WAPO: Trump shared highly classified intel to Russians in Oval Office

[Benton]

(05-16-2017, 08:02 AM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, that is true. It stilll doesn't allow him to pass on information from third parties who gave it to you in confidence. And if he wants to be allied with Russia, at least put the world on notice upfront. I can't imagine how betrayed the intelligence must feel that passed on the information to an alleged friend. I guess comes warning of the next terror threat, they might not do so any longer.

but it does.

As far as I know, he's not legally bound not to divulge military information from other countries/source. If it directly places US troops in harm's way, he would be. But without knowing what the info was (I'm not Russian, so obviously I'm going to be out of the loop on what the US is doing), if Trump was just giving up some other country's information, then he likely is legally in the clear.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I read a headline, "Everything We Know About the President's Leak."

TMI. I'm afraid to Google the President's leak. I might get some Russian hookers pictures.

[hollodero]

(05-16-2017, 03:54 PM)Benton Wrote: but it does.

As far as I know, he's not legally bound not to divulge military information from other countries/source. If it directly places US troops in harm's way, he would be. But without knowing what the info was (I'm not Russian, so obviously I'm going to be out of the loop on what the US is doing), if Trump was just giving up some other country's information, then he likely is legally in the clear.

Oh sure, legally. He is "allowed" then. US law and everything.
If I'm head of a foreign intelligence, share highly sensitive information in good faith and trusting - and see said information being spouted out by your president, I might have very little consideration for the lawfulness of that act in the US. If any, that this line of argumentation is brought up and made clear would be one additional reason to not provide the US with information any longer.

When I said "not allowed", then I didn't talk US law, but diplomatic boundaries that were breached, probably in the form of a broken agreement/promise.

[masterpanthera_t]

(05-16-2017, 03:54 PM)Benton Wrote: but it does.

As far as I know, he's not legally bound not to divulge military information from other countries/source. If it directly places US troops in harm's way, he would be. But without knowing what the info was (I'm not Russian, so obviously I'm going to be out of the loop on what the US is doing), if Trump was just giving up some other country's information, then he likely is legally in the clear.

Legally he is in the clear, as he has the power to declassify pretty much any information, however, the issue here is the lack of judgment and for that I'm not sure he will avoid consequences (in the form of losing major credibility with intel agencies).  You do bring up another point to consider here:  Are there any security compromises that have taken place because of the information becoming public?  We'll probably hear about this in more detail, but it seems McMaster was addressing this point with his responses.  It doesn't however, mitigate the lack of judgment show here in any way.  I suppose we shall see if there are any political consequences that follow.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

With Trump's background in reality TV, He knows sweeps started in May. He is just increasing the drama for better ratings.

He'll probably twitter smack Schwarzenegger, "That's how you put on a show!"

[GMDino]

(05-16-2017, 03:12 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Guess he'll be hitting 18 to 36 this weekend in Mar-La-Go.  Nothing to see, nothing to see.  Move along now.  Right Meow!

Actually he is going on his first big boy trip to Europe this weekend.  

I cannot imagine the havoc that will cause. 

[Dill]

(05-16-2017, 04:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh sure, legally. He is "allowed" then. US law and everything.
If I'm head of a foreign intelligence, share highly sensitive information in good faith and trusting - and see said information being spouted out by your president, I might have very little consideration for the lawfulness of that act in the US. If any, that this line of argumentation is brought up and made clear would be one additional reason to not provide the US with information any longer.

When I said "not allowed", then I didn't talk US law, but diplomatic boundaries that were breached, probably in the form of a broken agreement/promise.

Benton is right. Trump can, in the middle of a conversation, divulge classified information to an adversary, if the adversary seems really chummy and likes Trump.

And of course, our own intel and foreign intel services will now pull back, weigh carefully what they say to him. The leader of the free world is undsciplined and incompetent.  Professional Republican politicians see this, but I don't see any reason to believe Trumpsters view this as anything more than more fake news. "No reporter was in the room so they don't know; the leaks are the problem." "Trump always has the interests of the US in mind." etc. People in foreign intel services are not Trumpsters, however; they see he is not learning as he goes along.

In front of the cameras, US, Russian and Israeli officials will say this is no big deal. Israel will downplay it, even if some sources now have their throats cut. "The US is still our firmest ally!"  Spicer has already it is impossible that Trump could have revealed the source of the info because he himself did not know (I Know. unbelievable ).


