It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sean Spicer targets own staff in leak crackdown

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Buzzy's source was Politico.

Weren't they one of those left out of the gaggle last week?

They make stuff up. Fake News. Nothing to see here, folks.
edit on 27-2-2017 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

This leak really isn't that important. From what I understand, mentioned on Politico, the media has reached out to him for comments. He just isn't commenting. The press probably didn't feel like a leak of this caliber was worth following up there.

Spicer declined to comment about the leak crackdown.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

If this is what happens when the white house decides to name those in the pool I hope they name some of the reporters they take questions from on skype. Those journalists deserve an equal ability to attend don't they? Free press and all.....or is it only free for the biggs?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

There's still nothing proving this even happened.

I would think if a real "threat" was present at this level, the FBI would be investigating.

Or at least the Capitol Police detectives.





If there were a real leak at the Whitehouse....you can bet there would be an investigation. They don't need to ask for employee phones...these are covered by their hiring paperwork....they can take them. That's beside the point that they wouldn't need the device to discern who leaked anything....their phone records would also be readily available based on contract.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Was that addressed at todays press conference?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Was that addressed at todays press conference?

I didn't watch it. So I'm just going off of what is being suggested in the thread.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Politico is now officially on my Fake News list to double or even triple check any info coming from them. They are on the same level as what the National Inquirer used to be on, imo.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
There should be no "secrets" in a transparent government....and it's been a number of years now (this entire century!) that people are demanding government transparency.
For whatever good it does, the internet is a wide-open look at the state of our world.



Really? You really want to go here?

First, are you suggesting that all meetings should be put on C-Span? I don't think that is what the term transparent government means. Also, if you can not trust your staff to not leak then you need to fire them...It is not their prerogative to leak information in a nonofficial way.

The reason I asked "You really want to go here?" is because Obama actually promised "transparent government" as a big part of his platform, and his Presidency had become one of the most secreted while locking down FOIA requests to the worst it has ever been.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's a fake quote as well.




posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Spicer did hold a press conference?
patch.com...
yes
yes he did



White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer delivered the daily briefing Monday, answering questions on the forthcoming budget, investigations into connections between Russia and the president, and the Yemen raid that killed a Navy SEAL.


Nothing about phone checks....hmmm
Spicer was available to answer questions and no one asked him about it........thats odd.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: queenofswords

This leak really isn't that important. From what I understand, mentioned on Politico, the media has reached out to him for comments. He just isn't commenting. The press probably didn't feel like a leak of this caliber was worth following up there.

Spicer declined to comment about the leak crackdown.


Based on the actual story I would doubt they even asked for a comment. And if they did ask, I would be more inclined to think he didn't even respond versus decline to comment...they likely spun it that way to make it sound more plausible.

Both of the authors are hit piece crap journalists with nothing of note in their "careers".

Sadly the days of actually vetting a story are gone and we are relegated to this garbage with every single news outlet.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Was that addressed at todays press conference?


No it wasn't.




posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see it as business as usual. Every administration tries to clamp down on leaks and pretending that this is unique to Trump's administration is silly. The article you posted on page 1 pretty well indicates that: leaks have been happening since the Washington administration.

Yes, but the amount of leaks in the Trump admin is unusual. Plus there are some notably concerning leaks (that I noticed you avoiding answering my question about) there too. Just saying this is business as usual is a rather dismissive way of trying not to look under the curtain. There is nuance involved here. Things aren't so cut and dry.


If by "avoided" you mean that part when I said "I don't mind leaks that expose corruption" then yep, you got me, I ignored the hell outta that question, man. Those leaks you referenced that exposed potential/possible/likely corruption weren't covered by that part when I said I don't mind leaks that expose corruption.


Beyond that, as the OP continues to remind everybody, the thread subject is a supposed meeting organized by Spicer in an effort to clamp down on leaks. That's what I refer to when I say that this administration making an effort to clamp down on leaks isn't unique or surprising. If you're conflating that statement that pertains to the "leak" referenced by the OP as somehow pertaining to my personal opinion about the Flynn leak, then that's something you've created in your own mind. My saying that it's normal for an administration to try and control leaks is only that: my opinion that it's normal for an administration to try and control leaks.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Politico is now officially on my Fake News list to double or even triple check any info coming from them. They are on the same level as what the National Inquirer used to be on, imo.


They should have been put on everyone's fake news list the moment the emails between Thrush and Podesta came out.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I don't know what you are trying to prove to me here. I already gave a reason why the press may not have brought this up at the press conference. If you don't want to accept it. Fine, tell me why, but don't pretend like I haven't said anything about the matter.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: queenofswords

This leak really isn't that important. From what I understand, mentioned on Politico, the media has reached out to him for comments. He just isn't commenting. The press probably didn't feel like a leak of this caliber was worth following up there.

Spicer declined to comment about the leak crackdown.


Based on the actual story I would doubt they even asked for a comment. And if they did ask, I would be more inclined to think he didn't even respond versus decline to comment...they likely spun it that way to make it sound more plausible.

Declined to comment is the same thing as failure to respond.


Both of the authors are hit piece crap journalists with nothing of note in their "careers".

Lol. Random ad hominems against the article's authors. This is poor form arguing here.


Sadly the days of actually vetting a story are gone and we are relegated to this garbage with every single news outlet.

Lol. This coming from a person who is willing to write an article off just because the author isn't famous enough.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
Well I can only keep talking about how mundane leaks to a new administration are before I get bored of saying the same things over and over again and start exploring more nuanced approaches to the conversation to understand it better. Must be my ADD or something.

Sorry if that offends you.
edit on 27-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am not looking to prove anything. Politico is free to make up whatever they like. I just was not aware they were competing with the onion.
All they had to do was ask today. They chose not to. Wonder why.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

How about asking Politico instead of me and assuming a smug victory because I don't have the answer?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs


Seems that whistleblowers are coming out of the woodwork now.....and honestly, I wouldn't want to be employed there in any capacity whatsoever.


Well, that's the irony of it all. The government has laws that should protect whistleblowers, while the press has the federal shield law allowing them to protect their sources. However it's the latter that the thinned skinned Trump is trying desperately to overcome by intimating that the no names policy is the same as 'fake news' as if.
By so doing Trump is one of the main sources of, 'fake news', and we know that easily since Trump ranted and raved about the press coming out with the details of the British spy source on Russian-American activity, as just such an example, while it turned out that the intelligence services themselves were taking the spy's daily memos seriously at the very least then, and possibly still do now, however he was told about the memos at some stage, but still didn't shut his gub up.
edit on 27-2-2017 by smurfy because: Text.







 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join