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
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

that's besides the point. he's there and it's death or sell out national secrets.

I get it, doesn't make him any less of a Russian asset.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

His internal knowledge of the CIA and NSA gained as a contractor is an American liability.

That doesn't necessarily make him a Russian Asset.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

do you honesty believe that Putin would allow him to live as long as he has in Russia without some form of cooperation? I mean, the guy outlived the "thorn in Americans side" trope about five years ago.

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that he's selling strategic processes and how Americans think for his safety.

if you disagree why do you think Putin has allowed him to stay alive this long?

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

do you honesty believe that Putin would allow him to live as long as he has in Russia without some form of cooperation? I mean, the guy outlived the "thorn in Americans side" trope about five years ago.

No, I think the NSA are still embarrassed.

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that he's selling strategic processes and how Americans think for his safety.

How many relevant strategic secrets do you think Snowden has after 11 years out of the game. Remember all his documents were passed to journalists. He retained none.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

No, I think the NSA are still embarrassed.

even after 11 years? most credit card debt is forgotten after 7...

How many relevant strategic secrets do you think Snowden has after 11 years out of the game. Remember all his documents were passed to journalists. He retained none.

not secrets. he has valuable information on how the US reacts. Strategies change, but at the core their goals and how they plan on achieving them usually doesn't change that often.

imagine if you were fighting someone. you don't try to predict when/where they are going to punch. you try to predict what they will target. if you can understand who you're fighting, you have a better chance at winning.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 11 minutes ago

even after 11 years?

Yep. Is Snowden allowed back into the US? No? Then he is still an embarrassment.

he has valuable information on how the US reacts

Nothing that he wouldn't have already given up 11 years ago. He can't provide anything new.