Should intelligence be withheld from a sitting President?

And like @Zombie said, it's not up to the some government employee, if Congress believes the office to be compromised, it's their job to do so. The President is the Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief of the military, if he or she gets intell withheld, it could result in a shit show.

Did you know Truman didn't know about the bomb at first, just imagine if that would have been withheld longer.

If Trump's actions could get operatives killed, I think it's reasonable to withhold information that would compromise people. Trump isn't behaving rationally.

And what if withholding intelligence also gets someone killed?

I'd have to trust the holders of the intelligence to make the right decision. That doesn't mean they can't/won't/shouldn't summarize the data to protect people while still telling him what he needs to know. I think "need to know" is still SOP (at least what I've seen in the movies).

It's not their job and this is why the intelligence community needs to be either reduced or put in their place. It's also why they can't be trusted.

Situational awareness. You don't blab about everything you know to a person who can't keep a secret, regardless of their position. What good is a slow moving, feet dragging Congress going to do by the time Trump's mouth has written a check our collective asses can't cash?

The key phrase is sitting President, and since Trump is 100% asshole, he can never be judged to not be sitting.

The president is still the president no matter how unqualified or loathsome he is.

He is still the head of government, head of state, commander in chief of the military.

So no, there is no possible justification for withholding intelligence information from him.

This is why we would all die if you were in charge. You leak personal information like a sieve. The Russians would have all of our secrets in a week.

You twit.

You are really, really stupid.

Not possible.

Yes it is. It's a president, not a god emperor.

And government employees are hirees. Civil servants.

They are unelected and don't represent the interests of anyone but their own.

It isn't their job to put limits on an elected government official. That is the job of the other branches government.

Fictional President Kitchens disagrees!

And, while this is pedantic and somewhat beside the point, it's probably been many years since it was possible for one person to receive all the intel known by the U.S.'s various agencies.

So if president Hillary wanted all available intelligence sent to her by email, you two would be defending her?

If Hillary Clinton were president her emails would be the least of my worries.

Well, sure they would, because they'll never have to prove it. Still, it wouldn't matter. That they're staunchly defending the notion of handing all of our security secrets over to a man who has been in Twitter wars with journalists, held an intelligence briefing outdoors in public at his Florida golf club, and who is adversarial with our intelligence agencies says more about them than any hypothetical.

President Trump was still elected. He is still the president.

Until he is not president he should be treated like any previous president.

His behavior since assuming office is "unpresidented," though. That doesn't change the equation for you?

I made this point in post 8. Since it certainly isn't even possible, every leader is necessarily fed a sifted'n'cropped summary. Which obviously involves "withholding" certain things.

And why not bombard the bastard with absolutely everything? Any fact he doesn't like he can simply denounce as "fake intelligence".

So if he decided to nuke North Korea for, say, insulting his baby hands, you'd be okay with that. I say this because Trump has a massive ego, a hair trigger (no pun intended), notoriously thin skin, and an entitlement complex. On top of that, he's a narcissist, and sociopath, who cares more about image than he does preservation of core Constitutional rights. What dumbass, in their right mind, says on live television, as the President of the United States, that he's sure we want him to shoot the Russian spy ship sitting out in international waters? How many people would need to die, or lose their rights, before you changed your mind, @Dayton3? Why should anyone die, or lose their rights, because of your inability to grasp context and reality?

You know what? I think you honestly would stay in lockstep with a fascist President, solely because you'd lack the backbone and moral willpower to see wrong for what it is. You'd be a bootlicker to a fascist. When I talked to you about setting goals for yourself, I was hoping you'd aim higher.

That is a matter of opinion.

And the fact that it is also my opinion doesn't change the facts that President Trump was still elected and still the president.

I am quite willing to draw the line at unnecessary deaths of Americans and foreigners.

But no, I am not going to draw that line at a handful of foreign nationals being briefly denied entry into the United States.

Christ, you're pathetic.

No because he's not the only President to act in an unprecedented way.

50+ posts and no one has made this joke yet?

No it is not the job of any government employee to withhold any information from an elected official. That applies not only to POTUS but every single elected official in the country.

Sounds like an ancient Roman shampoo brand.

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/18/oop...stop-himself-from-blurting-out-state-secrets/

Trump can't seem to stop blurting out state secrets in public. But no, there's no reason to withhold anything from him.

Agreed, but for completely different reasons.