Trump Leaks Highly Classified Intel to Russia

[Kismit]

I am personally quite interested in the Comey memos that are being subpeonaed. 

This  really should force President Trump's hand in revealing his tapped convesations with Comey. I'm not 100%sure if these have not also been subpeonaed for Congretional review.

Allowing independent review of both Comey's notes and unedited transcripts of his meetings with POTUS, should be  quite telling on the actual reality front. As opposed to the reality t.v. version we appear to be getting.

I'm almost tempted to put a cool crisp fiver on Donald not releasing those tapes. ( He might proove me wrong,  I'm o.k. with that too. It's only a fiver).

[Frank Merton]

20 minutes ago, bee said:

.

I think the majority of the public want Peace with Russia and to see the US and Russia working together to tackle ISIS -

a couple of Trump's tweets on the matter --

"As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining....

...to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

 

 

 

The problem is that Russia supports the brutal regime in Syria and is at odds with American interests half a dozen other places.  Therefore it is prudent to keep them from knowing all the Americans are up to.  Quoting Trump has little if not the opposite effect on those who see through him.  Now he is just making excuses for behavior he should be impeached for.

Of course an impeachment is the last thing you or your Russian bosses want.

[Frank Merton]

7 minutes ago, Kismit said:

I am personally quite interested in the Comey memos that are being subpeonaed. 

This  really should force President Trump's hand in revealing his tapped convesations with Comey. I'm not 100%sure if these have not also been subpeonaed for Congretional review.

Allowing independent review of both Comey's notes and unedited transcripts of his meetings with POTUS, should be  quite telling on the actual reality front. As opposed to the reality t.v. version we appear to be getting.

I'm almost tempted to put a cool crisp fiver on Donald not releasing those tapes. ( He might proove me wrong,  I'm o.k. with that too. It's only a fiver).

I remember the Nixon tapes and the missing items.

[bee]

19 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

The problem is that Russia supports the brutal regime in Syria and is at odds with American interests half a dozen other places.  Therefore it is prudent to keep them from knowing all the Americans are up to.  Quoting Trump has little if not the opposite effect on those who see through him.  Now he is just making excuses for behavior he should be impeached for.

Of course an impeachment is the last thing you or your Russian bosses want.

.

behave

you are such a warmonger Merton -

and a shameless supporter of terrorism -

. 

Edited May 17, 2017 by bee

[Frank Merton]

Just now, bee said:

.

behave

you are such a warmonger Merton -

. 

Quite the opposite.  It is your Russian sponsors who have made Syria into a blood mess.  What is warmongering about my poiting out your lies?

[bee]

On 15/05/2017 at 11:19 PM, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Washington Post

.

owned and controlled by Jeff Bezos -   enemy of the POTUS -

apparently the Washington Post is very pleased with itself at the moment with the latest Hit Piece...

 

 http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/16/wapo-reporters-applauded-record-clicks-from-trump-story-drudge-says-proof-of-bloodsport/
 

The Washington Post newsroom broke out into applause when their story on Trump allegedly sharing classified information in a meeting with Russian ambassadors broke a company record.

As the clicks were rolling in, Glenn Kessler, the Post’s fact-checker, tweeted: “Applause in the newsroom as the Russia-leak scoop breaks the Hollywood Access record for most readers per minute.”

Los Angeles Times reporter Matt Pearce described the applause as “weird, given the circumstances.”

[snip]

 

“WASHPOST Newsroom staff openly applauding at latest Trump hit finally clarifies how this has turned into nothing but a bloodsport!” wrote Drudge, who runs the influential Drudge Report.

[Frank Merton]

2 hours ago, bee said:

.

owned and controlled by Jeff Bezos -   enemy of the POTUS -

apparently the Washington Post is very pleased with itself at the moment with the latest Hit Piece...

 

 http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/16/wapo-reporters-applauded-record-clicks-from-trump-story-drudge-says-proof-of-bloodsport/
 

 

 

This is all garbage.  Trump is the problem.  Reagan and the Bush's were Republicans too and this sort of thing was not happening.  The Washington Post is highly respected for its ability to get out the truth when politicians want to hide it, and when they succeed they have every right to be proud of themselves.

[Lilly]

IMO it's garbage alright...but I think the progressive far left is the problem. The NY Times and the Post are rabid Trump haters, they are not unbiased sources by any means.

[Lilly]

3 hours ago, Kismit said:

 

Allowing independent review of both Comey's notes and unedited transcripts of his meetings with POTUS, should be  quite telling on the actual reality front. As opposed to the reality t.v. version we appear to be getting.

