Trump Revealed Classified Information to Russian Foreign Minister - WashPo

[Triceratrozer]

George W. Bush has been your president for 8 years, so...

Point taken...

[Skroe]

Let's just clear something up about McMaster



It was indeed the very selective denial everyone heard.

[Deleted]

GROMPH IS FINISHED THIS TIME TWO SCOOPS WAS THE LAST STRAW TWONALD THRUMPHHHHHHHHHH



Oh, more fake news.

Do you guys ever get tired of losing?

It's a nice deflection designed to convince believers. Not how he specifically mentions things they did not discuss? The problem is it was locations that was classified that was discussed. Notice how he never denies that?

[Berengil]

Because Trump made enemies. Too many enemies. This is what happens when a man demands loyalty and offers none. This is EXACTLY what happens.

I've said it before: Trump runs his administration like a REALLY shitty WoW guild.

@Skroe : I really, really wish this was it. But, I'm wondering: doesn't the POTUS (as CnC) have broad authority to declassify anything he wants?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

@Skroe : I really, really wish this was it. But, I'm wondering: doesn't the POTUS (as CnC) have broad authority to declassify anything he wants?

I believe there was a discussion about it. He does but it doesn't seem to be that he declassified it. Say that he did, then the public deserves that information.

[Skroe]

@Skroe : I really, really wish this was it. But, I'm wondering: doesn't the POTUS (as CnC) have broad authority to declassify anything he wants?

He does. That's not at issue. The issue is the wisdom, how proper it was and the implication. I offered I think an accurate analogy earlier.

In 2013 Obama had the OPTION as CnC to bomb Syria over the Red Line or not. He was not obligated to, except to defend America's word when it comes to doing-what-it says. And when Obama didn't, many of our allies freaked out: if our word over Chemical weapons was not to be defended, does that mean American security garantees to them are a bluff we'll wiggle out of? America is still repairing that damage. It will be for years to come.

This is similar in the sense that Trump could spill to the Russians this info, but this was also intel provided not by US sources, but by an ally, who chose to share it with us. We had not shared it with close allies... it was an enormous secret in the US apparently, and we ALSO did not inform the ally that collected the intel that we were going to share it (or share it with the Russians). The implication of this is: America cannot be trusted with secrets you provide to it. So why should countries do it any longer?

Trump had a right to do this most likey. But this was intelligence-suicide. If the Obama case has implications for our "good word", this has dramatic implications for our ability as a country to be trusted with secrets that our friends VOLUNTEER to share with us. Again, it is not a US spy in ISIS, it is an ally's. It is their man/men in jeopardy. So why should they help us now?

[Jastall]

Ignoring what did or didn't get revealed by Trump, and in no way trying to defend anything...

Is there literally NOTHING in the Whitehouse that can stay confidential and not leaked anymore? Even this must have been said in a strictly confidential meeting but it seems officials there are calling up the press on speed dial within minutes. No wonder Trump was threatening about recordings being released to the press, the government seems to have more leaks in it than a colander.

Probably because the people working at the White House don't like or support Trump. There's far more than his political appointees handling documents and meetings there.

After the rebuttals from officials present at the meeting, I'm not inclined to take the WashPo's report as gospel, but I can definitely see Trump running a mouth a bit more than is comfortable.

And if I ever hear that Trump is buckling under the pressure of these scandals, real or fake, I'll not be surprised. The man is clearly way too thin-skinned (amongst other deficiencies) for the office.

[CostinR]

Probably because the people working at the White House don't like or support Trump. There's far more than his political appointees handling documents and meetings there.

They might have even been the ones who were responsible for the leaking.

Why? Apparently rumors suggest Trump isn't getting along with McMaster AND plenty of people in 4chan Breitbart fanclub despise McMaster. Idiots but I could easily imagine a scenario where someone leaks it to try and give someone like McMaster more clout.

I'm sitting here smiling. You were warned Costin. You were fucking warned. That's all I have to say to you. He served no purpose other than to horrify Americans of every stripe. Certainly no Revolution.

The election was the revolution. I've said months ago that nothing he could ever do as president would ever come close to winning the presidency under the conditions that he did.

The only commitment I had was for him to win. After that? It's his job to run the country. If he doesn't want to do that job he can piss off.

[Toppy]

Are you implying there isn't a difference?

One was something that was authorized and the other wasnt?

[Skroe]

I believe there was a discussion about it. He does but it doesn't seem to be that he declassified it. Say that he did, then the public deserves that information.

There is also a formal process to declasissfy something.

Case in point, Trump can't get infront of camera's tomorrow and share selfies with the B-21 Raider stealth bomber that Northrop is building that he took with his iPhone. Sure the B-21, or a prototype, has been evidently, flying for years now, and the existence of the program is known to the public, along with the broad outlines of the shape... but if we see a photograph of it, especially a photograph not from very specific angles (like the B-2, which was only allowed to be photographed from specific angles for years), it'll be likely after 2020.

