Tulsi a national security risk? Who would have ever guessed

[jon-nyc]

[Horace]

I'm sure it's a big deal and totally true, whatever it is. Let's proceed with that assumption until proven otherwise, in which case, let's never mention this again, while maintaining the vague whiff of it having been totally true and a big deal.

[Mik]

On FB we'd call this out as AI bullshit. It could be true, yes. But I'll wait until I can see the fire that's making this smoke.

[Horace]

The Trump hating tribe is never more ridiculous than when it claims that the administration is in the back pocket of one foreign government or another.

[Renauda]

@Mik

Yep, right now it is just hearsay but let’s see if the story grows legs.

Far as I’m concerned she should never have been appointed into the role of Director of Intelligence in the first place. Wouldn’t shed any tears if she were brought down hard.

[Renauda]

@Horace said in Tulsi a national security risk? Who would have ever guessed:

The Trump hating tribe is never more ridiculous than when it claims that the administration is in the back pocket of one foreign government or another.

Not all of them are. Am sure one or two are decent.

Otherwise, it’s true I loathe Trump, his team and pretty much every policy he and they purport to champion.

[jon-nyc]

This is the WSJ saying it reviewed the letter from the inspector general to Gabbard but yeah let’s pretend it’s AI slop if it helps you sleep at night.

[Horace]

Whistleblower complaint filed having something vaguely to do with Tulsi and another administration agency -> complaint makes no splash -> whistleblower's lawyer sends letter to administration and WSJ complaining that there should have been a bigger splash -> Jon thinks the whistleblower's issue is now corroborated by the WSJ.

[Mik]

@jon-nyc said in Tulsi a national security risk? Who would have ever guessed:

This is the WSJ saying it reviewed the letter from the inspector general to Gabbard but yeah let’s pretend it’s AI slop if it helps you sleep at night.

I sleep fine. If you have something, bring it.

[jon-nyc]

The letter has been withheld from Congress. The question is why.

[Horace]

[Horace]

Since no answer from the administration would be accepted by the Trump hating tribe, what we really have is a demand to see the complaint, or else they'll just assume the worst. Zero credence for the possibility that disseminating the complaint would be bad for nat'l security.

[Mik]

Pretty glaring omission on the OP.

[Horace]

@Mik said in Tulsi a national security risk? Who would have ever guessed:

Pretty glaring omission on the OP.

Sometimes I wonder whether Jon's twitter feed might be biased.

[jon-nyc]

Yes but the actual inspector general has not concluded that.

And still no transmission to Congress.

[jon-nyc]

@Mik said in Tulsi a national security risk? Who would have ever guessed:

Pretty glaring omission on the OP.

The OP linked the entire article

[Horace]

Linked the paywalled article, and cut out the juiciest bit that confirms his biases most.