The Problem With Impeachment?

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House The Problem With Impeachment?

  • This topic has 36 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by wv.
Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 37 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #105771
    zn
    Moderator
    #105777
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Copied and pasted from the meme thread:

    Zooey wrote:

    Two sockets in the same outlet. One is Republican. The other is Democrat

    Normally, I like Hedges’ work. But in this case, he’s written a seriously flawed article, steeped in straw men and bizarre rationales.

    First, no one is saying that if we impeach and remove Trump, we’ll solve all the world’s problems, including those he mentions. We’re saying Trump has committed impeachable offenses and should be held accountable. As in, this is about Trump, not remaking the world into a beautiful place of goodness, truth and light.

    Hedges’ argument is all too similar to the one used by “gun rights” advocates. “Banning certain kinds of weapons, adding this or that regulation, won’t stop every act of violence, so why bother?”

    There’s probably a Latin term for that kind of specious argument, but I can’t remember it at the moment.

    It’s also absurd to suggest we shouldn’t hold him accountable because his fan base has guns. Come on, man!! Since when do leftists avoid doing the right thing because it may piss off the bad guys further? And, yes, they wouldn’t be the poor, supposedly beleaguered white working class if they decided to take up arms against their fellow Americans. They’d just be fascist brown shirts. I thought leftists were against fascism.

    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by Billy_T.
    #105778
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Second post:

    It shouldn’t need saying . . . but “impeachment,” of course, doesn’t mean removal. It’s basically just a fact-finding process. The House can’t remove Trump. The Senate has to do that. And they won’t.

    Those of us who advocate for impeachment likely know this and have factored it in.

    If the GOP-controlled Senate were to vote to remove Trump, it would almost certainly be because overwhelming evidence had been found and presented to the public. This would also almost certainly take the wind out of the sails of would-be rioters, etc. At the very least, it would destroy any kind of consensus “support” for their actions.

    I also can’t help but think that Hedges would be writing something altogether different if this had been a Dem. I hate to be in the position of sounding like I’m defending them — I detest both parties — but with the advent of Trump, certain people on the left, IMO, apply obvious double standards in their levels of outrage. If it’s Trump, it’s “whatever.” If it’s the Dems, it’s full speed ahead with attacks.

    We have two right-wing parties to deal with, tragically. The Dems are the lesser obstacle in the way of progress. It’s never made any sense to me that leftists would seemingly get more upset with that lesser obstacle, all but giving the GOP a pass.

    Recognizing greater versus lesser threats is essential. Both/and critiques. Not either/or.

    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by Billy_T.
    #105781
    zn
    Moderator

    Thanks BT.

    .

    #105783
    wv
    Participant

    Fwiw,
    41 percent of Independents support Impeachment.
    38 percent of Independents oppose impeachment.
    21 percent are Unsure.
    According to Harris poll.

    #105805
    Zooey
    Moderator

    Billy_T wrote:
    Apologies for actual opinion posts in the meme thread.

    Yeah, and I’m going to respond, so…zn…maybe you could cut this all and start a new thread with Hedges as the anchor?

    IMO, this is more than just about Trump. It’s about the presidency…for me it is, anyway. Who knows what everyone else wants. The power of the executive has been growing, and over the decades, it has swallowed up some power that used to belong to the legislature. Trump has expanded it. And, sure, some of his crimes are the Same Old crimes that he just is too stupid to conceal. Hedges is right about that; he’s right that the oligarchy doesn’t mind what Trump does so much as the manner in which he does it. But the fact that he is doing in brazenly – $274 million in taxpayer money to go golf at his own course, for example – expands what future presidents can do without reproach. I don’t like it.

    #105815
    zn
    Moderator

    Thanks z.

    And…interesting thread.

    #105821
    Billy_T
    Participant

    The plot thickens . . . .

