Washington Post - Trump Gave Top Secret Info To Russians

[starwater]

Going forward, other countries may have no choice but to continue to share intel with the US. It's likely that in many incidences, we may be the only ones capable of furthering the intel and/or the only ones capable of executing whatever the situation may require.
But do take all precautions to protect your assets from our CinC.

Or sharing false intel, hoping to get an advantage if 45 shares it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder if they're going to share DISinformation with us, and tell us not to share it, and if we publish it or act on it, and then laugh up their sleeves when we publish it or act on it...
Oh. Didn't see Starwater's post...

 

[SimpleDon]

Trump demonstrates a level of immaturity that is astonishing. It is difficult to imagine how a man could reach 70+ years old without ever growing up. He seems to be constantly trying to impress and to seek validation from the people he is with at the moment. Exactly as a 3 year old child does.

Trump, to me, is an example of the worse that can happen when we pass large amounts of money and the power that the money brings through ancestry. The result is sometimes you end up with stunningly incompetent people like Donald Trump and George W. Bush in sensitive positions of power.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Washington Post reported that President Trump informed the Russians that ISIS has a base on an island called Diego Garcia. Trump indicated to the Russians that he has the best Intelligence money can buy and Israeli intelligence, "some local guy named Hamad" indicated that the ISIS base was located on "the northern end of the a cappella."

 

[Malintent]

Given the others wont last the test of evidence, that one may be the best shot.

Wow... what do they have on you, man?

confirmation bias is what they have on him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow... what do they have on you, man?

confirmation bias is what they have on him.

To be fair, the moderators here need to complete their investigation first before we can come to that conclusion.

 

[Malintent]

Is any of this enough for a vote on impeachment.

any ONE of these things are... the accumulation of things sum up to an inevitability of impeachment.

why not just use Trump's own words regarding what should have happened to Hillary for accidently leaking information by using the wrong email account. He purposefully leaked even more highly sensitive information ON PURPOSE, out of ignorance.

Incompetency is not only a reason to not vote for him, like the majority of Americans did, but it is a reason to impeach.

The only reason legally needed to impeach is simply a loss in House confidence in his ability to perform the role... which has been lost at the 50% range, give or take. A simple majority is all that is needed... with a 2/3 vote to bring legal action (LOCK HIM UP!).

- - - Updated - - -

confirmation bias is what they have on him.

To be fair, the moderators here need to complete their investigation first before we can come to that conclusion.

.. but there is no evidence so there should be no investigation to uncover the evidence... wait.

 

[Malintent]

Trump demonstrates a level of immaturity that is astonishing. It is difficult to imagine how a man could reach 70+ years old without ever growing up. He seems to be constantly trying to impress and to seek validation from the people he is with at the moment. Exactly as a 3 year old child does.

Trump, to me, is an example of the worse that can happen when we pass large amounts of money and the power that the money brings through ancestry. The result is sometimes you end up with stunningly incompetent people like Donald Trump and George W. Bush in sensitive positions of power.

Have you seen Bush jr. speaking lately? He's been on some late night shows and other speaking events this year... I actually miss that dumbass. He sounds like a genius now in comparison. At least he was an INFORMED and RATIONAL dumbass. which is to say, I don't have to agree with him to accept him... with Trump, it not a matter of agreement (agree with what, exactly?) it is a matter of him failing to earn any respect whatsoever, and his squandering of any remaining benefit of the doubt one might grant anyone else.

 

[starwater]

Yeah - Lock him up!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump demonstrates a level of immaturity that is astonishing. It is difficult to imagine how a man could reach 70+ years old without ever growing up. He seems to be constantly trying to impress and to seek validation from the people he is with at the moment. Exactly as a 3 year old child does.

Trump, to me, is an example of the worse that can happen when we pass large amounts of money and the power that the money brings through ancestry. The result is sometimes you end up with stunningly incompetent people like Donald Trump and George W. Bush in sensitive positions of power.

Have you seen Bush jr. speaking lately? He's been on some late night shows and other speaking events this year... I actually miss that dumbass. He sounds like a genius now in comparison. At least he was an INFORMED and RATIONAL dumbass.

I think you mean to say he was rational and had "compassion". He wasn't well informed and was overruled by Cheney.

...which is to say, I don't have to agree with him to accept him... with Trump, it not a matter of agreement (agree with what, exactly?) it is a matter of him failing to earn any respect whatsoever, and his squandering of any remaining benefit of the doubt one might grant anyone else.

