Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

[BuffaloHops]

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.2679877aaae3[/url]

[QUOTE]
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, [B]who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.[/B]

[B]The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.[/B]

[B]The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.[/B] After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and National Security Agency.

"This is code-word information," said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. [B][U]Trump "revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies."[/U][/B]
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. [B]"I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,"[/B] Trump said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.[/QUOTE]

[B][U]EDIT:[/U][/B] Buzzfeed confirms the allocations in the WaPo article, and goes on to state [B]"it’s far worse than what has already been reported,"[/B]

[U][B]EDIT 2:[/B][/U] New York Times now also corroborating: [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-classified-information-isis.html?_r=0[/url]

[U][B]EDIT 3:[/B][/U] Now confirmed by two US officials (via Reuters twitter) [url]https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/864249402571010049[/url]

[B][U]EDIT 4:[/U][/B] CBS News also corroborating story: [url]https://twitter.com/giff18/status/864263738551132160[/url]

[U][B]EDIT 5:[/B][/U] BBC News also corroborating story: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39931012[/url]

[U][B]EDIT 6:[/B][/U] WSJ also corroborating story: [url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-denies-trump-gave-classified-information-to-russian-officials-1494890345[/url]

[B][U]EDIT 7:[/U][/B] ABC News Reports: [B]Trump's disclosure endangered spy placed inside ISIS by Israel, officials say[/B]

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/trumps-disclosure-endangered-spy-inside-isis-israel-officials/story?id=47449304[/url]

[QUOTE][B]The life of a spy placed by Israel inside ISIS is at risk tonight,[/B] according to current and former U.S. officials, after President Donald Trump reportedly disclosed classified information in a meeting with Russian officials last week.

[B]The spy provided intelligence involving an active ISIS plot to bring down a passenger jet en route to the United States, with a bomb hidden in a laptop that U.S. officials believe can get through airport screening machines undetected. The information was reliable enough that the U.S. is considering a ban on laptops on all flights from Europe to the United States.[/B][/QUOTE]

[Sableye]

*crosses fingers* please be true but not at the same time because trump fucking giving away the crown jewels of our counter intelligence system would be enourmously damaging to us

[Potus]

Oh God I don't want this to be true purely because how damaging this could be to our operations and security. I want to slam my face through a window

[BuffaloHops]

[QUOTE=Sableye;52232432]*crosses fingers* please be true but not at the same time because trump fucking giving away the crown jewels of our counter intelligence system would be enourmously damaging to us[/QUOTE]

[I]Pffft,[/I] like anything of consequence is going to happen to Trump as long as he has the magic (R) next to his name. Evidently security only matters when it comes to a democrat using an illegal email server.

[ridinmybike]

Fake news guys

[Bob The Knob]

I feel like you could make a good satire where the President is actually totally trying his best not to bend over to Russia but is so incompetent that he keeps spilling info to them and doing their bidding

[Provost]

[QUOTE]"I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day," Trump said[/QUOTE]

I thought he was too smart to need daily briefings.

[Sitkero]

[quote]U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points, and often ignores those.

“He seems to get in the room or on the phone and just goes with it — and that has big downsides,” the second former official said. “Does he understand what’s classified and what’s not? That’s what worries me.”[/quote]

:speechless:

[BlackMageMari]

Isn't that actually treason?

In how the United States understands it, right?

[thatswordguy]

"I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day"

This man is fucking retarded

[Jaguar]

"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Richard Nixon, 1977

Nothing will happen to [i]him[/i], but a lot will happen to the country

[editline].[/editline]

[quote]“It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official close to current administration officials. [b]“Trump seems to be very reckless, and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with[/b], especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”[/quote]

[Hail Satan]

I think that's a impeachable offense

[Breadman]

[QUOTE=ThatSwordGuy;52232472]"I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day"

This man is fucking retarded[/QUOTE]

Is he trying to market the intel to Russia?

[BuffaloHops]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52232485]I think that's a impeachable offense[/QUOTE]

I wonder how far a Democrat equivalent of Trump would've gotten into their term before impeachment for collusion and/or gross incompetence.

Like, honestly, I'm not just trying to shitpost and whine about how hard Democrats have it compared to Republicans in terms of double standards - I'm legitimately flabbergasted at this point in regards to how much Trump is getting away with, and how he is only getting a slap on the wrist for it (if even that much) because the Republican party refuses to hold him to any standards. It's legitimately grating and irritating.

[Orpheus]

I usually try to laugh at Trump's unconscionable stupidity, but in this case it's no laughing matter. Leaking classified information directly to a hostile government is the kind of colossal fuck-up that should not under any circumstances be normalized; Trump is a major threat to our national security, and if we know what's good for us we'll impeach him ASAP.

[Zenreon]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52232485]I think that's a impeachable offense[/QUOTE]

Well, throw it on the pile with the other ones, I guess.

