Oh! NOW Leaks Are A Problem?

In the months prior to the election, then candidate Trump and his supporters sure did love them some WikiLeaks didn't they? And when non-supporters expressed concern and dismay over how and by whom the emails were obtained and alarm at the motivation for the hacks and releases, supporters said, "Why does it matter? How can exposing corruption ever be a bad thing?"

The then candidate Trump even glibbly (or candidly?) beseeched the Russians to hack his opponent.



In October when conservative commentator Paul Sperry cited leaks from unnammed FBI sources when making claims that "FBI agents are ready to revolt" in a NY Post piece, Trump and his supporters cheered on the supposed rogue agents from the FBI's New York office and the right-wing echo chamber went to work promoting a narrative of super patriots working from the inside against "Crooked Hillary."

And when FBI Directory Comey sent his letter to Congress ten days before the election, Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz couldn't wait to tweet about it:

FBI Dir just informed me, "The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation." Case reopened

Trump supporters were elated to have Comey exerting undue and wholly unprecedented influence over the election. Those rogue agents were forcing his hand! Suddenly, Steve Pieczenik's YouTube videos were going from hundreds or thousands of views to hundreds of thousands or millions of views. Again, the Trump supporters cheered on what they believed to be some sort of uprising of the "good guys" working from the inside, colluding with the media to thwart the evil Hillary.

WND - Coups, counter-coups rage within American government

However, Pieczenik said intelligence operatives and staff officials in various government agencies have formed a force to counter the “Clinton coup.”

The alliance, he claims, is what is behind increasing efforts by both independent journalists and law enforcement officials to put more pressure on the woman Donald Trump has dubbed “Crooked Hillary.”

“In order to stop this coup, we in the intelligence community and others involved have informally gotten together,” he announced. “And with their permission, I am permitted to announce we are initiating a counter-coup through Julian Assange and Wikileaks.”

“Not only do we have your number, we’re going to stop you from making Hillary the president of the United States. And at the same time, we will convict and indict the president of the Untied States, Loretta Lynch and many others who are involved in the cover-up of the massive corruption that occurred under the Clinton Foundation,” he said.

Pieczenik said a large number of operatives are involved.

“I am just a small part of something far bigger than myself,” he claimed. “It was the brave men and women who were in the FBI, the CIA, the director of intelligence, the military intelligence and men and women in 15 other intelligence organizations who are sick and tired of seeing this corruption in the White House in the Justice Department and in the intelligence system. And we decided that there was something we had to do to save the republic.

“We’re going through a major transition and, frankly, a second American Revolution.”

Ironically enough, among those Trump supporters who weren't using words like "treason" when it came to the various leaks deemed beneficial for Trump was Lt. Gen Michael Flynn, who was busily tweeting fake news purporting to be sourced from leaks:



Then, just four days prior to the election, Fox New's Bret Baier "reported" on alleged leaks concerning the FBI's investigation into Clinton email server as relayed by "one source with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigation" who was almost certainly either Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani or their mutual pal Kallstrom. (RIP Wayne Barrett)

All the while the — I call him "fake Presient", right? It's true. It's true. The so-called "President" Donald Trump, who is very dishonest, was trying to bury the truth about Russian hacking by attacking the intelligence community for issuing public statements about Russian hacking. Throught it all, not once, not one single time did he or did any of his staff do anything but cheer on the hacks by his Kremlin benefactors, the rumors, leaks and outright lies pushed by friendly outlets in the mainstream media — so long as they negatively impacted his opponent.

Then, when a dossier commissioned by Republicans and Democrats and compiled by a private firm — having absolutely nothing to do with the US intelligence community — was published by BuzzFeed, President Trump took to Twitter blast the IC:

Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to 'leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?

Now that he's in office?

Leaks abound from inside his own White House, from among his own staff. Some of them, like the phone call transcripts are clearly (IMO) deliberate "leaks" (or lies presented as leaks) intended to make Trump look like a tough guy to his cult. ("leaks" which BTW, as I write this, he is confirming as being true in a press conference — "the leaks are obviously real but the news is fake")

And finally, after months of leaks and fake leaks, President Trump has found himself a leak that he doesn't like and of course that was the leak that revealed to the American people that the new administration had flat out lied about former Nat Sec Advisor Michael Flynn's communications with the Russians — a lie the President let stand for weeks and had no intention of correcting until a leak forced his hand.



But I digress folks. Donald Trump is no example of how anyone should act. Leaks from government agencies meant to influence elections, change policy, embarass the administration as part of a vendetta, etc are a legitimate threat to our democracy. We find ourselves on a very slippery slope when we began to normalize these sorts of activities, sliding into a political environment typical of the third world. How we treat leaks should not be subject to political expediency. While perhaps a bit hasty in this case, alarming claims about the "deep state" and "soft coups" are not unreasonable.