    Yesterday we also learned that:

    1. Trump involved China, too, in the search for dirt on the Bidens
    2. The White House locked away phone transcripts on calls to Putin and MBS in the double secret covert ops system
    3. The envoy for the Ukraine, Volker (named in the whistleblower complaint) resigned
    4. We know why these men are laughing now

    #105822
    Billy_T
    Participant

    I tried to include all four links in one post, and this site doesn’t seem to like that. Kept booting me out. So I’ll try just one.

    link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/us/politics/nsc-ukraine-call.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

    White House Classified Computer System Is Used to Hold Transcripts of Sensitive Calls

    Current and former officials said the White House used a highly classified computer system accessible to only a select few officials to store transcripts of calls from President Vladimir Putin and the Saudi royal family.

    #105823
    Billy_T
    Participant

    The site didn’t like an excerpt after this link for some reason. Trying again with the link, only.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

    To me, it’s one thing for a citizen of the world to make such a comment. I do it meself. Empires battle in this way. They always have. Yes, we interfere all around the world. But a president shouldn’t be the person doing that, especially in the presence of representatives of a nation that helped get him elected, often clandestinely.

    Trump isn’t that intellectual, looking from the outside in. He’s one of the major players on the world stage, as president. It’s his task to actually protect and defend the sovereignty of nation that put him in the White House, and that includes hardening the election system. He’s done nothing, and has personally welcomed further help from foreign nationals, along with seeking it out aggressively . . . or trying to extort it, as in the case of the Ukraine.

    He’s done a thousand and one things that rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

    #105824
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Another way to put it:

    A critic of a system doesn’t welcome help from another system doing the same thing. It’s beyond hypocritical. If one seeks the moral high ground, he or she says no to all of it.

    It’s kind of like a person who rails (justly, correctly) against American factory farm practices, the way it treats animals, the way it harms the environment and the health of consumers . . . . but invests heavily in another nation’s factory farm system doing the same thing, with the same effects.

    Say no to both.

    #105825
    zn
    Moderator

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

    That’s the Washington Post and they have limited access only. So I’m just going to provide the whole article, here.

    THE ARTICLE:

    Trump told Russian officials in 2017 he wasn’t concerned about Moscow’s interference in U.S. election

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

    President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.

    The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the previous day had relieved “great pressure” on him.

    A memorandum summarizing the meeting was limited to a few officials with the highest security clearances in an attempt to keep the president’s comments from being disclosed publicly, according to the former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

    The White House’s classification of records about Trump’s communications with foreign officials is now a central part of the impeachment inquiry launched this week by House Democrats. An intelligence community whistleblower has alleged that the White House placed a record of Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president, in which he offered U.S. assistance investigating his political opponents, into a code-word classified system reserved for the most sensitive intelligence information.

    The White House did not provide a comment Friday.

    It is not clear whether a memo documenting the May 10, 2017, meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak was placed into that system, but the three former officials said it was restricted to a very small number of people. The White House had recently begun limiting the records of Trump’s calls after remarks he made to the leaders of Mexico and Australia appeared in news reports. The Lavrov memo was restricted to an even smaller group, the former officials said.

    A fourth former official, who did not recall the president’s remarks to the Russian officials, said memos were restricted only to people who needed to know their contents.

    “It was more about learning how can we restrict this in a way that still informs the policy process and the principals who need to engage with these heads of state,” the fourth former official said.

    But the three former officials with knowledge of the remarks said some memos of the president’s communications were kept from people who might ordinarily have access to them. The Lavrov memo fit that description, they said.

    White House officials were particularly distressed by Trump’s election remarks because it appeared the president was forgiving Russia for an attack that had been designed to help elect him, the three former officials said. Trump also seemed to invite Russia to interfere in other countries’ elections, they said.

    The previous day, Trump had fired Comey amid the FBI’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign had coordinated with Russia. White House aides worried about the political ramifications if Trump’s comments to the Russian officials became public.