[Bob The Knob]

[media]https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/864231063295582209[/media]

[Hail Satan]

[media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/750648675186147328[/media]

Pre-election tweets continue to age poorly

[evilweazel]

I realize that articles have to be pretty vague about this stuff even if they have all the info, but it doesn't look like there's any verification to any of these statements.

As in, it's all from "the partner", or "former official", or "top source" or "sources close to the administration." or just anonymous "officials" and unconfirmable things like that. However, I realize there's reasons these people would have to hide their names, but every single one of them?

and this little bit (the only quote in the article attributed to a real person, as far as I can see):

[QUOTE]“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.” [/QUOTE]

makes it sound like it's not quite as serious of a breach as the article states, if any at all.

It sounds nit-picky, but when a [I]quality[/I] outlet like WP puts out an article stating something as damning as this, I'd expect more, well, substance than "unnamed source states unverifiable claim that POTUS said this", while the only named and sourced quote states the opposite. Just getting a little confused by this type of reporting being taken as proof by the media, lately. I don't want to sound like "FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS" people, but it just seems like something that would need some actual verification before hitting the presses to be worth taking into account, is all.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52232540]I realize that articles have to be pretty vague about this stuff even if they have all the info, but it doesn't look like there's any verification to any of these statements.

As in, it's all from "the partner", or "former official", or "top source" or "sources close to the administration." or just anonymous "officials" and unconfirmable things like that. However, I realize there's reasons these people would have to hide their names, but every single one of them?

and this little bit (the only quote in the article attributed to a real person, as far as I can see):

makes it sound like it's not quite as serious of a breach as the article states, if any at all.

It sounds nit-picky, but when a [I]quality[/I] outlet like WP puts out an article stating something as damning as this, I'd expect more, well, substance than "unnamed source states unverifiable claim that POTUS said this", while the only named and sourced quote states the opposite. Just getting a little confused by this type of reporting being taken as proof by the media, lately. I don't want to sound like "FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS" people, but it just seems like something that would need some actual verification before hitting the presses to be worth taking into account, is all.[/QUOTE]

I trust the Washington Post to verify it with their sources even if they can't reveal who they are.That dossier that buzzfeed ended up releasing in it's entirety was actually known about in various intelligence communities but no reporter picked it up because many of the claims were difficult to verify.

so yeah, I guess just trust WaPo knows what they're doing.

[Provost]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52232532][media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/750648675186147328[/media]

Pre-election tweets continue to age [B]poorly[/B][/QUOTE]

I disagree. They age like quality Nicaraguan Rum. Smooth, and with just enough burn.

[Bob The Knob]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52232532][media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/750648675186147328[/media]

Pre-election tweets continue to age poorly[/QUOTE]

Don't worry, we can count on this guy to reign him in:

[media]https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/751198307972767744[/media]

[Miya]

yep thats treason

lock the fuck up

[Bob The Knob]

First gop response: "hmm thats a bit concerning i guess"

[media]https://twitter.com/Emma_Dumain/status/864235851336871936[/media]

[editline]15th May 2017[/editline]

McMaster seems a bit troubled himself

[media]https://twitter.com/justinsink/status/864234428763168769[/media]

[Ager]

Someone swap his nuke launch keys for one of these, before he just hands them over to Putin.
[t]https://www.realstrengthmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/81sbhf-b9rl._sl1500_.jpg[/t]

[BuffaloHops]

[media]https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/864234970549817345[/media]

[QUOTE]BuzzFeed confirms WaPo report on Trump; “it’s far worse than what has already been reported,” official tells them[/QUOTE]

:goodjob:

[Bob The Knob]

McCain mimicking Graham

[media]https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/864237667533324288[/media]

[editline]15th May 2017[/editline]

Another GOP response

[media]https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/864237527632359429[/media]

[Cakebatyr]

Out of interest has there been a week since he took office that hasn't had a new controversy happen?

[Vomitself]

[QUOTE=Fort83;52232417]Thank goodness we didn't get Hillary and her classified emails scandal right?[/QUOTE]

I hate Trump as much as everyone else does but I'm so tired of this argument. she still lost

[evilweazel]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52232568]I trust the Washington Post to verify it with their sources even if they can't reveal who they are.That dossier that buzzfeed ended up releasing in it's entirety was actually known about in various intelligence communities but no reporter picked it up because many of the claims were difficult to verify.

so yeah, I guess just trust WaPo knows what they're doing.[/QUOTE]

I find it pretty hard to trust anonymous sources quoted by WP and Buzzfeed on someone they both have a pretty substantial bias against, is all. Not that I have any particular love for the guy, but I'd rather have verifiable proof, or even a quote attributed to someone who you can verify it with by asking "did you say this?" , than what's essentially hearsay when it's something as potentially big as this. I don't think that's entirely unreasonable.