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.
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.
None off that changes the fact that when you support an intelligence breach, even if that particular breach was justified, you are signaling to your superiors that you may well allow the next breach, even if it isn’t justified.
There’s a reason vigilantism is illegal. Sure, sometimes the result might be justified, but the method has no accountability. Especially given her shady history with Russia, there’s no guarantee that the next breach she supports will be another justified cause. It might just jeopardize the safety of intelligence agents.
This is your opinion. Not fact.
Tulsi has moved into the seat of accountability. The sheriff can’t be a vigilante.
Clinton has been in more shady Russian deals than Tulsi. Her accusations are pure projection.