As a nuclear engineer working with the Navy, I held a security clearance to handle information classified as Confidential Restricted Data. I and my fellow workers took very seriously protecting this information from public disclosure. Mishandling classified information would get you demoted, fired, or even prosecuted as a crime. I bet the information about targeting Russian generals and the Russian ship was classified to a much higher level (Secret or Top Secret), yet someone in Washington released it to the general public with no consequences. It pisses me off that they treat classified information so cavalierly with all the leaks! Apparently, the rules apply to peons like me and not to the Washington elites!
It's a crime to share classified information, of course, but the questions are (1) who's held accountable? (2) how? and (3) should the information have been classified in the first place? IMHO, we spend enormous time and effort hunting down leaks and too little addressing these questions.
Yes, Iβve often wondered what the big deal is about some government secrets. Military stuff I understand but a lot of the rest of it seems pointless.
Maybe this'll help a bit. Informal, but sufficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security It's probably not what you've been led to believe. It might help you decide for yourself what is or isn't a big deal. Personally, I think it's nothing more than a potential political embarrassment or a manipulation or both. Not as big a deal as the wank-publicans would have you believe. They're objective is to distract attention from 1/6, their continued obstructionism, and last but not least, the content itself of the leak. How about distracting attention from even this: https://youtu.be/tJooIcJ-Ppk I've already decided for myself that at least one of the SCOTUS justices is a bald-faced liar, based on info I've already provided elsewhere.
More than one of them. Considering the information the media publishes, itβs hard to imagine how so-called government secrets could be that critical. I often read things in the press and think theyβre a gift to people who want to sabotage us. Thereβs enough publicly available to do a huge amount of harm. Itβs pretty scary.
I just heard a BBC - I think - reporter say he couldn't show Ukrainian defenses, but he described how they're laid out. (You'll excuse me if I don't friggin' repeat it!) Every goddam Russian general was probably sayin': "Thanks for the tip, buddy!"
They get caught. Even if they are whistleblowers, national security is primary.
I did hear some whistleblower cases involving national security, but a judge has to have a top secret clearance to hear the case, the matter is deemed confidential, and the records are sealed. However even wen I sealed them, a circuit court, in an appeal could open the record.
Thanks for your reply, but this isn't the impression you get from the news media. In the initial "breaking news" report, someone leaks to a news outlet who keeps the source confidential. What follows are news reports that they are trying to discover who the leaker is, but have so far failed to uncover the culprit. The matter then drops off as the next news cycle begins. It seems to the general public that they "got away" with it.
Also, I believe that members of Congress and their staff have been exposed in the past as leakers without anything happening to them.
I think of September 11 and John F. Kennedy assassination. Why place those files out of reach of the public. We pay for the CIA and FBI and yet are not allowed access.
You're right. Still waiting for all the Bay of Pigs documents.
But those are historical. There's a war in Europe. What gets me is why should the NYT give fodder to Putin?
Yesterday NYT ran a column. Peter Beinart, Biden Could Make the World Safer, but Heβs Too Afraid of the Politics, May 9, 2022. If I were the Times, I would send Beinart to Fox. I find this unconscionable. Wars have started on media spreading false rumors. And if the Biden Administration is negotiating, this can constitute interference.
Again, why does no one know? Who is being protected? The people? Or the criminals? What is the purpose of not letting We the People know about these "every day" prosecutions?
None of the cable news stations. I haven't heard of everyone. However, I was questioning any of the so called elite, well known people, not the bottom feeders. That would make real breakthrough news.
So "whistleblowers" are being put in jail? The definition of a whistleblower is someone who exposes a cover-up, and cover-ups are usually for things the government does not want We the People to know it is doing. Whistleblowers should be REWARDED, not put in jail! When the government is harming the environment, they should be called to task. I don't know what kind of nuclear secrets are being kept, but what is the reason for them in the first place? Do we not live in a democracy?