    Trump had publicly ridiculed the Russia investigation as politically motivated and said he doubted Moscow had intervened in the election. By the time he met with Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump had been briefed by the most senior U.S. intelligence officials about the Russian operation, which was directed by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and included the theft and publication of Democratic emails and the seeding of propaganda in social media, according to the findings of the U.S. intelligence community.

    Trump’s firing of Comey touched off an investigation into whether the president had tried to obstruct the FBI’s probe. His comments about Comey’s dismissal being a relief, which were first reported the same month by the New York Times, reinforced suspicions that Trump dismissed Comey because the FBI was investigating him.

    According to the fourth former official, Trump lamented to Lavrov that “all this Russia stuff” was detrimental to good relations. Trump also complained, “I could have a great relationship with you guys, but you know, our press,” this former official said, characterizing the president’s remarks.

    H.R. McMaster, the president’s then-national security adviser, repeatedly told Trump he could not trust the Russians, according to two former officials.

    On some areas, Trump conveyed U.S. policy in a constructive way, such as telling the Russians that their aggression in Ukraine was not good, one of those former officials said.

    “What was difficult to understand was how they got a free pass on a lot of things — election security and so forth,” this former official said. “He was just very accommodating to them.”

    The former official observed that Trump has “that streak of moral equivalency,” recalling how he once dismissed a question about the assassination of journalists and dissidents in Putin’s Russia by telling Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly: “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?”

    Another former official said Trump wasn’t the only one to conflate Russia’s interference in the U.S. elections with U.S. efforts to promote democracy and good governance abroad.

    The president and his top aides seemed not to understand the difference between Voice of America, a U.S.-supported news organization that airs in foreign countries, with Russian efforts to persuade American voters by surreptitiously planting ads in social media, this person said.

    One former senior official said Trump regularly defended Russia’s actions, even in private, saying no country is pure. “He was always defensive of Russia,” this person said, adding the president had never made such a specific remark about interference in their presence.

    “He thought the whole interference thing was ridiculous. He never bought into it.”

    #105826
    zn
    Moderator

    The site didn’t like an excerpt after this link for some reason.

    Not sure why but I think what happened there is you triggered the site’s anti-spam defenses. That happens to me sometimes too. The technical aspects of this are way over my head, I only know the effects. Now and then, not often, I will try to post something and the site won’t let me…it’s because for reasons I cannot figure out, it has taken some material I want to post as spam and is blocking it. That occassional inconvenience is worth the protection, though, because I have seen it where spam bots take over the entire site and you have to delete dozens of things. So I figure, a small price to pay.

    #105827
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Thanks, ZN.

    Yeah, I think it likely saw the four links in a row as spam, and then saw the one excerpt in the same way.

    Agreed. Much better to have strong protections here than not. Bots and so on have only gotten exponentially worse over time. I see that with my own website.

    I’ll gladly trade a bit of temporary inconvenience, etc. etc.

    #105828
    Zooey
    Moderator

    Oh…and another thing on Hedges…

    Hillary Clinton hiring a law firm that hires FusionGPS that hires Christopher Steele is not equivalent legally or morally to what Trump did. I don’t think I even need to explain that claim.

    #105833
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Oh…and another thing on Hedges…

    Hillary Clinton hiring a law firm that hires FusionGPS that hires Christopher Steele is not equivalent legally or morally to what Trump did. I don’t think I even need to explain that claim.

    Good point, Zooey. And, as you know, the GOP set all of that in motion in the first place. It originated as oppo research against Trump by other Republicans, including a right-wing media outlet.

    I can’t stand the Clintons, especially Bill. He was a terrible president, and governed from the center-right, which actually set the table for Trump.

    But I also think certain leftists grade them on a much, much tougher scale than Trump’s or the GOP’s. The latter are graded on a curve.

    Hedges’ comment about Clinton’s lies being worse than Trump’s is another howler. Yeah, she lied. Yeah, her husband lied. All too often. But they’re angels of truth in comparison with Trump and his 12,000 lies just since taking office.

