Trump Revealed Classified Information to Russian Foreign Minister - WashPo

[jdbond592]

What presumably happened was that the United States shared highly-sensitive counter-terrorist intelligence with their Russian partners, and some white house official leaked details about the exchange to the public.

The leaker is the criminal here. Just look at all the damage the leak has done; it may have cost the US vital intelligence collaboration, in particular with the source of the intel in question, and it may have hindered the ongoing fight against terrorism. All this because of some white house official's vendetta towards the president of the United States. It is imperative that the identity of this person be discovered, so that it can be investigated whether this person indeed committed a treason. At the very least, he has breached the confidentiality expected of the white house personnel, and therefore he should be fired so that he cannot damage the US any further in the future.

Unlike sharing it with Russians who no one would object it, especially the country that collected the information, right?

So do tell us just what was leaked? Besides what they have done? Names, locations? Funny how Trump's handpicked people have vendetta against God-Emperor who personally loves all leaks that benefit him!

[HeyGuysHello]

So you are just full of it? Who do you think you are that anyone will care to show you "evidence"? Go on, enlighten us about your importance in alt-reality. And please don't "disappear" when even WH admits to this "fake story", eventually.

So you are just full of it?

Thanks for that post's entire summary. Gonna be real easy to shirk off your posts.

[jdbond592]

Thanks for summing me up. Gonna be real easy to shirk off your posts.

Corrected it for you. Brilliant musings, alt reality notwithstanding.

[HeyGuysHello]

You think people become officials or whatever in hopes one day they can leak damning info about an unhinged president? Anyway, this is a pretty shit argument if various independent sources confirmed the same things.

The thing about these various independent sources is that they have no leg to stand on. They've provided nothing but the reaction to hearing that something may have allegedly happened because this anonymous official told us that classified info we don't exactly know was leaked. What good does that do anyone? It gives nothing but this thread and the most godawful Facebook posts.

[Kiri]

So what? Are you saying they should also leak that classified information to prove their claims? Yeah, real fucking smart there.

That is exactly what Trump wanted to achieve with his war on the media. Some people don't trust reporting anymore, they want to see the proof themselves. Since that proof cannot be given out publicly, it cannot be proven to them and they only feel more vindicated.

[jdbond592]

So what? Are you saying they should also leak that classified information to prove their claims? Yeah, real fucking smart there.

LOL! They want the actual info plus name of the leaker, while being a nobody! Proof you see.

[Bakis]

Guess foreign agencies will be more reluctant to share info with the Americans.

[HeyGuysHello]

So what? Are you saying they should also leak that classified information to prove their claims? Yeah, real fucking smart there.

It was Russian intelligence, so chances are high that it was related to Executive Order 13526. Whether the info came in during Obama's term or Trump's, it would be perfectly reasonable to give information to the one country taking care of ISIS better than we are. So then the info just falls under public morality. But no, nobody should leak that information. We should know what area it was related to (terrorism, military, etc.) The only non-anonymous official statements say that Trump never said anything damaging or incriminating, which doesn't let them off the hook either.

Either way, it's blowing hot air.

[jdbond592]

That is exactly what Trump wanted to achieve with his war on the media. Some people don't trust reporting anymore, they want to see the proof themselves. Since that proof cannot be given out publicly, it cannot be proven to them and they only feel more vindicated.

And yet none of these people can show me a shred of evidence that Osama had anything to do with 9/11. My favorite question that usually leads to massive deflection.

Best part is that these people never ask any proof from Trump for all the claims he has made. They just take his word for it.

[Xandrigity]

The Washington post "news".

[HeyGuysHello]

My favorite question that usually leads to massive deflection.

*tips fedora*
That question is off-topic unless you can fully state your context. If you can't make a point out loud, it doesn't read any better.

[Orbitus]

*I'm giving credit to these people that have had many baseless articles before because I can't think for myself.*

McMaster is a hundred times the man you are. As if outlets don't coordinate their stories - get a grip. Half these people are owned by the same billionaires. Come back with evidence or stop playing make-believe on a video game forum.

Considering McMasters didn't refute ANYTHING in the article that Washington Post posted about, yeah, I am going to say he isn't. He just doesn't want to get fired for not slobbering the cheeto flavored knob.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh gee, it's the washington compost with a another steaming pile of excrement they call "journalism". Their agenda is so painfully obvious it's impossible to take them seriously with any of this shit. http://imgur.com/OoIqstQ sums up their bs partisanship pretty well.

Someone already posted that bullshit and they got slapped down just like you will.

[HeyGuysHello]

What was Russian intelligence? What are you talking about?

Kind of a joke since everyone kept saying the Russians were spies.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering McMasters didn't refute ANYTHING in the article that Washington Post posted about

"A brief statement for the record. There is nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president of the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, were intelligent sources or methods discussed. The president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of the state, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Going on the record should outweigh the anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn’t happen. Thanks, everybody."


...?

[Deleted]

What do you think ''behind closed doors'' mean? It just means it isn't open to the public, in other words American press (russian press was invited for some reason).

Anonymous sources within the White House doesn't mean just a random dude you find on craigslist, it means a person that's been confirmed to be working for and doesn't have a history of lying. The reason why they are anonymous is because they wouldn't be ''anonymous sources within the White House'' anymore if they leaked stuff while using their name would they.