Maybe a solution to the "leaking" is to have the need for fewer secrets. I get it that some things need to be secret until the event happens, but the Supreme Court proceedings do not need to be secret to the extent they are. When the Court is discussing things that will impact all of our lives, a quick surprise at the end of June is not OK. The justices can run out of town for the summer, so never have to stand up in public for what they have decided and can't be persuaded by those people who will be impacted that their decision is poorly thought-out and harmful as the Roe v. Wade decision is likely to be. I am so glad it was "leaked." I am just sorry Republicans can cling to that leak as the problem when it is actually taking away the bodily autonomy of women with a potential future removal of personhood for people who are not white, straight, Christian and male by the court that is the real problem. I want more leaks like this one. The Ukrainian leak not so much because the world could be at risk with that kind of leak. R.Sheets
I agree with you, Ruth. Supreme Court deliberations should be public. Even the Federal Reserve Board's Open Market Committee goes to great lengths to make public its deliberations, and the thoughts that go into its final decisions. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court be more transparent?
My initial thought was that the reason the leaks occurred had to do with information that somebody actually wanted to leak, maybe as a test of collective opinion and response, or for other reasons. This more salacious reasoning, though, also makes sense. The sense of empowerment by being "in the know" could indeed be quite intoxicating.
Can be a form of psy-ops attempting to keep opposing political parties in mortal combat. Robert says: "Some people in Washington leak information to the media to make themselves feel important. Others, to kill initiatives they donβt like. Others, to fuel initiatives they want. A few (journalists, spies, inside traders) make money by buying and selling leaks."
I assume that Politico, NYT, WAPO, having been burned several times, double and triple checked out the sources of leaks. That may be the real story. They say they have a first amendment right -- a journalistic duty -- not to divulge sources.
Right! So a leak must be confirmed prior to being printed or reported so that means that other βleakersβ are available to confirm!
I understand the need for military silence and sometimes privacy during policy discussions but it seems that too many people think their discussions are in themselves worthy of secrecy. Maybe that is the power of the leakerβtelling us what should have been open discussion in the first place.
I like that "telling us what should have been open discussion in the first place," Nancy. Not sure that it's always true. But it's sort of like beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
Ya... Further down in the article he did cover some of my original thinking. Still, my angle on it going into the article was coming from a different place.
Operation Mockingbird left us with many questions regarding our media, who writes what, were they leaks, or merely psy-ops written as dis/misinformation for βWe the Peopleβ. Sibel Edmunds was one of the more curiously gagged cases Iβve followed, no one could, nor would, publish her story until Larry Flynt finally did in Hustler( the only time I ever bought one).
Having worked with many government contractors, mostly defense, I know of many loose lips. Iβm still betting on Ginny Thomas as this leak...
What β½ Have you had a close encounter with a magpie - or whatever the hell the damn thing was? Of course, if you're talking about the unexplained loss of something really important, well yes indeed that can happen. Making important documents disappear is a damn cottage industry in DC! Ever hear of "social engineering?"
Sorry for being vague. In Poeβs story, the clever detective found the letter where no one else thought to look: in a shelf of a writing desk. My point is, sometimes an object in plain view is overlooked β and therefore has the best security.
Sometimes the motivation is to right a wrong. I was a staff member at EPA when I leaked a confidential document about a pesticide to an environmental organization that was suing to stop the Reagan EPA from approving it for use. The document showed that the chemical was much more persistent in the environment than most people were led to believe. I don't know if my leak helped, but the court issued a restraining order and the pesticide was never approved.
Kudos to you, Michael. The line between whistle-blower and leaker is getting blurrier by the day. Much comes down to a moral-ethnical issue: When do people who know secrets that would outrage the public if widely known have an obligation to leak them?
Might I add, since weβre very comfortable giving women this narrative, men love gossip the MOST! One company town of men(& women I know but lots of men) that are so ready to talk, leak....if you think gal pals are bad when they get together, donβt worry Iβll wait.