We do have the alternatives of censure and impeachment. But as I said earlier, that requires Republican support and that support is dependent upon Republican voters, still currently watching Fox. The biggest checks on presidency--Congress and the people--are not in motion yet. But I think that is coming. 

Hollo,  couple weeks back I warned you that this week we would not be talking about the wiretapping tweet, but a wholly new unnecessary scandal. That turned out to be the Comey firing. Before that could get real traction, Trump made it about himself with the crazy obstruction tweet warning Comey to shut up.  Now this intel scandal has hit and we are no longer talking about any that stuff.

So here I am again reminding you that next week's unprecedented and totally unnecessary scandal will bring us a step closer to Congressional action. The only thing that could overshadow next week's scandal is a foreign policy incident or a terrorist attack at home.  In which case, the first scandal in June bring us back to the chaos of the White House. The steam necessary for impeachment will keep building.

While I am predicting, I might as well add that in the next week or two I am sure that we are going to see some high up staffers go, and maybe Spicer too. I think Bannon and Priebus could be demoted or fired.

[Dill]

(05-16-2017, 03:06 PM)Goalpost Wrote: My understanding is that McMasters is very well respected on both sides.  I trust him over the WAPO.

Then trust that McMasters has pretty much confirmed the WAPO article by insisting Trump did not know the source of the intel he passed on.

I have a lot of respect for McMasters. Along with Mattis, he is one of the two or three grownups who has Trump's ear. But this is not a matter of reporters lying and a general telling the truth. Our allies also have respect for McMasters, but they as they watch yet another unprecedented White House crisis unfold, they are not thinking "I'll believe him over a reporter." They are thinking  "What are the chances some reporter just decided to tell a lie or trust sources he could not confirm?"

Keep in mind that if Trump breaks protocol and passes on intel TO the Russians that has not been cleared FOR the Russians, McMasters cannot just say "Regrettably, yes, the president ignored pressure to spend a few days before the meeting determining what could be passed on to Russians or not (as Obama and Bush and Clinton did)."  All McMasters can do for the moment is damage control--minimize the leak, and say things for Israel to hear immediately to allay some of their concern (Trump did not mention methods of collections or current troop movements etc.).  He is in the same bind as all Trump surrogates are now.

[hollodero]

(05-16-2017, 05:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Benton is right.

Didn't say he wasn't.

I just feel that the legal side is more of a technicality in the broader picture. It's no comfort to your betrayed sources that Trump was within US law.

As for the new scandals and exciters, I might agree, but I still feel one by one people are backing away one controversy at a time. For me personally, I lost my sypathy for people on the anti anti Trump train now. Maybe I'm more struck by that as a foreigner, who sees the whole arrogance and carelessness in that behaviour as even more frustrating. Unlike Americans, none of us voted for this guy handing out secrets on ever so solid US legal grounds.

(05-16-2017, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: I have a lot of respect for McMasters. 

Well, then you could get his name right. No s at the end. Instead of said s, there should be a hole. Speaking of that, I don't respect him, he might be competent in principle, but he's just one more of the loyal minions. My guess, he wouldn't have gotten the job any other way. Who was the one that declined the offer? This person seems more worthy of respect right now.

I reason that stance by saying - respectable persons accept some responsibility, for themselves or even their president. I get the damage control part, but as soon as that includes a full amnesty from any wrongdoing, I don't follow.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2017, 08:02 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh yeah, the hysteria. So what if he shares intel a friend gave to you in confidence with the Russians. Who would possibly take issue with that? And he's in his rights and the story could be fake, and if it's not fake it could be exaggerated, let's all give Trump what he deserves: The ongoing benefit of the doubt. The people chose him, so nothing to see. Just "hysteria".

Let me see if I can illustrate my point:

What was the content of these shared "secrets"?

[hollodero]

(05-16-2017, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me see if I can illustrate my point:

What was the content of these shared "secrets"?

Naturally, that is hard to tell, and Washington Post are not really allowed to share all the specifics. From what I get, Trump revealed specific information that puts the Russians in a position to figure out a certain source in a certain ISIS-controlled city that should not have been named. If that is true or not, I can of course not evaluate by myself. I believe those who thought that breach was so concerning that all kinds of people (at CIA, NSA and who knows where else) had to be put on notice. I do not believe those who informed the Washington Post were lying or vastly exaggerating the matter.

