Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Xion21;52234503]Is "unverified sources huehue" going to become the new "I don't understand how polling and percentages work." because if so can we please start banning for that sooner rather than later? I am most certainly not calling anyone out and trying to backseat moderate but this became a genuine problem before. Educating people on information they don't understand is 100% awesome, trying to educate people who don't give a shit and will continually drive-by shitpost the same phrase regardless of you repeatedly telling them what it actually means gets old after right about now. That same poll argument coming from the same like 5 people shit up about 10 threads for like a month even though people would tell them how polls work every time, they would still do it again anyway, EVERY. TIME. We don't need that again.[/QUOTE] What does polling and statistics have to do with "2 officials" (who have yet to be named or quoted) WaPo is claiming to have gained their information from?

WaPo has published more things that the WH said were fake then later revealed to be true, than they have actually posted made up stuff. I don't trust anonymous sources but if its WaPo or the WH, I know who I'm with.

[QUOTE=Xion21;52234503]Is "unverified sources huehue" going to become the new "I don't understand how polling and percentages work." because if so can we please start banning for that sooner rather than later? I am most certainly not calling anyone out and trying to backseat moderate but this became a genuine problem before. Educating people on information they don't understand is 100% awesome, trying to educate people who don't give a shit and will continually drive-by shitpost the same phrase regardless of you repeatedly telling them what it actually means gets old after right about now. That same poll argument coming from the same like 5 people shit up about 10 threads for like a month even though people would tell them how polls work every time, they would still do it again anyway, EVERY. TIME. We don't need that again.[/QUOTE] Tbh as much as people use "it's unverified therefor it's wrong", I think it's healthy letting people know that these sources are unverified. It's the truth. [QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234504]Man, isn't this supposed to be a political discussion forum? Not some let's all be massive dicks to anyone with an opposing view point forum?[/QUOTE] well it is called polidicks

Man if this is true then he better be impeached. If a president can get impeached for getting his dick sucked, he sure as hell should be impeached if he gives out classified information that could impact actual peoples lives and relations with our allies.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234511]My point is that you have essentially no credibility to be calling sources into question given your preferred media diet. Breitbart, Daily Mail, Infowars, and the Daily Wire are hardly paragons of journalistic integrity lol[/QUOTE] And my point is we are relying on the word of people, which is hard to do in this time period. I'm sorry but I prefer facts and evidence, not this, oh trust us! We promise this information that most certainly would get a Trump impeached is true if it could be proven! We promise 2 officials told us so!

[QUOTE=dark soul;52234521]Man if this is true then he better be impeached. If a president can get impeached for getting his dick sucked, he sure as hell should be impeached if he gives out classified information that could impact actual peoples lives and relations with our allies.[/QUOTE] In our current, hyper-partisan political environment, I don't foresee the GOP caring (unless a filthy Democrat does something bad, of course!)

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234522]And my point is we are relying on the word of people, which is hard to do in this time period. I'm sorry but I prefer facts and evidence, not this, oh trust us! We promise they told us this![/QUOTE] Words... come from people.... Astonishing revelation.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52234514]WaPo has published more things that the WH said were fake then later revealed to be true, than they have actually posted made up stuff. I don't trust anonymous sources but if its WaPo or the WH, I know who I'm with.[/QUOTE] WaPo has a mild liberal bias, that much is certainly true. They're hardly the "Fox News" of the left, as people like Nesto would have you believe, but there's a slant. Despite the bias, however, they have a pretty excellent track record with factual and honest reporting. Even if WaPo were the only entity with the inside scoop, it would be credible on its face because of that. But now Reuters is involved, and they're confirming the story through their own inside sources. Reuters don't fuck around. If Reuters has confirmed the story, then the story is real.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52234517]Tbh as much as people use "it's unverified therefor it's wrong", I think it's healthy letting people know that these sources are unverified. It's the truth. well it is called polidicks[/QUOTE] The sources are verified. They're just anonymous.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234522]And my point is we are relying on the word of people, which is hard to do in this time period. I'm sorry but I prefer facts and evidence, not this, oh trust us! We promise this information that most certainly would get a Trump impeached is true if it could be proven! We promise 2 officials told us so![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234474]Because Reuters has such a long history of fabricating news using unconfirmed sources to score cheap political points, and totally isn't regarded as one of the most credible and objective journalistic entities in the world.[/QUOTE] Well, look at that. We've come full circle! You don't give a lick about "facts and evidence," man. Your chief concern is protecting your worldview, even if it means abandoning reason to do so.

