Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador
1,023 replies, posted
His stupidity is like an endless pit. Despite what he might think, he literally just handed over extremely classified information to the Russians.
[QUOTE=Cakebatyr;52232617]Out of interest has there been a week since he took office that hasn't had a new controversy happen?[/QUOTE]
[I]"A week"[/I] is being overly generous. It's been close to a new controversy every day or every other day, with perhaps the occasional lucky break of a 3-4 day gap every once in a blue moon.
Trump is like a toddler where you just chastised him for dumping all the soap on the floor. Only to go into the bathroom and stuff the Toilet with wipes, and then blame his imaginary friend for doing it.
[QUOTE=Fort83]Thank goodness we didn't get Hillary and her classified emails scandal right?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=cheetahben;52232621]I hate Trump as much as everyone else does but I'm so tired of this argument. she still lost[/QUOTE]
I'm 99.999% sure he was being sarcastic.
Russia is the only other country fighting ISIS, so Trump (with the full authority to do so) gives them some intel on ISIS so that they can better fight ISIS. Is no one reading the article? Or is everyone just masturbating over the implications of the headline?
[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]
The way it works is that you trust the reputation of the Washington Post on this because they trade on it and have a history of being accurate. Of course if the information is that top secret no one would attach their name to it.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52232628][I]"A week"[/I] is being overly generous. It's been close to a new controversy every day or every other day, with perhaps the occasional lucky break of a 3-4 day gap every once in a blue moon.[/QUOTE]
I am thankful that trump takes breaks on the weekends because I don't think my heart could take it
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52232622]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.[/QUOTE]
Generally organisations like the Washington Post might show bias in editorials and perhaps by omission but how often do they actually report inaccurate things?
I bet the Republicans are scrambling right now trying to cover this up.
[QUOTE=Numpers;52232638]Russia is the only other country fighting ISIS, so Trump (with the full authority to do so) gives them some intel on ISIS so that they can better fight ISIS. Is no one reading the article? Or is everyone just masturbating over the implications of the headline?[/QUOTE]
You don't just tell Classified information willy nilly to other nations. No matter what the situation is.
[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52232651]I bet the Republicans are scrambling right now trying to cover this up.[/QUOTE]
As long as it's a republican and not a democrat, they don't even care.
[QUOTE=Numpers;52232638]Russia is the only other country fighting ISIS, so Trump (with the full authority to do so) gives them some intel on ISIS so that they can better fight ISIS. Is no one reading the article? Or is everyone just masturbating over the implications of the headline?[/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.
[B]The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia[/B], 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]
Did you read the article?
[QUOTE=Numpers;52232638]Russia is the only other country fighting ISIS, so Trump (with the full authority to do so) gives them some intel on ISIS so that they can better fight ISIS. Is no one reading the article? Or is everyone just masturbating over the implications of the headline?[/QUOTE]
Did you miss the part of the article where it explains that the way he runs his mouth could potentially compromise US intelligence sources in the region
That's not a good thing at all, by any stretch
[QUOTE=Snapster;52232639][media]https://twitter.com/ericawerner/status/864236984667172864[/media][/QUOTE]
"Its not a leak its an [I]announcement[/I]." Is an argument I've heard from some people when the owner of their company says something he shouldn't have.
Its just proof that Trump is running his country like a business!
If you can't beat Wikileaks, outleak them
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52232656]Did you read the article?[/QUOTE]
good job intentionally mis-quoting the article
[QUOTE]For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.[/QUOTE]
Wapo and buzzfeed. Man ya'll getting desperate.
[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]
That's part of what makes political reporting so difficult. Often, your sources are very close to the issues -- White House staff, other politicians, professional analysts -- and risk losing their jobs or worse if they're revealed.
But the confidential source is not a technique to be used lightly, and it's definitely not one to be used fraudulently, although I'm sure some less scrupulous journalists have and continue to do so. At the same time, generally speaking, all interviews have to be coordinated through the editorial staff, and information verified before a story leaves the desk for publishing, so if a reputable outlet is running pieces supported by anonymous sources, it's generally valid information. Stories that run anonymous sources are usually a team effort; they're rarely the work of a single journalist, and they always have to pass fact-check, copy, and the editorial pipeline before we can ship them.
It's understandable to look at these stories with a skeptical eye, and I encourage you to, but we always try to make sure that what we report is accurate, even when we aren't legally allowed to reveal our sources.
Lets just wait to see what Trump tweets about this. Everything he says is the truth and if he says he didn't do it he didn't do it.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232675]Wapo and buzzfeed. Man ya'll getting desperate.[/QUOTE]
So
Do you have a response to the contents of the article beyond that?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232675]Wapo and buzzfeed. Man ya'll getting desperate.[/QUOTE]
Washington Post is one of the best news sources in the world. How is that desperation?
[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]
That's how news like this has always been. If you want names, you won't find them because this is the kind of thing nobody will attach their name to. Going to the press and saying "Hello I am Maj. Leaks with the US Air Force and I am telling you this" will get you disgraced, fired, and arrested very quickly. Fake news is that conservative website that publishes the "scientist tells all" that confirms climate change is a hoax, or that unnamed official that says Hillary is a the Wicked Witch of the North Americas. That's why choosing reputable sites is important, because this stuff is easy to fake in the first place.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52232684]Washington Post is one of the best news sources in the world. How is that desperation?[/QUOTE]
Because WaPo is owned by the """""Globalist Elite"""""
-
Anonymous sources have been pretty important in the past, we didn't know who Deep Throat was for more than thirty years after Watergate
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232675]Wapo and buzzfeed. Man ya'll getting desperate.[/QUOTE]
Pretty low hanging fruit there.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/7oW50kv.jpg[/t]
Got me to respond though, that's the most important part.
[QUOTE=Numpers;52232674]good job intentionally mis-quoting the article[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;52232484]"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Richard Nixon, 1977[/QUOTE]
Were he anyone else but the president, he would in a world of legal buttfuckery.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52232648]Generally organisations like the Washington Post might show bias in editorials and perhaps by omission but how often do they actually report inaccurate things?[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying they [I]always[/I] report inaccurate things, but I certainly also do not think they're infallible or above putting out an article for clicks, so I'd rather wait for an actual investigation to conclude, rather than assume that an anonymously sourced report from a source that is known to have a noticeable amount of left-bias is another smoking gun in a long list of alleged smoking guns.
If it does turn out to be true, I'd honestly want the guy put away for the rest of his life. But I don't see any actual proof here, so I'm not going to jump on that side of the fence just yet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
