Reality Winner

[*michaelsean*]

You probably think this belongs in klotsch, but no this is the name of the person who leaked classified material. I was pretty sure she was a liberal before I read the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/reality-winner-who-is-accused-leaker/index.html

(CNN)A 25-year-old federal contractor is accused of leaking classified information regarding a 2016 Russian military intelligence cyberattack to an online news outlet.

Quote:The Justice Department announced charges Monday against Reality Leigh Winner, a contractor with Pluribus International Corp. in Augusta, Georgia. She is accused of "removing classified material from a government facility and mailing it to a news outlet," according to a federal complaint.
She is now being held at a facility in Lincolnton, Georgia, her attorney said.

[BmorePat87]

Terrible job covering her tracks. Email them from a library or something.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-06-2017, 02:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Terrible job covering her tracks. Email them from a library or something.

Yeah people who don't know what they are doing don't have a chance.

[NATI BENGALS]

Why would this information be held from the American public?

Our fraudulent president is already trying to reduce the steps Obama took to punish the guilty Russians.

Remember when it was called whistle blowers? And people who brought out the truth of dirty misdeeds were rewarded. Now they are leakers. And if it could harm the conman in chief the book will be thrown at them.

I didnt read it. Is it worse than the conman giving away secrets to the Russians. Seems to me like it revealed our election system was hacked. Is there something there that will hurt our national security?

[Benton]

(06-06-2017, 06:45 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Why would this information be held from the American public?

Our fraudulent president is already trying to reduce the steps Obama took to punish the guilty Russians.

Remember when it was called whistle blowers? And people who brought out the truth of dirty misdeeds were rewarded. Now they are leakers. And if it could harm the conman in chief the book will be thrown at them.

I didnt read it. Is it worse than the conman giving away secrets to the Russians. Seems to me like it revealed our election system was hacked. Is there something there that will hurt our national security?

There's a difference with whistleblowers in that they went about the right legal steps. A friend of mine is one. He went to an attorney before going to congress and the media. It's not the same as taking classified info and throwing it all out there.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-06-2017, 07:38 PM)Benton Wrote: There's a difference with whistleblowers in that they went about the right legal steps. A friend of mine is one. He went to an attorney before going to congress and the media. It's not the same as taking classified info and throwing it all out there.

Are there right legal steps when two branches of our government are filled with people actively attempting to cover this up?

[NATI BENGALS]

Maybe i will get around to reading some of this. But for now i will go with what i think i know.

The way russians are hacking elect elections was revealed. This hurt no American assests. It hurt only the Russians and made public their tactics. Are we going to lay in wait for the next election they hack to confirm our evidence while our president destroys our relations with all of our other allies to make friends with russia?

Would love for someone to let me know why this girl should burn.

[Belsnickel]

(06-06-2017, 08:00 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Are there right legal steps when two branches of our government are filled with people actively attempting to cover this up?

This is a legit question, and not just as of 20 January. I thought about starting a thread positing this question regarding folks like Snowden. If therebis no faith in the proper channels, what should a whistle blower do? I have always been on the fence about this. But I am not bothering with the thread because it would either be ignored or it would turn into irrational partisan bickering.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-06-2017, 08:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is a legit question, and not just as of 20 January. I thought about starting a thread positing this question regarding folks like Snowden. If therebis no faith in the proper channels, what should a whistle blower do? I have always been on the fence about this. But I am not bothering with the thread because it would either be ignored or it would turn into irrational partisan bickering.

There's nothing really partisan about this particular incident. But the fact remains that she stole classified information. This wasn't even something she came across and thought needed to be revealed, she went looking for something because of a podcast. Nobody says this wouldn't eventually be released, but it's not up to some 2 month employee of a government contractor to make that decision.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-06-2017, 06:45 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Why would this information be held from the American public?

Our fraudulent president is already trying to reduce the steps Obama took to punish the guilty Russians.

Remember when it was called whistle blowers? And people who brought out the truth of dirty misdeeds were rewarded. Now they are leakers. And if it could harm the conman in chief the book will be thrown at them.

