Trump Revealed Classified Information to Russian Foreign Minister - WashPo

[Macaquerie]

Think it has a lot to do with the history of europe and aristocracy. While the US got rid of it very early and by a conscientious decision, there is still a lot of aristocracy, and even countries that abolished it are somewhat drawn to it. The whole idea that your family and your heritage is more important than your actual accomplishment in life is still way more prevalent than in the united states. This of course also extends to the perception of "real" europeans. A lot of people will see you as european only if your line of heritage can be traced long enough to be european. That's why we even have statistics for 3rd and 4th generation immigrants. And yeah, i know some take longer to integrate, but it stands to reason that europe and its fixation on heritage doesn't make it easier to integrate, than a society that emphasizes personal success rather than the accomplishment like the US.

On a sidenote: Countries that were forced to abolish aristocracy often found a way to circumvent this need. Here for example aristocratic titles are forbidden (though funny thing the actual fine hasn't been raised since 1919, so it is around 0,2 €) but people revel in academical titles, and especially for older people its a deadly sin to not being addressed by title.

What percentage of Europeans are actually descended from aristocrats though? I mean, I'm sure everyone has some noble blood buried somewhere deep in the family tree, but then as now, that alone doesn't make you an aristocrat. At the end of the day, we are all basically descended from peasants more or less and have to make our own way through life.

I think what's really at play here is that for a long time, ALL Europeans were effectively a privileged class ruling over masses of colonial subjects, and while that system has since been dismantled, that imperial mindset is still strong in many people's minds. There are countless people from Asia, Africa, and Latin America who have fully drunk the kool-aid and absolutely revere Western culture, values, and ideals, and want nothing more than to be a part of that society. And of course, rather than being hailed for their open-mindedness, these people are pretty much universally mocked from both sides for being clueless and naive.

[Deleted]

The implication is that nobody's house has been burned down.

Yeah, my point was that its reasonable that the people who are protective of their culture are the ones who still have 'their' culture - money have nothing to do with this.

- - - Updated - - -

Being a conservative isn't a argument and 2e one isn't a proper response.

I don't think thing's should be changed, unless we have good reasons too.
The progressive 'let's reshape the world, just because we can' is dangerous - Fascism was progressive too you know.

Also culture is very simpel to understand.....A country in the early 20th century wasn't the same country as country after WW2 and that country wasn't the same during the 60s (periods where the so called conservatives long for).

No, Culture is not 'what's on TV'.

Again if you want a never changing culture

Didn't say that.

from outside and you should lead by example by stopping playing video games (since most are build by diverse set of teams)

Even if i had said what i didn't say, this does not follow.

and posting on forums with allot of different people with different backgrounds

And this doesn't follow anything.

- - - Updated - - -

You folks may have the Healthcare thing down pat, but the whole immigration and societal fabric thing? Nooooo... I don't think so. But that's okay, we're on the same side and here to help.

yeah, how are the Native Americans doing right now?

[ati87]

What percentage of Europeans are actually descended from aristocrats though? I mean, I'm sure everyone has some noble blood buried somewhere deep in the family tree, but then as now, that alone doesn't make you an aristocrat. At the end of the day, we are all basically descended from peasants more or less and have to make our own way through life.

I think what's really at play here is that for a long time, ALL Europeans were effectively a privileged class ruling over masses of colonial subjects, and while that system has since been dismantled, that imperial mindset is still strong in many people's minds. There are countless people from Asia, Africa, and Latin America who have fully drunk the kool-aid and absolutely revere Western culture, values, and ideals, and want nothing more than to be a part of that society. And of course, rather than being hailed for their open-mindedness, these people are pretty much universally mocked from both sides for being clueless and naive.

Does it mater? They see somebody with a certain skin colour, name or religion and rascist think of themselves automatically better

A favorite argument racist in the US use in regards to the civil war was that only a small percentage of white people owned slaves, but those non slave owners sure tried hard to keep african americans down after the civil war all the way up to the 60s.

[StayTuned]

'I was going to fire Comey regardless of the recommendation, this Russia thing was too much. Gotta fight Fake News'.

You president is brutal, he destroyed all the defense his own spokespeople put up for him. He's actively working against himself.

[Shalcker]

'I was going to fire Comey regardless of the recommendation, this Russia thing was too much. Gotta fight Fake News'.

You president is brutal, he destroyed all the defense his own spokespeople put up for him. He's actively working against himself.

Hmm thanks for linking video... Trump actually say "he wants it [investigation] done right", and Comey wasn't the right man for this job (by partisan consensus).

[StayTuned]

Hmm thanks for linking video... Trump actually say "he wants it [investigation] done right", and Comey wasn't the right man for this job (by partisan consensus).

And with done right, he means closed

[ati87]

Hmm thanks for linking video... Trump actually say "he wants it [investigation] done right", and Comey wasn't the right man for this job (by partisan consensus).