    Trump told his base that their enemies were migrants, Muslims, people of color, the media and leftists in general. That’s straight out of Hitler’s playbook. He lied endlessly about foreign workers and other nations coming to steal their jobs and destroy their way of life. Nothing the Clintons have ever said comes close to the odious nature of that lie.

    Or coal workers? Telling them Trump will bring back their jobs and their culture? That he’ll “make America great again,” which is code for making it white again? Did the Clintons ever suggest such a loathsome thing as that?

    The wall? Mexico paying for it? etc. etc.

    Come on, Mr. Hedges. While it’s true that the Clintons are rotten, they just don’t play in the same league of rottenness as Trump and all too much of the GOP. By all means, he’s right to critique them harshly … the Dems, the establishment, our system — all of it. But if he’s going to make comparisons between the two wings of the Money Party, he needs to get that right. That’s Step One on the road to possible reform, if not outright ending their reign — the best of all worlds.

    #105834
    Zooey
    Moderator

    You guys may have seen this, but Jeff Flake said that if the impeachment vote were private rather than public, about 35 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump. His support is razor thin and completely dependent upon Fear of Reprisal (from voters or the party machine).

    I wanna say that, in my study of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (as well as my personal experience with narcissists), one characteristic is the complete inability to accept blame for anything. They have a extremely strong compulsion to deflect any criticism at all.

    I think that we could see a Great Unraveling.

    Trump already said to the cameras that Pence’s phone calls should be looked at. Whether there is anything there or not, he is pushing his VP into the spotlight as a deflective shield. And he won’t hesitate to do that to ANYBODY (with the exception of Ivanka).

    There are a lot of people involved in this. Trump didn’t classify all these phone calls in an inappropriate place. He isn’t smart enough to do that, and probably has no understanding of classifications anyway. Somebody else did that. Probably multiple people. And we’ve just started on this. Given what we’ve seen over the past 3 years, does anybody doubt that there is an exceedingly long and impressive list of illegal maneuvers like this that have taken place to cover up the narcissistic lawlessness of this overconfident, entitled, ignorant, and frankly stupid man?

    The more Trump unravels, the more people are going to try to save themselves, and the more people who head for the lifeboats, the more he is going to unravel.

    And there are already people who have left – Tillerson and others – who may decide to speak their minds.

    Dunno. Hate making predictions because I get so many wrong, and that’s humiliating. But this looks like the beginning of the Grand Finale in a 3-year long fireworks show. And I say that based mostly on my certainty of what to expect from Donald Trump. It IS safe to predict that he will lose his shit. A “normal” person might be patient and ride out the storm, tacking this way and that, absorbing a hit here and there with an eye on the shore, but Trump is not that guy. He’s not. And nobody has been able to restrain him yet.

    #105835
    Billy_T
    Participant

    I saw something similar, Zooey. But I don’t think it was from Flake. The count was 30 in that one. So it’s going up.

    Agreed about the likely culprits, regarding the double-secret, covert ops electronic system, abusing that system, etc. Trump is too dumb and too incurious to have figured that one out on his own.

    Still, I can’t help but think about the GOP going ballistic over HRC’s use of a private server, and how her emails dominated media coverage a few years ago. Again, Trump and the GOP are graded on a curve, so this won’t get the same attention, even though it’s a thousand times worse.

    You probably saw Trump’s slightly veiled threat against whistleblowers. That they used to execute them.

    He’s already lost it.

    #105836
    Zooey
    Moderator

    Jeff Flake says ‘at least 35’ Republican senators would privately vote to impeach Trump
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeff-flake-35-gop-senators-impeach-trump

    #105839
    Cal
    Participant

    Does anyone know / can you speculate why Trump released the transcript?

    Does Trump have to make transcripts of phone calls public because it’s an official communication, like Hillary’s emails, as long as they go through the process of being declassified?

    Why can’t / didn’t Trump just try to claim executive privilege over this phone call? Isn’t that what he’s pretty much done in the past with the Mueller investigation? Trump just said no to revealing anything that gets to close to revealing damaging information so in the Mueller mess Trump never even talked to Mueller.

