One of the White House leakers?

[jimnyc]

They need to find all of the folks responsible for any leaks. If McAleenan turns out to be one, or responsible for a leak - toss him ASAP. I don't care who it is, it's harmful, and they gotta go. Dang quit/retire or whatever if you disagree politically, but sabotage or leaking is harmful. And absolutely no doubt, he has made many bad choices of who to have closest to him. Trust can be a true f**$er.

---

Officials Accuse DHS Chief Of Personally Sabotaging Trump’s Planned ICE Raids

Administration officials are accusing Homeland Security Acting Director Kevin McAleenan of sabotaging Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) deportation raids by leaking key details of the plan.

President Donald Trump abruptly announced Saturday that he would delay plans for Sunday raids targeting around 2,000 illegal immigrants across the country. The president claimed the two-week hiatus would give the White House time to reach a consensus with Democrats on “asylum and loophole” issues at the southern border.

However, senior administration officials say there is much more to the story.

Current and former officials within the administration who spoke to the Washington Examiner and BuzzFeed are accusing McAleenan of ruining the Sunday operation by either personally releasing details of the plan or by having people on his staff do it for him.

“I know he has not approved of this operation for months,” one source familiar with the matter said to the Washington Examiner. “The president wouldn’t leak that. ICE wouldn’t leak that. There’s only a few people involved in these discussions. … The only one who could have shared the details of those operations were [McAleenan].

Revealing details of the deportation raids, such as dates and locations, put ICE agents at risk, the sources pointed out.

“Leaking the locations and details to stop the operation from happening not only harmed operational integrity, but it put the safety and well-being of his own officers in jeopardy,” one administration official said to BuzzFeed. “The ICE mission is enforcing the nation’s laws and ensuring those who are unlawfully present in the country are removed if ordered by a judge; this will leave an unerasable mark on his tenure.”

Rest - https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/23/m...ing-ice-raids/


The Morning Briefing: Immigration Raid Canceled After Rogue Leak

Leaks from the administration, Sunday raids canceled

When are these leakers going to be hunted down and punished? Anyone who is leaking information from the White House needs to be discovered and punished severely. It's dangerous to have unelected bureaucrats deciding to influence policy by trying to embarrass the administration. It's Trump's fault that he hasn't smoked out these activists and fired them or put them in an office with nothing other than a crossword puzzle and a pencil. You can't fire these dirtbags because of the ridiculous union "job protection" rules, but you can add civil service reform to the top of the list of issues Trump should have addressed on day one.

In this case, word leaked out that the Trump administration was going to conduct a 10-city immigration raid on Sunday. The raid was to focus on migrants who have been denied asylum but have not left the country. It appears that leak came from Kevin McAleenan, Trump's Homeland Security Secretary. Come on, man. Trump has picked the worst people to work in the administration and the clowns he hasn't picked were picked by the establishment Republican industry who are not on board with his agenda. What a dumpster fire.

According to the Washington Examiner:

However, all five officials who spoke with the Washington Examiner confirmed McAleenan's decision to go rogue and stymie the operation was what prompted the White House to call off the 10-city operation.

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-mor...er-rogue-leak/

[Kathianne]

I am not trying to do 'an I told you so,' but notice that they say, 'unelected bureaucrats,' then go onto say that 'Trump chose' and that's the thing. Bureaucrats don't get 'inside information' on dates, time, and how. They give the information they have and know to those above to do something with.

When you have 'an outsider, someone who's going to 'shake it up,' and 'drain the swamp' and lots of people loudly backing that rhetoric, your going to have more than your share of problems. That should be a given, something one plans for.

You all know that while I don't support the person as President, I do support the presidency. I do support what's best for the country. This leaking, which on important issues, at least two big ones this week,' has to stop.

[jimnyc]

I am not trying to do 'an I told you so,' but notice that they say, 'unelected bureaucrats,' then go onto say that 'Trump chose' and that's the thing. Bureaucrats don't get 'inside information' on dates, time, and how. They give the information they have and know to those above to do something with.

