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

[Mike M (the other one)]

So what?
Do we want to build trust and work together to take out ISIS or not?

ISIS is the enemy here and Russia can be a staunch ally in helping to defeat them.

PS I haven't read the pages of comments here, I'm just finding this whole thing highly amusing, and I've stated all along that Russia should be an ally of the US, we're both nations based on Christianity so it makes sense from that standpoint to take out ISIS. We might not like the way they do things and vice versa, but we need to work together eventually.

[*bfine32*]

(05-18-2017, 07:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: I believe Mata Hari felt the same way.

She was also correct in thinking in person is the most secure means of communication.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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.

If the Russians were the intended recipient of the intel shared with US then Trump wouldn't need to leak said intel directly to them.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2017, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: She was also correct in thinking in person is the most secure means of communication.

You're holding up a woman executed as a spy for divulging state secrets as a bastion of secure communications.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2017, 07:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So what?
Do we want to build trust and work together to take out ISIS or not?

ISIS is the enemy here and Russia can be a staunch ally in helping to defeat them.

PS I haven't read the pages of comments here, I'm just finding this whole thing highly amusing, and I've stated all along that Russia should be an ally of the US, we're both nations based on Christianity so it makes sense from that standpoint to take out ISIS. We might not like the way they do things and vice versa, but we need to work together eventually.

Russia supports the Taliban and some Syrian rebels whose allegiance changes more than Trump's political affiliation.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-18-2017, 07:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And as determined by the FBI, none of those classified emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received.

That's not true. Hillary said she did not receive nor send any information that was classified. Comey disputed this when he said that there were a few emails that were marked classified however most of them weren't clearly marked as classified. Comey went on to say that although the information wasn't clearly marked as classified, the types of things that were being discussed were clearly something she should have known was classified.

Quote: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.

Well yes, it would have been about the content of the emails if the content showed that Hillary was being willfully careless with classified information. Comey said he did not find information that showed Hillary was being intentionally careless but rather that she was just being "accidentally careless". Comey said that there was top secret information found on her server and it was careless of her to have that information on her server when she knew that the server was unsecured. Hillary's defense was just "Oh, well I didn't know the information was classified". Since she said she didn't "know" the information was classified all Comey had to go on was her word because there were no emails that showed she actually did know the information was classified. 

Comey felt he had nothing to prosecute her on other than "extreme carelessness" which he didn't feel was a prosecutable offense.. The classified information within the emails was irrelevant to the idea of prosecuting her on the grounds that she knew the information was classified. What Comey wanted to know was if there was classified information on Hillary's unsecured server and whether she knew that information was actually classified. What the classified information actually was didn't matter so much. What mattered was if it was classified period. 

Sure, Comey could have laid it all out for us what classified information was actually in the emails, but that didn't matter in the matters of actually prosecuting her on the basis that she knew the information was classified.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2017, 08:46 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: That's not true. Hillary said she did not receive nor send any information that was classified. Comey disputed this when he said that there were a few emails that were marked classified however most of them weren't clearly marked as classified. Comey went on to say that although the information wasn't clearly marked as classified, the types of things that were being discussed were clearly something she should have known was classified.

(11-15-2016, 09:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Only three emails contained ( c ) and none of them were the ones which contained the secret or top secret information.  In testamony, the State Department spokesperson said two of the three were inapproriately marked ( c ) (confidential), and didn't comment on the third email because he didn't have any information regarding that email.

Quote:Well yes, it would have been about the content of the emails if the content showed that Hillary was being willfully careless with classified information. Comey said he did not find information that showed Hillary was being intentionally careless but rather that she was just being "accidentally careless". Comey said that there was top secret information found on her server and it was careless of her to have that information on her server when she knew that the server was unsecured. Hillary's defense was just "Oh, well I didn't know the information was classified". Since she said she didn't "know" the information was classified all Comey had to go on was her word because there were no emails that showed she actually did know the information was classified. 

Comey felt he had nothing to prosecute her on other than "extreme carelessness" which he didn't feel was a prosecutable offense.. The classified information within the emails was irrelevant to the idea of prosecuting her on the grounds that she knew the information was classified. What Comey wanted to know was if there was classified information on Hillary's unsecured server and whether she knew that information was actually classified. What the classified information actually was didn't matter so much. What mattered was if it was classified period. 

Sure, Comey could have laid it all out for us what classified information was actually in the emails, but that didn't matter in the matters of actually prosecuting her on the basis that she knew the information was classified.

I stopped reading after you agreed.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-18-2017, 08:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I stopped reading after you agreed.

Not sure we really agree. You're trying to act like there was nothing of importance in the emails. Clearly there was according to Comey.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2017, 09:07 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Not sure we really agree. You're trying to act like there was nothing of importance in the emails. Clearly there was according to Comey.

Whom Trump fired for mishandling the very thing you're talking about. Depending upon which Trump proxy you want to believe. So are you going to believe a Trump proxy or Comey?

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-18-2017, 09:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Whom Trump fired for mishandling the very thing you're talking about. Depending upon which Trump proxy you want to believe. So are you going to believe a Trump proxy or Comey?

What I believe is that if Trump had said what Hillary said about not knowing she was handling classified information people like you would be talking about how Trump obviously knew and should be prosecuted. Or, you would be saying that Trump must be really stupid to not know what's classified and what isn't.

Hillary? She gets a shoulder shrug.

