2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on May 15, 2017, 04:19:33 PM
-
Normally anyone else would be in great legal trouble but the president of course does not have to follow the same rules about sharing classified information. However the information shared wasn't even America's to share. It was from an allied country and was not supposed to be shared without their permission. So legal or not this still raises concerns about his judgement and only serves to feed the whole Russia controversy.
I will try to reserve judgement to give Trump the benefit of the doubt that maybe this will all be justified but right now Trump isn't inspiring confidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZU7E5XKYJg
-
:popcorn:
-
Normally I wouldn't reply to this kind of thread, but I already cooked rice and didn't have anything better to do at the moment.
As with all the stories coming out of WAPO, this obviously had a followup story by H.R. McMaster, NSA. McMaster who was in the room at the time states this story is false. WAPO, fine purveyors of fake news claimed that "sources said". Wonder if their sources are Barry Soetoro, Michael Obama, George Soros or future resident at federal facilities in Leavenworth KS, MS. Hillary. Also wonder if the classified info about ISIS was how Obama and Hillary armed ISIS groups during the Libya and early Syria war. Sheesh even the homeless at Kakaako know that.
Funny too how the story of HRC trying to strong arm the president of a small foreign country to contribute to the Clinton Fdn. whiule SOS never got national news, especially from WAPO.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-latest-mcmaster-denies-trump-revealed-classified-info/ar-BBBbbt4
-
Fake news. Sometimes when it sounds too good to be true, it is. :rofl: :shake: :rofl:
-
Fake news, trumped up by one of 2AHawaii's liberal trolls.
No wonder few decide to respond to him/her/it. Benn rejecting anything this fisheye troll has to say for many months now. Guess the HPD is still paying to be a provocateur.
-
I doubt this is fake news. But I also doubt its 100% true.
-
The unauthorized disclosure of classified information is in and of itself classified information. If Trump really did breach national security, then whoever told WAPO is even more guilty, because they did so knowingly and willfully.
If I were on the WH staff, I'd make looking for that leak my #1 priority until he/she is found. That's more egregious than what they claimed Trump did.
-
Fake news, trumped up by one of 2AHawaii's liberal trolls.
No wonder few decide to respond to him/her/it. Benn rejecting anything this fisheye troll has to say for many months now. Guess the HPD is still paying to be a provocateur.
We'll HPD must be sending the check to my old address cause I am not getting anything. How much is flap paying you to trumpet his conspiracy theory about me and HPD?
All this aside, how about a real discussion? None of these liberal type tactics. i e claim bias as a trump card and think it settles the argument. You gonna claim racism next to try and silence me?
Look at my statement, I clearly stated I would try to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. How about you try to be objective in both the analysis of the claim and the consequences of if it is true.
-
The unauthorized disclosure of classified information is in and of itself classified information. If Trump really did breach national security, then whoever told WAPO is even more guilty, because they did so knowingly and willfully.
If I were on the WH staff, I'd make looking for that leak my #1 priority until he/she is found. That's more egregious than what they claimed Trump did.
I think they are both worthy of concern. Would this leaker be considered a whistle blower? Probably not so I don't think there is any legal protection. Trump's actions are more of a concern in the world political arena.
-
I doubt this is fake news. But I also doubt its 100% true.
I think this to be a safe assumption.
-
Why the Washington Post Has No Credibility
Posted: Aug 07, 2016 12:01 AM
There’s a reason why the Washington Post is not-so-affectionately tagged the “Washington Compost” by its fast-growing pool of distrustful detractors.
That reason is embodied in both the person (and the “journalism”) of one Jonathan Capehart, homosexual activist, Washington Post mercenary-hack
and editorial board member. Capehart is a liar and, by extension, so is the Washington Post.
Now, when I say that Capehart is a liar, I don’t mean it in the pejorative sense. It’s not an ad hominem attack. It’s a fact, supported by the overwhelming
weight of the evidence. In the journalism biz, a reputation for truth and accuracy is everything, and Capehart’s reputation is polluted by an extensive
history of inaccuracies, journalistic spin and outright lies. His word processor is the beaker from which he regularly concocts a poisonous brew intended
to sway the public toward his left-wing extremist ideology. Indeed, the Post’s liberal bias is better documented than Hillary Clinton’s cyber-crimes – and
Capehart’s yellow journalism more known than her wayward hubby’s womanizing.
To be sure, Capehart’s agenda-driven shenanigans have the dubious distinction of managing to tick off both conservatives and liberals. Consider, for
instance, that during the Democratic presidential primary, Capehart, who is “in the bag for Hillary Clinton, lock, stock, and barrel,” infuriated Bernie Sander’s
supporters with a now-discredited missive that “progressive” Paste Magazine writer Shane Ryan called, “A dishonest narrative propagated by a supposedly
neutral journalist, with perfect timing, in an attempt to smear Bernie Sanders.”
The crux of the piece was that Bernie Sanders really offered little support during the civil rights movement for racial equality. You can read Ryan’s article
to learn of how, once busted for a litany of gross inaccuracies and outright lies, Capehart, as wont to do, merely doubled down with more lies and
obfuscation.
“Why wasn’t Capehart just admitting that he’d gotten it wrong?” wondered Ryan. “Didn’t he understand that his attempt to cover his own tracks was
blatantly obvious, and that no matter how much bulls–t he tried to heap on his original mistake, it would only make him look worse?”
Ryan called Capehart’s actions “rash dishonesty of a journalist with an agenda who had failed to do basic research before printing a smear piece.”
Ryan acts surprised. I’m not. This is Capehart’s modus operandi – rash dishonesty with an agenda, and failing to do basic research before printing a
smear piece. Truth never matters. It’s only the narrative.
And never the twain shall meet.
https://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2016/08/07/why-the-washington-post-has-no-credibility-n2202573
-
(http://i.imgur.com/7AuiR71.jpg)
-
Tillerson, McMaster deny report Trump shared classified information with Russia
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster denied a report that President Trump
shared highly classified information with Russian government officials during an Oval Office meeting last week.
"During President Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, a broad range of subjects were discussed among which
were common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism," Tillerson told reporters at the White House Monday evening.
