Jump to content

TXSG8R

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2,825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TXSG8R

  1. So the DCCC is enabling these Republican fascist candidates, and your issue is with the DCCC for amplifying them, and not the RNC for giving them a seat at the table?
  2. Would being part of the federalist society be an easier filter to apply to partisan piece of shit judges?
  3. If oath keepers were recognized as a terrorist organization or something similar, it would be a slam dunk. As it is, you would have to prove direct participation of the individual in something against the govt since the entity isn’t recognized as something a service member can’t join. Plenty of BLM people did sketchy stuff after Floyd, but we aren’t painting the entire org as something criminal. The army’s definition for extremist groups is Until someone pins the tail on the donkey, the entity won’t be guilty because of the actions of some of its members.
  4. Yes, anyone participating should be charged and punished. What I meant was that member of the oath keepers participating in j6 doesn’t necessarily mean the oath keepers as an entity is guilty of wanting to overthrow the govt. Some private in Kentucky joining for a cool sticker for his truck and patch for his jacket based on their literature wouldn’t be guilty of anything if their stated goal is to uphold their oath to the constitution. You would have to prove they knew they were joining a group adverse to the US govt.
  5. I think you would have to prove they are adverse to the US govt. Literature/docs saying their stated goal is overthrowing the US govt, that sort of thing. I doubt their members participating in J6 would be enough.
  6. I think what infuriates me the most (and most people that handle CI) is the complete gaslighting by the right on how this is NBD. The definition for classified info always contains “unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause x damage to the national security.” You don’t punish based on actual damage, you punish based on expected damage to national security. These aren’t overdue library books. These aren’t a paperwork issue. It’s a serious fucking crime and we don’t have enough people making that point. Congressional committee silence is deafening. This is another example of what should be a slam dunk bipartisan issue. I get politicians like Rand Paul being partisan shitheels over this, but people that served in the military or on committees with national security concerns should be losing their shit over this. The “HilLaRy wAs WorSE” people saying digital stuff was a bigger risk are also completely full of shit. Yes, there is a larger risk surface for exposure, but it’s also much easier to forensically analyze said exposure and nail down who accessed what, for how long, etc. Physical media in the wild like this just needs to be presumed to be lost to all adversaries, because there is no way to trace who has accessed it, duplicated it, etc once it’s out of a SCIF. That presumption should be a huge factor in indictment and punishment. Biden needs to sign an EO that formalizes a way to track physical media in and out of a SCIF (digital controls are already pretty tight). Create a new SF with material logging and third party (custodian) verification. It also needs to formalize the return of all CI at the end of a president’s tenure with third party auditing prior to the president and his cabinet’s personal belongings being shipped out of the WH grounds. Yes, this will create all kinds of hell for custodians, but the trust system has been exposed. Fix it.
  7. Full disclosure, I never handled anything above secret and never worked in a SCIF that had anything above TS, so I may be wrong for those items. Courier folders are serialized and track what was moved between storage areas. Within a SCIF it’s really up to the custodian and handler of the CI. Documents require a cover folder/sheet when outside of storage. Custodians are required to have an inventory of what’s in their safe, but no formal checking in/out system beyond couriers AFAIK. Inventory is annual (? Local policy could increase reqt but I think annual is minimum) Generally, if an item is in a SCIF, you as a handler are required to show your clearance and need to know for the CI. POTUS or his cabinet get to skip that second part essentially, because POTUS. Custodians don’t sit in the SCIF like a hall monitor, because they are bound by the same need to know rules as handlers. So if Meadows walks in and says I need document X. Custodian opens the safe, leaves the room. So yes, the honor system is a large part of this, because the penalties for anyone not POTUS are so severe that most people don’t push it. Inventory is also more about tracking loss in a catastrophic event and less about tracking items in and out. You as a handler log in and out of a SCIF, but you don’t log items in and out of storage, at least not on standard forms.
  8. If the final arbiters (SC, and many state/circuit courts) are stacked, what difference does that make?
  9. One thing I’m curious about, does POTUS sign an NDA when setting up their handling of classified info like everyone else that gets a clearance? I know the clearance portion is just given when taking the office, but I wonder if they still go through the paper drill with the NDA. That would potentially be another violation they could hang him with. You agree not to discuss or reveal anything you handled post employment, for life.
  10. I think the WH (not just Trumps) takes more leeway wrt the discussion/handling of classified info. The PDB for example, contains plenty of classified info, and probably takes place in the Oval Office, dining room, possibly even the residence depending on the schedule/disposition of the president. What you have to remember is the president is the original classification authority. Everyone not in the big chair gets their authority to handle classified info delegated from the president, so I’m not sure what a custodian can do if an order comes from the WH saying “send these docs, don’t expect them back.” The WH custodian should probably be on the hook for something since storage/security would fall into their lap for anything transferred, but again, if POTUS says give me this classified doc, I don’t know what that person can do or say about it. This is another one of those not fully codified rules around the president that probably needs to be tightened up. Our system relies on a certain level of respect and trust for the office, power, and responsibilities. It’s hard to find a way to check this power without creating another avenue for partisan fuckery.
  11. My guess is most of this stuff wasn’t on site at the WH either, so there should be courier records for the movement from the pentagon or wherever they were stored to the WH SCIF as well.
  12. Is DOJ forced to appeal because of the bad precedent it would set if they go along with it? Would it breathe more life into Trump and his cronies other claims of executive privilege?
  13. The president doesn’t apply for a clearance or get vetted. The second he’s seated he becomes the original classification authority. Everyone else in his cabinet gets classification authority delegated from the president. I’m sure they gave him a class that discussed his ability to classify/declassify and the grave responsibility he now has, and all he heard was he gets to do what he wants with classified shit. He’s absolutely correct about the latter part though.
  14. Those sandwiches aren’t going to make themselves.
  15. Utah’s plane broke. They were on the plane 4 hours before they came back to the terminal. Saw a post with all of the players just sprawled out in the terminal. Guess their coaches had shit to do and bailed on them?
  16. This paper thin defense is going to be hurting the second half of the season, but I like what Napier is doing so far. Etienne needs more touches. Him and AR on a speed option will be a load to deal with.
  17. Apparently this has already been covered somewhat. It will be difficult to nail down how many of those folders were tied to uncovered docs found elsewhere on site or if shit is just completely in the wind. Good thing we have a cooperative ex president that is more concerned about protecting the country’s secrets than his own personal gain…
  18. One thing I would caution, this inventory doesn’t seem to differentiate between classified cover sheets/folders and documents with classified markings anywhere beyond the empty folders. It’s possible that some of the classified documents from those folders were uncovered. Im sure the IC did a count on number of cover sheets/folders and number of individual artifacts presented to figure out if something is unaccounted for.
  19. Usually no. The cover sheets are generic by design. We had a stack of them next to our secret stamp in our SCIF so if you printed something you had a cover sheet ready to go.
  20. Correct, “We can neither confirm nor deny” is the only allowable response to the public for any of this stuff.
  21. Most social media apps have a website you can use. It just makes it more annoying.
  22. Fair point. Maybe she’s banking on CNN’s new RW outreach.
  23. “That just proves he declassified them!” -Maga rube
  24. She’s already dipped her toes into the RW media grift. The money is probably better and it’s less work than lawyering, so I doubt she cares about her license if it translates into a permanent gig on FN.
  25. Yea, I asked about this early on when they were floating the “GSA packed and transported it, not us.” There’s a zero percent chance a GSA employee would see these document cover sheets and not immediately leave the room and call his boss. This evidence removes any chance that this can be blamed on an accident or even negligence. This was intentional espionage.
×
×
  • Create New...