This thread has been going in the same circle for the past 6 or 7 pages, with the same damn users that cause the same shit in all the Trump theads. Why do you guys entertain them at all anymore?

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52234517]Tbh as much as people use "it's unverified therefor it's wrong", I think it's healthy letting people know that these sources are unverified. It's the truth. well it is called polidicks[/QUOTE] Oh yes, do let people know. That's not my issue with the whole thing. It's that we have already had 2 moderators correctly explain the objectively historically accurate reason why sources for claims like these remain unnamed, and people continue to ignore those reasons for epic drive-by sizzlers. Sure, be skeptical if you want, I'm not saying people aren't allowed. I'm just saying that if you are, there is a much better way to bring it up than a copy-paste 3 word post with no substance about how those sources sure are unnamed huh guys. Like I said, it's the poll shitposts all over again. Thread is going, someone drive-bys, entire page has to explain, another page of discussion, someone drive-bys again, another entire page of people reacting and explaining, repeat. It's just dumb sniping that degrades the thread.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234527]"Fox News" of the left[/QUOTE] If anything, MSNBC is the Fox News of the left. Large TV viewer base, obvious bias.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234532]Well, look at that. We've come full circle! You don't give a lick about "facts and evidence," man. Your chief concern is protecting your worldview, even if it means abandoning reason to do so.[/QUOTE] Well shit, why isn't Reuters tweet just used as evidence to impeach trump then?

[QUOTE=OvB;52234542]If anything, MSNBC is the Fox News of the left. Large TV viewer base, obvious bias.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that sounds about right.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234546]Well shit, why isn't Reuters tweet just used as evidence to impeach trump then?[/QUOTE] You're just being silly now.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234546]Well shit, why isn't Reuters tweet just used as evidence to impeach trump then?[/QUOTE] You mean Reuter's sources? They literally might be lol. The Trump administration is going to have to answer some [I]serious[/I] questions in the next few days, and it may well be that one or more of these "unnamed sources" could willingly volunteer testimony in the event that an impeachment vote is cast and the trial process begins.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234527]WaPo has a mild liberal bias, that much is certainly true. They're hardly the "Fox News" of the left, as people like Nesto would have you believe[/QUOTE] What the fuck, where did I ever claim that?

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52234551]What the fuck, where did I ever claim that?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=-nesto-;52232675]Wapo and buzzfeed. Man ya'll getting desperate.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I guess you didn't say that specifically, but this quote really says it all regarding your opinion of their journalism. Just the same, my bad. I'm wrong. I'm getting your mixed up for Ralgo, who sent a barrage of angry PMs about why sources like Washington Post and CNN were allowed if Fox was banned. [editline]/[/editline] Nope, my bad again. It was just CNN he said, not WaPo. Boy, are my cheeks red. Ralgo, you wouldn't happen to consider the Washington Post to be the "Fox News" of the Left, would you? That'd be awfully convenient for my point lol

[QUOTE=Xion21;52234538]Oh yes, do let people know. That's not my issue with the whole thing. It's that we have already had 2 moderators correctly explain the objectively historically accurate reason why sources for claims like these remain unnamed, and people continue to ignore those reasons for epic drive-by sizzlers. Sure, be skeptical if you want, I'm not saying people aren't allowed. I'm just saying that if you are, there is a much better way to bring it up than a copy-paste 3 word post with no substance about how those sources sure are unnamed huh guys. Like I said, it's the poll shitposts all over again. Thread is going, someone drive-bys, entire page has to explain, another page of discussion, someone drive-bys again, another entire page of people reacting and explaining, repeat. It's just dumb sniping that degrades the thread.[/QUOTE] I would love a subforum where posters are held to a high standard but I don't know how feasible that would be and I don't know how better that would be for the mind. It's a case of reality having a strong liberal bias and that Trump dominates the news so you're only going to get pro-liberal stories. The only liberal negative stories out there are shit that dumb civilians do which really isn't that newsworthy to begin with. Curious to see what that would look like tbh.