"During that exchange, the nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods or military
operations."
McMaster attended the meeting and also pushed back against the reports of Trump's comments to Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
"The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common
threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods
discussed and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known," McMaster said
in a press conference Monday evening.
"The record should outweigh the anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn't happen," McMaster added.
Multiple outlets reported early Monday evening that Trump had revealed the Islamic State's intentions of carrying out a terrorist
attack on an airplane by using a laptop computer.
The details of the attack, including the name of the city, were withheld by the Washington Post, at the direction of government
officials, but the two Russian officials and their aides were told of the exact location the Islamic State was targeting. Russia could
use that detail to determine how America or its ally uncovered the plot.
Trump said the U.S. received the intelligence from an ally who did not give Trump permission to share that information with Russia,
an adversary to the U.S.
Last week, European officials said the U.S. was expected to ban laptops on flights over the Atlantic, but the action was never
formally announced. It's not clear if the potential Department of Homeland Security decision is related to the Islamic State's plot.
Russia is an ally to Syrian President Bashar Assad and has helped his regime fight rebel forces and the Islamic State.
Deputy national security adviser for strategy Dina Powell also attended last week's meeting and pronounced the reports as false.
"This story is false," Powell said in a statement. "The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tillerson-disputes-report-that-trump-shared-classified-information-with-russia/article/2623165
-
And....trump admitted he did share it. REAL NEWS FOLKS hahahahahha
One of the big things I like about him is his disclosure to the public he cant keep secrets. Then again that's why we have this situation...
-
What I found interesting is that NPR caveated their reporting on this story as something that "NPR has not been able to independently verify". They usually just roll with the story another outlet reports, but they took the time to add that in. Not really a confirmation either way, but just struck me as interesting that they would go out of their way to state that. Kind of like when an agency typically gives you the "we can neither confirm nor deny" line, but then all of a sudden, they give you a flat out deny.
It was also my understanding that the information discussed wasn't related to US national security, which is what I recall the NSA director has come out and stated as well. There has been speculation that the information shared was more about the source being a US partner that isn't exactly friendly with Russia. That is all speculation and my vague recollection.
-
What I found interesting is that NPR caveated their reporting on this story as something that "NPR has not been able to independently verify". They usually just roll with the story another outlet reports, but they took the time to add that in. Not really a confirmation either way, but just struck me as interesting that they would go out of their way to state that. Kind of like when an agency typically gives you the "we can neither confirm nor deny" line, but then all of a sudden, they give you a flat out deny.
Considering the source of this news being WAPO and their track record of being the biggest fake news agency of all the MSM's and considering they were quoting their anonymous sources AGAIN (which we all know are just the voices in their heads :rofl:) I would make sure I didn't report this as factual just to find out the news is fake and then have to do retractions. If NPR wants to be considered a serious source for news they should do exactly what you say they did.
It was also my understanding that the information discussed wasn't related to US national security, which is what I recall the NSA director has come out and stated as well. There has been speculation that the information shared was more about the source being a US partner that isn't exactly friendly with Russia. That is all speculation and my vague recollection.
What I heard is that the information was related to national security but was already public knowledge so no harm no foul. But then we get to what the left still claims as classified information being told to the Russian delegation. But it is not illegal for the president to disclose any classified information he deems as necessary and McMaster saying everything they talked about was not inappropriate for the meeting. Then you have the Russian delegation themselves saying it is all fake news. The thing I go by is that I believe McMaster has the integrity to resign before lying if he was so asked to do so.
Too much speculation yet to know the exact story. But suffice to say it once again is a non sequitur fake news report from the kings of fake news.
-
Considering the source of this news being WAPO and their track record of being the biggest fake news agency of all the MSM's and considering they were quoting their anonymous sources AGAIN (which we all know are just the voices in their heads :rofl:) I would make sure I didn't report this as factual just to find out the news is fake and then have to do retractions. If NPR wants to be considered a serious source for news they should do exactly what you say they did.
What I heard is that the information was related to national security but was already public knowledge so no harm no foul. But then we get to what the left still claims as classified information being told to the Russian delegation. But it is not illegal for the president to disclose any classified information he deems as necessary and McMaster saying everything they talked about was not inappropriate for the meeting. Then you have the Russian delegation themselves saying it is all fake news. The thing I go by is that I believe McMaster has the integrity to resign before lying if he was so asked to do so.
Too much speculation yet to know the exact story. But suffice to say it once again is a non sequitur fake news report from the kings of fake news.
That too. Forgot to add that.
However, again, the MSM is jumping all over this. Probably a situation of much ado about nothing, but too late. All people will remember is that "Trump shared classified information with the Ruskies". He may very well have, but if so, what was that information and who reported it?
-
I doubt this is fake news. But I also doubt its 100% true.
good job covering all the bases...
-
Thomas Lifson's take on the situation (includes links and embedded video of McMaster's rebuttal/denial):
WaPo's latest 'Get Trump' article reveals Deep State methods to sabotage his presidency
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/wapos_latest_get_trump_article_reveals_deep_state_methods_to_sabotage_his_presidency.html
Excerpts:
Once again, the mainstream media exploded yesterday with breathless tales of purported incompetence, or worse, treasonous betrayal of our deepest intelligence secrets to the Russians. Suddenly, the Kremlin has become the bad guy for Progressives, no longer worthy to hold the vast share of our uranium reserves it acquired under Hillary Clinton's supervision as secretary of state. And, as an article of faith, it was only because of the Russians that Hillary Clinton was denied her rightful term as president of the United States.
By now, you probably know the story that caused the newsroom at the Washington Post to erupt in celebration: "Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador."
(http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-05/198582_5_.jpg)
(http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-05/198583_5_.jpg)
[I bet you could count the non-progressives in that newsroom on one zero hands.]
Based on anonymous sources (of course) said to be current and former officials (those former officials did not have official access, so they must be basing their opinions on hearsay – but never mind that basic flaw; this is a matter of getting dirt on Trump, so forget about standards), the story claimed that the president revealed the name of a town from which sensitive data on ISIS was received and thereby revealed too much about sources and methods used by an ally to provide us with intelligence.