Thank you Robert Reich for helping me better understand how leakes work bringing more careful awareness to my own behavior. Some of us outside Washington "pissing in" have been tempted to "be someone" by letting slide "confidential information to a "trusted" listener, when a credible true Patriot may have done something, rather than saying something. A true Statesman would always have thought out in advance if they would be comfortable they can defend what they said before they say it, but it's a high bar to sustain. Again, thank you Robert!
I understand secrecy in a dictatorship, because it upholds the dictator. (This does not mean I agree with dictatorships!) I do not understand secrecy in a democracy. How is the public supposed to make informed choices of whom to vote for if they do not have all the information to be informed.
We all know real government happens BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, but if we knew what went on behind those doors we would probably make different choices.
The only good thing I have to say about the Trump era (and even that is not a true description) is that Trump was arrogant enough to think what he said and did should be known to the public. (Raking leaves to prevent forest fires!, etc.) The public got to see how stupid he truly was.
Mdanwhile, in a secrecy-laden democracy, the people often have no idea of the things that their elected representatives do. THAT IS TOTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC. If it has to be done in secret, it is probably not to We the People's advantage!
'tis indeed a conundrum - particularly with regard to national security. I'd settle on understanding that just as the Platonic solids can't possibly exist in reality, there can be no functionally >perfect< democracy. That's the mystery of "the crack in the liberty bell." (Consider a democracy of slave owners as existed here in the US in 1787!) Just remember the words in the Preamble: "in order to form a >more perfect< union."
With regards to national security. I must ask, whose security? The citizens'? The government's? Or the ruling party's? During the Cold War there was so much secrecy, American citizens cannot know for sure all the decisions that were taken behind clised doors. But the Cold War is over. What is still being hidden from We the People, and WHY? The truth to that question is not "in the telling," but rather in the 'discovering of the telling" through leaks and other (intentional?) misspeaks.
The better question you - or for that matter, anyone else reading this - should ask is: "What is national security?": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security Informal, but accurate.
the growing consensus is that ginni thomas is the source of the SCOTUS leak. (even nina totenberg makes comments that can be interpreted as pointing to thomas.) but i still am unclear how, if ginni thomas is the leak in this case, this shores up her goal to overturn roe v wade. (yes, like everyone, i've got a long list of suspicions, but no firm conclusions.) what do you think? shall we all make a list of potential leakers, their goals and how this particular leak might strengthen their position as they seek to accomplish their goal(s)?
The narrative I keep hearing is that Roberts has been trying to peal Gorsuch off the majority in this opinion, and the leak was made by someone in (or close to) the majority who wanted to lock Gorsuch into the majority's position.
Alito himself has most to gain and for sure most immoral and ignorant of all Justices which becomes very obvious listening to oral arguments conversation between attorneys and Alito.
I think there is a line that news media should not cross - not because of legality but because of patriotism. Unless they are doing something treasonous and illegal, like tfg, the administration should be able to conduct foreign policy with secrecy from its foreign adversaries. The military leaks were dangerous and unpatriotic. Other leaks are mostly information that should never have been secret in the first place. And thank you to the media for bringing it to light independent of the motives of the leakers.
however, media keeps non secret from us as they want whatever to be a secret because of their bias. So I think add the intentional keeping news from public with such a very small news out universe needs added to your - media should not cross. But the lack of anti trust laws being enforced who is going to enforce when no real competition exists in so called media.
It is said that Washington, DC is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I say it's never more beautiful than when seen in the rear-view mirror!
Sometimes we assign too much meaning to the leakers motivation. "Was it a right winger who wanted to shore up right wing support and put Alito in a box?" or "Was it a lefty sounding the alarm?"
I will take a wild guess and suggest that it was someone who is normally ignored at parties and meetings. Someone who wanted to elevate his or her status as an "information merchant". Perhaps it could lead to a better job. There is a great quote from Tyrion Lannister in "The Game of Thrones":
"I drink and I know things".