That's a really, even worse, defense of trump.

Outside of having no reason to question Comey in regards to Trump and his campaign you could just keep Comey and press for a special prosecutor instead if you thought that for whatever reason Comey wasn't the right man for the job.

Result: Comey isn't investigation
You don't fire the FBI director based on bullshit reasons
You have a independent person doing the investigation (which you still got)
And no god dam drama because of the 2e reason

[Shalcker]

And with done right, he means closed

Or he is indeed innocent and wants it investigated right, without theatrics like last-minute-announcement-of-reopening-closed-probe... that gets closed later again anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a really, even worse, defense of trump.
Outside of having no reason to question Comey in regards to Trump and his campaign

Why exactly? You could easily argue that he took Republican complaints during "no intent" Clinton thing to heart.

you could just keep Comey and press for a special prosecutor instead if you thought that for whatever reason Comey wasn't the right man for the job.

On other hand, what reasons Trump has to keep him? Can you explain it to me if you would go from "Trump is innocent" assumption?

Result: Comey isn't investigation
You don't fire the FBI director based on bullshit reasons

Haven't you read Deputy AG letter? Those reasons are good enough on their own.

Trump was saying he was considering it for long time and there was no good time to fire him at all, no matter when he did it. Yet he still wanted to do it in the end, so he did.

You have a independent person doing the investigation (which you still got)

Wait, you just said "Trump should appoint special prosecutor if he is innocent", and Trump team appoints special prosecutor after firing Comey. Everything going just as you wanted, and yet you still complain? What are your reasons to defend Comey other then "Trump fired him"?

[StayTuned]

Or he is indeed innocent and wants it investigated right, without theatrics like last-minute-announcement-of-reopening-closed-probe... that gets closed later again anyway.

Everything so far has been a proper indication that he isn't innocent.

Ultimately if he's convicted of obstruction of justice, impeachment is what usually follows if prior presidents are any indication.

[Shalcker]

Everything so far has been a proper indication that he isn't innocent.

"Have been spun as indicating him not innocent"

Ultimately if he's convicted of obstruction of justice, impeachment is what usually follows of prior presidents are any indication.

"IF". Really big "IF".

[Shadowferal]

Ultimately if he's convicted of obstruction of justice, impeachment is what usually follows of prior presidents are any indication.

"If?"
More like "when..."

[Fugus]

"Have been spun as indicating him not innocent"

They didn't really have to spin much to make him look guilty.

Originally it did come off as the Democrats just trying to distract from the fact they lost to the ignorant buffoon because of their own cheating and arrogance running off their own base.

With all the facts that have actually come out, the evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point. If the republicans had this much evidence on Benghazi Clinton would have been in prison a long time ago.

And as for the Comey thing, you can't make the claim you did that Comey was fired for other reasons as Trump himself admitted on Television that it was partly related to the Russia investigation along with the fact his own letter to Comey said it was partially at the request of Sessions who should have been forced to step down due to his lies about his own Russian contacts but instead got away with just recusing himself from the investigation and is trying to get the guy running it fired.

If Trump had fired him when he took office, there would have been no question asked but instead he praised Comey for doing the things he originally claimed he fired him for and then admitted anyways that he fired him either full or in part due to Russia. And then Threatened Comey on Twitter over the crap.

All while having Russia officials into the office where he discussed Classified information so sensitive that our own allies don't have to them in a meeting where the US media was barred but the Russian media was allowed in and to take pictures. And Trump can't really claim he declassified them because he never did from what we know so far and you can't claim he didn't do it because he admitted that to the media as well.

At this point, this lying freeloader and either a complicit traitor to our nation or a complete idiot who's stupidity has turned him into a traitor to our nation needs to go along with his VP and any appointment he has made because they were made with the decision to damage us as a nation whether he believed them to help or not and were just listening to others whom had that goal.

[StayTuned]

"Have been spun as indicating him not innocent"

"IF". Really big "IF".

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...36162567471104

As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining....

He's admitting to talking to Russians already, straight after his own W.H. spokespeople heavily denied that such a thing happened.

He's constantly shooting himself in the foot.

[ati87]

Or he is indeed innocent and wants it investigated right, without theatrics like last-minute-announcement-of-reopening-closed-probe... that gets closed later again anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Why exactly? You could easily argue that he took Republican complaints during "no intent" Clinton thing to heart.

On other hand, what reasons Trump has to keep him? Can you explain it to me if you would go from "Trump is innocent" assumption?

Haven't you read Deputy AG letter? Those reasons are good enough on their own.

Trump was saying he was considering it for long time and there was no good time to fire him at all, no matter when he did it. Yet he still wanted to do it in the end, so he did.