On the other hand, if the administration is lying to cover up something as potentially serious as what has been suggested by some about Flynn (and others), shouldn't whistleblowers go to the media to inform the people? Isn't an equal if not greater threat an executive run amok, purging any potential dissenters? After all, isn't that an early step every tyrant ever has take in cementing absolute control?

a reply to: theantediluvian

There is a huge difference in a leak from inside the dnc and a leak inside the nsa.

In fact it is not even a real comparison.
But hey slag on!

S&F

You should also throw in the compilations of trump praising wikileaks during his last few campaign weeks. L.. just for fun!

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: theantediluvian

There is a huge difference in a leak from inside the dnc and a leak inside the nsa.

In fact it is not even a real comparison.
But hey slag on!

A leak is a leak, the source is irrelevant, the contents are what should be discussed. So said every trumpoholics a few months ago.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: theantediluvian

There is a huge difference in a leak from inside the dnc and a leak inside the nsa.

In fact it is not even a real comparison.
But hey slag on!

Yea, the terms Classified and Unclassified have a unique way of getting fuzzy when observed thru an intense confirmation bias!

a reply to: theantediluvian

You really don't grasp the difference in severity between a hacked email server of a POTUS candidate and active leaks from within a seated POTUS' office?

politicians being hypocrites?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WAAAAYYYY

The leaks aren't the problem, it's the media actively misrepresenting the information and supporting a Deep State coup on the elected government.

Democrats don't see any difference between classified material and material not classified at all.



The leaks are from left over Obama operatives still lurking inside.

Mr O'Gladio is getting exposed.

The act of hacking into private servers is illegal. Stop spinning, confront the hypocrisy right wingers.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Democrats don't see any difference between classified material and material not classified at all.

The leaks are from left over Obama operatives still lurking inside.

Mr O'Gladio is getting exposed.

a reply to: theantediluvian

This is almost like comparing a toddler telling on a classmate because she swore, to your son telling your neighbour you have an alien in the basement.

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

Keeping classified information on a private unsecured server is also illegal. Let's see how long is takes the media to spin the illegal wiretapping of government officials by the IC as "extreme carelessness".

originally posted by: theantediluvian
In the months prior to the election, then candidate Trump and his supporters sure did love them some WikiLeaks didn't they? And when non-supporters expressed concern and dismay over how and by whom the emails were obtained and alarm at the motivation for the hacks and releases, supporters said, "Why does it matter? How can exposing corruption ever be a bad thing?"

The then candidate Trump even glibbly (or candidly?) beseeched the Russians to hack his opponent.

In October when conservative commentator Paul Sperry cited leaks from unnammed FBI sources when making claims that "FBI agents are ready to revolt" in a NY Post piece, Trump and his supporters cheered on the supposed rogue agents from the FBI's New York office and the right-wing echo chamber went to work promoting a narrative of super patriots working from the inside against "Crooked Hillary."

And when FBI Directory Comey sent his letter to Congress ten days before the election, Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz couldn't wait to tweet about it:

FBI Dir just informed me, "The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation." Case reopened

Trump supporters were elated to have Comey exerting undue and wholly unprecedented influence over the election. Those rogue agents were forcing his hand! Suddenly, Steve Pieczenik's YouTube videos were going from hundreds or thousands of views to hundreds of thousands or millions of views. Again, the Trump supporters cheered on what they believed to be some sort of uprising of the "good guys" working from the inside, colluding with the media to thwart the evil Hillary.

WND - Coups, counter-coups rage within American government

However, Pieczenik said intelligence operatives and staff officials in various government agencies have formed a force to counter the “Clinton coup.”

The alliance, he claims, is what is behind increasing efforts by both independent journalists and law enforcement officials to put more pressure on the woman Donald Trump has dubbed “Crooked Hillary.”

“In order to stop this coup, we in the intelligence community and others involved have informally gotten together,” he announced. “And with their permission, I am permitted to announce we are initiating a counter-coup through Julian Assange and Wikileaks.”

“Not only do we have your number, we’re going to stop you from making Hillary the president of the United States. And at the same time, we will convict and indict the president of the Untied States, Loretta Lynch and many others who are involved in the cover-up of the massive corruption that occurred under the Clinton Foundation,” he said.

Pieczenik said a large number of operatives are involved.

“I am just a small part of something far bigger than myself,” he claimed. “It was the brave men and women who were in the FBI, the CIA, the director of intelligence, the military intelligence and men and women in 15 other intelligence organizations who are sick and tired of seeing this corruption in the White House in the Justice Department and in the intelligence system. And we decided that there was something we had to do to save the republic.

“We’re going through a major transition and, frankly, a second American Revolution.”