We all know people who love to "tell us stuff" that we haven't heard yet. Their insecurities feed the need. And truth be told, there is a little bit of this in most of us.
Your comment reminds me of the song in βThe Music Man,β βPick a Little, Talk a Little.β The society women are vying to see who gets to tell a nasty (and untrue) secret about Marian the librarian, and finally the overbearing dowager, played by Hermione Gingold, settles the matter by proclaiming, β*Iβll* tell.β
Absolutely amazing and bright. Which translates into the fact that there is no sense of Community or Nationality in America. There is a false sense of brotherhood one could day. Individual power and money runs the country and every office. The fake and absurd sense of individualism is killing America from the top down and what is preposterous is that the βreasonable manβ the lay person is down there at the bottom of the line dragged into the big playerβs game. Disgustedly wrong.
Robert's reasoning for why Washington is quite "leaky" makes sense, and suggests that its been this way for a long time, at least with the leaks contained mostly to just Washington. The advent of multiple salacious leaks hitting the public sphere regularly seems much more recent- starting in 2016 or thereabouts.
I agree with Robert that efforts to stop leaks are futile - I think the issue that causes the leaks is more foundational, which is likely bad news for the immediate future. I see 2 foundational issues:
1 - our government institutions are operating with open disrespect for both the citizens *and* for the reputation of the institution itself. The sense of honor or decorum, that would keep leaks contained to smaller groups, seems to be gone from most government offices. I see this as an inevitable result of government officials openly lying and bullying in public with no consequences (in fact, they are often rewarded). Without the glue of civil behavior, group cohesion crumbles.
2 - Too much of our media is rewarded singularly by # of clicks - and those horrific or scandalous leaks grab eyeballs much more than conscientious and truthful reporting. In the increasingly post-truth world the the gop is pushing, emotional reactions are more valuable to media owners than an honest "scoop".
The trends of both items above are heading us towards more leaks, I think. Perhaps we will reach leak saturation and then reason 2 above will weaken.
2 - Too much of our media is rewarded singularly by # of clicks - and those horrific or scandalous leaks grab eyeballs much more than conscientious and truthful reporting. In the increasingly post-truth world the the gop is pushing, emotional reactions are more valuable to media owners than an honest "scoop".
The trends of both items above are heading us towards more leaks, I think. Perhaps we will reach leak saturation and then reason 2 above will weaken.
When a leak could jeopardize national security at the level of a nuclear war, one has to wonder if they live here or have loved ones here. Once nukes are tossed around there really is no getting away with it. "The air, the air, is everywhere! Breathe deep while you sleep;; breathe deep!"!. How clueless can a person be?
Hey! If anyone here is a DC denizen, please see the update response I made to my comment yesterday on the 9th Amendment and start "leaking" >that< around! You can spread the comment itself around, too, if it suits you! (Hell! If that's what it takes in DC, might as well leverage it for what it's worth!)
This may have a silver lining. If there is enough public outcry, there may be an opportunity to add more justices to the court, something that previously seemed out of the question, if not heresy. I think it was the New Yorker that published a cartoon of Snow White talking to 9 dwarves, "No one said you had to be 9."
As a nuclear engineer working with the Navy, I held a security clearance to handle information classified as Confidential Restricted Data. I and my fellow workers took very seriously protecting this information from public disclosure. Mishandling classified information would get you demoted, fired, or even prosecuted as a crime. I bet the information about targeting Russian generals and the Russian ship was classified to a much higher level (Secret or Top Secret), yet someone in Washington released it to the general public with no consequences. It pisses me off that they treat classified information so cavalierly with all the leaks! Apparently, the rules apply to peons like me and not to the Washington elites!
It's a crime to share classified information, of course, but the questions are (1) who's held accountable? (2) how? and (3) should the information have been classified in the first place? IMHO, we spend enormous time and effort hunting down leaks and too little addressing these questions.