When you have 'an outsider, someone who's going to 'shake it up,' and 'drain the swamp' and lots of people loudly backing that rhetoric, your going to have more than your share of problems. That should be a given, something one plans for.

You all know that while I don't support the person as President, I do support the presidency. I do support what's best for the country. This leaking, which on important issues, at least two big ones this week,' has to stop.

All Trump's stuff and others words too, and SO many listeners, and that's nearly impossible to stop, but can and should have a thorough investigation. So many times... how many are present for plans, discussions and other things? How many others get updates and/or memos or emails or something that fills them in. Just too many non-trustful folks with their hands in the cookie jar. Like stated, they were mostly chosen, making it more difficult because you're now investigating people you trust. And how many others are privy to things that were or weren't involved initially. I assume not everyone is present, for example, when in the situation room during a plan for an attack, or during. But, I would also assume that people outside of that room are updated at least on some things, as the job needs to be carried out.

Then there are things like regular meetings, and who is in attendance? I can't imagine most things leaving that room. Then you have smaller meetings with the president, with a few advisers in the oval office for example. Or how about important calls with leaders, maybe alone in the oval office, and maybe someone or a small amount of others present.

SO many situations where things are discussed. So many are just with his cabinet folks. Some are with much more and/or involve more. I think some leaks are tougher to track or near impossible, while 'maybe' others where perhaps just one or 2 people present, and no one else involved or supposed to be leaving that room. If it can't be proven 100%, I would imagine they would kinda know who that person is.

At this point though, I want to see arrests, all the way around, and folks dismissed - and that includes the current Barr investigation. But if leaks involve those close to Trump, and like I even stated the other day about Kellyanne Conway - adios!

[Kathianne]

All Trump's stuff and others words too, and SO many listeners, and that's nearly impossible to stop, but can and should have a thorough investigation. So many times... how many are present for plans, discussions and other things? How many others get updates and/or memos or emails or something that fills them in. Just too many non-trustful folks with their hands in the cookie jar. Like stated, they were mostly chosen, making it more difficult because you're now investigating people you trust. And how many others are privy to things that were or weren't involved initially. I assume not everyone is present, for example, when in the situation room during a plan for an attack, or during. But, I would also assume that people outside of that room are updated at least on some things, as the job needs to be carried out.

Then there are things like regular meetings, and who is in attendance? I can't imagine most things leaving that room. Then you have smaller meetings with the president, with a few advisers in the oval office for example. Or how about important calls with leaders, maybe alone in the oval office, and maybe someone or a small amount of others present.

SO many situations where things are discussed. So many are just with his cabinet folks. Some are with much more and/or involve more. I think some leaks are tougher to track or near impossible, while 'maybe' others where perhaps just one or 2 people present, and no one else involved or supposed to be leaving that room. If it can't be proven 100%, I would imagine they would kinda know who that person is.

At this point though, I want to see arrests, all the way around, and folks dismissed - and that includes the current Barr investigation. But if leaks involve those close to Trump, and like I even stated the other day about Kellyanne Conway - adios!

Gathering information means 'lots' of people. These are the 'directional' leaks. 'It looks like actions are being planned to do X, Y, Z.' This 'specific action, X' is happening 'Thursday, at A, B, C' is from a close associate or Trump himself. Bureaucrats don't have the date, time, scope of specifics.

[STTAB]

I am not trying to do 'an I told you so,' but notice that they say, 'unelected bureaucrats,' then go onto say that 'Trump chose' and that's the thing. Bureaucrats don't get 'inside information' on dates, time, and how. They give the information they have and know to those above to do something with.

When you have 'an outsider, someone who's going to 'shake it up,' and 'drain the swamp' and lots of people loudly backing that rhetoric, your going to have more than your share of problems. That should be a given, something one plans for.

