Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-01-2017, 11:45 AM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,075,058 times
Reputation: 17204

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RevelationWriter View Post
- Being employed in The White House
and receiving money for what is privileged (discussions) to News outlets is not illegal?
Depends.

Quote:
Then why is it in Secret?
Things can be a "secret" and not illegal to release. Or things can be a "secret" and illegal to release.

Quote:
After all if it's not illegal they should not be fired for it right?
Not necessarily. If a president feels an employee is not being loyal to them, they have always been able to fire them and often times have.

Quote:
They would have a legal case in Court that they were fired for selling information to News outlets which is perfectly legal for any employee of The White House to do.
No they would not. They work at the will of the president. Period. No court would find against a president here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2017, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Denver CO
24,204 posts, read 19,122,698 times
Reputation: 38266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevelationWriter View Post
- Being employed in The White House
and receiving money for what is privileged (discussions) to News outlets is not illegal?

Then why is it in Secret?

After all if it's not illegal they should not be fired for it right?
They would have a legal case in Court that they were fired for selling information to News outlets which is perfectly legal for any employee of The White House to do.

And therefore still be able to retain their job at The White House and receive money from News agencies for their job at The White House too.
where's your proof that these sources are receiving money?

Oh, that's right, you don't have any.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Here and now.
11,904 posts, read 5,563,681 times
Reputation: 12963
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
LOL...did you clarify the terms for this person? Or is that person a lost cause?
I did, and laughed. Possibly a lost cause, but I am one stubborn b. The worst thing about trying to discuss issues with this person, who really is a dear friend, is that she so often refuses to talk when the facts don't support her views. It's like she knows she is trying to defend the indefensible, but just doesn't want to give up old ways of thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 11:54 AM
 
8,392 posts, read 7,357,234 times
Reputation: 8707
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevelationWriter View Post
- Do you see any reason why The Washington Post's payout info can't be subpoena
which may tell whose providing the illegal leaks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevelationWriter View Post
- Being employed in The White House
and receiving money for what is privileged (discussions) to News outlets is not illegal?

Then why is it in Secret?

After all if it's not illegal they should not be fired for it right?
They would have a legal case in Court that they were fired for selling information to News outlets which is perfectly legal for any employee of The White House to do.

And therefore still be able to retain their job at The White House and receive money from News agencies for their job at The White House too.
Read this now...

Ponder it carefully...

Reputable news outlets, like the Washington Post, do not pay their anonymous sources.

Paying people to provide information anonymously results in a lot of bad information being offered for sale.

There's no Washington Post "payout info" to subpoena.

Do you now understand why your entire premise is a non-starter?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Pixley
3,519 posts, read 2,813,520 times
Reputation: 1863
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Read this now...

Ponder it carefully...

Reputable news outlets, like the Washington Post, do not pay their anonymous sources.

Paying people to provide information anonymously results in a lot of bad information being offered for sale.

There's no Washington Post "payout info" to subpoena.

Do you now understand why your entire premise is a non-starter?
Is it sadder this has to be explained or that some people were probably told that reputable news outlets pay for stories and believe it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,686,526 times
Reputation: 15481
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMichele View Post
I honestly think that the leaks are coming directly from someone in the administration. Thank you to the person who cares about the rest of us and wants us to know the truth.
There are undoubtedly more than one.

I kinda wonder about Elaine Chao who is married to Mitch McConnell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,686,526 times
Reputation: 15481
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Read this now...

Ponder it carefully...

Reputable news outlets, like the Washington Post, do not pay their anonymous sources.

Paying people to provide information anonymously results in a lot of bad information being offered for sale.

There's no Washington Post "payout info" to subpoena.

Do you now understand why your entire premise is a non-starter?
Now the government, on the other hand, has been known to pay for secrets. Sometimes. Not always.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 12:28 PM
 
1,114 posts, read 1,204,407 times
Reputation: 1324
The administration intentionally leaks stuff so they can blame the media for colluding with criminals to bring down the administration. They have been openly hostile with the media, so there is no reason to believe these leaks are not just a ruse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,073 posts, read 26,036,019 times
Reputation: 15531
Judith Miller of the NY Times was sent to jail regarding exposing a CIA operative, a reporter was jailed over the Pentagon Papers. The Trump administration is not the first White House to have leakers but there does seem to be more of them likely because of the present dysfunction.


Leaks are necessary for investigating reporting but some can compromise security and endanger our government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,198 posts, read 22,269,306 times
Reputation: 23827
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevelationWriter View Post
- Do you see any reason why The Washington Post's payout info can't be subpoena
which may tell whose providing the illegal leaks?
It depends on what is illegal or not. A revelation is not always illegal, though it can be. That all depends on the subject that is revealed.

And an illegal revelation that is leaked can sometimes be defensible as the leak is for the greater public good- a minor crime that reveals a major crime that has been covered up.

A person must use some judgement when learning what's in a leak. A professional journalist does use judgement, and the most reliable journalists always demand some verification to back up the leak with some facts.
If no supporting facts can be present, then a responsible, ethical journalist will say up front that the reportage is only speculative opinion that has no factual basis.

Leaks can serve very many purposes. Some will be bad, others good, some patriotic, some self-serving, some a lie, some the truth, and others part lie and part truth. Leaks are never just illegal or not.

And it is up to the individual to maintain some honest skepticism when reading unverified leaks. If I find myself agreeing a little too much with a leak, I hit the little red suspicion button in my mind that reminds me to check it out further if possible, to verify for myself whether it's all true or not.

If I can't verify, then I don't swallow it whole. I'll spit it out first, because it tastes too good to be real.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:11 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top