Yes, Iβve often wondered what the big deal is about some government secrets. Military stuff I understand but a lot of the rest of it seems pointless.
Maybe this'll help a bit. Informal, but sufficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security It's probably not what you've been led to believe. It might help you decide for yourself what is or isn't a big deal. Personally, I think it's nothing more than a potential political embarrassment or a manipulation or both. Not as big a deal as the wank-publicans would have you believe. They're objective is to distract attention from 1/6, their continued obstructionism, and last but not least, the content itself of the leak. How about distracting attention from even this: https://youtu.be/tJooIcJ-Ppk I've already decided for myself that at least one of the SCOTUS justices is a bald-faced liar, based on info I've already provided elsewhere.
More than one of them. Considering the information the media publishes, itβs hard to imagine how so-called government secrets could be that critical. I often read things in the press and think theyβre a gift to people who want to sabotage us. Thereβs enough publicly available to do a huge amount of harm. Itβs pretty scary.
I just heard a BBC - I think - reporter say he couldn't show Ukrainian defenses, but he described how they're laid out. (You'll excuse me if I don't friggin' repeat it!) Every goddam Russian general was probably sayin': "Thanks for the tip, buddy!"
They get caught. Even if they are whistleblowers, national security is primary.
I did hear some whistleblower cases involving national security, but a judge has to have a top secret clearance to hear the case, the matter is deemed confidential, and the records are sealed. However even wen I sealed them, a circuit court, in an appeal could open the record.
Thanks for your reply, but this isn't the impression you get from the news media. In the initial "breaking news" report, someone leaks to a news outlet who keeps the source confidential. What follows are news reports that they are trying to discover who the leaker is, but have so far failed to uncover the culprit. The matter then drops off as the next news cycle begins. It seems to the general public that they "got away" with it.
Also, I believe that members of Congress and their staff have been exposed in the past as leakers without anything happening to them.
Believe me if it's top secret, the FBI and other police agencies are all over it. Many people spend jail time.
When was the last time someone got prosecuted for this crime?
I think of September 11 and John F. Kennedy assassination. Why place those files out of reach of the public. We pay for the CIA and FBI and yet are not allowed access.
You're right. Still waiting for all the Bay of Pigs documents.
But those are historical. There's a war in Europe. What gets me is why should the NYT give fodder to Putin?
Yesterday NYT ran a column. Peter Beinart, Biden Could Make the World Safer, but Heβs Too Afraid of the Politics, May 9, 2022. If I were the Times, I would send Beinart to Fox. I find this unconscionable. Wars have started on media spreading false rumors. And if the Biden Administration is negotiating, this can constitute interference.
Every day.
Again, why does no one know? Who is being protected? The people? Or the criminals? What is the purpose of not letting We the People know about these "every day" prosecutions?
None of the cable news stations. I haven't heard of everyone. However, I was questioning any of the so called elite, well known people, not the bottom feeders. That would make real breakthrough news.
And why is that "top secret?"
Designated so. Most of my cases were nuclear and environmental whistleblowers. Not criminal cases. But the violation could be criminal.
So "whistleblowers" are being put in jail? The definition of a whistleblower is someone who exposes a cover-up, and cover-ups are usually for things the government does not want We the People to know it is doing. Whistleblowers should be REWARDED, not put in jail! When the government is harming the environment, they should be called to task. I don't know what kind of nuclear secrets are being kept, but what is the reason for them in the first place? Do we not live in a democracy?
