Now GOP Senators Want Another Trump Nominee’s Full FBI File
Now GOP Senators Want Another Trump Nominee’s Full FBI File
An alignment between Russia and Tulsi Gabbard is worrying some Senate Intelligence Committee members.
Summary
Republican senators are privately pushing to review Tulsi Gabbard’s FBI file amid concerns about her alignment with Russian interests following her nomination as Trump’s director of national intelligence.
Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. state secrets, has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her history of echoing Russian talking points on Ukraine and Syria.
While GOP senators are publicly deferring to Trump’s pick, some, including Sens. Mike Rounds and Susan Collins, emphasize the importance of full background checks and hearings to address potential security risks.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden
Yeah, Republicans WOULD be upset about her only correct stance, even if it's a past one 🤦
-
Whether or not you agree with notorious intelligence leaks, and I'm not saying I don't, it's not a great look for the Director of National Intelligence to support the leaking of sensitive intelligence documents.
-
Well, the sensitive intelligence documents showed that the NSA was interpreting the law in a way that goes way beyond what Congress allowed.
Having someone at the top that agrees that their department has limits regarding the US constitution is prepared to enforce those limits does NOT sound like a bad thing.
-
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a breach of security.
It's like applying for bank security after praising Pretty Boy Floyd.
-
it was a breach of security.
Agreed, and that's on the NSA and it's processes that need fixing. Not Snowden.
Also, in this case it's like praising Pretty Boy Floyd for reporting to it's customers that a bank was lying about how much gold it had in its vaults.
-
Sure, still wouldn't get you a job at the bank
-
If you thank the person for telling the world that the bank is crooked, why can't you then be responsible for ensuring that the bank stops being crooked?
-
Because your boss will never be sure if you can be trusted if you happen to think the next breach is also justified.
-
If tulsi thinks the breach was justified because the internal whistle-blowing processes at the NSA were not functioning correctly, then there is no trust issue.
She can ensure better processes exist.
If the intelligence apparatus is performing unconstitutional actions then a breach is justified.
-
None off that changes the fact that when you support an intelligence breach, even if that particular breach was justified, you are signaling to your superiors that you may well allow the next breach, even if it isn't justified.
There's a reason vigilantism is illegal. Sure, sometimes the result might be justified, but the method has no accountability. Especially given her shady history with Russia, there's no guarantee that the next breach she supports will be another justified cause. It might just jeopardize the safety of intelligence agents.
-
you are signaling to your superiors that you may well allow the next breach, even if it isn't justified.
This is your opinion. Not fact.
There's a reason vigilantism is illegal. Sure, sometimes the result might be justified, but the method has no accountability.
Tulsi has moved into the seat of accountability. The sheriff can't be a vigilante.
Especially given her shady history with Russia
Clinton has been in more shady Russian deals than Tulsi. Her accusations are pure projection.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
face it man, Snowden is a Russian asset at this point.
he didn't start out that way be given the options of tea, window, or sabotage he chose sabotage.
-
So are Trump and the Republican Party.
-
yes. they are.
-
-
He's a survivor.
What would you have done differently than him? Die?
-
What would you have done differently
Traveled under a fake ID. People do it in films and TV all the time. Not sure how practical that is in reality though.
-
Real life is not like TV. High quality counterfeit papers that stand up to scrutiny are very hard to get. The only way to get ones that are guaranteed to work is by having someone at the state department who can issue them or buying them from someone with those kind of connections. And the odds are good that the fads have honeypots set up to catch people trying to get fake documents.
-
-
I wouldn't have done anything differently.
Just pointing it out because so many have a fetish to make him a hero even after he's helped the guy who wants to destroy our nation.
-
He did the right thing at the cost of his own safety and wellbeing. If that's not a hero I don't know what is.
At the same time he basically had to cooperate with the Russians because they tend to torture and kill those who don't.
-
And his routes out of Russia were blocked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
-
-
-
Quietly quit because his whistle was never going to stop that kind of surveillance. If you held a gun to my head and said I had to leak then NYTimes and WaPo would get the relevant slide deck and I'd stand my day in court knowing I'd probably have my sentence commuted after several years.
He chose the literal worst option.
-
-
Are you thinking of Assange?
-
no. Assange cares only for Assange.
Snowden cared about Americans once, but was abandoned by his nation to a corrupt government.
he's an unwilling Russian asset now, think of it like indentured servitude for his life.
-
Are you able to point to actions that Snowden has taken to negatively impact the interests of the US people or to materially aid Russia?
-
no, and I don't have to.
It is my opinion after all.
we're allowed to share those on here still, right?
edit: did I hurt all the snowbunnie feewings?
-
It's not unreasonable to ask someone to elaborate or justify their opinion, kiddo.
-
and it's not unreasonable for someone to refuse.
-
It is if you want to be taken seriously, sweetie.