There were only five U.S. officials at the meeting, and three of them have spoken publicly and denied that the Post's account is true. National security adviser (and former General) H.R. McMaster's words ought to be dispositive: "I was in the room. It didn't happen."
-
That too. Forgot to add that.
However, again, the MSM is jumping all over this. Probably a situation of much ado about nothing, but too late. All people will remember is that "Trump shared classified information with the Ruskies". He may very well have, but if so, what was that information and who reported it?
The MSM is jumping all over this and I think they have a right to. Not so much because someone unknown to all of us told the Lyin' Kings (WaPo) the sky is falling, but because Trump and his team can't seem to get their stories straight. And then Trump Tweets something that can be misconstrued in many different ways. So no one seems to have any credibility. If I were Spicer, Tillerson and McMaster I would resign. I am getting to the point of losing patience with our new president, personally.
-
The MSM is jumping all over this and I think they have a right to. Not so much because someone unknown to all of us told the Lyin' Kings (WaPo) the sky is falling, but because Trump and his team can't seem to get their stories straight. And then Trump Tweets something that can be misconstrued in many different ways. So no one seems to have any credibility. If I were Spicer, Tillerson and McMaster I would resign. I am getting to the point of losing patience with our new president, personally.
I meant jumping all over it before the facts have been established. And yes, it's a big deal if the allegations are true and it turns out that the information was shared improperly, put national security at risk, etc. And another yeah that Trump's handling of the situation gets a :facepalm:
-
good job covering all the bases...
Clerk: Do you want paper or plastic?
Omni: YES!
-
I meant jumping all over it before the facts have been established. And yes, it's a big deal if the allegations are true and it turns out that the information was shared improperly, put national security at risk, etc. And another yeah that Trump's handling of the situation gets a :facepalm:
The thing that bothers me the most about this story, and in my opinion the real problem here, is all the "leaks" that are occurring. It is obvious that the deep/dark state is at work here to try and discredit Trump's presidency. And the MSM is a big part of this. This has to be stopped and stopped sooner than later IMHO.
-
What I heard is that the information was related to national security but was already public knowledge so no harm no foul. But then we get to what the left still claims as classified information being told to the Russian delegation. But it is not illegal for the president to disclose any classified information he deems as necessary and McMaster saying everything they talked about was not inappropriate for the meeting. Then you have the Russian delegation themselves saying it is all fake news. The thing I go by is that I believe McMaster has the integrity to resign before lying if he was so asked to do so.
It most definitely was not public knowledge. From what I gather this was Top, Top secret. That and trump admitting that he shared it turned the "Fake news" to real news.
The thing that bothers me the most about this story, and in my opinion the real problem here, is all the "leaks" that are occurring. It is obvious that the deep/dark state is at work here to try and discredit Trump's presidency. And the MSM is a big part of this. This has to be stopped and stopped sooner than later IMHO.
People don't like trump, those people find facts that makes trump look bad. They release said facts...does it really have to be some grand conspiracy?
-
good job covering all the bases...
There is always nuances, MSN etc probably embellished the story but it was definitely true.
-
It most definitely was not public knowledge. From what I gather this was Top, Top secret. That and trump admitting that he shared it turned the "Fake news" to real news.
People don't like trump, those people find facts that makes trump look bad. They release said facts...does it really have to be some grand conspiracy?
Since you seem to know this as a fact, why don't you tell us what was said?
-
Notice how fast this new fake story came out after the firing of Comey and he was blasting those who said Comey shouldn't be fired even though 5 months ago they were asking for his resignation and that they lost confidence in Comey.
The fake news trying to cover up again with another story.
NSA director who was at the meeting said no classified intel was leaked. So did another person who was in this meeting. Yet news still reporting it 2 days later.
-
Notice how fast this new fake story came out after the firing of Comey and he was blasting those who said Comey shouldn't be fired even though 5 months ago they were asking for his resignation and that they lost confidence in Comey.
The fake news trying to cover up again with another story.
NSA director who was at the meeting said no classified intel was leaked. So did another person who was in this meeting. Yet news still reporting it 2 days later.
I have this feeling that all of this is happening because Trump didn't let the MSM in on the meeting and photo op with the Russian delegates. And they want to punish him. Again, just a feeling. :stopjack:
-
Since you seem to know this as a fact, why don't you tell us what was said?
If you bothered reading the articles he told the russians info about their source on isis. The info told was highly classified with very few people having the knowledge. We don't know everything because we don't have a transcript.
-
If you bothered reading the articles he told the russians info about their source on isis. The info told was highly classified with very few people having the knowledge. We don't know everything because we don't have a transcript.
Everything I read about what was disclosed was all sourced from the fake news WaPo and now you. And the people who have credibility said it was not inappropriate to tell to the Russians. So if you think I am going to believe those who lie (you and WaPo) over those with much more credibility then you are crazy. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
Everything I read about what was disclosed was all sourced from the fake news WaPo and now you. And the people who have credibility said it was not inappropriate to tell to the Russians. So if you think I am going to believe those who lie (you and WaPo) over those with much more credibility then you are crazy. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Trump came out and confirmed it wasn't fake news though.......not everything they do is fake news....not everything is some conspiracy. Sure they embellish alot of facts and write a few fake reports but that doesn't fully discredit everything. Hell britbart wrote some fake news articles too does that mean everything they write is fake news? No every single news agency is guilty what you need to look at is the facts and make decisions based on those not the paper that is writing about it.
-
Trump came out and confirmed it wasn't fake news though.......not everything they do is fake news....not everything is some conspiracy. Sure they embellish alot of facts and write a few fake reports but that doesn't fully discredit everything. Hell britbart wrote some fake news articles too does that mean everything they write is fake news? No every single news agency is guilty what you need to look at is the facts and make decisions based on those not the paper that is writing about it.