Maybe a solution to the "leaking" is to have the need for fewer secrets. I get it that some things need to be secret until the event happens, but the Supreme Court proceedings do not need to be secret to the extent they are. When the Court is discussing things that will impact all of our lives, a quick surprise at the end of June is not OK. The justices can run out of town for the summer, so never have to stand up in public for what they have decided and can't be persuaded by those people who will be impacted that their decision is poorly thought-out and harmful as the Roe v. Wade decision is likely to be. I am so glad it was "leaked." I am just sorry Republicans can cling to that leak as the problem when it is actually taking away the bodily autonomy of women with a potential future removal of personhood for people who are not white, straight, Christian and male by the court that is the real problem. I want more leaks like this one. The Ukrainian leak not so much because the world could be at risk with that kind of leak. R.Sheets
I agree with you, Ruth. Supreme Court deliberations should be public. Even the Federal Reserve Board's Open Market Committee goes to great lengths to make public its deliberations, and the thoughts that go into its final decisions. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court be more transparent?
My initial thought was that the reason the leaks occurred had to do with information that somebody actually wanted to leak, maybe as a test of collective opinion and response, or for other reasons. This more salacious reasoning, though, also makes sense. The sense of empowerment by being "in the know" could indeed be quite intoxicating.
Can be a form of psy-ops attempting to keep opposing political parties in mortal combat. Robert says: "Some people in Washington leak information to the media to make themselves feel important. Others, to kill initiatives they donβt like. Others, to fuel initiatives they want. A few (journalists, spies, inside traders) make money by buying and selling leaks."
I assume that Politico, NYT, WAPO, having been burned several times, double and triple checked out the sources of leaks. That may be the real story. They say they have a first amendment right -- a journalistic duty -- not to divulge sources.
Right! So a leak must be confirmed prior to being printed or reported so that means that other βleakersβ are available to confirm!
I understand the need for military silence and sometimes privacy during policy discussions but it seems that too many people think their discussions are in themselves worthy of secrecy. Maybe that is the power of the leakerβtelling us what should have been open discussion in the first place.
I like that "telling us what should have been open discussion in the first place," Nancy. Not sure that it's always true. But it's sort of like beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
"Loose lips sink ships"
Ya... Further down in the article he did cover some of my original thinking. Still, my angle on it going into the article was coming from a different place.
Consider...onward Christian soldiers....
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/religious-division-supreme-court-abortion_n_6277e6a2e4b009a811c4ec3f
Operation Mockingbird left us with many questions regarding our media, who writes what, were they leaks, or merely psy-ops written as dis/misinformation for βWe the Peopleβ. Sibel Edmunds was one of the more curiously gagged cases Iβve followed, no one could, nor would, publish her story until Larry Flynt finally did in Hustler( the only time I ever bought one).
Having worked with many government contractors, mostly defense, I know of many loose lips. Iβm still betting on Ginny Thomas as this leak...
With this kind of danger, it is information that Is nothing to play with.
Agreed. Just because that kind of leakage shows up in the plots of political dramas doesn't mean those dramas don't include some measure of reality.
And it's not just a 'play' if it's real.
You know the old saying in the arts: "Art reflects reality."
Yes, this is why, when I consider the topic of security, Edgar Allen Poeβs βThe Purloined Letterβ comes to mind.
What β½ Have you had a close encounter with a magpie - or whatever the hell the damn thing was? Of course, if you're talking about the unexplained loss of something really important, well yes indeed that can happen. Making important documents disappear is a damn cottage industry in DC! Ever hear of "social engineering?"
Sorry for being vague. In Poeβs story, the clever detective found the letter where no one else thought to look: in a shelf of a writing desk. My point is, sometimes an object in plain view is overlooked β and therefore has the best security.
Randy Gaul ; And deadly. Potentially for billions!
Bullseye!
Sometimes the motivation is to right a wrong. I was a staff member at EPA when I leaked a confidential document about a pesticide to an environmental organization that was suing to stop the Reagan EPA from approving it for use. The document showed that the chemical was much more persistent in the environment than most people were led to believe. I don't know if my leak helped, but the court issued a restraining order and the pesticide was never approved.
Kudos to you, Michael. The line between whistle-blower and leaker is getting blurrier by the day. Much comes down to a moral-ethnical issue: When do people who know secrets that would outrage the public if widely known have an obligation to leak them?
