politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Devil's Advocate Hot Take:
This is an expression of power. An intentional leak to show that "We get to break rules, and you cannot." We see it as incompetence and abject hypocrisy, but it could be a purposeful leak because they don't care about being seen as hypocrites, they are about showing us they can get away with it. It could also be a Trial Balloon about the kind of wars they intend to wage.
/takes off tinfoil hat
I really think they really are just this stupid, but I think its at least worthwhile to consider the alternative, because a lot of what conservatives do is about using hypocrisy as a weapon and expression of power over others. They want us getting angry about such things, so they can can be cool and collected and say that we're overreacting because they're so calm while chuckling and sneering at us.
"But her emails!" Yeah they don't actually give a shit, they may just want to show they can get away with it. Much like Trump rejecting using a government issued cell phone in his first term and Bush "losing" millions of emails.
Hanlon's razor applies I think:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity"
Yep. They fired all the adults that think things through and provide rigor for a reason so the only people left are children doing whatever they want ignorant of the consequences.
Exactly. If they had wanted to intentionally leak classified information in order to move the overton window or something, they would have done it differently. They wouldn't have had the VP disagreeing with Trump. They wouldn't have actually leaked serious classified information, including the name of an active CIA officer. They wouldn't have leaked it to the editor in chief of the Atlantic.
For example, they fired anyone who would otherwise have said "Folks, this is not an appropriate communications tool for classified information. This needs to be shared in a SCIF".
Anybody who knows better also knows to keep their mouth shut if they want to keep their job in this admin. And even if keeping their job isn't their priority, they know that if they speak up they risk being scapegoated, hung out to dry, and possibly killed by MAGA loyalists for daring to confront the king.
No I'd say there's absolutely a good share of malice in the mix with incompetence and stupidity.
As long as we're putting on our tinfoil hats, it's also possible that this was an intentional action taken against The Atlantic (or against Jeffrey Goldberg in particular). Trump's admin has plenty of reasons to want to silence that publication, and might've hoped that by "accidentally" giving Goldberg access, they could entrap him into committing a crime (mishandling of classified material, espionage, etc).
With a little cooperation from the AG's office, presto! You've got one of your biggest critics in jail, and sent a message to other would-be whistleblowers.
Reminds me of this from the Bush II years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
Anyway, interesting and worthwhile thing to consider.
There is exactly one political party that cares about hypocrisy.
And it ain't the Republicans.
It’s the Russian way. Everyone knows things are shitty but everyone also feels powerless about it. Learned helplessness as a political strategy and the basis for a society.
Pretty good take. I agree they actually are this dumb, but not everyone involved is necessarily, so it’s wise to be aware of alternatives such as what you suggest.
The first part is purely conjecture of their intent. It is irrelevant and unknowable. The facts are they leaked this to a reporter. They should be held accountable based on the facts, not their intent.
Being dumb is the meta rn