Trump? Impeach that disloyal bastard.

[*bfine32*]

(05-18-2017, 09:18 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What I believe is that if Trump had said what Hillary said about not knowing she was handling classified information people like you would be talking about how Trump obviously knew and should be prosecuted. Or, you would be saying that Trump must be really stupid to not know what's classified and what isn't.

Hillary? She gets a shoulder shrug.

Trump? Impeach that disloyal bastard.

The thing is everything the Left is screaming impeach!! about. Hills has already done. The difference is we have undisputed proof that Hills did it; we have innuendo  that Trump did it.

Obstructing Justice:
Trump told Comey to quit the Russian investigation
Hills deleted over 3000 emails after she had been ordered to turn over her files


Mishandling of classified information:
Trump told Russia a secret
Hills send classified government information over her personal server

Election rigging:
The Trump campaign colluded with the Russian to influence the election
The Hills campaign worked with the DNC to influence the election 

Lies:
Trump lies
Hills ran from Sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia.

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/05/timeline-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/86706098/


Everything you girls are arguing about was investigated...over and over.

Yet you want to say Trump did nothing as bad as Clinton because....she was investigated and not charged?

Y'all must be in the running for his spokesperson.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2017, 09:18 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What I believe is that if Trump had said what Hillary said about not knowing she was handling classified information people like you would be talking about how Trump obviously knew and should be prosecuted. Or, you would be saying that Trump must be really stupid to not know what's classified and what isn't.

Hillary? She gets a shoulder shrug.

Trump? Impeach that disloyal bastard.

That's because of your bias.

Do you know the difference between Hillary and Trump?

Hillary shared a classified information with the Russians unintentionally through a network back door. Trump shared classified information with the Russians intentionally by inviting the Russians through the White House front door rendering the hackers obsolete.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2017, 09:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The thing is everything the Left is screaming impeach!! about. Hills has already done. The difference is we have undisputed proof that Hills did it; we have innuendo  that Trump did it.

Obstructing Justice:
Trump told Comey to quit the Russian investigation
Hills deleted over 3000 emails after she had been ordered to turn over her files


Mishandling of classified information:
Trump told Russia a secret
Hills send classified government information over her personal server

Election rigging:
The Trump campaign colluded with the Russian to influence the election
The Hills campaign worked with the DNC to influence the election 

Lies:
Trump lies
Hills ran from Sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia.

Just imagine how tightly your panties would be bunched if someone suggested Trump should be locked up (instead of impeached) as Trump himself suggested for at least 2 of your bullet points for Hillary.

[BmorePat87]

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

telepathy 

[*michaelsean*]

(05-18-2017, 11:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Just imagine how tightly your panties would be bunched if someone suggested Trump should be locked up (instead of impeached) as Trump himself suggested for at least 2 of your bullet points for Hillary.

Trump is allowed to divulge it, Hillary was not.  You can argue the wisdom, but not really the legality.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-19-2017, 09:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Trump is allowed to divulge it, Hillary was not.  You can argue the wisdom, but not really the legality.

Trump said to lock her up, not me. Tell it to Him.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-19-2017, 10:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Trump said to lock her up, not me. Tell it to Him.

michaelsean Wrote:Trump is allowed to divulge it, Hillary was not.  You can argue the wisdom, but not really the legality.

[*michaelsean*]

This must not have made everyone's news feed. Only a part of the article criticizes Trump.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/former-cia-director-john-brennan-sticks-trump-174513960.html

Quote:President Trump complains repeatedly about leaks in Washington. He’s got a bit of distinguished company.

“What I have found appalling is the number of leaks that have taken place over the last several months,” former CIA Director John Brennan said at the SALT conference in Las Vegas, the annual gathering of hedge-fund managers and other financiers. “This needs to be stopped.” Brennan was CIA director during President Obama’s second term, stepping down in January, when Mike Pompeo replaced him.

Brennan said Trump made a “serious mistake” when he reportedly shared sensitive intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in an Oval Office meeting in early May. But this mistake wasn’t sharing intelligence; it was violating the protocol for doing so. “I shared intelligence with the Russians when I was the director of the CIA,” Brennan said. “But you share that through intelligence channels, and you make sure you word it in such as way as to not reveal sources and methods. President Trump didn’t do that.”

Brennan said the press coverage of Trump’s impromptu intelligence reveal was “hyperbolic” and possibly more damaging than anything Trump revealed. “The damage that was done is what was leaked in the aftermath, what was put in the media. The real damage to national security is the leaks.” He suggested, without saying so explicitly, that news accounts revealed more sensitive information than Trump did.

“The real damage to national security is the leaks,” Brennan said. “These individuals who still stay within the government and are leaking this stuff to the press need to be brought to task.”

[GMDino]

(05-19-2017, 11:16 AM)michaelsean Wrote: This must not have made everyone's news feed.  Only a part of the article criticizes Trump.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/former-cia-director-john-brennan-sticks-trump-174513960.html

Exactly what I said about Iran-Contra.

The worst part was that people found out about it.



But if what Trump did was legal...what difference does it make that it was leaked?  FOX News yesterday said the intel he passed along was "common knowledge".

(Whatever show is on at 5.  Had it on the XM radio driving home.)

What was leaked was either the truth and everyone knew it anyway...why did the WH send spokespersons out to say it didn't happen, then the POTUS said it did, then say it was legal, and then say everyone knew anyway?