W was an embarrassment who couldn't speak well in public. He was in way over his head and his VP had unprecedented power in the White House. He sucked ass as a "manager"... the role that he was supposed to excel in. He placed incompetent people into positions of high power and the cost was dear. Of course, that took several years to come to fruition.

Trump, not even 5 months into his Presidency, has surpassed W's inadequacy as a leader.

The big difference is at least George W. Bush wasn't a pathological lying sociopath. And W genuinely wanted the world to be better, even if he didn't have a clue the damage he'd do. Trump doesn't give a fuck about anything but his family... and when I say family, I mean a couple sons and one daughter. And worst off, while W was president, bravado wasn't his thing. With the exception of the "Mission Accomplished" deal, he was a humble President. Trump, wants everyone to know he is the greatest... and most of those of his national leading peers knows he is the opposite.

 

[blastula]

How can anybody this wrong about everything they talk about?

You have no clue how impeachment works nor about American government works in general. Congress can impeach for anything they want, it doesn't have to be something criminal. You would also be wrong to say you know there is not enough information for criminal charges, because you don't know what all the evidence is (accept this for once), and because there is already publicly available evidence that could be prosecutable.

The Russian hack of the DNC has NOTHING to do with Clinton's server or her emails. WP, you are fake news.

Sorry I only studied English law. A case against Trump at this point wouldn't fly in an English court. Is the Chief Justice ready to preside over the Senate Trial. Has a date been set?

Since you admit your ignorance, why do you keep talking about the subject? Like in the rest of your post?

There is a lot of media fanned speculation and unsubstantiated information at this point in time. That is not the same as sufficient reason to do anything. In fact all we have had is a call for impeachment by Democrats.

If Trump is right and this was for as he says it was I don't think proceedings will get far.

The Democrats lost the election and should get over the Butt-Hurt.

Irrelevant to whether Trump can be impeached or should be impeached or whether

The Guardian article here
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/16/donald-trump-impeachment-russia-investigation-nixon
Around midday on Monday, Congressman Al Green, a Democrat from Texas, held a press conference to call for the impeachment of Donald Trump. The firing of FBI director James Comey, Green said, was an obstruction of justice falling clearly into that basket of “high crimes and misdemeanors” prescribed in the constitution as grounds for impeachment.

Green should have waited five hours. Because by the time the sun went down on Monday, advocates for Trump’s impeachment had a lot more to work with.


And

“As president I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled WH meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining … to terrorism and airline flight safety,” Trump wrote. “Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against Isis and terrorism.”

The episode has once again stoked the chorus calling for the impeachment of Trump, a chorus that has steadily built over the four months of the Trump presidency.

Legal analysts say that Trump is correct in noting his “absolute right”, as president, to share information as he pleases. The president’s discretion overrides any categorical classification, and there has been no assertion that Trump broke a law by allegedly sharing the information.

The president may, however, have broken his oath of office, according to analysis at Lawfareblog, whose top six analysts joined in a byline to write: “It’s very hard to argue that carelessly giving away highly sensitive material to an adversary foreign power constitutes a faithful execution of the office of president.”

Which is just a bunch of incoherent and not even wrong drivel.

 

[blastula]

It does so more than a rise in popularity.



You're pretty naive if you think that their best interest are not coupled to the popularity of a President they support supported.

So the Senate can vote for an impeachment based on an opinion poll?

Why do you keep asking this, when you posted a quote (below) that tells you it's a stupid question. What is in it for you to spread all this FUD?

Again vague statements. A drop in popularity does not make for getting a vote for impeachment

Here is an opinion of one of many

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-enough-evidence-to-impeach-Trump

Can we please, please stop asking about impeaching Trump?

An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.

Remarks in the U.S. House of Representatives in an effort to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (15 April 1970); recorded in the Congressional Record, vol. 116, p. 11913.
Trump will be impeached when House Members think it is in their best interests to impeach him END OF QUOTE

I wish the forum had an impeachment process, because there is someone here who is unfit to post. I have lost confidence in their competency to fulfill their duties as a poster.

 

[Opoponax]

I would like to see 'Hairstyle prejudicial to the international reputation of the United States' as the charge.

Given the others wont last the test of evidence, that one may be the best shot.

Similar to being ignorant of American Constitutional law, you also don't know The United States' Federal Rules of Evidence. So just stop.

 

[J842P]

Have you seen Bush jr. speaking lately? He's been on some late night shows and other speaking events this year... I actually miss that dumbass. He sounds like a genius now in comparison. At least he was an INFORMED and RATIONAL dumbass.

I think you mean to say he was rational and had "compassion". He wasn't well informed and was overruled by Cheney.

