I find this very frustrating. What are the standards here? The Pentagon papers were fine. Chelsea Mannings release was fine. Edward Snowden also fine. These were all EXTREMELY damaging national security leaks.
They would have been...not fine if the source had been different? If the documents are laundered through Roger Stone fine but if e…
I find this very frustrating. What are the standards here? The Pentagon papers were fine. Chelsea Mannings release was fine. Edward Snowden also fine. These were all EXTREMELY damaging national security leaks.
They would have been...not fine if the source had been different? If the documents are laundered through Roger Stone fine but if emailed directly not fine?
The Vance selection has been the most damaging pick since Sarah Palin. It is without doubt news how this pick was made. It either shows arrogance or campaign incompetence. The campaigns deliberations over this extremely divisive pick is absolutely news.
The potential damage done to a campaign cannot be a factor here when damage to the national security of the United States was ignored in the past.
I am convinced that at least a plurality of the people making these decisions at the time of the Pentagon Papers, and a majority ever since, have considered discrediting the Government of the United States to be an important objective in and of itself, not just collateral damage. Read in that light, this otherwise inexplicable decision becomes all too easy to understand.
Of course they find Trump distasteful, but they're nihilists, so it would be odd if they didn't. But embarrassing Trump does not contribute to the project of discrediting the constitutional order: holding their noses and leaving him alone to run his grift free and unmonitored is much more productive of that end. And if they can wrap themselves in a claim of professional ethics in the process, that's a win/win.
I find this very frustrating. What are the standards here? The Pentagon papers were fine. Chelsea Mannings release was fine. Edward Snowden also fine. These were all EXTREMELY damaging national security leaks.
They would have been...not fine if the source had been different? If the documents are laundered through Roger Stone fine but if emailed directly not fine?
The Vance selection has been the most damaging pick since Sarah Palin. It is without doubt news how this pick was made. It either shows arrogance or campaign incompetence. The campaigns deliberations over this extremely divisive pick is absolutely news.
The potential damage done to a campaign cannot be a factor here when damage to the national security of the United States was ignored in the past.
I am convinced that at least a plurality of the people making these decisions at the time of the Pentagon Papers, and a majority ever since, have considered discrediting the Government of the United States to be an important objective in and of itself, not just collateral damage. Read in that light, this otherwise inexplicable decision becomes all too easy to understand.
Of course they find Trump distasteful, but they're nihilists, so it would be odd if they didn't. But embarrassing Trump does not contribute to the project of discrediting the constitutional order: holding their noses and leaving him alone to run his grift free and unmonitored is much more productive of that end. And if they can wrap themselves in a claim of professional ethics in the process, that's a win/win.
In a million years Katherine Graham and Ben Bradley would not have done anything to discredit the US government as a primary purpose.
Please, do Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange next! 😂