Let's recap. First you stated "It most definitely was not public knowledge. From what I gather this was Top, Top secret." To me this means you KNOW what was said was classified. Then when I called you out on it you back tracked and stated "...he told the russians info about their source on isis. The info told was highly classified with very few people having the knowledge...." The president said no such thing. Here is what he tweeted: "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.... ...to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism." There is nothing in there that says he shared classified information with Russia. PERIOD. END OF STORY. FAKE NEWS. The fact that he admitted he spoke with the Russians is not fake news. The fake news is that he shared classified information with them. And I'll tell you why it it will ALWAYS be FAKE NEWS. Because it is the president's right to let anyone know any information he deems important, even if it is classified. So where is the story here? The story is the fake news and you screaming about Trump giving classified information to Russia. Which by all accounts he didn't do and even if he did he has every right to do so. Which means it is all FAKE NEWS.
So again, where is the real news story here? I mean besides your and WaPo's lies? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
There is always nuances, MSN etc probably embellished the story but it was definitely true.
that's not what you said...
-
Judical Watch Lawsuit Filed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFmxwwp4hfU&utm_source=campaigner&utm_campaign=Action_Alert_5-4-17&cmp=1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=campaigner&utm_campaign=Action_Alert_5-4-17&cmp=1&utm_medium=email
-
Trump came out and confirmed it wasn't fake news though.......
that's not what trump said
reading is fundamental...
-
that's not what trump said
reading is fundamental...
Comon mac don't take a brain surgeon...
Trump said and I quote:
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.......to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
After being accused of giving information to the Russians. Looks mighty like a confirmation...
-
Comon mac don't take a brain surgeon...
Trump said and I quote:
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.......to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
After being accused of giving information to the Russians. Looks mighty like a confirmation...
People with lizard (Libtard) brains see what they want to see. The tweet was ambiguous as to specifics. You and the rest of Liberal America are filling in the blanks.
Bunch of Dimwits. :wacko:
-
The plot thickens and this time it is Comey's own memo, not some anonymous source.
Trump reportedly told Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. … He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/report-says-trump-asked-comey-to-end-flynn-probe-white-house-pushes-back.html
-
The plot thickens and this time it is Comey's own memo, not some anonymous source.
Trump reportedly told Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. … He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/report-says-trump-asked-comey-to-end-flynn-probe-white-house-pushes-back.html
Where's the tapes? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Where's the tapes? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Who knows. Trump bluff?
He also said he would release his taxes, lets see if he would release tapes to clear this all up.
-
People with lizard brains see what they want to see. The tweet was ambiguous as to specifics. You and the rest of 2AHawaii are filling in the blanks.
Bunch of Dimwits. :wacko:
School kids,
Let it play out and let's see where it falls.
Or would that not be any fun?
-
Who knows. Trump bluff?
He also said he would release his taxes, lets see if he would release tapes to clear this all up.
Could be a bluff. It was my first thought when I heard him say that.
Personally, I don't think his taxes are very important in the grand scheme of things. I look at it in the same way if Obama had never released his birth certificate. It is not going to change the way people feel about him in the long run. Let's face it, most everyone has already made up their minds.
I am also getting tired of all the hysterics around Trump. He should really keep his mouth shut at this point and let his team do the talking for him and do damage control.
-
Comon mac don't take a brain surgeon...
Trump said and I quote:
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.......to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
After being accused of giving information to the Russians. Looks mighty like a confirmation...
not INFORMATION,
confidential information that was given to the US that was not supposed to be given out that would possibly give away the source of that information
that's the allegation made by "sources" to the washington post
which several of the few people WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE denied ON THE RECORD
trump confirmed he gave information, which was never denied by anyone who was there
and "comon" is not a word
-
Comon mac don't take a brain surgeon...
Trump said and I quote:
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.......to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
After being accused of giving information to the Russians. Looks mighty like a confirmation...
there's no mention of sharing CLASSIFIED information.
I share information with this forum many times. None of it is govt. classified.
-
there's no mention of sharing CLASSIFIED information.
I share information with this forum many times. None of it is govt. classified.
Heads of state share classified information between themselves all the time. They have the responsibility to know what to share and what the results might be if any.
Simply sharing classified is not a crime for the President -- any president. If they do it with the intent to cause harm to the US, then that's a problem.
This is a mountain being created from a non-issue.
-
Heads of state share classified information between themselves all the time. They have the responsibility to know what to share and what the results might be if any.
Simply sharing classified is not a crime for the President -- any president. If they do it with the intent to cause harm to the US, then that's a problem.
This is a mountain being created from a non-issue.
Exactly. At military levels as well.
Hence. Foreign Disclosure Officers.
-
Another anonymous source releases the "smoking gun" ...
(http://i.imgur.com/EKxLvuw.jpg?1)
-
Could be a bluff. It was my first thought when I heard him say that.
Personally, I don't think his taxes are very important in the grand scheme of things. I look at it in the same way if Obama had never released his birth certificate. It is not going to change the way people feel about him in the long run. Let's face it, most everyone has already made up their minds.
I am also getting tired of all the hysterics around Trump. He should really keep his mouth shut at this point and let his team do the talking for him and do damage control.
Agreed. If Trump did what he did policy wise but kept his mouth shut he would be a whole different person. But instead he says stupid and creepy things. I still can't get over that he seems to want to have sex with his daughter.
-
It could very well be that it was his right as the President to disclose the information to the Russians while they sipped tea in the Oval Office while the Russian reporters were snapping pictures. The problem is that we didn't tell the Israelis that we were gonna do this before he did. Maybe the Israelis are okay with Trump telling the Russians about our intel on ISIS bomb making capabilities in laptops. The intel officials had to rush out of the room to inform the other spy agencies about what Trump disclosed and that's not how it's normally done. The problem is that other spy agencies might start to question Trump's ability to keep their secrets and decide not to disclose information to us.
Yes, Hillary also mishandled top secret information in her email and now she's not President. Somehow we're supposed to overlook Trump's actions because he currently is President and can do whatever he wants. Again, it's not about what "taped" evidence is available to indict Trump. It's about voter's impressions of impropriety with the Republican party for next year's House elections. Meanwhile, Republican Congressmen are also getting tired of the hysterics around Trump and are moving against him like Chaffetz did today.
Yes, I know I lack evidence and logic and I'm stubborn and blah, blah, blah. I don't bother posting here to change your minds. I do it to try and figure out what the fuck is going on in this country.
