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

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-19-2017, 10:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As a Christian "religious person" I am taught to simply let my yes be yes and my no be no. Anyone announcing "I swear to God" does not move the needle much in either direction for me.

Didnt answer my question. 

As someone who considers themselves Christian how often do you use the phrase "swear to god" when you are making a joke?

[*bfine32*]

(05-19-2017, 11:03 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Didnt answer my question. 

As someone who considers themselves Christian how often do you use the phrase "swear to god" when you are making a joke?

My apologies. I thought I did.

As someone that considers themselves Christian I do not use the phrase swear to God.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-19-2017, 11:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My apologies. I thought I did.

As someone that considers themselves Christian I do not use the phrase swear to God.

Kinda figured. 

That is why I find it odd someone would use the phase in a joke about a potentially traitorous act. 

Not really a joking matter. And not a phrase people usually use when making a joke.

[*bfine32*]

(05-19-2017, 11:18 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Kinda figured. 

That is why I find it odd someone would use the phase in a joke about a potentially traitorous act. 

Not really a joking matter. And not a phrase people usually use when making a joke.

As I said back when I didn't answer the question: Anyone simply using that phrase doesn't mean much to me. So I wouldn't think there's a chance anyone is being less jovial when they use it.

Were they joking? I would say yes, but IMO they were doing it more out of spite than solidarity. Believe it or not, there's a very good chance that there were folks in that room that wanted Trump to be President less than you.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-19-2017, 11:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said back when I didn't answer the question: Anyone simply using that phrase doesn't mean much to me. So I wouldn't think there's a chance anyone is being less jovial when they use it.

Were they joking? I would say yes, but IMO they were doing it more out of spite than solidarity. Believe it or not, there's a very good chance that there were folks in that room that wanted Trump to be President less than you.

Might have been your boy McMullin who released the tape. Think he is doing it for shits and giggles and spite? Or would he do it because the republicant party is broke as shit? 

[Dill]

(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.

I don't argue the legality. Does anyone? Have I missed a post?

Trump is certainly allowed to share the most sensitive and restricted intel with an adversary, against the wishes of an ally who was the source.

Hillary did not intentionally share intel with anyone. You cannot argue the legality of that either.

You can, however, argue that Hillary would have been much better prepared and much more cautious in dialogue with a Russian Foreign minister.

[*bfine32*]

(05-19-2017, 11:48 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Might have been your boy McMullin who released the tape. Think he is doing it for shits and giggles and spite? Or would he do it because the republicant party is broke as shit? 

He was exactly who I was talking about when I suggested there were folks in that room that wanted Trump to be President less than you. If it is him; he's doing it because he doesn't want Trump to be President.


The Republicans/conservatives control all 3 branches of the government. Not sure I'd classify that as "broke as shit" 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-19-2017, 09:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The "final straw" for what?

As to the Comey comments. It has been asserted by a government official that Trump blasted Comey to the Russians in an attempt to instill a sense of obligation and improved cooperation. Of course that government official is probably not as reliable as the other government official. If you don't think the constant leaks of internal discussions in the White House is an issue; perhaps bigger than saying Comey was a nut job; then we have found another issue to disagree on.

As to the McCarthy comments: Where they laughing or anything of the sort to indicate that they may indeed be joking?

So they question once again: The final straw for what?  

How the hell would firing that crazy, grandstanding, nut job make the Russians feel obligated to Trump?

"I fired the nut job who was investigating my administration. You're welcome, Russia."

[GMDino]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mueller-idUSKCN18F2KK

Quote:White House looking at ethics rule to weaken special investigation: sources



The Trump administration is exploring whether it can use an obscure ethics rule to undermine the special counsel investigation into ties between President Donald Trump's campaign team and Russia, two people familiar with White House thinking said on Friday.


Trump has said that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's hiring of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation "hurts our country terribly."

Within hours of Mueller's appointment on Wednesday, the White House began reviewing the Code of Federal Regulations, which restricts newly hired government lawyers from investigating their prior law firm’s clients for one year after their hiring, the sources said.

An executive order signed by Trump in January extended that period to two years.

Mueller's former law firm, WilmerHale, represents Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who met with a Russian bank executive in December, and the president's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who is a subject of a federal investigation.

Legal experts said the ethics rule can be waived by the Justice Department, which appointed Mueller. He did not represent Kushner or Manafort directly at his former law firm.

If the department did not grant a waiver, Mueller would be barred from investigating Kushner or Manafort, and this could greatly diminish the scope of the probe, experts said.

The Justice Department is already reviewing Mueller's background as well as any potential conflicts of interest, said department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores.

