this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
357 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2330 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Republican senators are privately pushing to review Tulsi Gabbard’s FBI file amid concerns about her alignment with Russian interests following her nomination as Trump’s director of national intelligence.

Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. state secrets, has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her history of echoing Russian talking points on Ukraine and Syria.

While GOP senators are publicly deferring to Trump’s pick, some, including Sens. Mike Rounds and Susan Collins, emphasize the importance of full background checks and hearings to address potential security risks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 20 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Whether or not you agree with notorious intelligence leaks, and I'm not saying I don't, it's not a great look for the Director of National Intelligence to support the leaking of sensitive intelligence documents.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Well, the sensitive intelligence documents showed that the NSA was interpreting the law in a way that goes way beyond what Congress allowed.

Having someone at the top that agrees that their department has limits regarding the US constitution is prepared to enforce those limits does NOT sound like a bad thing.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a breach of security.

It's like applying for bank security after praising Pretty Boy Floyd.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

it was a breach of security.

Agreed, and that's on the NSA and it's processes that need fixing. Not Snowden.

Also, in this case it's like praising Pretty Boy Floyd for reporting to it's customers that a bank was lying about how much gold it had in its vaults.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, still wouldn't get you a job at the bank

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If you thank the person for telling the world that the bank is crooked, why can't you then be responsible for ensuring that the bank stops being crooked?

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Because your boss will never be sure if you can be trusted if you happen to think the next breach is also justified.

If tulsi thinks the breach was justified because the internal whistle-blowing processes at the NSA were not functioning correctly, then there is no trust issue.

She can ensure better processes exist.

If the intelligence apparatus is performing unconstitutional actions then a breach is justified.