    #105841
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Does anyone know / can you speculate why Trump released the transcript?

    Does Trump have to make transcripts of phone calls public because it’s an official communication, like Hillary’s emails, as long as they go through the process of being declassified?

    Why can’t / didn’t Trump just try to claim executive privilege over this phone call? Isn’t that what he’s pretty much done in the past with the Mueller investigation? Trump just said no to revealing anything that gets to close to revealing damaging information so in the Mueller mess Trump never even talked to Mueller.

    I could be wrong about this, but I think Trump honestly believed it was exculpatory. It wasn’t really a transcript. It was more of a summary of the phone call, which left out most of it. Apparently, the call lasted 30 minutes or so. So they cherry picked the part they thought made them look good.

    This, to me, shows how stupid Trump really is . . . and/or how his need for endless flattery and affirmation led to truly bad advice.

    As you note … a sidebar to all of this is the fact that Mueller’s team was denied access to — and/or didn’t know anything about — certain rather important communications, which obviously hindered that investigation. Mueller said this in his report.

    I hope the Dems look deeply into that aspect, and do whatever it takes to make public those communications. Sunlight as disinfectant, etc.

    (I think the Dems are making a big mistake if they really do intend to keep this solely about the Ukraine.)

    #105843
    Zooey
    Moderator

    Yeah, from what I’ve read, Billy is right; they thought the paraphrased phone call would exonerate Trump. They’ve used that tactic before to get away with stuff. (By “that tactic,” I mean relying on the fact that there is only circumstantial evidence, not blatant evidence. That’s how they dodged the entire charge of collusion with Russia. There was no documented evidence of “If you do this, we will do that”).

    But watch this bit by Trevor Noah…

    Start at 5:20

    And Billy, the Democrats aren’t going to make this just about the Ukraine. Maxine Waters has said that the Democrats have had six different committees investigating Trump since January (including the committee she chairs, Financial Services), and that they intend to all sit down, sort through what they have, and draft Articles of Impeachment. They are going to be thorough about this because everything is at stake. If they fail to win the vote of Impeachment, Pelosi and the Democrats are going down in flames. They have crossed the Rubicon, and they intend to win. They KNOW they are going to win. Pelosi wouldn’t have launched this without knowing for CERTAIN that she had more than enough votes to impeach him. That’s part of why she waited this long. Not because she doesn’t have a spine, but because she knew it would be disaster if they failed to pass the resolution. Yes, there has been plenty of evidence for impeachment since before the 2018 election, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is, and always will be, marshaling the votes to pass something.

    So they have been collecting evidence since Day One of the 116th congress. That compilation of evidence has slowly persuaded more and more representatives to sign onto impeachment. Ukraine isn’t what suddenly flipped the switch. It was more like the straw that broke the camel’s back. I expect all six investigations to contribute their strongest evidence of malfeasance to the Articles, and they are going to drop that indictment like a planeload of bricks on that asshole’s sorry orange head. Anything short of that would be monumentally foolish, and say what you want about Pelosi, she is nobody’s fool.

    There is a motive for centering on the Ukraine issue, though, and that quite simply is that election interference is a huge issue for the Democrats, and they have to do everything in their power to shine light on the Republicans’ election rigging. That is seriously the only thing keeping the minority party in power. The only thing. If they didn’t cheat, the Democrats would completely control the government. So using election-rigging as the main rail is brilliant. It not only cripples Trump, it puts McConnell directly in the sunlight, as you put it. Surely Pelosi and Schumer are smart enough to see that, and use it to force election security. (Surely? They will, won’t they?)

    #105852
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Zooey,

    Hope you’re right about the strategy. We’ll see. As always with the Dems, you get conflicting reports. It’s what they do. They just don’t have the same kind of message discipline as the GOP. Never have. Though the GOP seems to be off their game a bit lately. Not sure if you caught this, but the White House emailed talking points to their team, but included the Dems by mistake.