Getting that photo out would involve layers of review. The President can initiate the process. If you want a specific, related historic example, during the 1980 Presidential Election, Reagan slammed Carter for canceling the B-1A bomber program (that Reagan revived into the modified B-1B Lancer bomber). But the reason carter canceled it is because the US was deep into planning the B-2 Spirit bomber... and Carter knew that, but couldn't share that. And he wanted to, and started the process of declassification, but it wasn't finished before he was defeated and left office.

He could not have said during a debate "yeah I canceled the B-1A because we're building a flying wing stealth bomber with breakthrough technology you wouldn't believe".

[Independent voter]

Hanlon's Razor puts it well. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."


In Trump's defense.

[Arvei]

Looks like Trump is back to deflecting to Hillary's emails over this mess on twitter. It's entertaining to watch him contradict his reason for firing Comey yet again.

[Puupi]

Hanlon's Razor puts it well. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."


In Trump's defense.

Stupidity is not a defense.

[Toppy]

Probably because the people working at the White House don't like or support Trump. There's far more than his political appointees handling documents and meetings there.

After the rebuttals from officials present at the meeting, I'm not inclined to take the WashPo's report as gospel, but I can definitely see Trump running a mouth a bit more than is comfortable.

And if I ever hear that Trump is buckling under the pressure of these scandals, real or fake, I'll not be surprised. The man is clearly way too thin-skinned (amongst other deficiencies) for the office.

There have been constant reports of a constant state of fear at the white house of pissing off the potus. Something that has only worsened with Comey. Its no wonder everyone wants to remain anonymous: they're afraid of the president.

[Berengil]

He does. That's not at issue. The issue is the wisdom, how proper it was and the implication. I offered I think an accurate analogy earlier.

In 2013 Obama had the OPTION as CnC to bomb Syria over the Red Line or not. He was not obligated to, except to defend America's word when it comes to doing-what-it says. And when Obama didn't, many of our allies freaked out: if our word over Chemical weapons was not to be defended, does that mean American security garantees to them are a bluff we'll wiggle out of? America is still repairing that damage. It will be for years to come.

This is similar in the sense that Trump could spill to the Russians this info, but this was also intel provided not by US sources, but by an ally, who chose to share it with us. We had not shared it with close allies... it was an enormous secret in the US apparently, and we ALSO did not inform the ally that collected the intel that we were going to share it (or share it with the Russians). The implication of this is: America cannot be trusted with secrets you provide to it. So why should countries do it any longer?

Trump had a right to do this most likey. But this was intelligence-suicide. If the Obama case has implications for our "good word", this has dramatic implications for our ability as a country to be trusted with secrets that our friends VOLUNTEER to share with us. Again, it is not a US spy in ISIS, it is an ally's. It is their man/men in jeopardy. So why should they help us now?

Understood. So: shtty/stupid/impulsive, but not criminal. Dammit.

[Skroe]

The election was the revolution. I've said months ago that nothing he could ever do as president would ever come close to winning the presidency under the conditions that he did.

The only commitment I had was for him to win. After that? It's his job to run the country. If he doesn't want to do that job he can piss off.

Pfft. You think that was a revolution? You must be new around here. That's not was revolutions look like in this country. Maybe Romania. Not America.

- - - Updated - - -

Understood. So: shtty/stupid/impulsive, but not criminal. Dammit.

Maybe not criminal. Wait for the lawyers. Again, there is a declassification process. The authority is broad but not unlimited. See my follow up above using the B-2/B-1 as an example.

[Zeek Daniels]

Trumps the Commander and Chief. He can do what he wants in terms of deciding how he wants to proceed with classified data. Especially when the Islamic state is involved. Russia is fighting against the spread of Islam near its borders so who knows if this information will help them fight terrorist threats.

[schwarzkopf]

So, if it were legal for the president to murder people, you'd be okay with that?

Of course I'm not ok with it - but what I'm ok with isn't the point.

In addition - once he isn't president, it becomes illegal .... so think of it more like him evading prosecution for a while.

[DeadmanWalking]

For what exactly?

Congress decides what is impeachable, while a president can unclassify anything they want at any time they have never done so just to brag and one up an enemy state in the most mindless way possible.

So legally he is okay -unless- congress decides it is impeachable. He still just fucked up royally because he mindlessly needed to "one up" lower Russian statesmen and has no control over himself. American agents who took years to get imbedded to find information against the Islamic state just got outted if this is true and they are deadmen walking, if not already dead. Our own intelligence agencies will now decide if Trump can be trusted with any kind of intelligence at all and our allies around the world who feed us intel are bring woken up at 2:30 am to be told that this President is not to be trusted with any further information in fear that his braggadocio nature will get their agents killed.

I know, I know... But her emails!

[schwarzkopf]

Are you implying there isn't a difference?

Technically the difference is that on the left you have an offer to share, and a competent and thought out plan.
On the right you have an ego sharing something on the spot to bolster his feelings.