Washington Post - Trump Gave Top Secret Info To Russians

[whichphilosophy]

Impeachment on what basis?

As congress sees fit. Understand their power.

A whim alone is not a basis upon which an impeachment can proceed.

 

[Warpoet]

The problem is there is a disparity of information.
The report from anonymous sources claims he provided classified information vs. a denial by those who where there (a few minutes ago) who state this is incorrect.

The White House is playing word games, and their denials mean nothing anyway. They lie all the time, and demonstrably so. They're not a credible source. Anonymous sources are regularly used in these circumstances; no one is going to publicly confirm that these things happened if they want to keep their job.

There is an investigation into allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians but has done nothing except go around in circles.

Yes, because the Republican-controlled committees handling the investigation aren't doing their job, and Trump keeps firing people involved in it.

So there is nothing to say so far that anything was actually given away to anyone.

You're being totally unreasonable and are trying to downplay/defend indefensible behaviour.

- - - Updated - - -

A whim alone is not a basis upon which an impeachment can proceed.

It may or may not be an impeachable offense, but it's clear as day - if it wasn't before - that he's unfit to lead the country and handle important matters of national security. There should now be a bipartisan consensus that he should resign, as there should have been from the start. But there won't be.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The White House is playing word games, and their denials mean nothing anyway. They lie all the time, and demonstrably so. They're not a credible source. Anonymous sources are regularly used in these circumstances; no one is going to publicly confirm that these things happened if they want to keep their job.

There is an investigation into allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians but has done nothing except go around in circles.

Yes, because the Republican-controlled committees handling the investigation aren't doing their job, and Trump keeps firing people involved in it.

So there is nothing to say so far that anything was actually given away to anyone.

You're being totally unreasonable and are trying to downplay/defend indefensible behaviour.

I pointed out there is a disparity of information. That cannot mean there was or was not a breach. However again the accusers failed to provide a burden of proof.

 

[ZiprHead]

The main battle cry is that it is fake news since the sources were anonymous. A couple have claimed that since the president can arbitrarily declassify anything that it doesn't matter.

He can declassify OUR stuff, but declassifying something from an ally would be a whole different ball of toupee wax.
It wasn't his information to declassify, not without their permission.

This will severely hamper our collection of intelligence. Our allies are probably right now wondering whether or not to continue sharing intelligence.

 

[Warpoet]

I pointed out there is a disparity of information. That cannot mean there was or was not a breach. However again the accusers failed to provide a burden of proof.

Several reputable news outlets confirming it via multiple sources within government is pretty strong evidence that it happened. That a bunch of Trump appointees are claiming it didn't means jack shit.

So either it happened, or WaPo, The New York Times, Reuters and every other news outfit that's confirmed this all made it up/have been duped. Which do you think rational people will accept as the more likely explanation?

 

[Deepak]

I pointed out there is a disparity of information. That cannot mean there was or was not a breach. However again the accusers failed to provide a burden of proof.

Several reputable news outlets confirming it via multiple sources within government is pretty strong evidence that it happened. That a bunch of Trump appointees are claiming it didn't means jack shit.

So either it happened, or WaPo, The New York Times, Reuters and every other news outfit that's confirmed this all made it up/have been duped. Which do you think rational people will accept as the more likely explanation?

Funny that the WH staffers would tap the intelligence agencies and redact the internal memos if all Trump talked about was steaks.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A whim alone is not a basis upon which an impeachment can proceed.

Sure it is.
The historical meaning of 'high crimes and misdemenors' is "for whatever reason whatsoever." They can impeach him for his golf game, if enough people can be convinced to vote on it.
They may have a hard time getting a conviction, but they're certainly empowered to do it.

Kind of like the military's Article 134:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter,
all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of
good order and discipline in the armed forces, all
conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the
armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital,
of which persons subject to this chapter may
be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general,
special, or summary court-martial, according
to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall
be punished at the discretion of that court.

People in certain positions can he held accountable just for being in that position, if they piss off the wrong people.

