White House leaks spark controversy

So if multiple high officials in the inner-circle of the Obama administration are leaking highly classified information to the press for political gain as the Times is reporting that that is where they got their information, you seriously don't think this reflects badly on Obama and who he has chosen to place in the top positions in his cabinet?

 

The only thing he would be "guilty" of is authorizing the release of the information which is legal for him to do. So either he legally authorized the release or someone in his administration did so illegally. I'm not presuming either way, but unlike you acknowledging the reasonable possibilities and as you said there isn't a third one.

With or without, the leaks according to the NYT came from within the highest levels of the administration. Either they were authorized by Obama and were leaked, or someone at the highest level committed a felony.

What claim? You said you agreed with what I said what needs to be "proved" to you?

 

The NYT clearly stated the leaks came for high level administration officials and you are saying the President has no responsibility in the matter, the buck doesn't stop with him. You do realize that no one in the administration including Obama has voiced any outrage over the leaks. It is Obama's responsibility to protect those secrets, unless he declassifies them, and enforce the laws that protect them.

I guess he'll be blaming Bush soon.

 

Oh hell yes - but it doesn't show he is the source of the leak.

 

Where did I not acknowledge the possibility of his guilt? Sorry I've acknowledged that since I started posting here. This is another lie on your part.

Yeah but either way is an indication of the fact you admit to the fact Obama might have had nothing to do with it.

If you are finally conceding my point that has been consistent, that we do not know if Obama is responsible for anything thus leveling judgments against him is pointless, then why are you still here?

 

Wrong, I never said that. I said we dont know. Why are you lying about what I said?

All irrelevant to what I said.

 

Every time someone notes the possibility and you scream, innocent until proven guilty.

By the use of the word "admit" you insinuate I have said differently. Either post where I have or admit I have nothing to admit. I have said from the getgo that it may have been an illegal leak.

We are certainly free to judge the possibilities of how the information was leaked and discuss it here. And what point are you claiming I am "conceding", you said you agreed with ME, that there are two possibilities, if anyone conceded anything it was you. But then you seem to be more interested in petty arguments than a discussion of the facts.

When you want to discuss the issue let me know.

 

And that is the same as denying any possible guilt... how? Seems you're attributing (*)(*)(*)(*) to me I never said, again.

Good to finally know. If this is the case, why did you defend someone who said Obama IS responsible?

Of course, its just pointless and corrosive to pass groundless judgments. That's my point.

You started this mate, not me. You've now said we are in agreement and say that you are attacking arguments which I actually have never made.

What issue is that? I've only been talking about the fact that there is no evidence Obama has done anything. YOU started talking to ME.

 

And attempt to shut down any discussion of it.

It was clear from the get go.

When you care to discuss the issue and not just be argumentative let me know.

 

More outright treason on the part of BH Obama. He should be impeached by the House, removed by the Senate and charged with treason by the AG of Texas. Or maybe the Texas AG should just go ahead and arrest him when he come to Texas pandering to the Mexican illegals that he wants voting for him.

 

Not at all. Yet another lie on your part.

Not at all, since your first comment to me was in defence of someone stating Obama was evidently guilty.

Mate, like I said you're the one responding TO ME. You first responded TO ME. Its your prerogative to change the subject.

 

Where's your evidence he was responsible?

 

The last time I saw his worthless ass grinning on TV he was standing behind the Presidential Seal. You may think that he isn't responsible for letting reporters into the situation room, letting his top people talk about people and methods that lead to the death of OBL, but I do see him as the person in charge and place the blame at his feet.

Had BH Obama arrested the people throwing our very sensitive secrets before the pigs in the press I would give him credit but he has not even expressed genuine concern. His boot licking AG has appointed a butt kisser to look into the matter and we are expected to shrug and go on our way as if all is well???

 

Leaked Trade Doc Shows Obama Wants to Help Corporations Avoid Regulations

A draft agreement leaked Wednesday shows the Obama administration is pushing a secretive trade agreement that could vastly expand corporate power and directly contradict a 2008 campaign promise by President Obama. A U.S. proposal for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact between the United States and eight Pacific nations would allow foreign corporations operating in the U.S. to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its ruling. We speak to Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, a fair trade group that posted the leaked documents on its website. "This isn’t just a bad trade agreement," Wallach says. "This is a 'one-percenter' power tool that could rip up our basic needs and rights."