 

We need to keep in mind that handwritten memos made out to oneself are not amenable to dating (as in when was the memo written). Nor can the accuracy of the memo be corroborated (since it was private). A memo to oneself falls into the category of the lowest level of evidence and a court might not accept it as evidence at all.

Something else we have to keep in mind, Mr Comey was appointed by President Obama. Mr Comey also gave Mrs Clinton leniency regarding investigation into her actions.

[+Hammerclaw]

Gee, I what happened to all the tapes from the Obama White House? Wouldn't that make interesting listening.

[Lilly]

34 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Gee, I what happened to all the tapes from the Obama White House? Wouldn't that make interesting listening.

Interestingly (if that's a word?) didn't Trump imply a few days back that he had tapes of conversations between himself and Mr Comey that supported his (Trump's) position?

[Vorg]

2 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

This is all garbage.  Trump is the problem.  Reagan and the Bush's were Republicans too and this sort of thing was not happening.  The Washington Post is highly respected for its ability to get out the truth when politicians want to hide it, and when they succeed they have every right to be proud of themselves.

So if that was the first time they clapped, they finally got it right huh?

[+Liquid Gardens]

12 hours ago, Merc14 said:

First of all, the President is the ultimate authority on what is classified or not and what can be divulged, so no law was broken even if he did divulge.

Just because it was legal has nothing to do with it being a wise move.  As was already talked about any president could 'legally' give Russia our nuclear launch codes, doesn't mean it's then okay.

Quote

 Second of all, I can tell you did not go to the link because if you had you could've watched the same video from CNN that I did and you wouldn't be asking this stupid question.  

If you had a point it should be effortless for you to provide a quote of what he said, especially since you were also just noting how McMaster made multiple comments on it.  Where did McMaster clearly deny that classified information was discussed in the video that I already watched?  The closest I see is a comment about 'open-source' reporting, which isn't exactly specific, and again you dodged the obvious: McMaster's and Trump's comments about this story make little sense if classified information wasn't divulged.  Why all this stuff about how sources and methods weren't discussed, why all these irrelevant assertions that it is legal for the President to declassify something, if the information wasn't even classified before Trump talked about it?  McMaster, if you are aware of his comments, noted that Trump couldn't divulge the source because he wasn't even aware of it; why are we even talking about sources for 'open-source' information, how is 'the president met with Russian officials to discuss non-classified intelligence' even considered 'a leak'?  In your scenario, where classified intelligence was not discussed, there's no leak here, just a lie.  Maybe these are just more stupid questions that you can't seem to provide an answer for.

Don't confuse my arguing that most indications are that he divulged classified information with arguing that it was inappropriate, those are two separate questions. I like McMaster so far, he's one of the few in the Administration that actually had qualifications suiting him for his job, but he's also saddled with the label 'Trump appointee'.  I really don't understand how you of all people don't see how carefully wordsmithed the statements were that McMaster made here, nor that if no classified intelligence was given, how the statements they are making are kinda stupid tactically.  But indeed, you enjoy your day also!

[WoIverine]

As the quest to unearth just what Trump told Russian foreign minister Lavrov continued, an unexpected development emerged on Wednesday morning, when none other than Russian president Vladimir Putin said that Trump did not share any classified information or state secrets to foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, and to prove it he was ready to hand over a transcript of the talks between Putin and Lavrov to Congress if the White House requests it.

Speaking at a news conference alongside Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, Reuters reported that Putin quipped that Lavrov had not passed what he said were the non-existent secrets onto him either. Putin said Russia was ready to hand a transcript of Trump's meeting with Lavrov over to U.S. lawmakers if that would help reassure them.

"If the US administration deems it possible, we are ready to provide the Senate and Congress with the transcript of the conversation between Lavrov and Trump," Putin said at a press conference, following a meeting with the Italian prime minister on Wednesday.

While initially Reuters reported that Putin was ready to give a "recording" of the conversation, a subsequent clarification by Reuters quoted a Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov who says "Putin is prepared to provide a transcript, not audio recording, of Trump and Lavrov meeting." Arguably, that's because the last thing the White House needs right now is someone else recording conversations.

As for the reason behind Putin's generous offer: the Russian president said that the latest reports about Trump revealing security secrets to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have become "political schizophrenia", and Russia is willing to help resolve these, adding Russia highly appreciates results of Trump-Lavrov talks.

"We are seeing in the US a developing political schizophrenia," Putin said quoted by RT. "There is no other way I can explain the accusations against the acting US president that he gave away some secrets to Lavrov."