I didnt read it. Is it worse than the conman giving away secrets to the Russians. Seems to me like it revealed our election system was hacked. Is there something there that will hurt our national security?

Dino's going to have some words for you about the not reading it part. Yes it's worse because one has the authority and one does not. Just because you don't like the one who has the authority the rules don't change.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-06-2017, 08:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is a legit question, and not just as of 20 January. I thought about starting a thread positing this question regarding folks like Snowden. If therebis no faith in the proper channels, what should a whistle blower do? I have always been on the fence about this. But I am not bothering with the thread because it would either be ignored or it would turn into irrational partisan bickering.

The nationalist in me would have went and watched a public hanging of snowden. My feeling was he weakened my counties intelligence agencies and went and hid in another country


Little miss winner here revealed information about russia hacking my country and how the most important election in our nation was targeted by ENEMIES our president just so happens to be buddying up with and a list of connections between the two a deaf dumb and blind kid could follow.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2017, 08:10 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Maybe i will get around to reading some of this. But for now i will go with what i think i know.

The way russians are hacking elect elections was revealed. This hurt no American assests. It hurt only the Russians and made public their tactics. Are we going to lay in wait for the next election they hack to confirm our evidence while our president destroys our relations with all of our other allies to make friends with russia?

Would love for someone to let me know why this girl should burn.

I'd love to tell you.  Because she broke the law and betrayed the confidences and conditions of her employment.  The department I work for, by policy, forbids me to inform ICE of a criminal illegal alien we are dealing with.  By adhering to department policy I am hindering the enforcement of federal law.  If I choose to violate department policy and inform ICE of the many illegal aliens I come across I will be fired at best.  If I inform ICE I would be aiding in the enforcement of said law.  I would, however, be violating the known terms of my employment and would have to suffer the consequences of doing so.  I can either accept these terms or resign.

This woman chose to do neither.  You cannot allow individuals to violate the law with impunity simply because they felt the need to do so.  Who is the final arbiter of your justification in such an instance?  This woman made herself that arbiter, knowing the consequences of doing so.  You, I, and everyone else on this board have zero idea why this information was classified.  It may have been part of an ongoing investigation.  It could be for any number of reasons.  This woman, and anyone else in her position, has no right to arbitrarily decide what is and is not fit for release to the general public.  She's going to burn for this and she 100% deserves to.

(06-06-2017, 08:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is a legit question, and not just as of 20 January. I thought about starting a thread positing this question regarding folks like Snowden. If therebis no faith in the proper channels, what should a whistle blower do? I have always been on the fence about this. But I am not bothering with the thread because it would either be ignored or it would turn into irrational partisan bickering.

This isn't whistle blowing though.  This is not releasing evidence of wrongdoing by our government, this is release of classified information that could absolutely be part of an ongoing investigation.  Remember how incensed people here were over the leaks of the Manchester bombing by US law enforcement?  Why no such outrage here?  I absolutely get your point, but she didn't exactly release information on a Tuskegee style experiment. 

(06-06-2017, 10:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: There's nothing really partisan about this particular incident. But the fact remains that she stole classified information. This wasn't even something she came across and thought needed to be revealed, she went looking for something because of a podcast. Nobody says this wouldn't eventually be released, but it's not up to some 2 month employee of a government contractor to make that decision.

No, there is nothing partisan about it, especially as the incident in question occurred during Obama's tenure.  I'd also point out that Obama went after such leaks with a vengeance as well.  The glorification of Snowden likely emboldened this woman to act as she did.  Too bad, for her, she didn't run for the hills like our "heroic" Snowden did.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-06-2017, 10:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Dino's going to have some words for you about the not reading it part. Yes it's worse because one has the authority and one does not. Just because you don't like the one who has the authority the rules don't change.

Oh. Ok. If someone has the power they are always right?

I thought there was another term for that form of government?