Especially when the one person in question is your president, who had a remarkable couple of days of unbelievable behaviour - including obviously telling Comey to let go of Flynn.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-16-2017, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me see if I can illustrate my point:

What was the content of these shared "secrets"?

What was the classified info in Hillary's email?

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-16-2017, 07:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What was the classified info in Hillary's email?

Wasn't the Hillary email scandal less about what was in the emails and more about whether she was knowingly handling classified information? The reason Comey didn't pursue prosecution was because he said he didn't feel it was worth pursuing since it would be hard to prosecute someone based on carelessness rather than intent.

[tigerseye]

The Trump witch hunt continues.

Many of the things people freak out about Obama did the same thing.

Get over it HRC lost.

Ever since he WON the election it has been obstructionism and accusations.

Last week they were freaking out about him getting two scoops of ice cream on his cone.

The left is off its rocker about Trump. Time to get a grip.

The media and the establishment are so over the top crazy that it seems that they are worried about something coming out about themselves.

Get a new FBI Director with integrity and turn loss him/her along with Sessions.

The truth needs to come out about all these establishment politicians. (Start with McCain and Schumer)

To fix our country we need to get to the ugly truth.

[Dill]

(05-16-2017, 06:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: Didn't say he wasn't.

I just feel that the legal side is more of a technicality in the broader picture. It's no comfort to your betrayed sources that Trump was within US law.

As for the new scandals and exciters, I might agree, but I still feel one by one people are backing away one controversy at a time. For me personally, I lost my sypathy for people on the anti anti Trump train now. Maybe I'm more struck by that as a foreigner, who sees the whole arrogance and carelessness in that behaviour as even more frustrating. Unlike Americans, none of us voted for this guy handing out secrets on ever so solid US legal grounds.

Some of us Americans see Trump's arrogance and carelessness.

Are you able to get Fox News at all? If you could watch a few segments of shows like "The Fox News Specialists" you would get a surer sense of the problem, which isn't Trump so much as the support, the alternative worldview, the bubble.

Their starting point is a conspiracy of anti-trumpsters who are trying to take down the president. The "leak" about Trump's intel gaff is just their latest strike.  The "Specialists" spent 20 minutes today assassinating Comey's character. "Comey has 'leaked' that Trump asked him to end the Flynn investivsation. Exactly the kind of guy you don't want running the FBI."  They remind their audience the Israeli Ambassador has reaffirmed that the US and Israel will continue to share intel. Democrats are undermining their own case against Trump by their weekly hysteria. People will soon just ignore them.

Central now to the Trump defense are 1) the emphasis on legality. The president had a "right" to fire Comey and pass info to the Russians. 2) The nothingburger--where is the evidence of collusion? Nothing there. What exactly was leaked? No one can tell us. Nothing there. He said she said. Charges floating around with no evidence. 3) Groundless anti-Trump hate. People just looking for fault and making it up when they can't find it. Trump's unorthodox, no nonsense style grates on them, especially when he is getting things done.

This seems like a focus on evidence and the facts. Very sachlich. The commentators are cool, keeping their heads while all around them are Democrats all upset over rumors because they don't understand the president's powers and how little is really there. Very effective, I think, for that part of the electorate who, like Trump himself, don't realize the implications and consequences of any president's words and actions, and don't really care. They voted for him because they saw no red flags in his undisciplined, impulsive, angry behavior--and still don't. Of COURSE the Israelis will continue to share critical intel with us. They said it was ok, right? They think Trump is cool too. Not WEAK like Obama.

Excluded from this approach are those small details like Trump's choice of the unstable Flynn as NSA, his incredible dismissal of Russian interference in the election; setting up one explanation for Comey's firing with his AG and press corps, then giving the press an altogether different one in a disastrous interview, and following that with a tweet that exposes him to charges of obstruction; secreting the Russian Ambassador and foreign minister into the White House with a disguised Russian journalist, resulting in a TASS propaganda coup, which is quickly old news because Trump's own intel people are alarmed at the info he passed to the Russians. Except for the obstruction, not a hint of illegality in this medley of incredibly bad judgment. Outside of Trumpdom, everyone in the world understands how this angry stumbling makes our government look.