Those who "are destabilizing the internal US political situation using anti-Russian slogans either don't understand that they are bringing this nonsense in on their own side, and then they are just stupid, or else they understand everything, and then they are dangerous and corrupt people," Putin said.

Edited May 17, 2017 by WoIverine

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

If you want to nitpick the forum rules or appeal the closure of another thread please PM either myself or a moderator.

This thread is not the place for it.

Thank you.

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, WoIverine said:

As the quest to unearth just what Trump told Russian foreign minister Lavrov continued, an unexpected development emerged on Wednesday morning, when none other than Russian president Vladimir Putin said that Trump did not share any classified information or state secrets to foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, and to prove it he was ready to hand over a transcript of the talks between Putin and Lavrov to Congress if the White House requests it.

Speaking at a news conference alongside Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, Reuters reported that Putin quipped that Lavrov had not passed what he said were the non-existent secrets onto him either. Putin said Russia was ready to hand a transcript of Trump's meeting with Lavrov over to U.S. lawmakers if that would help reassure them.

"If the US administration deems it possible, we are ready to provide the Senate and Congress with the transcript of the conversation between Lavrov and Trump," Putin said at a press conference, following a meeting with the Italian prime minister on Wednesday.

While initially Reuters reported that Putin was ready to give a "recording" of the conversation, a subsequent clarification by Reuters quoted a Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov who says "Putin is prepared to provide a transcript, not audio recording, of Trump and Lavrov meeting." Arguably, that's because the last thing the White House needs right now is someone else recording conversations.

As for the reason behind Putin's generous offer: the Russian president said that the latest reports about Trump revealing security secrets to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have become "political schizophrenia", and Russia is willing to help resolve these, adding Russia highly appreciates results of Trump-Lavrov talks.

"We are seeing in the US a developing political schizophrenia," Putin said quoted by RT. "There is no other way I can explain the accusations against the acting US president that he gave away some secrets to Lavrov."

Those who "are destabilizing the internal US political situation using anti-Russian slogans either don't understand that they are bringing this nonsense in on their own side, and then they are just stupid, or else they understand everything, and then they are dangerous and corrupt people," Putin said.

Looks like Trump has a friend in Putin.

[Uncle Sam]

I been feeling like someone in a high position in our government, close to the white house, is purposely leaking these documents in attempt to remove Trump from office to allow for a coup.

So are we experience the attempts of rogue officials attempts at a coup?

 

Edited May 17, 2017 by Uncle Sam

[Sweetpumper]

Bozell & Graham Column: Democracy Dies In Anonymous Sourcing

On Monday, The Washington Post offered another arrogant serving of the media’s idea of “democracy” and, for that matter, "news." They loaded up a story full of anonymous “current and former U.S. government officials” with the headline, “Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians: Highly classified information on ISIS.” 

Trump’s national security team denied the Post story, which, as usual, doesn't do a bit of good. The media instinctively disbelieve everything Team Trump has to say. If the Post account is correct and the president compromised intelligence operatives and damaged alliances to impress the Russians, that is not just noteworthy, it's TNT.  But what exactly did Trump disclose?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2017/05/16/bozell-graham-column-democracy-dies-anonymous-sourcing

[GlitterRose]

Things are getting really scary, and still we have apologists for Putin. People need to decide whether they want to be Americans or Russians. Or whether, as I suspect, it's all really down to money and the new authoritarian kleptocracy currently sweeping the world and appealing to would-be oligarchs, everywhere.

[Merc14]

8 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

...you're always going to have real problems trying to persuade people of the merits of your argument when all you can really say is that they have no credibility cause Trump can do no wrong because he is a republican. 

 

What I actually said was three people in high level intelligence roles stated unequivocally that what the WP reported did not happen.   That someone ignores those statements while blindly accepting what an anonymous person said is what destroys their credibility.  Do you understand that risky or should I type slower?

[WoIverine]

33 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Looks like Trump has a friend in Putin.

Here's to them getting along and averting mutual thermonuclear holocaust!

Edited May 17, 2017 by WoIverine

[Merc14]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Just because it was legal has nothing to do with it being a wise move.  As was already talked about any president could 'legally' give Russia our nuclear launch codes, doesn't mean it's then okay.

Agreed.