-
Agreed. If Trump did what he did policy wise but kept his mouth shut he would be a whole different person. But instead he says stupid and creepy things. I still can't get over that he seems to want to have sex with his daughter.
Well, I agree he says stupid things, but creepy? I can't agree with that. And your statement about his seeming to want to have sex with his daughter is pretty outrageous as well. Not sure where you get creepy and having sex with his daughter, but to be honest, I don't want to know. :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
-
Well, I agree he says stupid things, but creepy? I can't agree with that. And your statement about his seeming to want to have sex with his daughter is pretty outrageous as well. Not sure where you get creepy and having sex with his daughter, but to be honest, I don't want to know. :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
Inspector, the guy is a known TROLL and himself says creepy things like mentioning assassinating one of the 2016 presidential candidates, after which the mods threatened to remove him for that kind of post. :wtf:
-
This is a mountain being created from a non-issue.
AKA Fake News.
No wonder the two resident liberals lap it up.
-
Inspector, the guy is a known TROLL and himself says creepy things like mentioning assassinating one of the 2016 presidential candidates, after which the mods threatened to remove him for that kind of post. :wtf:
Yeah, I was going to call him out on his TROLLING comments but decided to be nice instead. A moment of weakness I guess. :wtf: is wrong with me? ???
-
5 Times The Obama Administration Leaked Classified Information
http://www.dailywire.com/news/16533/5-times-obama-administration-leaked-classified-michael-qazvini?utm_source=dwemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=position2
-
5 Times The Obama Administration Leaked Classified Information
http://www.dailywire.com/news/16533/5-times-obama-administration-leaked-classified-michael-qazvini?utm_source=dwemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=position2
Trump is only supposed to have disclosed classified to other heads of state.
Obama's admin disclosed classified to the public.
In all likelihood, Obama's disclosure of SEAL Team Six may be the reason they are dead now.
-
AKA Fake News.
No wonder the two resident liberals lap it up.
Lawls not sure why I get labeled a liberal I voted full republican on the ticket. I'm an independent, I am no slave to any party. But tend to vote for republicans because of 2a, etc. I'm pro abortion, pro 2a, pro low taxes and capitalism, pro military and pro rights, anti religion mixing in government, anti fossil fuels and anti spying on citizens. To name a few.
I feel sorry for people who force themselves into a box and only vote for a party.
-
Lawls not sure why I get labeled a liberal I voted full republican on the ticket. I'm an independent, I am no slave to any party. But tend to vote for republicans because of 2a, etc. I'm pro abortion, pro 2a, pro low taxes and capitalism, pro military and pro rights, anti religion mixing in government, anti fossil fuels and anti spying on citizens. To name a few.
I feel sorry for people who force themselves into a box and only vote for a party.
Ever hear of RINO?
Your picture is next to the dictionary definition.
-
Trump Tells Coast Guard Grads No Politician 'Has Been Treated Worse'
http://www.nbcnews.com/widget/video-embed/946174531789
-
If it wasn't for double standards, Liberals and their lapdog media would have no standards at all...
(http://i.imgur.com/XVQkNHx.jpg)
-
There you go again, exposing liberal hypocrisy.
If it wasn't for double standards, Liberals and their lapdog media would have no standards at all...
(http://i.imgur.com/XVQkNHx.jpg)
-
If it wasn't for double standards, Liberals and their lapdog media would have no standards at all...
(http://i.imgur.com/XVQkNHx.jpg)
Hmmm one story is sharing information that was approved and vetted, one is sharing the source of information(who wanted not to be named). Exactly the same don't see a difference. Just like how the fbi can use a drug informant and share the information on where the stash is and the FBI naming the drug informant. Both involve drugs same shit.
-
Special Prosecutor Mueller will be seeking docs and testimony from all involved...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-appoints-special-counsel-in-wake-of-comey-developments/
{Weird that I can just copy and paste the same comment in different threads... :shaka:]
-
If it wasn't for double standards, Liberals and their lapdog media would have no standards at all...
They're smelling blood in the water.
-
They're smelling blood in the water.
Just like they smelled President Hillary. They're 100% (okay, 97% (in deference to the Hew York Times)) sure they know what's going on, and they're going to win (again).
-
Rep. Kinzinger (R) said that the President has the right to release whatever top secret information he wants. He could release everything that Snowden stole, but it doesn't make it wise. There's a process to follow and he shouldn't do this "willy nilly".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7aB7_tje1c
-
Undying news about Trump, I don't know what to believe anymore. :popcorn:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/J3512b9.jpg?1)
-
Well, I agree he says stupid things, but creepy? I can't agree with that. And your statement about his seeming to want to have sex with his daughter is pretty outrageous as well. Not sure where you get creepy and having sex with his daughter, but to be honest, I don't want to know. :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
So you don't believe he made odd sexual comments about his daughter but then you don't want to let me support my argument? Then just label me a troll? Sorry, but I am going to have to reject your request to not know why. Besides, I started this thread, want me to split it off into it's own thread? Seriously, some people just label anyone who brings up an issue they don't like a troll.
-When Donald Trump was watching his 16-year-old daughter Ivanka host the 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant, he turned to the then-Miss Universe and asked: “Don’t you think my daughter’s hot? She’s hot, right?”
-In the almost 20 years since, Mr Trump has called his eldest daughter “voluptuous”. He’s said it’s OK to describe her as “a piece of ass”, though she is a senior executive in his business empire. And he’s said that, if she wasn’t his daughter, “perhaps [he’d] be dating her”.
-“My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body. She made a lot money as a model—a tremendous amount.”
-When asked how he would react if Ivanka, a former teen model, posed for Playboy, Trump replied, "It would be really disappointing — not really — but it would depend on what's inside the magazine."
-He added: "I don't think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her."
-In one interview, Trump was asked what he has in common with his daughter and one of the things he replied was that they both love sex.
If you prefer, I can give him the benefit of the doubt and just say he has a very disturbing sense of humor.
-
If it wasn't for double standards, Liberals and their lapdog media would have no standards at all...
(http://i.imgur.com/XVQkNHx.jpg)
Context is missing.
No one is saying he cannot share intelligence. The issue is that he allegedly shared intelligence that was not America's to share. That is what may damage our relationship with other countries.