Even if the Justice Department granted a waiver, the White House would consider using the ethics rule to create doubt about Mueller's ability to do his job fairly, the sources said. Administration legal advisers have been asked to determine if there is a basis for this.

Under this strategy, the sources said the administration would raise the issue in press conferences and public statements.

Moreover, the White House has not ruled out the possibility of using the rule to challenge Mueller’s findings in court, should the investigation lead to prosecution.



FOCUS ON CASTING A CLOUD OVER MUELLER

But the administration is now mainly focused on placing a cloud over his reputation for independence, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Kathleen Clark, a professor of legal ethics at Washington University School of Law, said the Justice Department can grant a waiver if concerns about bias are minimal.


She said subjects of the investigation could later argue that its results cannot be trusted, but she believes the argument would not stand up in court.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on whether it is reviewing the ethics rule in order to undermine Mueller's credibility.

Mueller's former colleagues at WilmerHale, James Quarles and Aaron Zebley, are expected to join his investigation, according to a spokeswoman for the law firm. Neither Quarles nor Zebley represented Kushner or Manafort.

Mueller will now lead the ongoing Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into Trump's associates and senior Russian officials.

Unlike Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel appointed by a three-judge panel to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's real estate holdings in the 1990s, Mueller depends on the Justice Department for funding and he reports to Rosenstein, who was appointed by Trump.

When he announced Mueller's appointment this week, Rosenstein said Mueller will have "all appropriate resources to conduct a thorough and complete investigation."

[BmorePat87]

(05-19-2017, 09:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The "final straw" for what?

As to the Comey comments. It has been asserted by a government official that Trump blasted Comey to the Russians in an attempt to instill a sense of obligation and improved cooperation. Of course that government official is probably not as reliable as the other government official. If you don't think the constant leaks of internal discussions in the White House is an issue; perhaps bigger than saying Comey was a nut job; then we have found another issue to disagree on.

As to the McCarthy comments: Where they laughing or anything of the sort to indicate that they may indeed be joking?

So they question once again: The final straw for what?  

I'm not sure whether to tell you that it's bad form to answer a question with 3 questions or just roll my eyes at your attempt to feign ignorance. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2017, 07:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure whether to tell you that it's bad form to answer a question with 3 questions or just roll my eyes at your attempt to feign ignorance. 

I was expecting this; as my impact is broad and I almost explained the point prior to it being introduced, but I held out hope that some could see that was not an attempt to answer a question with a question; but I'll explain the dynamic now.

There was no attempt to answer your question by throwing an opposing question back at you or answering with a "what if" (which is how folks attempt to answer a question with a question). I has simply looking for clarification while trying to answer your other points.

If I were to ask you: "Do you what to go?" answering that question with a question would be "Do you want to stay?". But if one replied "Do I want to go where?" Then, one is just seeking clarifiaction......Never mind, just roll your eyes.

So I must again ask, at the risk of being perceived as ignorant: The "final straw" for what?

[Dill]

(05-20-2017, 12:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: He was exactly who I was talking about when I suggested there were folks in that room that wanted Trump to be President less than you. If it is him; he's doing it because he doesn't want Trump to be President.


The Republicans/conservatives control all 3 branches of the government. Not sure I'd classify that as "broke as shit" 

Trump and the freedom caucus have so far neutralized that advantage.  Bad for the country.

[BmorePat87]

(05-20-2017, 08:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was expecting this; as my impact is broad and  I almost explained the point prior to it being introduced, but I held out hope that some could see that was not an attempt to answer a question with a question; but I'll explain the dynamic now.

There was no attempt to answer your question by throwing an opposing question back at you or answering with a "what if" (which is how folks attempt to answer a question with a question). I has simply looking for clarification while trying to answer your other points.

If I were to ask you: "Do you what to go?" answering that question with a question would be "Do you want to stay?". But if one replied "Do I want to go where?" Then, one is just seeking clarifiaction......Never mind, just roll your eyes.

So I must again ask, at the risk of being perceived as ignorant: The "final straw" for what?

I didn't realize you were so lost given the context of this thread and my post. The thread is about controversial actions by Trump that add weight to the Russian probe and has been bumped by further breaking news regarding what is shaping up to be Trump trying to end investigations into the ties between his campaign and Russia. 

So if you're legitimately confused as to what "the final straw" is in reference to, it's "what will it take to make the Republicans stop supporting this?"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-20-2017, 08:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was expecting this; as my impact is broad and I almost explained the point prior to it being introduced, but I held out hope that some could see that was not an attempt to answer a question with a question; but I'll explain the dynamic now.

There was no attempt to answer your question by throwing an opposing question back at you or answering with a "what if" (which is how folks attempt to answer a question with a question). I has simply looking for clarification while trying to answer your other points.

