Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador
1,023 replies, posted
[QUOTE]"I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day," - Trump 2016 [/QUOTE]
The Quote Master of our Generation folks.... :downs:
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52232760]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]
I more or less agree. I mostly think he's afraid of people looking under rocks and finding stuff unrelated to all of this that is still damaging to his already [I]fairly[/I] busted PR image at best, and objectively criminal at worst :v:
The New York Times is now corroborating WaPo's report
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-classified-information-isis.html[/url]
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52232799]But I don't think it's responsible to form an opinion based on exclusively anonymous sources, regardless of the reputation of a paper.[/QUOTE]
Then I guess you must take issue with the reporting of every major political scandal in the last century. Reporters have always protected their sources. Having anonymous sources doesn't make a story less credible.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232793][URL="http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/trump-russia-classified-information/index.html"]CNN[/URL]
:thinking:[/QUOTE]
What possible motivation could Trump's administration have to lie about him colossally fucking up :thinking:
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52232831][media]https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/864249402571010049[/media][/QUOTE]
This outlet is not trustworthy, says increasingly nervous man
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232793][URL="http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/trump-russia-classified-information/index.html"]CNN[/URL]
:thinking:[/QUOTE]
If everything was on the up and up, why did allies not want Trump sharing the info? :thinking:
[I]Via article in my original post:[/I]
[QUOTE]
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement [B]considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government[/B], officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that [B]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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=rilez;52232825]Then I guess you must take issue with the reporting of every major political scandal in the last century. Reporters have always protected their sources. Having anonymous sources doesn't make a story less credible.[/QUOTE]
I guess I might? It's not a topic I know a ton about, I can honestly say that, but I don't really trust reporters, or at the least am skeptical of anything without actual proof, tapes, papertrails, etc. I don't really see what is lost by waiting for an actual investigation to conclude or legitimate evidence to pop up before I grab the rifle and the rope.
[QUOTE=rilez;52232825]Then I guess you must take issue with the reporting of every major political scandal in the last century. Reporters have always protected their sources. Having anonymous sources doesn't make a story less credible.[/QUOTE]
Also, most of the time we're legally obligated to protect our sources. If a source, no matter how legitimate, doesn't want us to print their name, we can't. To do otherwise is a breach of contract and a legal tortfeasance.
The only exception is in the case of stated illicit activity on the part of the source, as in the case of reporters following gang members or drug cartels, which shield laws don't apply to.
Shield laws, if anyone is unfamiliar, are a set of laws determined by state governments that protect the right of a journalist to keep confidential sources confidential except, generally, in the case of a subpoena by a grand jury.
[QUOTE=geel9;52232835]What possible motivation could Trump's administration have to lie about him colossally fucking up :thinking:[/QUOTE]
McMaster is pretty outspoken on Trump and the way he operates. He, along with Mattis, are highly respected by both sides. He isn't gonna die on a hill for Trump.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232675]Wapo and buzzfeed. Man ya'll getting desperate.[/QUOTE]
I'm generally curious which sources would you prefer to see/would believe if they reported this story? Which ones would you trust in their reporting?
I am not suprised anymore,
and HOW the fuck is he not impeached yet?
If any democrat as POTUS did just something remotly in the way of what Trump is doing
any Republican would be calling bloody murder.
Why the fuck is that so hard too see for the american public.
[QUOTE=Coolboy;52232871]I am not suprised anymore,
and HOW the fuck is he not impeached yet?
If any democrat as POTUS did just something remotly in the way of what Trump is doing
any Republican would be calling bloody murder.
Why the fuck is that so hard too see for the american public.[/QUOTE]
It's not. Most of the American public didn't vote for him.
But that's not important. What is important is that Trump has the support of the GOP, and the GOP has Congress. That's the issue. That's why Trump hasn't been impeached yet, and probably won't be for some time.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232859]McMaster is pretty outspoken on Trump and the way he operates. He, along with Mattis, are highly respected by both sides. He isn't gonna die on a hill for Trump.[/QUOTE]
Trump fired the director of the FBI because he was investigating him. He fired Sally Yates for justifiably speaking out against an unconstitutional, unlawful executive order.
If I were interested in keeping my job in the White House, I wouldn't disobey Trump's orders. Trump tends to remove people who question anything. If Trump told McMaster "say it didn't happen. My hands are also big", it's very likely he'd do exactly that.
[media]https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny/status/864251840564744192[/media]
"I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation for all this :~)"
[QUOTE=geel9;52232884]Trump fired the director of the FBI because he was investigating him. He fired Sally Yates for justifiably speaking out against an unconstitutional, unlawful executive order.
