Author Topic: Politics  (Read 17718 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Neumatic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4138
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #525 on: July 29, 2016, 07:19:26 am »
Chip: relax.

I'll admit the idea of Drumpf getting a classified intelligence briefing has me a bit concerned, and the officials are more worried about Drumpf (no mention of Clinton), but the reports are just analytical summaries, "here's the state of things," not who all the Jason Bournes in the field are and what they're up to.  Given that there's not much they can practically DO about things, the intelligence is limited.  It's mostly there to keep them from saying the wrong thing on the campaign trail, this is who not to p1ss off and sh1t like that..  It's basically skipping to the next chapter of the social studies book before the rest of us.

Basically, it's four hours of "hey, there's a tense situation developing in Ghana, so don't say sh1t about Ghana."

Also, don't forget that there are DEGREES of classified information, and that Clinton and Drumpf are NOMINEES, that's all.  It's higher clearance than us, but it's not POTUS level.  Even if Drumpf ran straight to Putin with the information, it's probably information Putin already had courtesy of his own intelligence agency.  You don't get to see the real sh1t until after you've taken the oath.  And Hillary Clinton was the Secretary Of State, these briefings are probably a step DOWN in what she's used to.  Her whole thing will be "is that sh1t still goin' on?" "Yep." "Who's screwing it up? Is it Jerry?" "I can't tell you that now."

And BTW, now that they're NOMINEES officially, they have Secret Service protection AND they're under that much higher level of scrutiny.  So there's an extra layer of protection there.

I'm also relatively sure that, given that this material is classified, that there would be serious consequences in the real world and to the political figures themselves for revealing it.  Since it's an in-person briefing, nothing is being transmitted via e-mail so that's Clinton taken care of (unless she reproduces information in e-mail or discussion, which I don't think she would b/c she's the only one who needs to know the info).  And if Drumpf says something in public or online (he doesn't really use e-mail), that produces evidence that can be used against him.  His Russia hacking comment, which doesn't fit the definition of treason, may have violated the Logan Act, but it's too obscure and unpredictable to use against him.  The kind of violation you're worried about would definitely be actionable.  And I'm certain that the people debriefing him will make sure he understands that, the way that the mafia makes sure you understands the terms of service when you borrow money.

One benefit of Drumpf being a known and consistent liar (he lies 76 percent of the time) is that even if he does let something slip, odds are no one is going to believe him.

The only problem I can see is if Drumpf lets out information during a debate, then we'd have to see how Hillary handles that.  She's a lawyer, so she should be able to not touch that hot potato, but it would be the only instance I could see of them both failing this test at the same time.  How would we react.

And to further attempt to put Chip's mind at ease, here's the Media Matters breakdown of the Hillary e-mail fiasco.  AND... I will straight up admit that this shocked me, fact checkers confirmed that Clinton is the most trustworthy of all the 2016 candidates,  despite her reputation.

Edit: ooh, pretty graph from Politifact illustrating that point:


Although it would be nice to see some comparisons to figures we'd consider paragons of truth, I don't think Politifact goes back that far.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 09:33:06 am by Neumatic »

 

Automatic Image Resize Code