Wait, you just said "Trump should appoint special prosecutor if he is innocent", and Trump team appoints special prosecutor after firing Comey. Everything going just as you wanted, and yet you still complain? What are your reasons to defend Comey other then "Trump fired him"?

You;re using arguments the Trump administration isn't using anymore...not sure what more I could add to that part

Also

ABout the final part. Again.
If you wanted a independent investigation into the Trump campaign and team you don't need to fire the FBI director, it's not a either or. But by firing the FBI director a special prosecutor was inevitable.

Their was no legitimate reason for Trump to fire Comey

[Shalcker]

They didn't really have to spin much to make him look guilty.
Originally it did come off as the Democrats just trying to distract from the fact they lost to the ignorant buffoon because of their own cheating and arrogance running off their own base.
With all the facts that have actually come out, the evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point. If the republicans had this much evidence on Benghazi Clinton would have been in prison a long time ago.

Possible. But which evidence specifically do you think would be stronger then "Benghazi" stuff Republicans had on Clinton?
...because to me it looks like Democrats are good at manufacturing "feelings" devoid of actual facts that would be admissible in court.
But then i'm not following everything that is out there.

And as for the Comey thing, you can't make the claim you did that Comey was fired for other reasons as Trump himself admitted on Television that it was partly related to the Russia investigation along with the fact his own letter to Comey said it was partially at the request of Sessions who should have been forced to step down due to his lies about his own Russian contacts but instead got away with just recusing himself from the investigation and is trying to get the guy running it fired.

This interview was linked just a few posts upthread and i watched it in full like a hour ago.

To me takeaway was that Trump was advised to let Comey go from the start as he made plenty of people distrust him by his handling of Clinton case. But Trump decided to wait and see. Eventually he saw enough to not trust Comey personally and followed advice of others firing him. Which had nothing to do with investigation of Trump personally - as he insists he wasn't investigated nor did he hear about any documents requested from somewhere where he would expect to hear should he be investigated. At most his campaign staff was; and some of claims against his campaign staff are ridiculous, like calling Manafort deals with Yanukovich as "pro-Russian". Yanukovich was strictly pro-Yanukovich, he was "pro-Russian" only because in the end Russians offered him personally more then EU.

If Trump had fired him when he took office, there would have been no question asked

That's clearly wrong, i remember that time. He would be accused in obstructing justice on Flynn investigation.

All while having Russia officials into the office where he discussed Classified information so sensitive that our own allies don't have to them in a meeting where the US media was barred but the Russian media was allowed in and to take pictures.

This part is actual fake news. There was no Russian "media" at the meeting, there was one Russian protocol photographer (doubling as TASS photographer otherwise - you can't live just on protocol events alone) who was there along with White House photographer for one-minute photo-shoot and left as soon as it finished.

This was as usual as it gets. His name was known in advance, as were his affiliations as all documents about such protocol events are submitted well in advance.

- - - Updated - - -

He's admitting to talking to Russians already, straight after his own W.H. spokespeople heavily denied that such a thing happened.

Of course he talked to Russians, what the hell do you think they did at White House meeting, stared at each other? :/
And he shared some facts regarding terror plots some details of which were already public knowledge for months; also pretty usual stuff.

Then one person looked at transcript of meeting and went on to notify CIA and NSA on "OMG, Trump disclosed location in ISIS territory from which this plot originated! Our relationship with those who provided those facts [most likely Israel] is in DANGER!"

...really? Do you seriously believe that? Suddenly Israel will pull all spy cooperation because of location being revealed to Russians, no matter how costly such step would be to themselves compared to value of this fact being known?

Isn't this relationship endangered much more by media revealing Israel being source out of all other possibilities?

- - - Updated - - -

If you wanted a independent investigation into the Trump campaign and team you don't need to fire the FBI director, it's not a either or. But by firing the FBI director a special prosecutor was inevitable.

Well, it's good, right? Why are you not cheering about it? If special prosecutor is all you wanted?

Their was no legitimate reason for Trump to fire Comey

There was no legitimate reason for Trump to keep Comey as well. Other then "keeping up appearances" - and as Trump clearly indicated Comey was already hurting, not helping his appearances. Thus it made perfect sense to get rid of him and deal with fallout once.

[Fugus]

Possible. But which evidence specifically do you think would be stronger then "Benghazi" stuff Republicans had on Clinton?
...because to me it looks like Democrats are good at manufacturing "feelings" devoid of actual facts that would be admissible in court.
But then i'm not following everything that is out there.

About all of it is stronger then the Benghazi stuff and I say this as someone who hates Clinton. The fact of the matter is we spent more money investigating Benghazi than we did 911 with everyone one of them coming back calling her innocent.