 

[Ford]

The main battle cry is that it is fake news since the sources were anonymous. A couple have claimed that since the president can arbitrarily declassify anything that it doesn't matter.

The news conference just now claims that no information was given away so now there is disparity of information.

Richard Nixon: "I am not a crook."

Ronald Reagan: "We did not, repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."

Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

We've had a string of US Presidents lying directly to the American people. There is no reason to think the current occupant of the White House is any more honest. In fact there's quite a bit of evidence to indicate that he's incapable of being forthright. His staff obfuscates and flat-out lies in order to spin his flat-out lies and obfuscations.

I'll give those anonymous sources from the Washington Post the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[blastula]

NYT and Reuters have also confirmed.

 

[Artemus]

NYT and Reuters have also confirmed.

So has CNN.

Trump just finished saying that his spokes-people can't keep up with him so we shouldn't expect them to be correct. So I don't expect them to be correct this time.

 

[ZiprHead]

Screaming overheard in Cabinet Room meeting between Spicer, Bannon and Sanders after Russia intel revelation

 

[Ford]

Screaming overheard in Cabinet Room meeting between Spicer, Bannon and Sanders after Russia intel revelation

Meanwhile, things are oddly quiet at Edward Snowden's suite in Russia apart from a muttered "you've got to be fucking kidding me."

 

[Artemus]

Screaming overheard in Cabinet Room meeting between Spicer, Bannon and Sanders after Russia intel revelation

Gotta wonder when some of them are finally going to throw in the towel.

 

[barbos]

So what if anyone of you were POTUS and NSA/CIA comes to you and says "we have a high degree of confidence that ISIS is in the final stages of planning to blow up Metro train in some Russian city"
You would of course do the right thing - don't tell Putin, cause you know, he is a bad guy.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Jesus, Sergey Lavrov, Kislyak, and Putin must be laughing their asses off right now at the incredible stupidity of the orange buffoon. As they pin down the source they learned about from Trump the other day, and possibly compromise it or disrupt it.

 

[barbos]

Jesus, Sergey Lavrov, Kislyak, and Putin must be laughing their asses off right now at the incredible stupidity of the orange buffoon. As they pin down the source they learned about from Trump the other day, and possibly compromise it or disrupt it.

I don't understand, please elaborate.

 

[Artemus]

So what if anyone of you were POTUS and NSA/CIA comes to you and says "we have a high degree of confidence that ISIS is in the final stages of planning to blow up Metro train in some Russian city"
You would of course do the right thing - don't tell Putin, cause you know, he is a bad guy.

Your scenario is meaningless because that isn't what happened. He "went off script" while bragging about the fact that he has "people brief me on great intel every day." No shit, you're the fucking president. He's like a god-damned elementary schooler trying to sound cooler than everyone else.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So what if anyone of you were POTUS and NSA/CIA comes to you and says "we have a high degree of confidence that ISIS is in the final stages of planning to blow up Metro train in some Russian city"
You would of course do the right thing - don't tell Putin, cause you know, he is a bad guy.

Slightly off, though.
If i were POTUS and the Mossad came to me with information that ISIS is in the final stages, yada yada, I'd try very hard to convince the Mossad to either tell Putin or give me permission to tell Putin, along with describing the limits of what can and cannot be told. Because it's proprietary data and it's not mine to share without their input.
If they weren't into doing 'the right thing' i may be motivated to offer concessions somewhere to try to buy their cooperation.



And even with their permission, i'd probably NOT be the guy who did the actual sharing. Out of a fear i would not get everything right. I'd have our intel specialists tell their intel specialists when the source specialists said we could share.

 

[tupac chopra]

At the moment we appear to have "an anonymous source" that informed the Washington Post versus someone who was in the room.
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/864257809701056512

"There is nothing that the President takes more seriously than the security of the American people.

The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation.

At no time, at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.

Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of State, remembered the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources.

I was in the room. It didn't happen."

We all know how accurate "anonymous sources" can be

 

[blastula]

Except he didn't contradict anything in the story. They didn't claim he discussed sources or methods. His statement was carefully worded empty blather, and really only served to confirm the story is accurate.