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

[QUOTE=Xion21;52234606]I think the implication is that he is talking to more foreign officials and people are hoping he isn't handing out political secrets or sensitive information yet agaian. Ie: "Oh, Big Don is talking to King Abdullah tomorrow...what could possibly go wrong?" Although from what I recall, Abdullah is quite a nice seeming man, he is also connected to the fight on IS which may be another red flag for people because Russia and IS and yeah.[/QUOTE] I updated my post with more info; I'm seeing Reddit comments with users speculating that the call is related to leaked intel from the meeting being sourced from Jordan

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234596]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] Gonna save this post cause it's so well written for when I deal with idiots. Thank you

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234522][B]And my point is we are relying on the word of people[/B], 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] ... I'd really like to know what non-people sources you prefer.

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52234607]I updated my post with more info; I'm seeing Reddit comments with users speculating that the call is related to leaked intel from the meeting being sourced from Jordan[/QUOTE] Isn't Abdullah II the King who personally trains with his troops? He takes the threat of ISIS very seriously, it's a threat to his people every day in a very tangible way. JUST AS SPECULATION NOT ASSUMING IT IS TRUE YET: Could that be why Trump would feel comfortable in sharing this intel? Common enemy? Jordan gives sensitive information relating to this enemy to the US, he shares it with another nation fighting this enemy, Russia. Even though that's a stupid idea to put it very mildly.

Even though it probably won't happen and it's probably been said a million times in this thread already, it'll be hilarious if trump is impeached four months into the job

[QUOTE=Xion21;52234618]Isn't Abdullah II the King who personally trains with his troops? He takes the threat of ISIS very seriously, it's a threat to his people every day in a very tangible way. JUST AS SPECULATION NOT ASSUMING IT IS TRUE YET: Could that be why Trump would feel comfortable in sharing this intel? Common enemy? Jordan gives sensitive information relating to this enemy to the US, he shares it with another nation fighting this enemy, Russia. Even though that's a stupid idea to put it very mildly.[/QUOTE] I doubt it. Trump probably handed it over to show just how great his intel was, because believe me, it's the best, there's no better than my intel.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52233392][t]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/86/79/c5/8679c585b80c89ae6b7f8d5d0890b936.png[/t] [t]http://theinfluence.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Mike-Pence.jpeg[/t][/QUOTE] Pence would go down with Prez. Orange. More like [t]https://puu.sh/vRyV9/ec2a4d4e00.png[/t] [sp]Also, it is hard to keep things straight and upright without a spine.[/sp]

I don't think the president can 'leak' information, classified or not. If he decides to tell someone something, even if it was classified, it's his decision to do that. I don't think there's a law against it

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234512]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?[/QUOTE] Are you physically incapable of actually reading what someone says? He used that as an example to clarify his point. [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] As people have repeatedly said, this is standard operating procedure under such circumstances. Especially when the person they are undermining has outright stated he will do whatever he legally can to destroy those who he feels betrayed him no matter the validity of their actions. [QUOTE=The Rifleman;52234534]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] Probably becaue people get tired of it but don't want to give up. [QUOTE=TheTalon;52234670]I don't think the president can 'leak' information, classified or not. If he decides to tell someone something, even if it was classified, it's his decision to do that. I don't think there's a law against it[/QUOTE] People have already addressed this. The sources stated that part of the deal to even get the information was that it had to be highly controlled. So Trump blatantly violated the terms of the deal.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;52234670]I don't think the president can 'leak' information, classified or not. If he decides to tell someone something, even if it was classified, it's his decision to do that. I don't think there's a law against it[/QUOTE] [quote]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. 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.[/quote]

[QUOTE=TheTalon;52234670]I don't think the president can 'leak' information, classified or not. If he decides to tell someone something, even if it was classified, it's his decision to do that. I don't think there's a law against it[/QUOTE] There is a law, actually, it's called "treason."

