Confirming confidential information is sharing confidential information. As is obvious.
Completely and utterly wrong.
Some people are saying Okrahoma is a cross dresser. It would be inappropriate for me to directly answer that but what I saw in his underwear drawer would not contradict it.
Let us mark down this day as the official moment that the Spicer Follies began on the SDMB.
What do you believe are other acceptable ways to communicate information that you’re not allowed to communicate? You seem to be saying that you’re allowed to communicate information you’re not allowed to communicate if you do it in multiple sentences. Are you allowed to say things you’re not allowed to say in Pig Latin?
Help us understand your theory.
Simple. None of what Grassley said constitutes a leak. Inferences that people make are their inferences. I made one, apparently a lot of posters here agree with it.
Do you believe he intended you to make the inference you made? Or was it purely coincidental that you made that inference–he did not intend for you to make it?
Yes, he did. And yet, still not a leak.
People with access to sensitive information are not supposed to imply the substance of what they know. Everyone who has ever had a security clearance, for example, is directly told not to “talk around” sensitive matters.
If you think Grassley broke some law with this, I encourage you to notify the relevant authorities.
Okay. Do you understand what language is? Because I kind of think we gotta back up here.
Language is the conveyance of a concept from one sapient being to another using agreed upon symbols embedded in structure.
I make a series of symbolic noises or marks or gestures in a specific order, in a specific structure. My audience senses these symbolic and structured noises/marks/gestures, and understands the concept I intended for them to convey.
When this is successful, I have “communicated.”
You’re proposing some spiffy new thing, where a person can communicate an idea without actually communicating an idea. It’s total nonsense, but maybe if you don’t understand what language is, you don’t realize what nonsense it is.
This is more about your own opinions on leaking, rather than Grassley facing punishment for his leak.
Remember Clinton’s emails, where some number had classified information in them? You’re surely aware that it is possible that she simply “talked around” or just “implied” things in a similar way to what Grassley did in this example. But you’re on record excoriating Clinton for her indiscretions, and in total denial that Grassley did anything wrong. The juxtaposition is worth noting.
First - you have to determine if the information he shared was, in fact, classified. IF it was , then yes, he broke the law in disclosing said information. If that is the case, then the authorities are already well aware of it and will take whatever action (or inaction, as the case may be) with regard to it.
My guess, is that inforrmation is not ‘classified’ in the general sense but something they simply usually don’t disclose for various reasons - as has been discussed at great length in the past - which is WHY the hoopla in October occured and the fallout from it.
Instead - what he really is doing is trying to encourage Comey (and/or the FBI) to speak on the matter directly, and in his wishy-washy way saying that ‘he’ was not aware if Trump himself was under investigation - because by phrasing it the way he did - he invites MORE attention to it then simply saying that he doesn’t know; can’t confirm or deny, etc.
Grassley’s statements - no matter what you try to infer from it - do not put an end to whether or not Trump is under investigation (personally) - then or now.
If it was in the same way Grassley did here, then she did nothing wrong. Can you give examples?
No, because nobody (so far as I know) has released the classified emails.
But you have a record of complaining about Clinton’s emails without any knowledge of the substance of them, so your back-tracking that maybe she did nothing wrong does not ring true.
As an aside, are you using “cricket” as an adjective here? Any clue as to how to interpret it?
“That’s not cricket” is an idiom meaning that someone isn’t playing fairly. He’s asking if you think that Grassley is playing by the rules by making a statement clearly intending to convey information or a conclusion that he is not supposed to make, but phrasing it in such a way to make a thin veneer of not really saying some magic words that Okrahoma things are verboten.
Thanks Grasshopper.