?

Trump supporters saying that if they can't do their job without leaking then the honorable thing to do would be resign is saying that honorable employees should make way for people who would help to enable the wrong that Trump is doing. How is that a good option?


Trump Is More Loyal to Dictators Than to the U.S.
His lies about Jamal Khashoggi’s murder are a threat to national security.

Thank goodness for leakers who kept upping the ante and calling Trump's bluff whenever he doubled down on his lies about what the CIA was telling him.



There are a lot of reasons for leakers. Even if Trump behaved honorably and inspired people to help him accomplish his goals instead of making them think they needed to perpetually be doing damage control, there would still be some leaking. But there wouldn't be as much as there is now, because there wouldn't need to be as much as there is now. For now the leakers are performing an important service in vigilantly providing information about the threat in the White House and helping the right questions get asked.

Red:
I think most folks misconstrue what a "leaker" is.

1. Leaker --> One who discloses information that is classified for national security (NS) or criminal investigation integrity (CII) purposes.
2. Not a leaker --> One who discloses information that isn't classified for NS/CII purposes and that Administration, congressional or judiciary heads haven't expressly shared with the public.

While the respective heads of the government units (any level within government) may not care to have "this or that" piece of "group 2" (see above) information disclosed, there is, IMO, no point in time at which taxpayers don't have a full and unmitigated right to know/receive "group 2" information. Moreover, as taxpayers, gov't employees have every right to share that information with the rest of the citizenry.

 

[iguanaman]

The problem with your argument is that you assume these people ARE doing the "honorable thing" based on their own political viewpoints.

However, it is one thing to express your political viewpoints outside your government job, and quite another to "express" such viewpoints via ACTIONS designed to undermine the elected government you serve.

You argue from a position of alleged morality because you have judged your opponents and found them wanting (i.e., they don't agree with you so they don't deserve any consideration).

Thus, like such "leakers" you clothe yourself in "virtue," demonize your opponents, and thereby justify your actions as being morally right.

Except...they could be wrong, and their actions immoral.

I am fairly certain that what you justify as righteous when the target is something you consider a political "evil," you would decry if such were done by opponents to something/someone you supported as "morally good."

Yet those opponents would likely be using your same arguments to justify their actions too.

Think about it. :coffeepap:

All Govt. employees serve and many take an oath to uphold the Govt. and the Constitution first and foremost. Elected officials come and go. It is the Govt. that STAYS. I am surprised you forgot such basic civics. Selective amnesia? Hint: You are not in N. Korea. What you see is why we won't ever become like that.

 

[KevinKohler]

Two words: Deep Throat. No, not the movie.

Hey, don't bring Clinton into this...

 

[KevinKohler]

Nor is he the recipient of Saudi largesse.

This is a really ****ing stupid argument even by your bottom-scraping standards, Cap. Isn't ALL WE DO HERE just armchair quarterbacking?

Is he leaking, or advocating for such, of confidential or otherwise secret information?

 

[KevinKohler]

Ultimately, its up to the would be leaker to determine if what they have should be public or not, and its up to the rest of us (the court of public opinion) to decide if the leaker was right or wrong. Right or wrong in ours, however, is irrelevant...violating employment agreements and clearance protocols will be punished by the law, based on the agreements made at the time of hire.

At least, that's how it should be. Too afraid to face the consequences of leaking to leak? Then the odds are, what you have isn't super duper serious.