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52234596]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] this post is missing the fact that the same guy who recommended trump fire comey was also the same dude who recused himself from the russia investigation - this is the thing that pisses me off the most, like, how insane can you be

[QUOTE=Paramud;52234690]There is a law, actually, it's called "treason."[/QUOTE] I dont think this is treason tho. It's more very high level of incompetence bordering on treason.

I really wish that all of that grandstanding from Hezzy and BDA about post quality actually meant something. I'm tired of seeing contrarian morons allowed to continually spew bullshit. If we all agree that Trump shills on television isn't good for news , then I don't understand why Trump shills are allowed to continue posting the same tired, debunked, logical-fallacy-riddled bullshit. Not trying to backseat mod, just expressing an opinion.

[QUOTE=TheLonelyDonu;52234724]I really wish that all of that grandstanding from Hezzy and BDA about post quality actually meant something. I'm tired of seeing contrarian morons allowed to continually spew bullshit. If we all agree that Trump shills on television isn't good for news , then I don't understand why Trump shills are allowed to continue posting the same tired, debunked, logical-fallacy-riddled bullshit. Not trying to backseat mod, just expressing an opinion.[/QUOTE] As annoying as they are, it would be setting precedent of banning people over opinions that the majority doesn't like (even if the opinions are really fucking stupid) and I think that would be shitty, personally. I dislike it but I understand why they refrain from doing so.

Go go, get that dildo out of the white house.

[QUOTE=TheLonelyDonu;52234724]I really wish that all of that grandstanding from Hezzy and BDA about post quality actually meant something. I'm tired of seeing contrarian morons allowed to continually spew bullshit. If we all agree that Trump shills on television isn't good for news , then I don't understand why Trump shills are allowed to continue posting the same tired, debunked, logical-fallacy-riddled bullshit. Not trying to backseat mod, just expressing an opinion.[/QUOTE] It doesn't do any good to forbid people from expressing their opinions, even if they happen to be shit and usually dont have a leg to stand on. I honestly hope something comes of all this soon, we have more than enough evidence to begin impeachment proceedings, but even those might come to nothing if the senate and congress have no balls to convict the orange man.

[QUOTE=Paramud;52234690]There is a law, actually, it's called "treason."[/QUOTE] No, it's not. Treason does not automatically occur whenever classified documents are swapped with a foreign nation.[B] Stop fucking saying it's treason.[/B] Treason is the only crime defined clearly and succinctly in the American Constitution, as follows: [quote]Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.[/quote] While some parts were moved around, the United States code ultimately does not alter the description to any degree past specifying the actual sentence. Treason requires you to specifically assist an [I]enemy[/I], someone who is officially [I]at war[/I] with the US. Last I checked, Russia isn't at war with the United States. Last I checked, they've been at peace with each other for a while now and they're both members of the United Nations since that whole thing came to exist. Trump [I]is[/I] within his presidential functions to divulge this information. This doesn't mean he's not an incompetent buffoon who has no perception of the weight of his functions, with a completely reckless use of his clearance and with absolutely no diplomatic game whatsoever. But he's not a [I]traitor[/I].

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233653]And you continue to believe that Trump is a traitor and guilty of treason because the media tells you so. Getting a bit pot n kettle there man. In 2017 you're delusional if you want actual evidence instead of faceless hearsay. What a time to be alive.[/QUOTE] I mean, I guess they could always go the Fox News route and just [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/25/who-is-nils-bildt-swedish-national-security-advisor-interviewed-by-fox-news-is-a-mystery-to-swedes/]make up a named source.[/url]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52234761]No, it's not. Treason does not automatically occur whenever classified documents are swapped with a foreign nation.[B] Stop fucking saying it's treason.[/B] Treason is the only crime defined clearly and succinctly in the American Constitution, as follows: While some parts were moved around, the United States code ultimately does not alter the description to any degree past specifying the actual sentence. Treason requires you to specifically assist an [I]enemy[/I], someone who is officially [I]at war[/I] with the US. Last I checked, Russia isn't at war with the United States. Last I checked, they've been at peace with each other for a while now and they're both members of the United Nations since that whole thing came to exist. Trump [I]is[/I] within his presidential functions to divulge this information. This doesn't mean he's not an incompetent buffoon who has no perception of the weight of his functions, with a completely reckless use of his clearance and with absolutely no diplomatic game whatsoever. But he's not a [I]traitor[/I].[/QUOTE] Walter Allen? [url]https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/205[/url] edit actually technically that was an armed uprising, disregard

