aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Back to this, do you think these cats should be able to publish leaks from the Situation Room? Particularly if they are the only ones who received the leaked material and are angling to score money from it?

Always appreciate your input.

---

First amendment protection for the publication IF they were not complicit in the breach, that is. If they only found out after the fact when they were being given the materials, still can publish it.

---

I think the clubhouse leader might be an intentional leak by the admin to manage Epstein fall out.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Back to this, do you think these cats should be able to publish leaks from the Situation Room? Particularly if they are the only ones who received the leaked material and are angling to score money from it?

Always appreciate your input.

---

First amendment protection for the publication IF they were not complicit in the breach, that is. If they only found out after the fact when they were being given the materials, still can publish it.

---

I think the clubhouse leader might be an intentional leak by the admin to manage Epstein fall out.

---

My god, that is probably the most far-fetched Whoopi Goldberg level take. I think you are better than that.

If the leak was from the SitRoom and it relates to Epstein, then it would be about the meeting the NYT reported on regarding Vance.

But to make any insinuation this was a leak to cover anything up regarding Epstein is abjectly myopic. I think you are a better poster than that.

EFR said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

army01 said:

---

Very few of the jokers in this administration should have a security clearance. Is it any wonder they 1.) don't know how to act within a classified envirnment? 2.) mishandle classified information? 3.) brag about classified information?

---

When did all this happen?

---

A certain signal chat comes to mind...

---

The one where a staffer added the wrong contact to a secure messaging platform approved by security people?

I do remember that. Maybe next time add the context so people know you are spreading "rumors, unconfirmed and false information".

Trying not to get on my soap box that the press isn't some protected class just the establishment that freedom of speech also applies to the written word. "The Press" has corrupted this principal over the last 125 years.

So someone provided classified material to another person or persons and they are selling the information to anyone that will buy it. That is the case I would be making.

I do want to make the point that a judge could order Haberman and company to divulge their sources. If they refuse, they can be held for civil contempt.

Just like during the Plame matter and Judy Miller was jailed for refusing to name her source for her reporting. But that was Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel not DOJ. BTW: Fitzgerald knew that it was Cheney's guy, Armitage that outed Plame to Robert Novak who originally had the story. Judy got additional information from Scooter Libby and that is the source she was protecting. Further remember Fitzgerald is a Comey bestie.

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Back to this, do you think these cats should be able to publish leaks from the Situation Room? Particularly if they are the only ones who received the leaked material and are angling to score money from it?

Always appreciate your input.

---

First amendment protection for the publication IF they were not complicit in the breach, that is. If they only found out after the fact when they were being given the materials, still can publish it.

---

I think the clubhouse leader might be an intentional leak by the admin to manage Epstein fall out.

---

My god, that is probably the most far-fetched Whoopi Goldberg level take. I think you are better than that.

If the leak was from the SitRoom and it relates to Epstein, then it would be about the meeting the NYT reported on regarding Vance.

But to make any insinuation this was a leak to cover anything up regarding Epstein is abjectly myopic. I think you are a better poster than that.

---

FTC...that is the nicest thing you've said.

(cue awwing gif)

For clarity, I am not saying an intentional leak was done to cover up Epstein...I am saying it was done to manage the fallout.

Basically...its the admin saying... "we can't admit to fudging up the roll out...so why dont we pull haberman and swan in here...we play for them the audio...they say it comes from a source on background. This way we can prove there is no conspiracy to our base...and its coming from a MSM source."

That make sense?

Got ya. It still doesn't make sense to me but I can see how you got there.

Just don't think it's anywhere close to reality.

I could of course be wrong, but I will never admit it (actually, I would if it is wrong).

Just think it feels "lazy" to connect the two unless such connection is driven by biased sources.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Got ya. It still doesn't make sense to me but I can see how you got there.

Just don't think it's anywhere close to reality.

I could of course be wrong, but I will never admit it (actually, I would if it is wrong).

Just think it feels "lazy" to connect the two unless such connection is driven by biased sources.