πππ
Might I add, since weβre very comfortable giving women this narrative, men love gossip the MOST! One company town of men(& women I know but lots of men) that are so ready to talk, leak....if you think gal pals are bad when they get together, donβt worry Iβll wait.
Thank you Robert Reich for helping me better understand how leakes work bringing more careful awareness to my own behavior. Some of us outside Washington "pissing in" have been tempted to "be someone" by letting slide "confidential information to a "trusted" listener, when a credible true Patriot may have done something, rather than saying something. A true Statesman would always have thought out in advance if they would be comfortable they can defend what they said before they say it, but it's a high bar to sustain. Again, thank you Robert!
I understand secrecy in a dictatorship, because it upholds the dictator. (This does not mean I agree with dictatorships!) I do not understand secrecy in a democracy. How is the public supposed to make informed choices of whom to vote for if they do not have all the information to be informed.
We all know real government happens BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, but if we knew what went on behind those doors we would probably make different choices.
The only good thing I have to say about the Trump era (and even that is not a true description) is that Trump was arrogant enough to think what he said and did should be known to the public. (Raking leaves to prevent forest fires!, etc.) The public got to see how stupid he truly was.
Mdanwhile, in a secrecy-laden democracy, the people often have no idea of the things that their elected representatives do. THAT IS TOTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC. If it has to be done in secret, it is probably not to We the People's advantage!
'tis indeed a conundrum - particularly with regard to national security. I'd settle on understanding that just as the Platonic solids can't possibly exist in reality, there can be no functionally >perfect< democracy. That's the mystery of "the crack in the liberty bell." (Consider a democracy of slave owners as existed here in the US in 1787!) Just remember the words in the Preamble: "in order to form a >more perfect< union."
With regards to national security. I must ask, whose security? The citizens'? The government's? Or the ruling party's? During the Cold War there was so much secrecy, American citizens cannot know for sure all the decisions that were taken behind clised doors. But the Cold War is over. What is still being hidden from We the People, and WHY? The truth to that question is not "in the telling," but rather in the 'discovering of the telling" through leaks and other (intentional?) misspeaks.
The better question you - or for that matter, anyone else reading this - should ask is: "What is national security?": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security Informal, but accurate.
the growing consensus is that ginni thomas is the source of the SCOTUS leak. (even nina totenberg makes comments that can be interpreted as pointing to thomas.) but i still am unclear how, if ginni thomas is the leak in this case, this shores up her goal to overturn roe v wade. (yes, like everyone, i've got a long list of suspicions, but no firm conclusions.) what do you think? shall we all make a list of potential leakers, their goals and how this particular leak might strengthen their position as they seek to accomplish their goal(s)?
The narrative I keep hearing is that Roberts has been trying to peal Gorsuch off the majority in this opinion, and the leak was made by someone in (or close to) the majority who wanted to lock Gorsuch into the majority's position.
Ah, thatβs interesting. And completely unethical. But what they didnβt reckon on was the mobilization of the opposition.
Yeah, I donβt understand that either. What would she have to gain?
Alito himself has most to gain and for sure most immoral and ignorant of all Justices which becomes very obvious listening to oral arguments conversation between attorneys and Alito.
I donβt understand. Why does he have anything to gain?
I think there is a line that news media should not cross - not because of legality but because of patriotism. Unless they are doing something treasonous and illegal, like tfg, the administration should be able to conduct foreign policy with secrecy from its foreign adversaries. The military leaks were dangerous and unpatriotic. Other leaks are mostly information that should never have been secret in the first place. And thank you to the media for bringing it to light independent of the motives of the leakers.
however, media keeps non secret from us as they want whatever to be a secret because of their bias. So I think add the intentional keeping news from public with such a very small news out universe needs added to your - media should not cross. But the lack of anti trust laws being enforced who is going to enforce when no real competition exists in so called media.