[QUOTE=TheTalon;52234670]I don't think the president can 'leak' information, classified or not. If he decides to tell someone something, even if it was classified, it's his decision to do that. I don't think there's a law against it[/QUOTE] While "legal", it's important to remember that, in many instances, just because you [I]can[/I], it doesn't mean you [I]should[/I].

[QUOTE=can man;52234746]Go go, get that dildo out of the white house.[/QUOTE] That's not a fair comparison, I mean common, all things considered a dildo would be useful at-least once in a while and be able to satisfy someone at least. :smug: I wonder what the next scoop in Trump's America is, considering Crybaby-and-Chief broke nearly every conceivable norm, rule, tradition (and possibly law) there is to break. My money is on a war with North-Korea.

[QUOTE=TheLonelyDonu;52234724]I really wish that all of that grandstanding from Hezzy and BDA about post quality actually meant something. I'm tired of seeing contrarian morons allowed to continually spew bullshit. If we all agree that Trump shills on television isn't good for news , then I don't understand why Trump shills are allowed to continue posting the same tired, debunked, logical-fallacy-riddled bullshit. Not trying to backseat mod, just expressing an opinion.[/QUOTE] its like the facepunch version of people coming out as racists in real life so i think its fine. works as a way of ruining the credibility in any future arguments that person is involved with. look what happened with tudd, even his unrelated posts are dumbed to hell because people think everything he does is some how related his racism and trump boner.

[QUOTE=Paramud;52234690]There is a law, actually, it's called "treason."[/QUOTE] Is it actually? I think treason would be if he worked for Russia against US interests, but in this case it seems the issue is that he broke an agreement with a third party and presumably compromised them.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52234442]So, more "unnamed sources" and allegations with no evidence backing it? What's new?[/QUOTE] Pretty much every news article about the inner government since the dawn of modern media has used anonymous sources to protect their source. This whole fake news angle is dumb as dirt and a shitty excuse the right uses to ignore evidence that contradicts their own perceptions. To think that multiple independent news agencies, including the BBC, are faking all these reports is absolutely moronic.

The tweets are here [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/864436162567471104[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/864438529472049152[/media] [QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52233115]How long until Trump himself speaks out and blows their carefully constructed "sources, methods and operations" denial?[/QUOTE] 11 hours, apparently

Yeah he's actually admitted to it. What do you say about that, people who screamed "anonymous sources can't be trusted?"

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52234990]The tweets are here [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/864436162567471104[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/864438529472049152[/media] So are they no longer pretending to deny it? Unclear?[/QUOTE] [b] Hahahaha![/b] You, Someone in this very thread literally predicted this response only hours earlier: that after all the GOP, (and our resident Trump-posters), did to discredit the story- Trump would come out and just admit it like a retard. "Yeah I did it, so what?!". If random dudes on an internet forum can predict your president's actions this accurately, Imagine how easy it must be for the strategists of foreign powers to devise plans to manipulate him. Seriously, America is in serious fucking trouble. You need to [i] Remove Trump [/i] and fast.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52235025]Yeah he's actually admitted to it. What do you say about that, people who screamed "anonymous sources can't be trusted?"[/QUOTE] they've abandoned the outer walls of "anonymous sources can't be trusted" and fallen back to the inner walls of "trump did nothing wrong". Once the black gate is breached they'll withdraw to the sanctum of cognitive dissonance in the keep of denial "but hillary email server"

Maybe the non-people source they needed was Trump