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

[*michaelsean*]

(05-17-2017, 02:08 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: The power of Big Oil and the War Machine will have to be unplugged before our government reverses it's meddling in The Middle East. 

Big oil will get their oil.  Someone will own it, and they will sell it.  The war machine will take some backbone to say no to.

[Benton]

(05-17-2017, 01:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Stop interfering, and they won't have any reason to attack.  Conservatives always said they hate us for our freedom, and liberals always said they hated us for our meddling.  I agree with the liberals.  

i never understood the "they hate us for our freedom" line. outside of being good propaganda to rally troops, it's just such an unreasonable explanation. 

[SunsetBengal]

Even the Russians are offering the official transcript..

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-putin-idUKKCN18D1EI?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=591c82bf04d3015df00ca106&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

[*wildcats forever*]

(05-17-2017, 02:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Big oil will get their oil.  Someone will own it, and they will sell it.  The war machine will take some backbone to say no to.

It's the power they derive from subsidies, and they money they throw at politicians that I am referring to in the above.

[Dill]

(05-17-2017, 12:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
Do you guys not see how silly this is? "He told Russia a secret. We don't know the content, classification, or ramifications of the secret, but we know our Commander in Chief for the first time in history shared a secret with someone combating a common foe. We also know it's bad because....."

. . . . our commander in chief shared a secret FROM AN ALLY with someone who is NOT AN ALLY. And he did it after we promised not to share it with anyone. And he did it without taking the usual preparation/care one takes in such matters. That care would have been automatic with Obama or Hillary. And now everyone knows it

Now all allies know if you share confidential info with the US and it gets to Trump, all bets are off. He may want to impress someone. He may decide on the spot, and in spite of all warnings, Russia would be a cool ally. Do you think our allies are saying "This is silly. So what if the US shared intel with Russia that was earmarked "don't share." Not the first time a US president has shared a secret. Heck, we don't even know the content of what he shared. Go ahead and send them that file on Raqqa we are keeping secret from Israel and Turkey. If our sources are compromised so what. We'll get more."

Some of our allies, not friends of Russia, may have noticed that Russia has been fighting Assad's "liberal" opponents in Syria, not ISIS.

And our allies are not Trumpsters cheering whenever Trump trolls the liberals and ignores their political correctness.
Everyone, friend and foe, is asking--how is it that the PRESIDENT OF THE US could play so loosely with intel, like an amateur, like someone who does not understand the consequences of his words and actions, does not bother thinking them through? Foes will see opportunities here and friends will shrink back, withhold trust.
So no, I do not see how silly this is.

[Dill]

(05-17-2017, 01:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Stop interfering, and they won't have any reason to attack.  Conservatives always said they hate us for our freedom, and liberals always said they hated us for our meddling.  I agree with the liberals.  

Of course the liberals were correct.

But it's a bit to late now to just disengage. If the US does, that is a victory for ISIS and Al Qaeda, followed by comparatively massive recruitment. And they are not liberals. Neither of those organizations has the goal of setting up a normal state and getting along with everyone. The Jihad will continue, with massive resources at its disposal.

You did not address at all my questions regarding what follows the vacuum left by a US pull out. Why ever would you think that vacuum would not be filled by someone who then makes the rules for world trade with Asia?

Why would shrinking trade with the Middle East be good for the US?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-17-2017, 12:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you guys not see how silly this is? "He told Russia a secret. We don't know the content, classification, or ramifications of the secret, but we know our Commander in Chief for the first time in history shared a secret with someone combating a common foe. We also know it's bad because....."

That's funny because back in November you knew Hillary had compromised secrets, but you couldn't cite a single specific secret which had been compromised.

(11-15-2016, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well admitted I wasn't on the FBI's investigative committee; so I cannot (and if I did know, would not) share a specific with you.

But, because you believe no one can cite a specific secret Trump compromised (despite the reported details you willfully ignore), this is a fake story.

[GMDino]

(05-18-2017, 01:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's funny because back in November you knew Hillary had compromised secrets, but you couldn't cite a single specific secret which had been compromised.


But, because you believe no one can cite a specific secret Trump compromised (despite the reported details you willfully ignore), this is a fake story.

"But her emails."

"Give him a chance."

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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.

In order to know if she mishandled intel you have to know the content; so it was about both. However, the email scandal was an offshoot of the Benghazi investigation. The purpose of both investigations was a Republican strategy to make Hillary appear unfit for the presidency.

However, if we want to agree the content of the emils doesn't matter, but just the mishandling of intel, then the content of Trump's conversation doesn't matter, either. Just the mishandling of intel.

The reason I asked bfine is because he is portraying this as fake news because no one can cite a compromised secret. However, he couldn't cite a single secret Hillary compromised despite a couple years and a series of investigations. You would call that bias. But, at least bfine is keeping an open mind as he likes to say when he doesn't mean it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-17-2017, 05:13 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Even the Russians are offering the official transcript..

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-putin-idUKKCN18D1EI?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=591c82bf04d3015df00ca106&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

At that some shit? We gotta contact the Russians for an official Oval Office transcript. The secret listening devices they planted in the Oval Office are paying dividends already.

[BmorePat87]

(05-18-2017, 02:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In order to know if she mishandled intel you have to know the content; so it was about both. However, the email scandal was an offshoot of the Benghazi investigation. The purpose of both investigations was a Republican strategy to make Hillary appear unfit for the presidency.