Wall Street Journal chimes in: [media]https://twitter.com/shaneharris/status/864338441860820992[/media]

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52234345]Impeachment is, in simple terms, only passing indictments against the President, and is done with a simple majority of the House. Congress may impeach the President for [URL="http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html"]high crimes and misdemeanors[/URL], and that is a very specific piece of legal terminology that appears deceptive. In effect, the President can be kicked out for abusing his office, as well as for malfeasance committed before being elected; there is no explicit limitation on the timeframe they're allowed to consider. After articles of impeachment have been passed by the house, it is then up to the Senate to hold a trial and try to convict the President of some or all of the charges in the impeachment. This requires a [I]two-thirds[/I] majority vote to pass, and at that point the President can be removed from office. Bill Clinton was impeached but a two-thirds majority vote could not be reached and so he stayed in office until the ordinary end of his term - in effect, the House determined that the President lied under oath, and the Senate decided not to fire him over it.[/QUOTE] So while the means technically exist, there is not really any reliable mechanism by which to remove a sitting president no matter how grave his offenses?

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52234569]So while the means technically exist, there is not really any reliable mechanism by which to remove a sitting president no matter how grave his offenses?[/QUOTE] Well, the Senate also has to take into account the Executive and social upheaval that results in a presidential swap in the middle of their term, and they likely decided that lying under oath of office was not, although impeachment worthy, a terrible enough crime to burden the country (and themselves) with at the time. Although I'm not personally sure yet of the likelihood of impeachment for Trump, and it would be difficult regardless, to be fair what we could be seeing here is FAR more egregious than what happened then.

[media]https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/864330081291972608[/media] EDIT: People are speculating that Jordan was the source of the intel that Trump had leaked to Russia. More elaboration on why I posted this: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6bd42j/trump_revealed_highly_classified_information_to/dhm6m96/[/url] [QUOTE]Guess now we know which ally we betrayed because Trump couldn't keep his mouth shut. Anderson Cooper's guests were guessing either Jordan or Israel, they guessed right.[/QUOTE] [media]https://twitter.com/khinman/status/864282714584821760[/media] [QUOTE]Jordan fits the bill of a "very close Middle Eastern ally"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52234587][media]https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/864330081291972608[/media][/QUOTE] Sorry for not being informed. But how is this relevant?

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52234590]Sorry for not being informed. But how is this relevant?[/QUOTE] Wrong tweet, maybe? [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234596]-summary-[/QUOTE] Lock him up[sp]already (?)[/sp]

Just to summarize this situation: 1) Trump is accused of committing treason. It is alleged that the rampant hacking and sabotage campaigns launched against the Democratic party were at the hands of the Russian government, in cooperation with the upcoming Trump administration. In exchange for helping him seize political power, he dramatically softens GOP party policy regarding several key issues relevant to Russian interests. 2) A mountain of circumstantial evidence builds to support this theory. Trump, and several of his key advisers, have deep ties to Russia. It is revealed that a series of undisclosed communications of unknown subject matter took place between Trump campaign advisers and Russian government operatives took place. 3) A formal investigation is launched by the FBI, under the directorship of James Comey. 4) After about six weeks, Comey announces that the investigation needs to increase in scope, and that further funding, manpower, and resources are needed to follow through on leads. 5) Immediately after the request is made, Trump abruptly and unceremoniously fires Comey. His administration begins slandering Comey, calling him a "showboat" and accusing him of being "terrible at his job." The primary reason cited for his dismissal is Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation -- something which the administration had openly praised him for only a week prior. 6) Donald Trump publicly blackmails Comey on Twitter, warning him not to talk to the press under the threat of releasing potentially incriminating "tapes" 7) Trump publicly admits that the actual reason he fired Comey was actually because of the Russian investigation. He wanted to bring it to an end. 8) The White House receives a visit from Russian government figures, one of which has already been implicated in espionage activities in the United States. 9) US press is barred from the meeting. Russian state press is not. 10) Donald Trump gives the Russian operative extremely sensitive national security information. [I]But no, there's probably nothing to be concerned about.[/I]

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52234590]Sorry for not being informed. But how is this relevant?[/QUOTE] People are speculating that Jordan was the source of the intel that Trump had leaked to Russia.

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52234597]People are speculating that Jordan was the source of the intel that Trump had leaked to Russia.[/QUOTE] Gotcha thanks.

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52234590]Sorry for not being informed. But how is this relevant?[/QUOTE] -Snorp because its 3 am and I forgot about that part.-