Imagine defending an interception by claiming the quarterback had a right to throw the ball. His fumble on the next play was no big deal because his own team recovered it. And no problem if he shared some of the playbook with a potential opponent who admired him.  The fans are just angry because they wanted a different quarterback. Most will be ok once we start winning again. Imagine defending this quarterback every week by blaming the fans for lack of support. 

[Dill]

(05-16-2017, 08:26 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Wasn't the Hillary email scandal less about what was in the emails and more about whether she was knowingly handling classified information? The reason Comey didn't pursue prosecution was because he said he didn't feel it was worth pursuing since it would be hard to prosecute someone based on carelessness rather than intent.

One critical point to remember is that she was not passing information to anyone, and had no intent to. Looks like she was mostly trying to keep her own emails from others scrutiny.

[Dill]

(05-16-2017, 08:56 PM)tigerseye Wrote: The Trump witch hunt continues.
Many of the things people freak out about Obama did the same thing.
Get over it HRC lost.
Ever since he WON the election it has been obstructionism and accusations.
Last week they were freaking out about him getting two scoops of ice cream on his cone.
The left is off its rocker about Trump. Time to get a grip.
The media and the establishment are so over the top crazy that it seems that they are worried about something coming out about themselves.
Get a new FBI Director with integrity and turn loss him/her along with Sessions.
The truth needs to come out about all these establishment politicians. (Start with McCain and Schumer)
To fix our country we need to get to the ugly truth.

Why do you think all 17 intel services agree that Russia interfered with the election but Trump does not?

Better yet--would you say that Trump put the lying press in its place when he excluded them from his White House meeting with the Russian Ambassador and  the rest of American had to learn about it from Russian news?

[hollodero]

(05-16-2017, 09:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Some of us Americans see Trump's arrogance and carelessness.

Are you able to get Fox News at all? If you could watch a few segments of shows like "The Fox News Specialists" you would get a surer sense of the problem, which isn't Trump so much as the support, the alternative worldview, the bubble.

Their starting point is a conspiracy of anti-trumpsters who are trying to take down the president. 

Sure, I get that. I can get a hold of Fox News, I can livestream it, i can watch segments on youtube or their site. Ever since my country decided back in '97 that technology was indeed not dark witch magic and hence acceptable, we kept up. Don't ask football watchers from Europe if they can see your TV. We can.

So yes, I get "the Bubble", grasped the concept. I browse FOX some times, I even browse the comment section in Breitbart. You can add more accuracy to that picture, but in general the Breitbart crowd is the hard core. That the core is quite settled in an alternate reality where Trump is good and those who oppose him are Soros-payed devils is not news to me. I know similar cores in my country, and those are not people I would address, for there's no point. The FOX crowd the somewhat broader core and the rest of the conservatives partly the rest of the Trump defender. I wouldn't throw everything the latter group says into the bubble perspective or refer their arguments to "arguments of FOX, where truth is slaughtered." I think this picture is flawed, but I tried to make this point before and it didn't come out too good.

I guess many conservatives, many Trump-defenders would rightfully refute that your starting point fully applies to them. There are other details I see differently. As I said, recently I don't see as much a pro-Trump crowd, but more of an anti anti-Trump crowd defending the president. Who, in short, still are more annoyed by people like you than people like him. Now that sure is oversimplifying it, but that's how I see things. At least when restricting it to the somewhat limited horizon that is this message board.

Of course, I lose my sympathy now for defending Trump after that whole Flynn-Comey-Russia thing. Benefit of the doubt is good and fine, but a person only can get this benefit so many times. It's too much now. I believe that to be a rational argument, and I believe as long as I keep talking to individuals from the conservative side without immediately associating them with FOX bubbles, I have a better chance of a meaningful exchange. I hope people don't automatically associate me with a Hillary backer, a liberal, a democrat or whatever and throw me in that box, so I should grant the same favour and not throw them in bubbles either.

That doesn't mean I do not recognize the bubble.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2017, 08:26 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Wasn't the Hillary email scandal less about what was in the emails and more about whether she was knowingly handling classified information? The reason Comey didn't pursue prosecution was because he said he didn't feel it was worth pursuing since it would be hard to prosecute someone based on carelessness rather than intent.

This.