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/14/breaking_08_pledge_leaked_trade_doc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
While you were sleeping......Fascism is on its way!

The earmark of a free society is to have open and free discussions. Once it stops doing that it is no longer free!

So what does a trade agreement have to do with national security that it needs to be kept secret?

 

Wrong, Mate, my first response to you. Which you refused to respond to.

Me>> So if the New York Times on June 1, 1944 had learned that the D-Day invasion would be at Normandy and not the Pais de Calis you would have supported their publishing that since transparency is a good thing?

Or that the convoy routing transporting the atomic bomb to Tininan Island?

So if you want to discuss the issue then do so, your just being argumentative is of no interest.

 

This looks more like BH Obama's desire to corrupt our nation's law and damage our ability to regulate our own businesses.

More treason.

 

And why the Hell isn't he demanding to know who the high officials in his administration our that are giving away our national security secrets? Instead he is blocking an independent investigation and not even condemning it. That is a corrupt failure on his part.

 

Dont know. Perhaps he wants to figure it out himself. Could be a myriad of reasons. We dont know.

A failure - but not evidence of him having anything to with the leaks.

 

Well Plouffe was asked the very simple question directly by Chris Wallace this morning if Obama or anyone in his administration declassified any of the information so it could be released, he dodged the question several times.

First he heehawed about how they took it seriously and how an DOJ investigators had been assigned, then tried to make the fallacious claim that the person who reported it said it did not come from the administration and Wallace corrected him that it was stated clearly it came from high level White House officials including on the presidents national security council. Then Plouffe again tried to not answer by saying there would be a thorough investigation and we should wait for it to be completed

Wallace tried again for a simple answer, did anyone in the WH declassify the information so it could be released.

Plouffe then tried to go off on how they had waged an effective campaign against terrorism and how they had decimated al Qaeda and how they took classified information seriously.


Wallace pressed again and cornered him for a yes or no did the President declassify any of this information and he gave a very unconvincing "no". Don't know if he doesn't really know but knew he had to give an answer "I don't know would have raised even more questions" or not but the administration is now on record saying Obama did not authorize the release. That means someone engaged in a felony by releasing it. The question is who.

That brought up the next question. That the articles clearly state that the information came from officials on the presidents national security team who sat in these meetings and Wallace ask "The president has no idea who divulged these secrets?". Plouffe tried to shrug off saying we don't know it came from those officials but Wallace again pointed out that that is exactly what the article says. Plouffe had no answer but to say it was highly objectionable to say that they did, Wallace again pressed on "but they did" as the article clearly states. Then Plouffe tried to blame in on the Republicans saying to the effect that they had said they were going to engage in investigations to damage Obama politically, about as weasily an answer he could have given especially since the leaking of the information was ENTIRELY political on the part of whomever did it.

He made the ludicrious statement that this was all just a diversion, Wallace threw it back in his face as a incredidulas statment.

Then he was asked if Obama, like Bush did when the Plame issue came up, will order anyone and everyone in his administration who did leak such information to come forth now and cooperate with the investigation. He heehawed and gave a non-answer saying he wasn't going to get involved in that.

He asked if Obama like Bush did, will make himself available for an interview with the investigators to answer any and all questions. He again gave a non-answer.

He was then asked why Obama would not support an independent investigation as he demanded of the Bush administration and again gave a non-answer, could not explain issuing the specious, most people see the DOJ investigation as a proper course and the AG had decided it was. Well the purpose of an independent is so there is no question of the AG's judgement in the matter.

This has the smell of a coverup coming.

Video will probably be available later today after the rebroadcast are over.

 

That does certainly look dodgy, yes. They ought to explain why they are resisting an investigation.

 

Great job Wallace. Hopefully other reporters will take his lead and demand answers come from the Obama administration so they don't get away with the cover-up they are currently perpetrating. Good to see the administration forced to give an answer on de-classification. Since Obama refuses to answer questions directly on this, this should be fair game at the Presidential debates.

 

Yes I watched the interview on Meet the Press later with David Gregory handing him softball questions and letting him get away with his non-answers.