Ironically enough, among those Trump supporters who weren't using words like "treason" when it came to the various leaks deemed beneficial for Trump was Lt. Gen Michael Flynn, who was busily tweeting fake news purporting to be sourced from leaks:

Then, just four days prior to the election, Fox New's Bret Baier "reported" on alleged leaks concerning the FBI's investigation into Clinton email server as relayed by "one source with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigation" who was almost certainly either Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani or their mutual pal Kallstrom. (RIP Wayne Barrett)

All the while the — I call him "fake Presient", right? It's true. It's true. The so-called "President" Donald Trump, who is very dishonest, was trying to bury the truth about Russian hacking by attacking the intelligence community for issuing public statements about Russian hacking. Throught it all, not once, not one single time did he or did any of his staff do anything but cheer on the hacks by his Kremlin benefactors, the rumors, leaks and outright lies pushed by friendly outlets in the mainstream media — so long as they negatively impacted his opponent.

Then, when a dossier commissioned by Republicans and Democrats and compiled by a private firm — having absolutely nothing to do with the US intelligence community — was published by BuzzFeed, President Trump took to Twitter blast the IC:

Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to 'leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?

Now that he's in office?

Leaks abound from inside his own White House, from among his own staff. Some of them, like the phone call transcripts are clearly (IMO) deliberate "leaks" (or lies presented as leaks) intended to make Trump look like a tough guy to his cult. ("leaks" which BTW, as I write this, he is confirming as being true in a press conference — "the leaks are obviously real but the news is fake")

And finally, after months of leaks and fake leaks, President Trump has found himself a leak that he doesn't like and of course that was the leak that revealed to the American people that the new administration had flat out lied about former Nat Sec Advisor Michael Flynn's communications with the Russians — a lie the President let stand for weeks and had no intention of correcting until a leak forced his hand.

But I digress folks. Donald Trump is no example of how anyone should act. Leaks from government agencies meant to influence elections, change policy, embarass the administration as part of a vendetta, etc are a legitimate threat to our democracy. We find ourselves on a very slippery slope when we began to normalize these sorts of activities, sliding into a political environment typical of the third world. How we treat leaks should not be subject to political expediency. While perhaps a bit hasty in this case, alarming claims about the "deep state" and "soft coups" are not unreasonable.

On the other hand, if the administration is lying to cover up something as potentially serious as what has been suggested by some about Flynn (and others), shouldn't whistleblowers go to the media to inform the people? Isn't an equal if not greater threat an executive run amok, purging any potential dissenters? After all, isn't that an early step every tyrant ever has take in cementing absolute control?

Hey remember when Obama said there is no way the Election could be rigged? And then when they lose ITS THE RUSSIANS

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'll give you points for at least calling the email hacks "hacks" instead of insisting that they were "leaks." However, you seem to have skipped past the rest of the OP where I talk about leaks/rumors (made up leaks, whatever) coming from the FBI as well as the support from among Trump voters for members of the IC working with the media (per Pieczenik) to stop Hillary from being elected.

Not to mention Comey's letter (leaks are but one way of exerting influence). Then there are (what I believe to be) deliberate leaks coming from the WH for propaganda purposes (which President Trump admitted/claimed were true).

I do in fact grasp the differences. I also recognize that sometimes leaks come from whistleblowers and that those leaks serve the public interest. Do you believe that there is any case where a leak is justified?

a reply to: Stevemagegod

a reply to: Stevemagegod

When Donald Trump said the election would be rigged, was he referring to Russian hacking and the release of documents? No, he wasn't. Also, you're off by about 5 months here:

Hey remember when Obama said there is no way the Election could be rigged? And then when they lose ITS THE RUSSIANS

It was alleged right from the start that the Russians had hacked the DNC, before the first email was even released. That was in the middle of June.

originally posted by: Konduit

Keeping classified information on a private unsecured server is also illegal. Can't wait for the media to call the IC illegally wiretapping government officials as "extreme carelessness".

It is not illegal for the IC to wiretap foreign nationals. Flynn got caught up in the Russian ambassador's communications.

Read The Treatment of Flynn's Phone Calls Complies with FISA Minimization Procedures
Enough with the " illegally wiretapping government officials".
You are welcome.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Stevemagegod

When Donald Trump said the election would be rigged, was he referring to Russian hacking and the release of documents? No, he wasn't. Also, you're off by about 5 months here:

Hey remember when Obama said there is no way the Election could be rigged? And then when they lose ITS THE RUSSIANS

It was alleged right from the start that the Russians had hacked the DNC, before the first email was even released. That was in the middle of June.

5 months is still current events.

a reply to: theantediluvian

ATS is pretty typical these days.. either someone crying about trump and his supporters or someone arguing on trump and the admins. behalf. this website is an soap opera anymore, everyone is dramatic.