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

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52232692]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] Also staying Anonymous avoids a silencer from bumping into the back of your head on some Dark Friday night in your small Studio Apartment.

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

[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 feel like a lot of people are willing to roll with it in all it's vague glory because there's a desperation for some sort of smoking gun. If this was so damning I too would expect a lot more substance. Something tells me this is being blown up more than it really should be, assuming it's even true to begin with. And the more mainstream media (CNN, Fox and BBC especially) have nothing to do with it? Seems like a juicy report to roll with right? I think a lot of this has to do with a self-fulfilling prophecy. People want to believe anything to support their beliefs and then there's a seemingly noticeable influx of purposely misinforming information going around these days as a whole that I barely believe anything I read any more. I trust BBC the most and use that to gauge the seriousness or legitimacy of story read from some other outlet.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52232684]Washington Post is one of the best news sources in the world. How is that desperation?[/QUOTE] The Washington Post has a liberal bias in reporting choices, however they are typically well sourced to credible information. Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them, which leads to poor sourcing. This has occurred on a few occasions in 2016. When an error is made the Washington Post responsibly makes corrections. Buzzfeed is the only one "confirming" their story and using anon officials to do so.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52232684]Washington Post is one of the best news sources in the world. How is that desperation?[/QUOTE] It's easier to call people desperate then to believe something that goes against his narrative.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52232684]Washington Post is one of the best news sources in the world. How is that desperation?[/QUOTE] They have a noted left-of-center bias, at the least: [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/[/url] I'd probably put a bit more stock in this if it was coming from a company without a known spin, but even then I'd probably be wary of any article that is backed by exclusively anonymous sources. I'm not even saying it's always an untrustworthy publication, just that I don't think any anonymous report by them is damning evidence.

I really wonder how you guys would react to Watergate as it happened since it relied on anonymous sources before being revealed who they were decades later.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232675]Wapo and buzzfeed. Man ya'll getting desperate.[/QUOTE] oh please, it could be the most trustworthy news agency in the history of the world and you'd still make this pointless post

[QUOTE=Numpers;52232674]good job intentionally mis-quoting the article[/QUOTE] This just makes me think that the President's authority should be a little more well defined.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232716]The Washington Post has a liberal bias in reporting choices, however they are typically well sourced to credible information. Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them, which leads to poor sourcing. This has occurred on a few occasions in 2016. When an error is made the Washington Post responsibly makes corrections. Buzzfeed is the only one "confirming" their story and using anon officials to do so.[/QUOTE] I would get your point with Buzzfeed, but WaPo? Come on dude...

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52232540]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 think part of the issue is that this administration inadvertently encourages anonymous leaks by way of its own intense paranoia and secrecy. It was widely understood at the outset that Washington would "leak like a sieve" under Trump, and given that White House spokespeople like Sean Spicer are themselves denied even the most basic information on the administration's activities, journalists are forced to circumvent official channels entirely. Administration officials find themselves in the awkward position of witnessing outrageous events taking place out of the public eye, but being unable to speak on them without doing so anonymously, lest they risk losing their jobs. By shrouding itself in secrecy and creating a climate of suspicion, the administration is actually exasperating the problem, AND simultaneously failing to shape the conversation around its policies. It's a huge but not unexpected PR failure, and the administration only has itself to blame. That being said, I agree with you. It's easy for news outlets to get caught up in the hysteria, particularly when every new story on Trump rakes in millions of views. It's important that reputable news sources don't sink to the level of gossip tabloids, especially given the very real threat a Trump presidency poses to the country.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232716]The Washington Post has a liberal bias in reporting choices, however they are typically well sourced to credible information. Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them, which leads to poor sourcing. This has occurred on a few occasions in 2016. When an error is made the Washington Post responsibly makes corrections. Buzzfeed is the only one "confirming" their story and using anon officials to do so.[/QUOTE] They've also won 47 Pulitzer Prizes and won one last year. In fact this is the place you got your paragraph: [URL="https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/"]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/[/URL]

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;52232721]I really wonder how you guys would react to Watergate as it happened since it relied on anonymous sources before being revealed who they were decades later.[/QUOTE] Probably the same way people reacted to Watergate then: with skepticism. Just give it time. It'll come around.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52232719]They have a noted left-of-center bias, at the least: [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/[/url] I'd probably put a bit more stock in this if it was coming from a company without a known spin, but even then I'd probably be wary of any article that is backed by exclusively anonymous sources.[/QUOTE] Bias is fine, all I care about is factual reporting

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;52232721]I really wonder how you guys would react to Watergate as it happened since it relied on anonymous sources before being revealed who they were decades later.[/QUOTE] "omg deep throat? why would we trust a guy named after sucking cock?"

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52232730]Bias is fine, all I care about is factual reporting[/QUOTE] I wonder if some people tend to mix up Bias with Factual reporting. WaPo is Factual reporting with a left leaning bias. Fox News is just spewing bullshit like a broken septic tank, with a strong right bias. You can still have factual reporting with some bias.