-
Context is missing.
No one is saying he cannot share intelligence. The issue is that he allegedly shared intelligence that was not America's to share. That is what may damage our relationship with other countries.
What did he share? Please enlighten us with your understanding of foreign disclosure.
-
He cut out the middle men and gave the intelligence straight to the source.
It was funny when Putin recent admonished his foreign minister for not disclosing to him the state secrets that Trump told him.
(http://i.imgur.com/J3512b9.jpg?1)
-
He cut out the middle men and gave the intelligence straight to the source.
It was funny when Putin recent admonished his foreign minister for not disclosing to him the state secrets that Trump told him.
What "middle men" ?
This is not a business transaction.
This was a bilateral meeting between 2 countries. There are laws, policies, treaties and protocols that are followed.
Can you explain "gave the intelligence straight to the source"?
Do you know the difference between intelligence and information?
This is a prime example of what the liberal, biased media is feeding to. The population that don't quite understand the workings of government.
I think it is a shame what this country is doing to an elected President and is a slap in the faces of all those who voted for Trump. Did we see this kind of behavior from other Presidents? Not that I can recall. The floodgates of hate against President Trump have been wide open since he won.
Frankly, even during Obama's time I hope he succeeded in his foreign policy for the sake of OUR country. We need unity but the voters who voted for anyone else but Trump are still clinging on to their loss. Those people need to grow the fuck up and move on.
-
No one is saying he cannot share intelligence. The issue is that he allegedly shared intelligence that was not America's to share.
Geezus, this is exactly why you are ignored: you try and create your own fake news.
"Allegedly shared intelligence that was not America's to share"
GMAFB you leftist troll.
-
So you don't believe he made odd sexual comments about his daughter but then you don't want to let me support my argument? Then just label me a troll? Sorry, but I am going to have to reject your request to not know why. Besides, I started this thread, want me to split it off into it's own thread? Seriously, some people just label anyone who brings up an issue they don't like a troll.
-When Donald Trump was watching his 16-year-old daughter Ivanka host the 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant, he turned to the then-Miss Universe and asked: “Don’t you think my daughter’s hot? She’s hot, right?”
-In the almost 20 years since, Mr Trump has called his eldest daughter “voluptuous”. He’s said it’s OK to describe her as “a piece of ass”, though she is a senior executive in his business empire. And he’s said that, if she wasn’t his daughter, “perhaps [he’d] be dating her”.
-“My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body. She made a lot money as a model—a tremendous amount.”
-When asked how he would react if Ivanka, a former teen model, posed for Playboy, Trump replied, "It would be really disappointing — not really — but it would depend on what's inside the magazine."
-He added: "I don't think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her."
-In one interview, Trump was asked what he has in common with his daughter and one of the things he replied was that they both love sex.
If you prefer, I can give him the benefit of the doubt and just say he has a very disturbing sense of humor.
First of all you made assumptions that are absolutely not true. It's not up to me to believe if DJT made odd sexual comments about his daughter or not. I don't care whether he did or not. And the reason I didn't want to hear them is for the same reason, I don't give a shit. And not because I don't want you to support your statements. I have lived a long life and I found in this life most of the time what people say and what people do are two different things. I try not to judge people by what they say and rather their actions. If I was more concerned about what people say rather than what they do I would be a much shallower person and I would have voted for Hillary. Truth and clarity are more important to me than putting a word like creepy or accusing him of having sex with his daughter based only on his words instead of his actions. So all the words you typed here are meaningless to me. That is why I didn't want to hear it, I just don't fucking care.
I believe that actions speak louder than words. Words can also be important when you don't have actions to judge by. In this case there was no proof that DJT had or is having sex with his daughter. So what he said about his daughter is meaningless. I judged DJT by his accomplishments and what that means in the grand scheme of things.
-
So are you guys okay with the curtsy that the President gave to the Saudi king after receiving his award?
https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/865963547314073601
-
So are you guys okay with the curtsey that the President gave to the Saudi king after receiving his award?
https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/865963547314073601
If you're okay with being called a troll.
This is a lie. Doesn't even rise to the level of fake news.
-
So are you guys okay with the curtsey that the President gave to the Saudi king after receiving his award?
https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/865963547314073601
Trump is like 6ft + what do you expect the king to get on a stool?
-
If you're okay with being called a troll.
This is a lie. Doesn't even rise to the level of fake news.
Are you calling Roger Stone a liar?
Trump is like 6ft + what do you expect the king to get on a stool?
Looked like a curtsy to me even if it was an accident.
https://youtu.be/fqdaCznes2c?t=37s
-
Are you calling Roger Stone a liar?
Looked like a curtsy to me even if it was an accident.
https://youtu.be/fqdaCznes2c?t=37s
Anyone saying Trump bowed or did anything else other than bend a little to allow the King to place the award on his neck is a fool and a liar.
By your logic, every single Olympic medal winner "bowed" when receiving their awards. Every single person in Hawaii to have ever been given a lei has also "bowed" to the giver.
I hate fucking trolls.
http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/medal-ceremony-final-five-gymnasts-receive-team-gold
-
I hate fucking trolls.
I hate people who hate other people. :rofl:
-
I hate people who hate other people. :rofl:
Trolls are not people, but some people are trolls. :wacko:
-
Trolls are not people, but some people are trolls. :wacko:
"Trolls are not people"...well I have news for you. I believe you are a person. Unless I've been arguing with a robot this whole time... though that would answer some questions.
-
:stopjack:
"Trolls are not people"...well I have news for you. I believe you are a person. Unless I've been arguing with a robot this whole time... though that would answer some questions.
-
"Trolls are not people"...well I have news for you. I believe you are a person. Unless I've been arguing with a robot this whole time... though that would answer some questions.
You sound like some poorly coded AI. I don't believe you are a person. Siri? Is that you? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
You sound like some poorly coded AI. I don't believe you are a person. Siri? Is that you? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
He might be Artificial, but I question the Intelligence aspect....
-
You sound like some poorly coded AI. I don't believe you are a person. Siri? Is that you? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
lol I've met you in rl I am real.
