Scaramucci's obsession with leaks from 150 years ago?
First of all, he has gone on record saying that WH staff has to prove they are not leakers.
I have a vague recollection that you can't prove a negative. So good luck with that exercise.
And he also says that the WH leaks are unimportant, unlike the leaks about Korea and Syria, etc.
No details.
And what's with the reference to leakers 150 years ago who would have been hung (although I think the correct usage would be hanged). Anyone here with knowledge of historical leaks and the response to them? I don't the issue of leaks coming up when I studied history in high school. Anyone?
I listened to the CNN interview for a few minutes. I understand Scaramucci went nuts later on, but why on earth did they let him give his little speech, much of which included references to his love for his boss, the first lady, and New Yorkers in general. I'll bet that Italians and Catholics figured in later on, though I had to turn it off.
So - prove a negative, refer to leaks without providing details, and leaders should be hung. Great first week. Or was that just today?
= new reply since forum marked as read
