politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I sort of think that showing them the secrets would actively harm Trump because it would become obvious just how dangerous the material is. I don't think she's really thought this thing through.
Is the gambit here that they weren't actually that bad?
No, I think that they are actually that bad. I also think that the judge is dumb enough to have actually now placed these super important documents in the hands of 12 jurors plus some alternates in an effort to bow to her orange master. My take: she's not actually that smart but thinks she is and she thinks she just did a "gotcha". I believe that a jury seeing them would be shocked at what was left in a bathroom for anyone to steal.
Genuine question - do we know enough to know these were that bad?
I'd definitely believe what you're saying too but curious how much we know about the contents.
Edit: lol at the downvotes, lemmy
We do: Trump is facing a criminal trial over them. They wouldn't be classified if they weren't sensitive.
The defining characteristic of US classified documents is that their release would cause some degree of damage to US national security, ranging from harmful to gravely harmful. here's a Cornell Law writeup that squares with what I know here.
Regardless of any opinions one might have as to the use and application of classification, in the eyes of the US government taking these documents without authorization is harmful by definition.
If something is classified at that level that only top people can see it, then it’s bad. Not like “here is how to make a reactor” type make, but more like “here are all our spies, weapons projects, and seriously damaging information if it fell into the wrong hands”.
Which would be Trump’s tiny hands.
Yes we know from the reports of the documents that they included nuclear secrets and human intelligence sources. The later could cause people who are spying for us to be prosecuted and murdered and the mere suggestion that an idiot could leak this data has probably unfixably damaged our ability to collect intel for the next 20 years.
Within a classification level there isn’t “bad” and “less bad”.
If we prosecute anyone for leaking classified, we should prosecute anyone/everyone for leaking classified.
What's the least bad thing that would be worth classifying and also stealing
Corporate espionage stuff. Some pile of documents a gov agency reviewed for compliance reasons, and which a competitor wants.
She is helping Trump extend the trial until after the election.
If she can help him get elected, then he can order the Justice Department to drop the case.