---

For me...the options are:

1. Authorized leak by Susie...
2. Bongino or Patel (who dialed in remotely) recorded it and leaked it.

The only other option is Bondi (who also dialed in remotely)...but those tapes made her sound like a dumbass...so...I'm hard pressed to believe its her.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Got ya. It still doesn't make sense to me but I can see how you got there.

Just don't think it's anywhere close to reality.

I could of course be wrong, but I will never admit it (actually, I would if it is wrong).

Just think it feels "lazy" to connect the two unless such connection is driven by biased sources.

---

For me...the options are:

1. Authorized leak by Susie...
2. Bongino or Patel (who dialed in remotely) recorded it and leaked it.

The only other option is Bondi (who also dialed in remotely)...but those tapes made her sound like a dumbass...so...I'm hard pressed to believe its her.

---

There is another option I laid out earlier. Staffer leak.

Bongino, Bondi and Patel are NOT sitting in there with a microcassette recorder committing treason.

Once you understand that, and I am confident you do, then Occam's Razor applies.

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Got ya. It still doesn't make sense to me but I can see how you got there.

Just don't think it's anywhere close to reality.

I could of course be wrong, but I will never admit it (actually, I would if it is wrong).

Just think it feels "lazy" to connect the two unless such connection is driven by biased sources.

---

For me...the options are:

1. Authorized leak by Susie...
2. Bongino or Patel (who dialed in remotely) recorded it and leaked it.

The only other option is Bondi (who also dialed in remotely)...but those tapes made her sound like a dumbass...so...I'm hard pressed to believe its her.

---

There is another option I laid out earlier. Staffer leak.

Bongino, Bondi and Patel are NOT sitting in there with a microcassette recorder committing treason.

Once you understand that, and I am confident you do, then Occam's Razor applies.

---

These meetings get super tight...the idea there's some schedule C sitting in there doesnt pass the sniff test. For something like this it's only a principal...ie Bongino, Patel, Bondi...or some super high ranking EEOB political (ie Blair).

I can see one of the three I mentioned throwing their phone up to the speaker and pressing record on a voice memo and no one on the other end is the wiser. All these guys are playing "fck-fck" games to suit their own ends...either for some goal in MAGA world, the WH...or whatever.

Phones are not allowed in the Situation Room.

I was under the impression you knew about basic protocols in the military.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phones are not allowed in the Situation Room.

I was under the impression you knew about basic protocols in the military.

---

Phones aren't allowed in the sit room…that's why I don't believe anyone in that room recorded it.

but Bongino/Patel & Bondi dialed in from elsewhere…supposedly they dialed in via speakerphone…

Probably not a good sign when the likeliest leakers are the President's Chief of Staff, the U.S. SecState, the Vice-President, the head of the FBI, and the former Asst Director of the FBI.

DeschutesAg said:

---

Probably not a good sign when the likeliest leakers are the President's Chief of Staff, the U.S. SecState, the Vice-President, the head of the FBI, and the former Asst Director of the FBI.

---

If it came from Wiles or Vance it was absolutely authorized and intentional…

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phones are not allowed in the Situation Room.

I was under the impression you knew about basic protocols in the military.

---

Phones aren't allowed in the sit room…that's why I don't believe anyone in that room recorded it.

but Bongino/Patel & Bondi dialed in from elsewhere…supposedly they dialed in via speakerphone…

---

I don't think it works like corporate conf calls.

DeschutesAg said:

---

Probably not a good sign when the likeliest leakers are the President's Chief of Staff, the U.S. SecState, the Vice-President, the head of the FBI, and the former Asst Director of the FBI.

---

Probably not a good sign you have no idea how these things work.

Placing my order on Amazon now!

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phones are not allowed in the Situation Room.

I was under the impression you knew about basic protocols in the military.

---

Phones aren't allowed in the sit room…that's why I don't believe anyone in that room recorded it.

but Bongino/Patel & Bondi dialed in from elsewhere…supposedly they dialed in via speakerphone…

---

I don't think it works like corporate conf calls.

