(02-15-2017 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 02:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually you are comparing apples and oranges when conflating a leak situation to a hack situation.

One is where someone gives the information out freely, of their own volition, typically in order to harm something or someone.

A hack is when the person or entity who is getting the information is the active person in breaking down the walls of access to that information.

Am I concerned that a third-party is actively trying to gain access? Sure, but that it what foreign governments and other groups are doing all the frigging time.

If the hack was into a NORAD computer I'd have a concern level of about 9.5 out of 10.

If the hack was into an unsecured private server that a high ranking US official was using to routinely discuss confidential and highly classified subjects -- again about a 9.5, and at least some of that 9.5 coming from gross negligence and utter contempt of that US official.

When the hack is into a private political party network -- the concern drops to about a 3.5. When the hack is actually some dumb*** pol pro handing out his password to the network emails, well as the credit card commercial says -- 'priceless'.....

If an intelligence officer, official, worker, or agency is reporting **** to the the authorities charged with policing that type of malfeasance -- about a 1.5.

If an intelligence officer drops this same into the frigging press -- about a 7.5. By definition the choice of whom to disclose this is very telling. Whomever dropped this to the press did so with the intent of a political assassination (rightly or wrongly) of Flynn. You really can't doubt that considering the leak was to someone with a huge megaphone. *That* intent that seems to be at the root of this is very troubling to me.

I see what you're saying, but disagree with you views on it.

The initial official who leaked the information, which has no been corroborated and elaborated on by others, simply said that Flynn and the Russian's talked on that day, and that was it. In my mind, that hardly seems like political assassination right there. Flynn could have admitted to it, proceeded to tell the US what they discussed and then moved on. The assassination was done by Flynn himself.

(link to the original article that broke the news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...46eadce883)

I understand how you can see these leaks as concerning if you view them as a concerted effort to unjustly remove an elected official. But I don't see evidence that there is some sort of collusion here in the leaks - it appears more to be reporters doing their jobs and people being willing to share information about ongoing investigations. If they started leaking information that could get say, some of our undercover operatives killed, or divulges strategic national interests, then I could understand the concern. Or, if these leaks were proven to be false/made up, then I would definitely be on board.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, so intelligence officials talking about the truth to the press doesn't really strike me as being horrible. Heck, that was who Deep Throat was - I don't think that Mark Felt did a disservice to the country.

So what was the motive for the leak action re: Flynn? Did they just pick up the phone and dial the Washington Post for sh-ts and giggles?

Assuming that *all* that was leaked was Flynn met (and none of us know *what* was leaked, unless we are the reporters or the leakers, much as none of us know what Flynn discussed with the Russian, for that matter...), then absent some intent of malfeasance re: Flynn or those associated with Flynn, all you are realistically left with is doing it for sh-ts and giggles..... (a possiblity that cannot be thrown out, but actions like this almost *always* tend to have a motive of some sort.)

For the life of me I cannot think up viable alternatives to trying to screw Flynn and company. The sh-ts and giggles excuse doesnt fly for me for some reason here....

Somebody had a t-rd pie, and decided to play it.

Probably the intent wasn't to 'get Flynn fired for malfeasance', since you are correct that they probably did not have the information that Flynn had stated otherwise to Pence. But someone certainly had a reason of some sort to toss this t-rd pie into the fray, most likely to create bad optics. Again, this reason falls into either political assassination or a one to create bad optics to obstruct an administration that they dont like. Either one is disturbing to me.

If the goal was to see if a crime had occurred, could have simply gone down the report it to the authorities route. But the path the information went (and leaked in a criminal manner, if not authorized by some fairly high source), says to me this was a hit job, either for scalps or for political optic points.

That is very disturbing to me.

As disturbing as an executive branch trying to use a club of executive power on opponents, for examples going the other way vis a vis the governmental power structure.

Another reasonable aspect was that someone felt the public had the right to know about some of the findings of the report? And perhaps they felt that the best way to ensure that the public found out was to leak the information to the press and then force the issue to be confronted, and let the chips fall how they fell.

Again, if Flynn truly did nothing wrong in the call that was leaked our anything else, he shouldn't have lied about it and could have easily turned it around on the leaker for prematurely leaking and trying to make things political. But because Flynn doubled down on the fact that he did not have contact with the Russian diplomat, he screwed the pooch.

I think your potentiality is reasonable, just not the ONLY reasonable rationale.