Doesnt seem to be for the people by the people.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-06-2017, 10:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd love to tell you.  Because she broke the law and betrayed the confidences and conditions of her employment.  The department I work for, by policy, forbids me to inform ICE of a criminal illegal alien we are dealing with.  By adhering to department policy I am hindering the enforcement of federal law.  If I choose to violate department policy and inform ICE of the many illegal aliens I come across I will be fired at best.  If I inform ICE I would be aiding in the enforcement of said law.  I would, however, be violating the known terms of my employment and would have to suffer the consequences of doing so.  I can either accept these terms or resign.

This woman chose to do neither.  You cannot allow individuals to violate the law with impunity simply because they felt the need to do so.  Who is the final arbiter of your justification in such an instance?  This woman made herself that arbiter, knowing the consequences of doing so.  You, I, and everyone else on this board have zero idea why this information was classified.  It may have been part of an ongoing investigation.  It could be for any number of reasons.  This woman, and anyone else in her position, has no right to arbitrarily decide what is and is not fit for release to the general public.  She's going to burn for this and she 100% deserves to.



This isn't whistle blowing though.  This is not releasing evidence of wrongdoing by our government, this is release of classified information that could absolutely be part of an ongoing investigation.  Remember how incensed people here were over the leaks of the Manchester bombing by US law enforcement?  Why no such outrage here?  I absolutely get your point, but she didn't exactly release information on a Tuskegee style experiment. 



No, there is nothing partisan about it, especially as the incident in question occurred during Obama's tenure.  I'd also point out that Obama went after such leaks with a vengeance as well.  The glorification of Snowden likely emboldened this woman to act as she did.  Too bad, for her, she didn't run for the hills like our "heroic" Snowden did.

Russia hacked your election deeper than you ever knew. And you want to burn the person who told you... While the person they helped win wants to invite them to the white house and ban American media from that meeting.

You are 100% behind this?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2017, 10:31 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Russia hacked your election deeper than you ever knew.

The information released by this woman does not reveal this, at all.

Quote:And you want to burn the person who told you...

If you broke the law and betrayed your terms of employment, absolutely.  Especially if you did so for partisan reasons, which seems very probably in this case.

Quote:While the person they helped win wants to invite them to the white house and ban American media from that meeting.

You are 100% behind this?

You'll forgive me, but you're regurgitating a lot of talking points here.  I could be 100% against Trump's Russian ambassador meeting and still want this woman held accountable for her crimes.  These are not mutually exclusive concepts.  The fact that you equate them as such is honestly a bit disconcerting. 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-06-2017, 10:23 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Oh. Ok. If someone has the power they are always right?

I thought there was another term for that form of government?

Doesnt seem to be for the people by the people.

No they just aren't comparable events.

[Benton]

(06-06-2017, 08:00 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Are there right legal steps when two branches of our government are filled with people actively attempting to cover this up?

Yes

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-06-2017, 10:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The information released by this woman does not reveal this, at all.



If you broke the law and betrayed your terms of employment, absolutely.  Especially if you did so for partisan reasons, which seems very probably in this case.



You'll forgive me, but you're regurgitating a lot of talking points here.  I could be 100% against Trump's Russian ambassador meeting and still want this woman held accountable for her crimes.  These are not mutually exclusive concepts.  The fact that you equate them as such is honestly a bit disconcerting. 

So you were privy to the classified information here detailing Russian hacking? Ok. Me and most of the rest of the country were not.

What is partisan in revealing a foreign enemy interfered in our election? This should be the most non partisan issue of all.

True. But information that would be readily available to the president about an enemy country interfering in our election did not stop the guy they helped get elected inviting them to the white house. Two seperate events. Like someone crossing the road is a seperate event than some guy driving his car. Just so happens guy got hit by that car.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-06-2017, 10:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No they just aren't comparable events.

True, one is giving information to the citizens of our country that under current leadership could have very well been kept from the public. The other is giving information to an enemy foreign government who according to all of our intelligence agencies just interfered in the most precious aspect of our society.

[Vlad]

(06-06-2017, 10:31 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Russia hacked your election deeper than you ever knew.

(06-06-2017, 11:53 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So you were privy to the classified information here detailing Russian hacking? Ok. Me and most of the rest of the country were not.

 
Apparently you were privy, you being so certain Russia hacked the election deeper than we'll ever know.