    Whoops!!

    ;>)

    Another side-note: I find this seriously disturbing and ominous . . .

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/28/amateur-pro-trump-sleuths-scramble-unmask-whistleblower-your-president-has-asked-your-help/

    By Craig Timberg and
    Drew Harwell
    September 28 at 7:00 AM

    The looming battle over President Trump’s potential impeachment has sparked an online hunt in the far-right corners of the Web as self-styled Internet sleuths race to identify the anonymous person Trump has likened to a treasonous spy.

    Their guesses have been scattershot, conspiratorial and often untethered from reality, spanning a wide range of such unlikely contenders as presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner and Vice President Pence.

    Some of the online commentators and anonymous posters said they have been spurred to action by Trump’s fury, foreshadowing the online clashes that are likely to engulf any upcoming impeachment hearings and the 2020 campaign.

    “Carpet bomb the memes. Everywhere,” one anonymous poster on the message board 4chan wrote in response to one of Trump’s angry tweets about the whistleblower. “Time to rise up. Your president has asked for your help.”

    #105855
    Zooey
    Moderator

    Was just skimming Tweeter, and found this:

    #105857
    Zooey
    Moderator

    As for the heavily-armed nazi neanderthals…I worry about them, too, sometimes.

    But…I have to say, I take solace in the fact that they haven’t ever organized to do anything, really. There have been a few individuals who have done terrible, violent acts, but so far they haven’t put together any unified act. The day that happens…jeezus. I’d hate to see that barrier break.

    However, given their numbers, their extremely loud and belligerent talk, they appear to be just a bunch of tough-talking bullies without the actual balls to follow through. They all seem to be waiting for other people to go first. It is frightening that we are poised here. Hopefully, we can turn back the tide, and make Nazis unpopular again before a group DOES make a concerted action. Because I fear that once that boundary is crossed, other groups will be emboldened to follow.

    #105861
    Zooey
    Moderator

    By the way…there are also phone calls between Trump and Putin, and between Trump and Mohammed BS in the “vault.”

    I didn’t know this before, but Kashoggi was investigating Trump’s connection to the Saudis at the time he was murdered.

    The transcripts of those phone calls are kind of relevant, I’d say.

    #105862
    Billy_T
    Participant

    By the way…there are also phone calls between Trump and Putin, and between Trump and Mohammed BS in the “vault.”

    I didn’t know this before, but Kashoggi was investigating Trump’s connection to the Saudis at the time he was murdered.

    The transcripts of those phone calls are kind of relevant, I’d say.

    That’s a big, big deal. Mueller and his team did not have access to any of that material. Who knows if they even knew it existed? My guess is they didn’t.

    Given that we now know Trump told his laughing Russian friends in the Oval Office that he didn’t care at all about their election interference, his phone calls with Putin are very likely damning.

    Oh, and then there’s this. I’d say this should be added to the impeachment articles when they come:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/state-dept-intensifies-email-probe-of-hillary-clintons-former-aides/2019/09/28/9f15497e-e1f2-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

    Excerpt:

    By Greg Miller ,
    Greg Jaffe and
    Karoun Demirjian
    September 28 at 7:47 PM

    The Trump administration is investigating the email records of dozens of current and former senior State Department officials who sent messages to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email, reviving a politically toxic matter that overshadowed the 2016 election, current and former officials said.

    As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by State Department investigators — a list that includes senior officials who reported directly to Clinton as well as others in lower-level jobs whose emails were at some point relayed to her inbox, said current and former State Department officials. Those targeted were notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now constitute potential security violations, according to letters reviewed by The Washington Post.

    [emphasis mine, etc.]

    #105863
    Billy_T
    Participant

    We’ve reached the 1984 stage in this monstrosity.

    #105864
    zn
    Moderator

    See this made a good independent thread. Thanks for moving stuff.

    #105902
    wv
    Participant

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 37 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.