If I were interested in keeping my job in the White House, I wouldn't disobey Trump's orders. Trump tends to remove people who question anything. If Trump told McMaster "say it didn't happen. My hands are also big", it's very likely he'd do exactly that.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, McMasters is one of the few people I would not call a trump crony. That press briefing should be interesting.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52232797]Bushwatch 2017
[media]https://twitter.com/RosieGray/status/864244435554643968[/media][/QUOTE]
I wonder if there's a reporter near the bushes outside hoping to get lucky..
[QUOTE=geel9;52232884]Trump fired the director of the FBI because he was investigating him. He fired Sally Yates for justifiably speaking out against an unconstitutional, unlawful executive order.
If I were interested in keeping my job in the White House, I wouldn't disobey Trump's orders. Trump tends to remove people who question anything. If Trump told McMaster "say it didn't happen. My hands are also big", it's very likely he'd do exactly that.[/QUOTE]
If Trump continues to fire everyone who doesn't support him 100% at all times, he's going to wind up with an administration so stupid and insular that he will be completely divorced from reality.
[QUOTE=mcharest;52232910]If Trump continues to fire everyone who doesn't support him 100% at all times, he's going to wind up with an administration so stupid and insular that he will be completely divorced from reality.[/QUOTE]
I would argue we already reached that point
[QUOTE=mcharest;52232910]If Trump continues to fire everyone who doesn't support him 100% at all times, he's going to wind up with an administration so stupid and insular that [b] he will be completely divorced from reality.[/b][/QUOTE]
I mean he already is.
[QUOTE=geel9;52232884]Trump fired the director of the FBI because he was investigating him. He fired Sally Yates for justifiably speaking out against an unconstitutional, unlawful executive order.
If I were interested in keeping my job in the White House, I wouldn't disobey Trump's orders. Trump tends to remove people who question anything. If Trump told McMaster "say it didn't happen. My hands are also big", it's very likely he'd do exactly that.[/QUOTE]
And Mattis threatened to quit if Trump didn't listen to him. The military appointees overwhelmingly don't play that political shit and McMaster has made that clear with his stance on Trump saying radical islamic terrorism. He doesn't need the job, he was picked to do it.
[QUOTE=geel9;52232884]Trump fired the director of the FBI because he was investigating him. He fired Sally Yates for justifiably speaking out against an unconstitutional, unlawful executive order.
If I were interested in keeping my job in the White House, I wouldn't disobey Trump's orders. Trump tends to remove people who question anything. If Trump told McMaster "say it didn't happen. My hands are also big", it's very likely he'd do exactly that.[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt someone as established as mcmaster would bend the knee for someone like trump
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232920]And Mattis threatened to quit if Trump didn't listen to him. The military appointees overwhelmingly don't play that political shit and McMaster has made that clear with his stance on Trump saying radical islamic terrorism. He doesn't need the job, he was picked to do it.[/QUOTE]
Then we'll have to see won't we?
is this the straw that breaks the administrations back?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52232914]I would argue we already reached that point[/QUOTE]
There are still some in his administration, such as General Mattis, who can act as a counterweight to Trump's stupidity. But with every employee he fires, every time he refuses to have his views challenged in even the even most trivial way, he does the country a huge disservice. Great presidents have always harbored a natural curiosity about the world and an ability to reflect on their own flaws, but Trump is like a charging bull: stupid, angry, and blind to everything else around him.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52232831][media]https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/864249402571010049[/media][/QUOTE]
are reuters fake news?????
[QUOTE=bdd458;52232945]is this the straw that breaks the administrations back?[/QUOTE]
Not as long as it's a Republican in office. :downs:
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52232851]I guess I might? It's not a topic I know a ton about, I can honestly say that, but I don't really trust reporters, or at the least am skeptical of anything without actual proof, tapes, papertrails, etc.[/QUOTE]
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege]Reporters in the US have legal protections in place to keep their sources anonymous.[/url] You're not going to get a tip from a high ranking official unless you're willing to keep their identity a secret. This is how reporting has worked almost forever.
I'm not saying you should be immediately angry or whatever at a news story. Their source might be wrong. You also shouldn't immediately dismiss a story for the sole reason that they're using anonymous sources. They're anonymous for a reason.
The Post has a very good reputation, and it would be pretty dumb for them to run a story with sources they weren't confident in.
Like I said before, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward]Bob Woodward[/url] and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Bernstein]Carl Bernstein[/url] did a lot of good reporting work for the Post, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(Watergate)]with anonymous sources,[/url] back when Nixon's scandal first broke.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