If I were to ask you: "Do you what to go?" answering that question with a question would be "Do you want to stay?". But if one replied "Do I want to go where?" Then, one is just seeking clarifiaction......Never mind, just roll your eyes.

So I must again ask, at the risk of being perceived as ignorant: The "final straw" for what?

You went full Kanye. Never go full Kanye.

[Vlad]

(05-19-2017, 09:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the McCarthy comments: Where they laughing or anything of the sort to indicate that they may indeed be joking?

So they question once again: The final straw for what?  

The actual transcript, pg. 5.

The (laughter) is what the MSM wont reveal.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-transcript-of-the-conversation-among-gop-leaders-obtained-by-the-post/2437/

I suppose no one as ever said "I swear to god" followed by an exaggeration, for example "I swear to god Laveon Bell has eyes on the back of his head"

[GMDino]

btw...Trump told Israel he never mentioned Israel to the Russians so its all good.

Except he told them in public so if he didn't tell the Russians they know now.

Good job DJT! 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/334543-trump-never-mentioned-israel-in-russia-meeting

Quote:President Trump said Monday that he never mentioned Israel during an Oval Office meeting when he disclosed highly classified intelligence to Russian diplomats.

"I never mentioned the word or the name Israel. Never mentioned during that conversation," Trump said in Jerusalem during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"They're all saying I did, so you have another story wrong,” he continued. “Never mentioned the word Israel.”

Netanyahu said during the meeting with Trump that “intelligence cooperation is terrific” with the United States.

“It's never been better," he added.

Trump reportedly shared sensitive intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office earlier this month. The intelligence was about an Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) plot involving explosive devices in laptops carried on commercial airplanes.

The information was reportedly gathered by a spy embedded within the terrorist group that was working on behalf of Israel, although U.S. and Israeli authorities have neither confirmed nor denied the source was linked to Israel.

Reports about the meting have not claimed the Trump explicitly mentioned Israel as the source of the intelligence.

National security adviser H.R. McMaster, who was in the room, said last week Trump “wasn’t even aware of where this information came from” because “he wasn’t briefed on the source."

Trump's Monday comments revived a story that cast a cloud over Trump’s two-day visit to Israel, a key part of his nine-day first foreign trip as president. 

The May 10 incident raised doubts about Trump’s ability to properly handle sensitive intelligence and caused friction with Israel, the closest U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Israeli intelligence officials reportedly vented their anger at their American counterparts that the disclosure may have jeopardized an important source of information.  


Trump did not discuss specific sources and methods with the Russian officials, according to The Washington Post. But he reportedly revealed enough information that could have allowed Moscow to independently discover the source. 

[BmorePat87]

Quote:"The Mob takes the 5th Amendment. If you're innocent, why are you taking the 5th Amendment?" - Donald Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/michael-flynn-pleads-fifth/index.html

President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn won't provide records to the Senate intelligence committee and will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to a subpoena from the committee, according to a source close to Flynn.

Flynn's refusal to cooperate comes as he faces scrutiny in several inquiries, including on Capitol Hill and a federal grand jury that has issued subpoenas to associates of the ex-national security adviser.

Flynn's refusal to cooperate will also intensify scrutiny over Trump's decision to hire him initially for the job and his decision to keep him on staff for 18 days after the President was warned by former acting Attorney General Sally Yates that Flynn may have been compromised by the Russians.

The Senate committee had asked Flynn earlier this month to produce all records over his communications with Russian officials by this Wednesday. But Flynn is expected to send a letter later Monday invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.

[Griever]

(05-22-2017, 01:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/michael-flynn-pleads-fifth/index.html

President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn won't provide records to the Senate intelligence committee and will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to a subpoena from the committee, according to a source close to Flynn.

Flynn's refusal to cooperate comes as he faces scrutiny in several inquiries, including on Capitol Hill and a federal grand jury that has issued subpoenas to associates of the ex-national security adviser.

Flynn's refusal to cooperate will also intensify scrutiny over Trump's decision to hire him initially for the job and his decision to keep him on staff for 18 days after the President was warned by former acting Attorney General Sally Yates that Flynn may have been compromised by the Russians.

The Senate committee had asked Flynn earlier this month to produce all records over his communications with Russian officials by this Wednesday. But Flynn is expected to send a letter later Monday invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.

i thought trump said if you were innocent you had no reason to plead the 5th

[GMDino]

(05-22-2017, 02:07 PM)Griever Wrote: i thought trump said if you were innocent you had no reason to plead the 5th

Just like Flynn said about wanting immunity....

[*michaelsean*]

(05-22-2017, 02:07 PM)Griever Wrote: i thought trump said if you were innocent you had no reason to plead the 5th

I don't think Trump is.