...which is to say, I don't have to agree with him to accept him... with Trump, it not a matter of agreement (agree with what, exactly?) it is a matter of him failing to earn any respect whatsoever, and his squandering of any remaining benefit of the doubt one might grant anyone else.

W was an embarrassment who couldn't speak well in public. He was in way over his head and his VP had unprecedented power in the White House. He sucked ass as a "manager"... the role that he was supposed to excel in. He placed incompetent people into positions of high power and the cost was dear. Of course, that took several years to come to fruition.

Trump, not even 5 months into his Presidency, has surpassed W's inadequacy as a leader.

The big difference is at least George W. Bush wasn't a pathological lying sociopath. And W genuinely wanted the world to be better, even if he didn't have a clue the damage he'd do. Trump doesn't give a fuck about anything but his family... and when I say family, I mean a couple sons and one daughter. And worst off, while W was president, bravado wasn't his thing. With the exception of the "Mission Accomplished" deal, he was a humble President. Trump, wants everyone to know he is the greatest... and most of those of his national leading peers knows he is the opposite.

I would argue that the Bush Admin. was incompetent, but merely incompetent on the scale that is typical of bad governments, which are not uncommon. Trump and his administration are on a whole other level of incompetence, and they are base kleptocrats being used by various nefarious ideological groups. It is truly unique in American history (although, it was only a matter of time...)

 

[Toni]

Have you seen Bush jr. speaking lately? He's been on some late night shows and other speaking events this year... I actually miss that dumbass. He sounds like a genius now in comparison. At least he was an INFORMED and RATIONAL dumbass.

I think you mean to say he was rational and had "compassion". He wasn't well informed and was overruled by Cheney.

...which is to say, I don't have to agree with him to accept him... with Trump, it not a matter of agreement (agree with what, exactly?) it is a matter of him failing to earn any respect whatsoever, and his squandering of any remaining benefit of the doubt one might grant anyone else.

W was an embarrassment who couldn't speak well in public. He was in way over his head and his VP had unprecedented power in the White House. He sucked ass as a "manager"... the role that he was supposed to excel in. He placed incompetent people into positions of high power and the cost was dear. Of course, that took several years to come to fruition.

Trump, not even 5 months into his Presidency, has surpassed W's inadequacy as a leader.

The big difference is at least George W. Bush wasn't a pathological lying sociopath. And W genuinely wanted the world to be better, even if he didn't have a clue the damage he'd do. Trump doesn't give a fuck about anything but his family... and when I say family, I mean a couple sons and one daughter. And worst off, while W was president, bravado wasn't his thing. With the exception of the "Mission Accomplished" deal, he was a humble President. Trump, wants everyone to know he is the greatest... and most of those of his national leading peers knows he is the opposite.

I think you are wrong about whether Trump cares about any of his children. I think he's proud of them to a certain extent but only as long as they are attractive, biddable, and competent to an extent that precludes them from actually posing any kind of threat to his glory.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think you mean to say he was rational and had "compassion". He wasn't well informed and was overruled by Cheney.

...which is to say, I don't have to agree with him to accept him... with Trump, it not a matter of agreement (agree with what, exactly?) it is a matter of him failing to earn any respect whatsoever, and his squandering of any remaining benefit of the doubt one might grant anyone else.

W was an embarrassment who couldn't speak well in public. He was in way over his head and his VP had unprecedented power in the White House. He sucked ass as a "manager"... the role that he was supposed to excel in. He placed incompetent people into positions of high power and the cost was dear. Of course, that took several years to come to fruition.

Trump, not even 5 months into his Presidency, has surpassed W's inadequacy as a leader.

The big difference is at least George W. Bush wasn't a pathological lying sociopath. And W genuinely wanted the world to be better, even if he didn't have a clue the damage he'd do. Trump doesn't give a fuck about anything but his family... and when I say family, I mean a couple sons and one daughter. And worst off, while W was president, bravado wasn't his thing. With the exception of the "Mission Accomplished" deal, he was a humble President. Trump, wants everyone to know he is the greatest... and most of those of his national leading peers knows he is the opposite.

I think you are wrong about whether Trump cares about any of his children. I think he's proud of them to a certain extent but only as long as they are attractive, biddable, and competent to an extent that precludes them from actually posing any kind of threat to his glory.

For a clinical sociopath, that is about the best you can hope for.

 

[Deepak]

Obstruction of Justice (Firing Comey), tampering with a witness (Yates), leaking classified foreign intel (Syria related). The list is growing.

Turns out Comey kept records like a Hittite https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html

 

[beero1000]

Obstruction of Justice (Firing Comey), tampering with a witness (Yates), leaking classified foreign intel (Syria related). The list is growing.