You all know that while I don't support the person as President, I do support the presidency. I do support what's best for the country. This leaking, which on important issues, at least two big ones this week,' has to stop.

You don't think the Acting Director of Homeland Security would have details of such a thing ?


And just unreal that 2 1/2 year later Trump is still plagued with leakers, which of course tell you one thing. He's not dealing harshly enough with leakers when caught.

[Kathianne]

You don't think the Acting Director of Homeland Security would have details of such a thing ?


And just unreal that 2 1/2 year later Trump is still plagued with leakers, which of course tell you one thing. He's not dealing harshly enough with leakers when caught.

Yes. He. Would. My point exactly.

[STTAB]

Yes. He. Would. My point exactly.

Then I'm confused about your point, because the claim is that he is the person who leaked the information.

And IMO Trump needs to start firing a lot more people. I would have fired Christopher Wray the day he told Congress "I would not call it spying" I'd have fired Ben Carson the day it was made public that he spent $30K on a dining room table, I would fire every single person that doesn't shut the fuck up and toe the line after a decision is made, etc etc.

[Kathianne]

Then I'm confused about your point, because the claim is that he is the person who leaked the information.

And IMO Trump needs to start firing a lot more people. I would have fired Christopher Wray the day he told Congress "I would not call it spying" I'd have fired Ben Carson the day it was made public that he spent $30K on a dining room table, I would fire every single person that doesn't shut the fuck up and toe the line after a decision is made, etc etc.

Who put him in that position? That position is not a bureaucrat. That was and is my point. Seriously, harmful, dangerous leaks do not come from bureaucrats, they come from the inner circle.

Irritating, leading reporter leaks to stories, i.e., to those IN power, come from bureaucrats.

[STTAB]

Who put him in that position? That position is not a bureaucrat. That was and is my point. Seriously, harmful, dangerous leaks do not come from bureaucrats, they come from the inner circle.

Irritating, leading reporter leaks to stories, i.e., to those IN power, come from bureaucrats.

And again, that isn't always true.

For example, this guy, I guarantee you he has an assistant, a career government employee, who knows everything he knows when he knows it. That's the way it works , heck the Director of Homeland Security probably has SEVERAL assistants who are unelected bureaucrats and have access to almost everything he has access to.

[Kathianne]

And again, that isn't always true.

For example, this guy, I guarantee you he has an assistant, a career government employee, who knows everything he knows when he knows it. That's the way it works , heck the Director of Homeland Security probably has SEVERAL assistants who are unelected bureaucrats and have access to almost everything he has access to.

Right. Just have to take your 'guarantee.' Guess what, if that were the case, all Trump needs to do is get rid of the one with 'power' and the bureaucrat's influence is gone. Bottom line, he's picking people who either don't agree with him or are just disloyal for their 15 min. with a reporter, anonymously. Which is more likely?

[STTAB]

Right. Just have to take your 'guarantee.' Guess what, if that were the case, all Trump needs to do is get rid of the one with 'power' and the bureaucrat's influence is gone. Bottom line, he's picking people who either don't agree with him or are just disloyal for their 15 min. with a reporter, anonymously. Which is more likely?

Oh there are some disloyal fucks who Trump has appointed that's obvious. But the thing about the Deep State is no matter who the President fires, the next person will still need bureaucrats and rooting out all the shitty people inside Executive branch is a task that Trump has found out is virtually impossible.

[Kathianne]

Oh there are some disloyal fucks who Trump has appointed that's obvious. But the thing about the Deep State is no matter who the President fires, the next person will still need bureaucrats and rooting out all the shitty people inside Executive branch is a task that Trump has found out is virtually impossible.

Again, you are assuming it's the bureaucrats, in which case there's no need to get rid of those Trump appointed. What's needed is to keep the information to be executed away from the bureaucrats. Which is supposed to be the way things are done. But I guess in the 'shake it up world' they have everyone there when he's ready to give order to execute. Yeah, I don't think so either.