Quote

If you had a point it should be effortless for you to provide a quote of what he said, especially since you were also just noting how McMaster made multiple comments on it.  Where did McMaster clearly deny that classified information was discussed in the video that I already watched?  The closest I see is a comment about 'open-source' reporting, which isn't exactly specific, and again you dodged the obvious: McMaster's and Trump's comments about this story make little sense if classified information wasn't divulged.  Why all this stuff about how sources and methods weren't discussed, why all these irrelevant assertions that it is legal for the President to declassify something, if the information wasn't even classified before Trump talked about it?  McMaster, if you are aware of his comments, noted that Trump couldn't divulge the source because he wasn't even aware of it; why are we even talking about sources for 'open-source' information, how is 'the president met with Russian officials to discuss non-classified intelligence' even considered 'a leak'?  In your scenario, where classified intelligence was not discussed, there's no leak here, just a lie.  Maybe these are just more stupid questions that you can't seem to provide an answer for.

So instead of listening to a minute long statement you require that I transcribe it for you?   I did summarize that what was said by McMaster is that nothing of what the WP printed occurred but you rejected that so I posted the actual speech and you chastise me for not transcribing it.  I think what is really going on is you wish to ignore McMaster.

Quote

Don't confuse my arguing that most indications are that he divulged classified information with arguing that it was inappropriate, those are two separate questions. I like McMaster so far, he's one of the few in the Administration that actually had qualifications suiting him for his job, but he's also saddled with the label 'Trump appointee'.  I really don't understand how you of all people don't see how carefully wordsmithed the statements were that McMaster made here, nor that if no classified intelligence was given, how the statements they are making are kinda stupid tactically.  But indeed, you enjoy your day also!

SO then an anonymous source is legitimate and must be believed while McMaster, saddled with the title appointee, must now be rejected.  Got it, thanks. 

2 minutes ago, WoIverine said:

Yeah, it sure would be nice not to have to deal with mutual thermonuclear holocaust. Here's to them getting along!

Yes, I long for the days when the Russians simply ignored our president and did whatever they wanted because they knew there would be no repercussions.  Wonder what Putin did with Hillary's reset button?  

 

Edited May 17, 2017 by Merc14

[Gromdor]

Now that the smoke has cleared some, it is pretty obvious what happened.  Back in March when the US got intel about the laptop bombs, the information came from a city within ISIS territory.  The US media got wind of this and was told not to print it because it was classified information and that peoples lives were at stake and the method that they got the information from that city might be revealed.  Fast forward to now and we have Trump meeting with the Ambassador and revealing the name of the city.  The US media gets wind of it again and are miffed because they were told it was classified information and could not be revealed.  The city still hasn't been named by US media, but it's pretty obvious with Putin's statement that the Russians have a complete transcript. 

Why is that bad?  Well, if the city is in Syria where the Russians are working with the Syrian government and Iran against the US and the rebels, then having them know part of our intelligence network is bad.   Also if ISIS gets wind, they could kill everyone in the city.. 

We will see if the city gets outed in the next few weeks or if it is still considered "classified". 

[WoIverine]

59 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Yes, I long for the days when the Russians simply ignored our president and did whatever they wanted because they knew there would be no repercussions.  Wonder what Putin did with Hillary's reset button?  

 

If he rolled it back out for Trump to push, it would drive the media 110% completely insane. The pinnacle of epic trolling.

Edited May 17, 2017 by WoIverine

[+Liquid Gardens]

39 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

So instead of listening to a minute long statement you require that I transcribe it for you?   I did summarize that what was said by McMaster is that nothing of what the WP printed occurred but you rejected that so I posted the actual speech and you chastise me for not transcribing it. 

What on earth are you talking about, I watched and listened to it and I'm the one, not you so far, that has actually provided quotes.  "The story as reported is false", "sources and methods were not discussed", etc, does not equal, 'nothing the WP printed occurred'.  I think I've done more than my due diligence in attempting to back up your point, and will note yet again that you haven't even attempted to engage my point about how these responses make little sense if no classified information was discussed.

Quote

 I think what is really going on is you wish to ignore McMaster

You have yet to point out anything I'm ignoring.  No offense, but I'm not looking for your 'summarization', I doubt my summarization would mean much to you either.  I think you are trying to put words into McMaster's mouth.

Quote

SO then an anonymous source is legitimate and must be believed while McMaster, saddled with the title appointee, must now be rejected.  

Who said that other than you?  As I've said, I'm not basing my suspicion on just an anonymous source, I'm basing it on the responses made by McMaster and Trump to this story, because they make little sense in your scenario.  Let's say you are correct, no classified information was discussed.  Why didn't McMaster just make an even shorter statement:  'No classified information was discussed.  The end'?  If no classified information was discussed then why aren't he and Trump clear about that?  McMaster was clear and specific that no sources or methods or military operations were divulged, so why then the tap-dancing around what part of the accusation actually was, that classified information was divulged by Trump?