By contract, I did not talk about manufactured feelings. I talked about the facts we have now. Trump has already admitted ON CAMERA he fired Comey due to his Russia investigation which is a fact which would constitute potential obstruction of justice. According to the letter he sent Comey, it said that Sessions had also recommended it who was caught lying about his own Russian ties and had to recuse himself from the same investigation he suggested Trump fire him over after pushing harder into it. Again, this is a fact.

Trump also gave Russia classified information that our own allies aren't privy too and he never went through the proper channels to get it declassified. We know the first part about this because Trump admitted to it as well and the last part because otherwise this would be a lesser issue that his own people would be parroting so at least that last half you can claim someone there was no proof of him declassifying it.

Then you have Trump actively threatening Comey over twitter which could very well constitute witness tampering.

Then you have his repeated conflicts of interests since day 1 of his presidency that he refused to take care of and divest himself from his business interests and him repeatedly using his position of president to siphon taxpayer funding to his businesses and himself and using to get other foreign dignitaries and such to hold events and stay in his businesses and you have him his "Winter White House" where he has literally held official business there with other nations.

All of these are impeachable offenses. No feelings to it. I don't care about the feelings, I don't care about your brand or my brand of "Common Sense" because that many times is far from common and different flavors of it omit important facts they don't wish to agree with. I care about the facts and if your view doesn't fit the facts, then you need to change your views to accommodate it, I don't care if you are Democrat, Republican, or otherwise.

This interview was linked just a few posts upthread and i watched it in full like a hour ago.

To me takeaway was that Trump was advised to let Comey go from the start as he made plenty of people distrust him by his handling of Clinton case. But Trump decided to wait and see. Eventually he saw enough to not trust Comey personally and followed advice of others firing him. Which had nothing to do with investigation of Trump personally - as he insists he wasn't investigated nor did he hear about any documents requested from somewhere where he would expect to hear should he be investigated. At most his campaign staff was; and some of claims against his campaign staff are ridiculous, like calling Manafort deals with Yanukovich as "pro-Russian". Yanukovich was strictly pro-Yanukovich, he was "pro-Russian" only because in the end Russians offered him personally more then EU.

And if Trump had fired Comey at the start, he would have been in the clear but instead he praised him for his actions now. He only went to that excuse after he fired him over the Russia thing. Intent matters and the timing of this shows his intent.

AND TRUMP ALREADY ADMITTED HE FIRED COMEY OVER RUSSIA.

And Trump is the one who insists he wasn't being investigated, something Comey has not said he told him and Trump is a known pathological liar when it comes to making himself look better than he is.

That's clearly wrong, i remember that time. He would be accused in obstructing justice on Flynn investigation.

It would have been something much more understandable as it would have been his ideal time to do it and even then, Trump can't say it was because of his handling of Clinton after he just spend months PRAISING Comey for his handling of Clinton. He changed that tone only after Comey had stepped up the Russia stuff and refused to drop it like Trump wanted.

This part is actual fake news. There was no Russian "media" at the meeting, there was one Russian protocol photographer (doubling as TASS photographer otherwise - you can't live just on protocol events alone) who was there along with White House photographer for one-minute photo-shoot and left as soon as it finished.

This was as usual as it gets. His name was known in advance, as were his affiliations as all documents about such protocol events are submitted well in advance.

No, it isn't when you allow a Russian photographer into a meeting but deny American photographers access all while you and multiple people within your administration are being investigated over them.

If Obama had done half this stuff Trump supporters would be asking for his execution but instead there is this huge double standard were Trump is held to a lower standard than an overnight shift McDonalds Fry Cook who happens to be the owners son.

At this point he could take a dump on the desk at the white house and you would still find a way to defend it. Heck, at this level he could probably get caught raping a child on camera near an open window in public view with a hundred onlookers and you would still defend it it seems like.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, it's good, right? Why are you not cheering about it? If special prosecutor is all you wanted?

Didn't they originally fight the thought of a special prosecutor?

Even his own people said before that part of the reason they fired him was to try and end the Russian investigation.

[Garnier Fructis]

Yeah, my point was that its reasonable that the people who are protective of their culture are the ones who still have 'their' culture - money have nothing to do with this.

We have our culture, too. The primary difference is that we don't mind it changing. That doesn't mean we've lost our culture.

[Deleted]

We have our culture, too. The primary difference is that we don't mind it changing. That doesn't mean we've lost our culture.

A becomes Æ, A is no more.

[Garnier Fructis]

A becomes Æ, A is no more.

Then A is not our culture. Our culture is whatever we have at the present. And if that's enough for us, then we haven't lost our culture in any practical sense. What we've lost is parts of our culture, which we evidently didn't think was important enough to keep around. And we replaced it with something else that we like.

To put in in the language that you used: The 20 year old me became the current me. The 20 year old me is no more. But I am still me.

[schwarzkopf]

What a fucking moron Trump is - admitting to the leak in public, in Israel AND quoting Israel as the source IN public.

Someone really needs to up his supply of KFC asap.