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.
So many bad precedents have been set in the past two years - most of them by Trump.
If Trump is indeed unstable, as I believe he is, then I have no problem withholding national security information from him.
So you have no issue with career civil service and appointees withholding information from the president, a position in which decisions are based off the information presented to him?
In light of the NYT reporting that officials didn't brief Trump on cyber attack against Russia, I must ask this question.
Is it acceptable for unelected government officials to withhold information of national security from a duly elected president?
Were they in fact withholding? Should the CEO of a large company be informed of every nuance or action of its employees? Cleanup on aisle 4... Better call the boss!! Based on reports on current WH security briefings, maybe they did let him know but because there weren't any accompanying cartoon illustrations or charts it never sunk into Trump's lizard brain.
Were they in fact withholding? Should the CEO of a large company be informed of every nuance or action of its employees? Cleanup on aisle 4... Better call the boss!! Based on reports on current WH security briefings, maybe they did let him know but because there weren't any accompanying cartoon illustrations or charts it never sunk into Trump's lizard brain.
The term "withholding" refers to that a person was suppose to provide the item in question, but did not. SO a "clean up on aisle 4" is probably not relevant information the CEO needs to know. However, not informing something for example, a billion dollar accounting error, would be something that would fall under "withholding".
The dictionary definition - refusal to give something that is due or desired.
The term "withholding" refers to that a person was suppose to provide the item in question, but did not. SO a "clean up on aisle 4" is probably not relevant information the CEO needs to know. However, not informing something for example, a billion dollar accounting error, would be something that would fall under "withholding".
The dictionary definition - refusal to give something that is due or desired.
OK, did Trump desire the information because everything about the guy says "Ignorance is bliss"?
Were they in fact withholding? Should the CEO of a large company be informed of every nuance or action of its employees? Cleanup on aisle 4... Better call the boss!! Based on reports on current WH security briefings, maybe they did let him know but because there weren't any accompanying cartoon illustrations or charts it never sunk into Trump's lizard brain.
I don’t think implanting malware in a sovereign country’s electrical system is a nuance.
They wanted to hide from the president because it’s not a nuance.
In light of the NYT reporting that officials didn't brief Trump on cyber attack against Russia, I must ask this question.
Is it acceptable for unelected government officials to withhold information of national security from a duly elected president?
In this case, yes. Otherwise, he'd be calling Putin and telling him all about it. He'd gladly spill all our secrets to foreign adversaries if he had them since he admires them so much.
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.
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.
