Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Remember when it was patriotic to be a leaker?
Bendintheriver
Member Posts: 6,045 
in Tug Tavern
The hypocrisy never ends with rats. They lie, cheat, steal and try to destroy our country brick by brick. When it comes to bold, two faced corruption, they have no equal.
These POS on the left are now acting like the world is coming to an end when in reality it is they who carelessly allowed this to happen. Absolute infants are in charge now.
I find it interesting how the leaked information shows that biden and this administration have been flat out lying to the American public and there is not one mention by anyone on the left.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/when-national-security-leaks-were-patriotic
When national security leaks were patriotic
Start in the time period from December 2016 to January 2017. It was the transition from the outgoing Obama administration to the incoming Trump administration. Someone, a "senior U.S. government official," leaked some of the nation's most sensitive secrets — that is, the contents of intercepted phone conversations — to the Washington Post's David Ignatius. The purpose of the leak, concerning a phone call incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn made to then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, was to kneecap Donald Trump and his team before the new president even took office.
Ignatius's column turbocharged the Russia frenzy that was getting started in Washington. He began by asking: "Did Trump's campaign encourage Russia's alleged hacking to hurt his rival Hillary Clinton and help him, and does Russia have any leverage over him?" Then Ignatius revealed the leak, although he coyly framed his revelations as questions:
That passage set off years of criminal investigation and litigation, which ended with...virtually nothing. But it did help cripple the new Trump administration. And the reaction of much of the political commentariat to the grievously serious leak was to praise the leaker as a patriot.
"The only reason we're finding out about it now is because a patriot did leak this to the Washington Post," MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said. A writer for the New Yorker said the leaker or leakers were "hidden heroes." And a writer for the Atlantic said the leak should remind everyone "why patriots should cherish a free and independent press." Of course, the story was not about the press's freedom to publish. It was about a battle inside the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy in which powerful figures sought to weaken the new, and hated, president. And for many commentators, the leaker was the good guy.
About six months later, someone leaked more highly sensitive material — transcripts of phone calls between Trump and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Trump and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Again, the leaker sought to embarrass Trump. This time, the calls created minor controversies that did not last long among the many, many other controversies of Trump's first months in office. But the leaking of the calls was another one of the "norms" broken in the bureaucracy's effort to undermine the president.
Finally, in the summer of 2019, a member of the White House National Security Council, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, told a person outside the White House about a phone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman has steadfastly refused to identify the person he told, but it is widely believed that that person took Vindman's leaked information and shaped it into a "whistleblower" complaint against the president.
These POS on the left are now acting like the world is coming to an end when in reality it is they who carelessly allowed this to happen. Absolute infants are in charge now.
I find it interesting how the leaked information shows that biden and this administration have been flat out lying to the American public and there is not one mention by anyone on the left.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/when-national-security-leaks-were-patriotic
When national security leaks were patriotic
Start in the time period from December 2016 to January 2017. It was the transition from the outgoing Obama administration to the incoming Trump administration. Someone, a "senior U.S. government official," leaked some of the nation's most sensitive secrets — that is, the contents of intercepted phone conversations — to the Washington Post's David Ignatius. The purpose of the leak, concerning a phone call incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn made to then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, was to kneecap Donald Trump and his team before the new president even took office.
Ignatius's column turbocharged the Russia frenzy that was getting started in Washington. He began by asking: "Did Trump's campaign encourage Russia's alleged hacking to hurt his rival Hillary Clinton and help him, and does Russia have any leverage over him?" Then Ignatius revealed the leak, although he coyly framed his revelations as questions:
That passage set off years of criminal investigation and litigation, which ended with...virtually nothing. But it did help cripple the new Trump administration. And the reaction of much of the political commentariat to the grievously serious leak was to praise the leaker as a patriot.
"The only reason we're finding out about it now is because a patriot did leak this to the Washington Post," MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said. A writer for the New Yorker said the leaker or leakers were "hidden heroes." And a writer for the Atlantic said the leak should remind everyone "why patriots should cherish a free and independent press." Of course, the story was not about the press's freedom to publish. It was about a battle inside the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy in which powerful figures sought to weaken the new, and hated, president. And for many commentators, the leaker was the good guy.
About six months later, someone leaked more highly sensitive material — transcripts of phone calls between Trump and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Trump and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Again, the leaker sought to embarrass Trump. This time, the calls created minor controversies that did not last long among the many, many other controversies of Trump's first months in office. But the leaking of the calls was another one of the "norms" broken in the bureaucracy's effort to undermine the president.
Finally, in the summer of 2019, a member of the White House National Security Council, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, told a person outside the White House about a phone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman has steadfastly refused to identify the person he told, but it is widely believed that that person took Vindman's leaked information and shaped it into a "whistleblower" complaint against the president.