[QUOTE=matt000024;52232738]"omg deep throat? why would we trust a guy named after sucking cock?"[/QUOTE] Nixon was right to fire Archibald Cucks

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52232730]Bias is fine, all I care about is factual reporting[/QUOTE] I mean, I can get that. It's honestly not enough for me to hop on the Russiagate train or anything similar, though. I thought more or less the same thing when WikiLeaks was popping out stuff by "anonymous IT guy" and the like on Hillary emails. I'd rather wait for legitimate evidence from an actual investigation to come out than take anonymous quotes from a company that makes its money and gets it's ratings based on how many people click a link.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52232699]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.[/QUOTE] I mean, I understand your concerns about Buzzfeed, because they don't have high standards on reporting. I think it's pretty stupid BlindSniper is putting them in the OP, because it's fucking Buzzfeed. Washington Post does have high standards though. Reporting inaccurate things directly lead to them losing credibility, and credibility is the single most important thing for a journalist that wants to be taken seriously. Essentially, any publication that has a history of being factual in their reporting has a vested interest in not just making shit up and assigning it to anonymous sources, because it would be journalistic suicide to do so. This is credibility is the very core of the journalistic profession.

[QUOTE=Numpers;52232638]Russia is the only other country fighting ISIS[/QUOTE] Tell that to Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iran, Netherlands, Jordan, Sweden, Turkey, UAE, and the UK.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52232745]I mean, I can get that. It's honestly not enough for me to hop on the Russiagate train or anything similar, though. I thought more or less the same thing when WikiLeaks was popping out stuff by "anonymous IT guy" and the like on Hillary emails. I'd rather wait for legitimate evidence from an actual investigation to come out than take anonymous quotes from a company that makes its money and gets it's ratings based on how many people click a link.[/QUOTE] Honestly I doubt Trump did actually collude with Putin or whatever. At this point, his reaction to that investigation is a far bigger problem.

[QUOTE=Fort83;52232417]Thank goodness we didn't get Hillary and her classified emails scandal right?[/QUOTE] Don't turn this into a 'lesser of two evils' competition.

This is really the textbook definition of what it means to be 'unfit to be president'. It doesn't just mean saying some goofy things in public or having some questionable views like Bush or whatever, he literally can't perform one of the most basic duties of the office.

I bet the ally is Israel, and boy will they be fucking pissed if Trump's selling them out. [QUOTE=Numpers;52232674]good job intentionally mis-quoting the article[/QUOTE] Just because it's legal under US law doesn't mean Trump had the authority to [I]give away another nation's secrets.[/I] That's like me lending you something of mine and you throw it out instead of giving it back to me, because you have the authority to throw your own stuff in the garbage. Sorry, it's not yours to give away. Back in January, [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/13/us-spies-warned-israel-not-share-intelligence-trump/"]US intelligence was warning its allies not to share secret info with Trump because he'd tell Russia.[/URL] [B]OH LOOK HERE'S TRUMP GIVING AWAY ALLIES' SECRETS TO RUSSIA[/B] [URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-intelligence-russia-233899"]This carries the very real risk that America's allies will stop sharing information,[/URL] which will cripple America's ability to effectively and efficiently project power overseas and detect threats ahead of time. It'd be pretty terrible for every nation involved if Five Eyes collapsed because Trump's a literal Manchurian Candidate committing treason. It's great for Putin's future, though.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52232745]I mean, I can get that. It's honestly not enough for me to hop on the Russiagate train or anything similar, though. I thought more or less the same thing when WikiLeaks was popping out stuff by "anonymous IT guy" and the like on Hillary emails. I'd rather wait for legitimate evidence from an actual investigation to come out than take anonymous quotes from a company that makes its money and gets it's ratings based on how many people click a link.[/QUOTE] The Washington Post broke the Watergate story, and used reporter's privilege to protect their anonymous sources back then. Even with those protections, Nixon still tried to clean house before he resigned. Can we please drop the notion that anonymous sources are synonymous with "fake news"?

If he walks away from this, he's confirmed to be bulletproof and he isn't going anywhere til 2020. But this is a pretty big fucking bullet, I ain't going to lie.

[QUOTE]H.R. McMaster, Trump's national security adviser who participated in the meeting, told the Post that Trump and the officials, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak, discussed "common threats." "The President and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation," McMaster told The Washington Post. "At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly."[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/trump-russia-classified-information/index.html"]CNN[/URL] :thinking:

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232793][URL="http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/trump-russia-classified-information/index.html"]CNN[/URL] :thinking:[/QUOTE] That's actually in the article in the OP?

Bushwatch 2017 [media]https://twitter.com/RosieGray/status/864244435554643968[/media]

[QUOTE=rilez;52232785]The Washington Post broke the Watergate story, and used reporter's privilege to protect their anonymous sources back then. Even with those protections, Nixon still tried to clean house before he resigned. Can we please drop the notion that anonymous sources are synonymous with "fake news"?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying they're fake news, I already explicitly stated the opposite :v But I don't think it's responsible to form an opinion based on exclusively anonymous sources, regardless of the reputation of a paper.