---

You'd be surprised good sir…

I don't understand why all the discussion is essentially about the leaker and punishing them as opposed to the actual information that was leaked. Does no one care about it and whether or not it is true?

Attacking the messenger and attempting to discredit him makes it easier to attempt to discredit the info. Most people on here aren't dumb, so that is what they are doing. Look at this discussion so far, many posts attacking the leaker and several others saying the info is "twisted" or "slanted". I have yet to hear a maga person say "lets see what the tapes have on them and go from there". The sad result of blind loyalty.
Additionally, the administration has been very quite except to say there was a recording/leak. Attacking the leaker is all they CAN do, they can't deny the information because that will make them look somehow even more incompetent than they already do.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phones are not allowed in the Situation Room.

I was under the impression you knew about basic protocols in the military.

---

Phones aren't allowed in the sit room…that's why I don't believe anyone in that room recorded it.

but Bongino/Patel & Bondi dialed in from elsewhere…supposedly they dialed in via speakerphone…

---

I don't think it works like corporate conf calls.

---

You'd be surprised good sir…

---

If people want to violate their oaths of office, commit several felonies and overall betray their country, then I guess so. Surprising? Unfortunately no.

But my understanding is that the remote SCIFs are still SCIFs and if they recorded it, it will be very easy to determine who it was.


Way way way way way more likely, someone copied an audio file they should not have.

EFR said:

---

Attacking the messenger and attempting to discredit him makes it easier to attempt to discredit the info. Most people on here aren't dumb, so that is what they are doing. Look at this discussion so far, many posts attacking the leaker and several others saying the info is "twisted" or "slanted". I have yet to hear a maga person say "lets see what the tapes have on them and go from there". The sad result of blind loyalty.
Additionally, the administration has been very quite except to say there was a recording/leak. Attacking the leaker is all they CAN do, they can't deny the information because that will make them look somehow even more incompetent than they already do.

---

If the tapes had anything on them it would already be out there.

The mere fact the leaker has not leaked the good stuff means there is no good stuff and the only story is "the leak", which it seems like it's dearth of details at this point.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Back to this, do you think these cats should be able to publish leaks from the Situation Room? Particularly if they are the only ones who received the leaked material and are angling to score money from it?

Always appreciate your input.

---

First amendment protection for the publication IF they were not complicit in the breach, that is. If they only found out after the fact when they were being given the materials, still can publish it.

---

But, when they receive materials that are CLEARLY labeled CLASSIFIED or TOP SECRET or whatever the other higher levels are, they KNOW for a FACT that the material they are receiving has been illegally procured. They don't have a clearance or need to know and the person supplying the material knows that they don't have a need to know.



Other than using the First Amendment as a "defense", what difference is there between them KNOWINGLY receiving stolen classified information and a Russian spy KNOWINGLY receiving stolen classified information?

When the "journalist" publishes the information, everyone in the world knows about it, including the Russian spy AND the Russians he would have given the information to.

When the Russian spy gives the information to Moscow, the only people that know about it (other than the US where it was stolen from) are the Russians...

BrazosDog02 said:

---

It's likely a non issue. Promoting a book is not unheard of. I've never heard of these people and up until a few minutes ago, I didn't even know the book existed. Ive never even heard of the X account that posted retweeted it. This thread alone probably generated hundreds of clicks, has wasted who knows how much bandwidth...and for what? An issue that no one knows is actually an issue.

I say they are bull****ting everyone.

---

The Haberman lady was a big deal in NYC press for a long time. Trump used to really like and respect her a lot before he became president. He used to call her up on the phone all the time. Not sure if this has changed or not since he became president.

LMCane said:

---

pollo hermanos said:

---

There are clearly some leakers in this crew. Their article a couple months ago about the lead to Iran had very specific details. The most common theory was that it was Vance's crew.