-
rich coming from someone calling others "sweetie".
-
-
Of course not, it just means you're leaving that particular discussion
-
I haven't given it any though till this moment, but the fact that he
- leaked US government secrets, then
- went to Russia and
- isn't dead from being windowed
To me implies a certain level of Russian collaboration. Purely speculative, granted, but I bet he's not about to go speaking up for Ukraine or anything.
He sought and received protection from an adversary and I can't believe that Putin didn't put a price on that, and feel confident that he had the "currency" to pay.
I believe what he did, he did with good intentions, but after that I think he had to start making some practical decisions in order to save his and his families' lives.
Would I make those same decisions? Let's just say, I probably wouldn't have the courage to blow the whistle in the first place, so it's kinda a moot point.
Suffice it to say, he paid for his ability to stay in Russia. Who's to say the cost to US security?
-
-
-
-
You weren't stating it as opinion, you were stating it as if it's objective fact.
Very big difference in wording.
-
I think you might be confused. it's not your fault.
unless someone provides evidence, it should always be considered an opinion. that's how the world used to work.
now everyone just reads all comments as facts instead of using their cognitive ability to read and comprehend. it's not your fault that the Internet made your brain lazy.
-
You are a child. Or at minimum, very childish.
I recommend swallowing your extremely overinflated pride/ego, and growing up a bit.
-
big words coming from someone attacking a "child".
because you couldn't argue against what I said you decided to attack me personally. seems pretty immature to me.
BTW, that is my opinion. just clarifying so it's not confused as fact. some people read anything on the Internet and automatically attribute it as fact these days. also an opinion, but I might have some proof around here that could sustain it as a strong theory.
😉
-
-
-
-
The question of whether someone works for a government is not really a matter of opinion
-
I'll give you a legitimate response since I've got the time while taking the Browns to the Super Bowl.
opinions are varied and limitless as the ideas that feed them. One can have opinions on opinions!
so, when the neurons in your brain were firing on all cylinders to come up with your question, did you actually think that one couldn't have an opinion on something as menial and useless as, "whether someone works for a government"?
I have many opinions, some are rather good, others not so much.
for example, my opinion of you isn't very good.
-
-
-
Not triggered in the slightest - I thought there might be something to learn. Thanks for clarifying that it was nothing more than the baseless opinion of a fragile moron.
-
if you were a firearm you would be decommissioned for premature firing.
Your trigger is so loose, a stiff breeze sets it off.
-
It'd take something a little stronger than the opinion of infamous kid fucker GreenKnight23 to pull my trigger, champ.
-
I don't know what's more pathetic, your delivery or your lack of imagination.
Don't expect me to report your comments either, your tiny comments of shame will live on to fester and eat away at you.
I won't even remember your name tomorrow.
-
You're going to drop the pretence that you've got anything worthwhile to say and sulk off back to your little lair? Try not to fuck any kids on the way out, eh?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Being an American liability doesn't make you a Russian asset.
-
it heavily implies it if a genocidal dictator shelters you.
-
If your passport is cancelled and transport is blocked then you don't get much choice over who shelters you.
-
that's besides the point. he's there and it's death or sell out national secrets.
I get it, doesn't make him any less of a Russian asset.
-
His internal knowledge of the CIA and NSA gained as a contractor is an American liability.
That doesn't necessarily make him a Russian Asset.
-
do you honesty believe that Putin would allow him to live as long as he has in Russia without some form of cooperation? I mean, the guy outlived the "thorn in Americans side" trope about five years ago.
The only logical conclusion I can come to is that he's selling strategic processes and how Americans think for his safety.
if you disagree why do you think Putin has allowed him to stay alive this long?
-
do you honesty believe that Putin would allow him to live as long as he has in Russia without some form of cooperation? I mean, the guy outlived the "thorn in Americans side" trope about five years ago.
No, I think the NSA are still embarrassed.
The only logical conclusion I can come to is that he's selling strategic processes and how Americans think for his safety.
How many relevant strategic secrets do you think Snowden has after 11 years out of the game. Remember all his documents were passed to journalists. He retained none.
-
No, I think the NSA are still embarrassed.
even after 11 years? most credit card debt is forgotten after 7...
How many relevant strategic secrets do you think Snowden has after 11 years out of the game. Remember all his documents were passed to journalists. He retained none.
not secrets. he has valuable information on how the US reacts. Strategies change, but at the core their goals and how they plan on achieving them usually doesn't change that often.
imagine if you were fighting someone. you don't try to predict when/where they are going to punch. you try to predict what they will target. if you can understand who you're fighting, you have a better chance at winning.
-
even after 11 years?
Yep. Is Snowden allowed back into the US? No? Then he is still an embarrassment.
he has valuable information on how the US reacts
Nothing that he wouldn't have already given up 11 years ago. He can't provide anything new.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-