-
Geezus, this is exactly why you are ignored: you try and create your own fake news.
"Allegedly shared intelligence that was not America's to share"
GMAFB you leftist troll.
Sorry, I can't understand you over the sound of Trump's balls in your mouth.
-
What did he share? Please enlighten us with your understanding of foreign disclosure.
I don't know what was shared, the issue is whether it was ours to share. If our ally entrusts us with secret information and we blab about it to some other country which the original ally does not approve of then we hurt our relationship with our ally. They may decide not to share information with us anymore. Does that not make sense?
-
First of all you made assumptions that are absolutely not true. It's not up to me to believe if DJT made odd sexual comments about his daughter or not. I don't care whether he did or not. And the reason I didn't want to hear them is for the same reason, I don't give a shit. And not because I don't want you to support your statements. I have lived a long life and I found in this life most of the time what people say and what people do are two different things. I try not to judge people by what they say and rather their actions. If I was more concerned about what people say rather than what they do I would be a much shallower person and I would have voted for Hillary. Truth and clarity are more important to me than putting a word like creepy or accusing him of having sex with his daughter based only on his words instead of his actions. So all the words you typed here are meaningless to me. That is why I didn't want to hear it, I just don't fucking care.
I believe that actions speak louder than words. Words can also be important when you don't have actions to judge by. In this case there was no proof that DJT had or is having sex with his daughter. So what he said about his daughter is meaningless. I judged DJT by his accomplishments and what that means in the grand scheme of things.
Maybe you don't care, but I am concerned that the face of the nation makes such odd comments. If he were just another Woody Allen, I wouldn't care much. He can be a creepy old man if he wants because he doesn't manner. But when our president says such odd things it make us all look bad, especially the ones who share his party affiliation. Remember when Michelle Obama said she wasn't proud to be an American? Conservatives had a field day with that. Maybe you didn't care about that either and if thats the case then I applaud your consistency.
Now if we are referring to actions then his comments don't help him. There have been allegations of sexual misconduct on varying levels and these types of comments Trump has made only serve lend credence to the allegations. Not saying they are true but words do matter.
-
I don't know what was shared, the issue is whether it was ours to share. If our ally entrusts us with secret information and we blab about it to some other country which the original ally does not approve of then we hurt our relationship with our ally. They may decide not to share information with us anymore. Does that not make sense?
It does not make sense.
We share US and foreign intelligence information between and among other foreign countries all the time. Once the information is in US possession, a foreign disclosure officer determines the potential parties we can and cannot share it with, and the document is so marked. Some documents have so many caveats, the first page can be nothing but Release to Canada, Mexico, Japan, Russia, China. All other countries NOFORN.
So, since you don't know WHAT was shared, and the leaked report says it was not US intelligence, that leaves you to assume we can't share it. That's not accurate in all cases.
I used to work on the AWACS program. AWAC aircraft were in US, Japan, NATO and Saudi Arabia possession. Imagine the fun I had making sure we were able to include secrets in documents prepared for our ELF-ONE deployed support unit in Riyadh.
Back to Trump ... Everything that's classified is provided with appropriate disclosure caveats. Unless he violated a caveat, he's free by virtue of his position as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the nation to release anything he wishes. If the originator of the INTEL was concerned about release to other foreign nations, it would have been so marked.
I don't remember seeing anything in the leaked info on this non-scandal indicating it was released in violation of classification level, foreign disclosure guidance, or originator markings, Do you?
-
I don't know what was shared,
So, why do you keeping yapping about it?
-
Okaay, getting a little nasty here on this thread. Guess waterfront talk is alright now.
-
Back to Trump ... Everything that's classified is provided with appropriate disclosure caveats. Unless he violated a caveat, he's free by virtue of his position as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the nation to release anything he wishes. If the originator of the INTEL was concerned about release to other foreign nations, it would have been so marked.
I don't remember seeing anything in the leaked info on this non-scandal indicating it was released in violation of classification level, foreign disclosure guidance, or originator markings, Do you?
Good question. I mentioned this before so sorry for repeating myself. You're right in that the President can decide when and where to release classified material to whomever he likes. He can take everything that Snowden stole and declassify it but that doesn't make it a good idea. There's a process he SHOULD follow to ensure that the source of the intel (the Israelis) are okay with releasing to the Russians and the intel does not endanger field personnel. My understanding is that he did not follow proper procedures.
He can't go to the FBI director and tell him to stop investigating about the Russians. There's a reason why Comey was trying to imitate a drape in the White House. There are proper channels that need to be followed to avoid any implications with obstruction of justice. So he fires the FBI director then the next day, he tells the Russian envoys about the laptop intel in the fucking Oval Office with only Russian reporters present and then brags about firing Comey. From the 30,000 foot view, that looks really really bad. I don't believe Trump will be impeached before 2019, but at this pace, all bets are off after that. If that bitch Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House again, I'm gonna run my head into a wall.
Okaay, getting a little nasty here on this thread. Guess waterfront talk is alright now.
Agreed. There's a big difference between saying this situation is fucked and saying fuck you. I try to avoid the latter.
Additional: I think this is an honest assessment of the political situation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/22/is-media-trump-deranged-maybe-dependent-for-sure.html
Final question of the post. Are you guys okay with this photo?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAYlEH8V0AEKXeg.jpg)
-
Maybe you don't care, but I am concerned that the face of the nation makes such odd comments. If he were just another Woody Allen, I wouldn't care much. He can be a creepy old man if he wants because he doesn't manner. But when our president says such odd things it make us all look bad, especially the ones who share his party affiliation. Remember when Michelle Obama said she wasn't proud to be an American? Conservatives had a field day with that. Maybe you didn't care about that either and if thats the case then I applaud your consistency.
Now if we are referring to actions then his comments don't help him. There have been allegations of sexual misconduct on varying levels and these types of comments Trump has made only serve lend credence to the allegations. Not saying they are true but words do matter.
You are a funny guy. I tell you I don't care and you continue to try and convince me that what you say matters. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Like the judge on People's Court says often, without proof you are just flapping your gums.