Turns out Comey kept records like a Hittite https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html

He has a history of keeping a ridiculously thorough paper trail whenever he expects to need it to defy authority, or maybe always. Given how so many could have benefited from throwing him under the bus over the years (months?), it's probably a sound tactic.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sorry I only studied English law. A case against Trump at this point wouldn't fly in an English court. Is the Chief Justice ready to preside over the Senate Trial. Has a date been set?

Since you admit your ignorance, why do you keep talking about the subject? Like in the rest of your post?

There is a lot of media fanned speculation and unsubstantiated information at this point in time. That is not the same as sufficient reason to do anything. In fact all we have had is a call for impeachment by Democrats.

If Trump is right and this was for as he says it was I don't think proceedings will get far.

The Democrats lost the election and should get over the Butt-Hurt.

Irrelevant to whether Trump can be impeached or should be impeached or whether

The Guardian article here
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/16/donald-trump-impeachment-russia-investigation-nixon
Around midday on Monday, Congressman Al Green, a Democrat from Texas, held a press conference to call for the impeachment of Donald Trump. The firing of FBI director James Comey, Green said, was an obstruction of justice falling clearly into that basket of “high crimes and misdemeanors” prescribed in the constitution as grounds for impeachment.

Green should have waited five hours. Because by the time the sun went down on Monday, advocates for Trump’s impeachment had a lot more to work with.


And

“As president I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled WH meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining … to terrorism and airline flight safety,” Trump wrote. “Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against Isis and terrorism.”

The episode has once again stoked the chorus calling for the impeachment of Trump, a chorus that has steadily built over the four months of the Trump presidency.

Legal analysts say that Trump is correct in noting his “absolute right”, as president, to share information as he pleases. The president’s discretion overrides any categorical classification, and there has been no assertion that Trump broke a law by allegedly sharing the information.

The president may, however, have broken his oath of office, according to analysis at Lawfareblog, whose top six analysts joined in a byline to write: “It’s very hard to argue that carelessly giving away highly sensitive material to an adversary foreign power constitutes a faithful execution of the office of president.”

Which is just a bunch of incoherent and not even wrong drivel.

The Senate is hardly likely to give a majority vote for impeachment unless it is somehow spooked into doing so. So far there is no reason for this.

The report is from an English Language paper (generally left of centre and pro Democrat). It is very clear what it says. It gives 2 sides to a story bearing in mind the details are sketchy.

 

[beero1000]

Since you admit your ignorance, why do you keep talking about the subject? Like in the rest of your post?

There is a lot of media fanned speculation and unsubstantiated information at this point in time. That is not the same as sufficient reason to do anything. In fact all we have had is a call for impeachment by Democrats.

If Trump is right and this was for as he says it was I don't think proceedings will get far.

The Democrats lost the election and should get over the Butt-Hurt.

Irrelevant to whether Trump can be impeached or should be impeached or whether

The Guardian article here
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/16/donald-trump-impeachment-russia-investigation-nixon
Around midday on Monday, Congressman Al Green, a Democrat from Texas, held a press conference to call for the impeachment of Donald Trump. The firing of FBI director James Comey, Green said, was an obstruction of justice falling clearly into that basket of “high crimes and misdemeanors” prescribed in the constitution as grounds for impeachment.

Green should have waited five hours. Because by the time the sun went down on Monday, advocates for Trump’s impeachment had a lot more to work with.


And

“As president I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled WH meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining … to terrorism and airline flight safety,” Trump wrote. “Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against Isis and terrorism.”

The episode has once again stoked the chorus calling for the impeachment of Trump, a chorus that has steadily built over the four months of the Trump presidency.

Legal analysts say that Trump is correct in noting his “absolute right”, as president, to share information as he pleases. The president’s discretion overrides any categorical classification, and there has been no assertion that Trump broke a law by allegedly sharing the information.

The president may, however, have broken his oath of office, according to analysis at Lawfareblog, whose top six analysts joined in a byline to write: “It’s very hard to argue that carelessly giving away highly sensitive material to an adversary foreign power constitutes a faithful execution of the office of president.”

Which is just a bunch of incoherent and not even wrong drivel.

The Senate is hardly likely to give a majority vote for impeachment unless it is somehow spooked into doing so. So far there is no reason for this.

The report is from an English Language paper (generally left of centre and pro Democrat). It is very clear what it says. It gives 2 sides to a story bearing in mind the details are sketchy.

I know the procedures for impeachment have been explained to you. Why do you keep getting them wrong?