---

It's JD Vance and his team.

anyone think it was just coincidence that BUCKLEY CARLSON, the son of Nazi Tucker Carlson was a senior figure in Vance's office?@?@

---

I think it is either Vance or Bondi. Who has the most to gain if Trump is forced to step down? So, Vance is the the most likely answer. Plus, I've never trusted him from day 1 and I'm usually a pretty good judge of character.

aggiehawg said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

How's that legal?

---

This goes back to WaPo publishing The Pentagon Papers after Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office was burglarized The crime was the theft which WaPo had no direct involvement.

So, did these two reporters request or know in advance that the security was being breached? If so, they become accessories.

---

Preauthorization from the DNI and Sec of Defense is required before a scintilla of any such evidence can be published. If such authorization was not sought (which all writers and publishers KNOW must be sought), they are subject to prosecution.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/DOPSR/

Would anyone from DNI be on these calls?

TexasAggie81 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

How's that legal?

---

This goes back to WaPo publishing The Pentagon Papers after Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office was burglarized The crime was the theft which WaPo had no direct involvement.

So, did these two reporters request or know in advance that the security was being breached? If so, they become accessories.

---

Preauthorization from the DNI and Sec of Defense is required before a scintilla of any such evidence can be published. If such authorization was not sought (which all writers and publishers KNOW must be sought), they are subject to prosecution.

---

I doubt that applies to this.

bobbranco said:

---

Would anyone from DNI be on these calls?

---

What I could see of the linked article it says leaked tapes of meeting "in the situation room" where "unauthorized recording devices are not allowed".

Seems very possible if not probably the leak is of an archived recording from meeting(s).

Have the recordings been determined to contain salacious info about… well, what are they claiming?

Obvious answer is this is a nothing burger in Chapter 8647 of their book of fiction and fantasy and they are using this concept of a leak to promote a book no one is interested in.

MelvinUdall said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

It's way past time to put people in prison for life. This is not legal opposition.

---

First Trump must identify who his real opposition is. Trump keeps siccing his DOJ on Democrats. That has been a waste of time and resources.

From 2015 to today, it is the Establishment Rs who have BY FAR been Trump's most formidable and effective MAIN opposition. They have stymied, blocked, and undermined Trump for the entire 5.5 years he has been in power as POTUS.

There were no Democrats in the Situation Room meetings. Only senior level Rs.

---

I don't care if it was Republicans or Democrats, and I don't care who the President is, whoever did this needs to be in jail along with the journalists…this really isn't this difficult.

---

Your beliefs highlight the difference between conservatives and the Democratic Party leadership. Most Republicans and all Conservatives believe in the rule of law as opposed to the miscreants in the Democratic Party leadership that has embraced lying, cheating, and embracing power regardless of ethics, morality and integrity.

flown-the-coop said:

---

EFR said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

army01 said:

---

Very few of the jokers in this administration should have a security clearance. Is it any wonder they 1.) don't know how to act within a classified envirnment? 2.) mishandle classified information? 3.) brag about classified information?

---

When did all this happen?

---

A certain signal chat comes to mind...

---

The one where a staffer added the wrong contact to a secure messaging platform approved by security people?

I do remember that. Maybe next time add the context so people know you are spreading "rumors, unconfirmed and false information".

---

the platform was approved by security people to pass basic unclassified information and basic logistics.

I would guess a leak would come from a staffer with knowledge of the dial in information for the call.

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Back to this, do you think these cats should be able to publish leaks from the Situation Room? Particularly if they are the only ones who received the leaked material and are angling to score money from it?

Always appreciate your input.

---

First amendment protection for the publication IF they were not complicit in the breach, that is. If they only found out after the fact when they were being given the materials, still can publish it.

---

I think the clubhouse leader might be an intentional leak by the admin to manage Epstein fall out.

---

My god, that is probably the most far-fetched Whoopi Goldberg level take. I think you are better than that.

If the leak was from the SitRoom and it relates to Epstein, then it would be about the meeting the NYT reported on regarding Vance.

But to make any insinuation this was a leak to cover anything up regarding Epstein is abjectly myopic. I think you are a better poster than that.

---

You must not have read the Paxton vs Talarico thread.