It is said that Washington, DC is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I say it's never more beautiful than when seen in the rear-view mirror!
Sometimes we assign too much meaning to the leakers motivation. "Was it a right winger who wanted to shore up right wing support and put Alito in a box?" or "Was it a lefty sounding the alarm?"
I will take a wild guess and suggest that it was someone who is normally ignored at parties and meetings. Someone who wanted to elevate his or her status as an "information merchant". Perhaps it could lead to a better job. There is a great quote from Tyrion Lannister in "The Game of Thrones":
"I drink and I know things".
We all know people who love to "tell us stuff" that we haven't heard yet. Their insecurities feed the need. And truth be told, there is a little bit of this in most of us.
Your comment reminds me of the song in βThe Music Man,β βPick a Little, Talk a Little.β The society women are vying to see who gets to tell a nasty (and untrue) secret about Marian the librarian, and finally the overbearing dowager, played by Hermione Gingold, settles the matter by proclaiming, β*Iβll* tell.β
I've got a t-shirt with Tyrion's quote on it.
Nice. I have a pint glass with the same. Best character of the show!
and for sure of Alito - he had it leaked for your reason and his personal convictions be damn the law which HE deems wrong in first place
Absolutely amazing and bright. Which translates into the fact that there is no sense of Community or Nationality in America. There is a false sense of brotherhood one could day. Individual power and money runs the country and every office. The fake and absurd sense of individualism is killing America from the top down and what is preposterous is that the βreasonable manβ the lay person is down there at the bottom of the line dragged into the big playerβs game. Disgustedly wrong.
Robert's reasoning for why Washington is quite "leaky" makes sense, and suggests that its been this way for a long time, at least with the leaks contained mostly to just Washington. The advent of multiple salacious leaks hitting the public sphere regularly seems much more recent- starting in 2016 or thereabouts.
I agree with Robert that efforts to stop leaks are futile - I think the issue that causes the leaks is more foundational, which is likely bad news for the immediate future. I see 2 foundational issues:
1 - our government institutions are operating with open disrespect for both the citizens *and* for the reputation of the institution itself. The sense of honor or decorum, that would keep leaks contained to smaller groups, seems to be gone from most government offices. I see this as an inevitable result of government officials openly lying and bullying in public with no consequences (in fact, they are often rewarded). Without the glue of civil behavior, group cohesion crumbles.
2 - Too much of our media is rewarded singularly by # of clicks - and those horrific or scandalous leaks grab eyeballs much more than conscientious and truthful reporting. In the increasingly post-truth world the the gop is pushing, emotional reactions are more valuable to media owners than an honest "scoop".
The trends of both items above are heading us towards more leaks, I think. Perhaps we will reach leak saturation and then reason 2 above will weaken.
2 - Too much of our media is rewarded singularly by # of clicks - and those horrific or scandalous leaks grab eyeballs much more than conscientious and truthful reporting. In the increasingly post-truth world the the gop is pushing, emotional reactions are more valuable to media owners than an honest "scoop".
The trends of both items above are heading us towards more leaks, I think. Perhaps we will reach leak saturation and then reason 2 above will weaken.
When a leak could jeopardize national security at the level of a nuclear war, one has to wonder if they live here or have loved ones here. Once nukes are tossed around there really is no getting away with it. "The air, the air, is everywhere! Breathe deep while you sleep;; breathe deep!"!. How clueless can a person be?
Ukraine's president and CNN is how clueless or worse
Hey! If anyone here is a DC denizen, please see the update response I made to my comment yesterday on the 9th Amendment and start "leaking" >that< around! You can spread the comment itself around, too, if it suits you! (Hell! If that's what it takes in DC, might as well leverage it for what it's worth!)
This may have a silver lining. If there is enough public outcry, there may be an opportunity to add more justices to the court, something that previously seemed out of the question, if not heresy. I think it was the New Yorker that published a cartoon of Snow White talking to 9 dwarves, "No one said you had to be 9."