These former officials are asked for their opinions if the story is true they aren't confirming the story.

Russian press ended up inside because no one checked that that photographer also worked for TASS. Also, it means that it's close to the public and from my understanding there aren't a lot of people who are actually inside when the meeting is taking place.

As for anonymous sources what do we do about the times when the anonymous sources weren't right? Do we just keep trusting that and moving on as if that didn't happen? I know what an anonymous source is, i just don't trust media enough at this point when their source is anonymous officials because of their history of using it as the go to "I don't have sources, this sounds good enough".

As for whether those former officials are asked for opinions it doesn't read that way in the article. It reads like "X happened and Y confirms it".

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials

[Uzkin]

Unlike sharing it with Russians who no one would object it, especially the country that collected the information, right?

So do tell us just what was leaked? Besides what they have done? Names, locations? Funny how Trump's handpicked people have vendetta against God-Emperor who personally loves all leaks that benefit him!

The president together with his advisors should be the ones to decide what information about the meeting to share with the public; a random official simply cannot act behind his back this way. This event in particular was very sensitive in nature; leaking anything about it to the public can be destructive.

The United States chose to share information with the Russians, through a president that was legally and constitutionally (even if not democratically) elected to the office by the people of the United States. He didn't hide his friendly, cooperative policies towards Russia during his campaign so these actions are indeed enabled and empowered by the american people. He is the highest representative of the US, and therefore we should indeed speak of "the United States sharing intel with Russia" instead of "Trump sharing intel with Russia".

[Muzjhath]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...osures/526818/

In the wake of the Post story, the White House—hoping, presumably, to avoid another Comey-firing publicity debacle—trotted out three reasonably sane, responsible, experienced adults to vouch for the President’s story. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell, and National Security Adviser Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster made public statements calling the story false, giving different variants of this argument: The President did not disclose sources and methods for intelligence gathering, or future military operations.

Well, of course not. That is not what the Post said in its story: It said that he divulged intelligence. And since it seems likely that the Russians captured all of the conversation—they were allowed to bring their electronics into the room, including the only video cameras, the American press having been excluded—they undoubtedly got all of it. And you bet that their analysts are even now chuckling as they figure out what the sources were.

Another take on what happened. And again reiterating (posted two links already in this read with the same thing). McMaster doesn't deny what the WaPo claims. They never state that's what was shared they state intelligence that could infer what he say wasn't shared.
Bolded is also pretty important.

[HeyGuysHello]

Well, of course not. That is not what the Post said in its story: It said that he divulged intelligence.

"At no time, at no time, were intelligent sources or methods discussed." -McMaster of Disaster

The Atlantic sure sucks, huh?

[Skandulous]

"At no time, at no time, were intelligent sources or methods discussed." -McMaster of Disaster

The Atlantic sure sucks, huh?

but the intelligence was discussed and Russia can easily find out were the intel came from.

[Kiri]

Russian press ended up inside because no one checked that that photographer also worked for TASS. Also, it means that it's close to the public and from my understanding there aren't a lot of people who are actually inside when the meeting is taking place.

As for anonymous sources what do we do about the times when the anonymous sources weren't right? Do we just keep trusting that and moving on as if that didn't happen? I know what an anonymous source is, i just don't trust media enough at this point when their source is anonymous officials because of their history of using it as the go to "I don't have sources, this sounds good enough".

As for whether those former officials are asked for opinions it doesn't read that way in the article. It reads like "X happened and Y confirms it".

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials

Why not just run a state media then? Because if you only allow non-anonymous sources, then nothing other than government-approved news will surface, since people in general care about their jobs/will be weeded out after the first leak.

The president together with his advisors should be the ones to decide what information about the meeting to share with the public; a random official simply cannot act behind his back this way. This event in particular was very sensitive in nature; leaking anything about it to the public can be destructive.

The United States chose to share information with the Russians, through a president that was legally and constitutionally (even if not democratically) elected to the office by the people of the United States. He didn't hide his friendly, cooperative policies towards Russia during his campaign so these actions are indeed enabled and empowered by the american people. He is the highest representative of the US, and therefore we should indeed speak of "the United States sharing intel with Russia" instead of "Trump sharing intel with Russia".

I think the problem was more that Trump shared information that the US was entrusted with by an ally, who explicitly wanted it to not be shared, as doing so could harm them/their intelligence gathering. Hence, this is less about the president doing something unlawful, but moreso that he insulted his allies and jeopardized intelligence operations on ISIS.

That random official revealed that Trump betrayed the trust of said ally, something that Trump and his advisers obviously would not have done themselves.

[Muzjhath]

"At no time, at no time, were intelligent sources or methods discussed." -McMaster of Disaster

The Atlantic sure sucks, huh?

Yes, that is true. That's not what the original article by the WaPo claimed.
"Intelligence sources and methods" are very specific things. Things that were not divulged. Aka the operative in question wasn't named. The methods used weren't mentioned.
However where something came from might have been (as in, "information from Rakka" as a full example). With that in hand the Russians can infer who would have been in a situation to supply that information and target the source. Making that source obsolete and threatened.