It is not questioned whether or not Hills transmitted classified material over non-secure means, but she can state she didn't do it "on purpose". Folks can believe her or not.

The current Trump issue is somebody said "He told Russia a secret". Nobody knows the classification of the message, so this is why we must question what is the content of the message

[Dill]

(05-16-2017, 10:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: So yes, I get "the Bubble", grasped the concept. I browse FOX some times, I even browse the comment section in Breitbart. You can add more accuracy to that picture, but in general the Breitbart crowd is the hard core. That the core is quite settled in an alternate reality where Trump is good and those who oppose him are Soros-payed devils is not news to me. I know similar cores in my country, and those are not people I would address, for there's no point. The FOX crowd the somewhat broader core and the rest of the conservatives partly the rest of the Trump defender. I wouldn't throw everything the latter group says into the bubble perspective or refer their arguments to "arguments of FOX, where truth is slaughtered." I think this picture is flawed, but I tried to make this point before and it didn't come out too good.

I guess many conservatives, many Trump-defenders would rightfully refute that your starting point fully applies to them. There are other details I see differently. As I said, recently I don't see as much a pro-Trump crowd, but more of an anti anti-Trump crowd defending the president. Who, in short, still are more annoyed by people like you than people like him. Now that sure is oversimplifying it, but that's how I see things. At least when restricting it to the somewhat limited horizon that is this message board.

Of course, I lose my sympathy now for defending Trump after that whole Flynn-Comey-Russia thing. Benefit of the doubt is good and fine, but a person only can get this benefit so many times. It's too much now. I believe that to be a rational argument, and I believe as long as I keep talking to individuals from the conservative side without immediately associating them with FOX bubbles, I have a better chance of a meaningful exchange. I hope people don't automatically associate me with a Hillary backer, a liberal, a democrat or whatever and throw me in that box, so I should grant the same favour and not throw them in bubbles either.

That doesn't mean I do not recognize the bubble.

I haven't supposed you don't recognize the bubble, though I may conveyed that impression given my emphasis on its central role in maintaining Trump's presidency. If so, sorry!

I don't believe I have put all conservatives in a bubble, or made them all Fox News watchers. (And am I not a Fox News watcher?)

However, I have asserted there IS a Fox bubble and made some claims to the effect that it is bad for US politics, has been for two decades. And at the moment, it bouys support for Trump like nothing else. This claim is descriptive and empirical. It is a partial answer to the question of why people would continue to support a boorish president lurching from crisis to crisis.  Someone who made fun of a handicapped man and calls women pigs.

The Fox bubble offers an alternative explanation of every crisis event we have been discussing in this forum. It recasts Trump's actions as heroic, fighting embedded obstruction. And it is rehearsed on the network everyday across a range of media and programs. It has become more intense or "radical" over the last year. It appears at points even in this thread, in local newspapers, in people I talk to on the street, on Facebook where old high school friends pop up to complain about "leakers" rather than Russia.  Where those well rehearsed points appear in arguments devoid of alternatives, I have no problem locating my interlocutor within the Fox bubble.

Whether conservatives fit the bubble depends on what they say, or do not say, not whether they self identify as conservatives. Many say they don't watch Fox or listen to Hannity. But if you ask them what Hillary did at Benghazi and they they suddenly have a list, where did that come from? If they don't have that list, if they don't buy that list, then you don't find me bubblizing them.

Criticizing Anti-anti-Trumpsters is not just criticizing Anti-anti-Trumpsters. It is also supporting Trump.
People who are more annoyed with people like me than people like Trump still don't have to support Trump, a president whose indiscipline and ignorance risk undoing decades of diplomacy.  And some don't support Trump. But when they do, repeating the Fox Talking points about presidential rights and nothingburgers and hysterical liberals, then I see no sign this is the spontaneous response of millions of independently arrived at conclusions. It follows a template which has been readapted to differing political circumstances since the late '90s. It systematically severs evaluation of Trump from the facts of his behavior. Pointing this out is about analysis and description of a current political trend, not "meaningful exchange."

This emphasis on Fox does not exclude the influence of other right wing media sources, big donors, conservative think tanks and a network of evangelical churches and universities.  It is not oversimplifying. Were the US public sphere constituted as it was back in the early 70s, I would not be talking about bubbles and Trump would not be president. But this is 2017. There is Fox. And because there is Fox, Trump is president.  Still.