However, if we want to agree the content of the emils doesn't matter, but just the mishandling of intel, then the content of Trump's conversation doesn't matter, either. Just the mishandling of intel.

The reason I asked bfine is because he is portraying this as fake news because no one can cite a compromised secret. However, he couldn't cite a single secret Hillary compromised despite a couple years and a series of investigations. You would call that bias. But, at least bfine is keeping an open mind as he likes to say when he doesn't mean it.

and it should be noted that neither Trump nor Hillary's handling of classified info was/is illegal, so saying the President CAN tell anyone any classified information whenever he wants is irrelevant to the question of "did he mishandle it?".

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-18-2017, 02:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In order to know if she mishandled intel you have to know the content; so it was about both. However, the email scandal was an offshoot of the Benghazi investigation. The purpose of both investigations was a Republican strategy to make Hillary appear unfit for the presidency.

Yes it was about both, but it was more about whether she was willfully mishandling classified information in general rather than about what the classified information was about.

Quote:However, if we want to agree the content of the emils doesn't matter, but just the mishandling of intel, then the content of Trump's conversation doesn't matter, either. Just the mishandling of intel. 

I disagree because the issues are not the same.

The issue with Hillary's emails was about whether she was mishandling classified information in a way that it could be intercepted by foreign entities.

The issue with Trump is that he shared classified information and people are saying he shouldn't have shared it even though they don't know what the information is that he shared. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2017, 04:36 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Yes it was about both, but it was more about whether she was willfully mishandling classified information in general rather than about what the classified information was about.

If there was anything of importance in the emails Republicans could have used against her they would have which means they would have leaked that information and hammered Hillary over it and started another investigation into the specifics of whatever they found. Just like the Benghazi investigation lead to the email investigation.

Because they didn't find something, they couldn't make it about a something they didn't find.

Quote:I disagree because the issues are not the same.

The issue with Hillary's emails was about whether she was mishandling classified information in a way that it could be intercepted by foreign entities.

The issue with Trump is that he shared classified information and people are saying he shouldn't have shared it even though they don't know what the information is that he shared. 

We don't need to worry about Trump's classified intel being intercepted by foreign entities (the Russians) when Trump invites the Russians to the White House and tells the classified intel to their face.

So how come it doesn't matter what Hillary may have inadvertently shared with Russian hackers, but it does matter what Trump intentionally shared with Russian government officials?

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-18-2017, 05:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If there was anything of importance in the emails Republicans could have used against her they would have which means they would have leaked that information and hammered Hillary over it and started another investigation into the specifics of whatever they found. Just like the Benghazi investigation lead to the email investigation.

Because they didn't find something, they couldn't make it about a something they didn't find.

There was something of importance though. The FBI's investigation found that there were over 100 classified emails on Hillary's server. But again, the only reason she wasn't prosecuted was because Comey didn't believe it was possible to prove that Hillary actually knew the classified information she had was actually classified. Hillary's prosecution literally amounted to her saying "yes" or "no" to the question of "Did you know you had classified information in your unsecured server".

Quote:We don't need to worry about Trump's classified intel being intercepted by foreign entities (the Russians) when Trump invites the Russians to the White House and tells the classified intel to their face. 


So how come it doesn't matter what Hillary may have inadvertently shared with Russian hackers, but it does matter what Trump intentionally shared with Russian government officials?

It does matter what Hillary may have inadvertently shared. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that the investigation into her emails was more about whether there WAS classified information on her unsecured server and whether or not Hillary knew about it. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-18-2017, 02:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and it should be noted that neither Trump nor Hillary's handling of classified info was/is illegal, so saying the President CAN tell anyone any classified information whenever he wants is irrelevant to the question of "did he mishandle it?".

Quick question. What is the most secure means of communication?

[GMDino]

(05-18-2017, 06:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick question. What is the most secure means of communication?

In a room with just the Russian media where the  Russians have a transcript of the conversation?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2017, 06:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick question. What is the most secure means of communication?

In the case of Hillary vs. Trump: nonsecure email.

The Russian hackers might miss an email compared to Trump telling the Russians directly.

[*bfine32*]

(05-18-2017, 07:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: In a room with just the Russian media where the  Russians have a transcript of the conversation?

Correct. In person. That way you know only the intended recipient receives the message.

Now non-secure emails on the other hand.........


Folks trying to compare this to Hill's emails really have zero idea what they are talking about.

[GMDino]

(05-18-2017, 07:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Correct. In person. That way you know only the intended recipient receives the message.

Now non-secure emails on the other hand.........


Folks trying to compare this to Hill's emails really have zero idea what they are talking about.

I believe Mata Hari felt the same way.

Also about anatomical holsters if I remember correctly....

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2017, 06:55 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: There was something of importance though. The FBI's investigation found that there were over 100 classified emails on Hillary's server. But again, the only reason she wasn't prosecuted was because Comey didn't believe it was possible to prove that Hillary actually knew the classified information she had was actually classified. Hillary's prosecution literally amounted to her saying "yes" or "no" to the question of "Did you know you had classified information in your unsecured server".

And as determined by the FBI, none of those classified emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received.

Quote:It does matter what Hillary may have inadvertently shared. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that the investigation into her emails was more about whether there WAS classified information on her unsecured server and whether or not Hillary knew about it. 

I'm saying the reason the investigation wasn't about the details of the individual emails was because there wasn't anything to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Thus the investigation is viewed as mishandling classified intel only. If they had found something the investigation would have been about mishandling classified information and the details of the emails.