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.
Yeah, Republicans WOULD be upset about her only correct stance, even if it’s a past one 🤦
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sure, still wouldn’t get you a job at the bank
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?
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.
face it man, Snowden is a Russian asset at this point.
he didn’t start out that way be given the options of tea, window, or sabotage he chose sabotage.
He’s a survivor.
What would you have done differently than him? Die?
Quietly quit because his whistle was never going to stop that kind of surveillance. If you held a gun to my head and said I had to leak then NYTimes and WaPo would get the relevant slide deck and I’d stand my day in court knowing I’d probably have my sentence commuted after several years.
He chose the literal worst option.
Traveled under a fake ID. People do it in films and TV all the time. Not sure how practical that is in reality though.
Real life is not like TV. High quality counterfeit papers that stand up to scrutiny are very hard to get. The only way to get ones that are guaranteed to work is by having someone at the state department who can issue them or buying them from someone with those kind of connections. And the odds are good that the fads have honeypots set up to catch people trying to get fake documents.
I wouldn’t have done anything differently.
Just pointing it out because so many have a fetish to make him a hero even after he’s helped the guy who wants to destroy our nation.
He did the right thing at the cost of his own safety and wellbeing. If that’s not a hero I don’t know what is.
At the same time he basically had to cooperate with the Russians because they tend to torture and kill those who don’t.
And his routes out of Russia were blocked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
So are Trump and the Republican Party.
yes. they are.
Are you thinking of Assange?
no. Assange cares only for Assange.
Snowden cared about Americans once, but was abandoned by his nation to a corrupt government.
he’s an unwilling Russian asset now, think of it like indentured servitude for his life.
Are you able to point to actions that Snowden has taken to negatively impact the interests of the US people or to materially aid Russia?
no, and I don’t have to.
It is my opinion after all.
we’re allowed to share those on here still, right?
edit: did I hurt all the snowbunnie feewings?
It’s not unreasonable to ask someone to elaborate or justify their opinion, kiddo.
and it’s not unreasonable for someone to refuse.
Of course not, it just means you’re leaving that particular discussion
It is if you want to be taken seriously, sweetie.
You weren’t stating it as opinion, you were stating it as if it’s objective fact.
Very big difference in wording.
I think you might be confused. it’s not your fault.
unless someone provides evidence, it should always be considered an opinion. that’s how the world used to work.
now everyone just reads all comments as facts instead of using their cognitive ability to read and comprehend. it’s not your fault that the Internet made your brain lazy.
You are a child. Or at minimum, very childish.
I recommend swallowing your extremely overinflated pride/ego, and growing up a bit.
The question of whether someone works for a government is not really a matter of opinion
Removed by mod
I’ll give you a legitimate response since I’ve got the time while taking the Browns to the Super Bowl.
opinions are varied and limitless as the ideas that feed them. One can have opinions on opinions!
so, when the neurons in your brain were firing on all cylinders to come up with your question, did you actually think that one couldn’t have an opinion on something as menial and useless as, “whether someone works for a government”?
I have many opinions, some are rather good, others not so much.
for example, my opinion of you isn’t very good.
Not triggered in the slightest - I thought there might be something to learn. Thanks for clarifying that it was nothing more than the baseless opinion of a fragile moron.
if you were a firearm you would be decommissioned for premature firing.
Your trigger is so loose, a stiff breeze sets it off.
It’d take something a little stronger than the opinion of infamous kid fucker GreenKnight23 to pull my trigger, champ.
Being an American liability doesn’t make you a Russian asset.
it heavily implies it if a genocidal dictator shelters you.
If your passport is cancelled and transport is blocked then you don’t get much choice over who shelters you.
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.
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.
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?
No, I think the NSA are still embarrassed.
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.