If I go by what you say about words of concern and allegations then fake news matters to you. Because that is what fake news is, words of concern and allegations. I pity you because you must believe a lot of things that are not true. That explains a lot about what you say here and how you think. I'm done with you on this conversation.
-
lol I've met you in rl I am real.
Hey! Siri answered me!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
So that brings up the question, is Siri real?
-
Good question. I mentioned this before so sorry for repeating myself. You're right in that the President can decide when and where to release classified material to whomever he likes. He can take everything that Snowden stole and declassify it but that doesn't make it a good idea. There's a process he SHOULD follow to ensure that the source of the intel (the Israelis) are okay with releasing to the Russians and the intel does not endanger field personnel. My understanding is that he did not follow proper procedures.
He can't go to the FBI director and tell him to stop investigating about the Russians. There's a reason why Comey was trying to imitate a drape in the White House. There are proper channels that need to be followed to avoid any implications with obstruction of justice. So he fires the FBI director then the next day, he tells the Russian envoys about the laptop intel in the fucking Oval Office with only Russian reporters present and then brags about firing Comey. From the 30,000 foot view, that looks really really bad. I don't believe Trump will be impeached before 2019, but at this pace, all bets are off after that. If that bitch Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House again, I'm gonna run my head into a wall.
Agreed. There's a big difference between saying this situation is fucked and saying fuck you. I try to avoid the latter.
Additional: I think this is an honest assessment of the political situation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/22/is-media-trump-deranged-maybe-dependent-for-sure.html
Final question of the post. Are you guys okay with this photo?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAYlEH8V0AEKXeg.jpg)
At this point reminds me of the reporter who asked the fervent trump supporter if trump could take a shit on his desk and he would find a way to support it.
-
Final question of the post. Are you guys okay with this photo?
Why do you continually ask if people here are "okay with" something? You posted the picture/video/comment.
Tell us why you posted it? If others have an opinion, they'll say so.
Asking "Are you okay with this?" is trolling.
Not labeling you. Just recommending you change your MO a bit so we don't label you.
-
I don't know what was shared, the issue is whether it was ours to share. If our ally entrusts us with secret information and we blab about it to some other country which the original ally does not approve of then we hurt our relationship with our ally. They may decide not to share information with us anymore. Does that not make sense?
You have no clue how foreign disclosure works. Which ally are you referring to? Because there are different agreements, treaties and policies with each country. It is a lot more complex than telling a secret to your playground friends.
-
I don't know what was shared, the issue is whether it was ours to share. If our ally entrusts us with secret information and we blab about it to some other country which the original ally does not approve of then we hurt our relationship with our ally. They may decide not to share information with us anymore. Does that not make sense?
and to add..
STOP SPREADING FAKE NEWS WITH YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT HOW THINGS WORK!
If you don't know. You don't know!
-
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/Untitled_zpsg3eyqea6.png) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/Untitled_zpsg3eyqea6.png.html)
-
and to add..
STOP SPREADING FAKE NEWS WITH YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT HOW THINGS WORK!
If you don't know. You don't know!
Again, it doesn't matter what particular information was shared. The fact I don't know what was specifically shared does not make my point any less valid. The allegation was that he shared information that was not supposed to be shared by agreement with the country that shared it with the USA. That is what was reported in the news. If it never happened then happy days, if it did happen then Trump screwed up.
-
You are a funny guy. I tell you I don't care and you continue to try and convince me that what you say matters. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Like the judge on People's Court says often, without proof you are just flapping your gums.
If I go by what you say about words of concern and allegations then fake news matters to you. Because that is what fake news is, words of concern and allegations. I pity you because you must believe a lot of things that are not true. That explains a lot about what you say here and how you think. I'm done with you on this conversation.
Funny you consider it fake news just because you don't like it or it cannot be proven to some conviction level of proof.
I provided multiple statements as proof of my observations. I don't know what level of proof you want absent a direct admission by Trump.
Words matter. Agree to disagree.
-
I don't remember seeing anything in the leaked info on this non-scandal indicating it was released in violation of classification level, foreign disclosure guidance, or originator markings, Do you?
The news I had heard did seem to claim that it was in violation of foreign disclosure guidance. I will see if I can find a link that mentions it specifically.
I agree that absent such an agreement then Trump didn't do anything wrong.
-
Funny you consider it fake news just because you don't like it or it cannot be proven to some conviction level of proof.
I provided multiple statements as proof of my observations. I don't know what level of proof you want absent a direct admission by Trump.
Words matter. Agree to disagree.
the news was reporting what "sources" said
people who were there went on the record saying that never happened
your "multiple statements" are trumped (lol) by people who were willing to go on the record
words matter
-
Again, it doesn't matter what particular information was shared. The fact I don't know what was specifically shared does not make my point any less valid. The allegation was that he shared information that was not supposed to be shared by agreement with the country that shared it with the USA. That is what was reported in the news. If it never happened then happy days, if it did happen then Trump screwed up.
YES IT DOES WHAT PARTICULAR INFORMATION WAS SHARED BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS
and AGAIN what country was this?
You don't know then you don't know.
So stop with these guesses.
-
The news I had heard did seem to claim that it was in violation of foreign disclosure guidance. I will see if I can find a link that mentions it specifically.
I agree that absent such an agreement then Trump didn't do anything wrong.
Foreign disclosure is much more than "guidance"
People go to jail for intentionally sharing information.
What is your experience working with foreign disclosure ?
-
Funny you consider it fake news just because you don't like it or it cannot be proven to some conviction level of proof.
I provided multiple statements as proof of my observations. I don't know what level of proof you want absent a direct admission by Trump.
Words matter. Agree to disagree.
SO again "your observations"
Did your observations lead you to witness the information that was disclosed by President Trump?
-
The news I had heard did seem to claim that it was in violation of foreign disclosure guidance. I will see if I can find a link that mentions it specifically.
I agree that absent such an agreement then Trump didn't do anything wrong.
You've said you remembered something many times only to be proven wrong. Either you have such a source, or you're blowing smoke.
One thing to remember -- let's assume there was an unauthorized disclosure. That fact all by itself is classified. Therefore, if this is true and someone leaked it, that person is more guilty of disseminating classified than Trump.
Kind of tells you about the character of the people leaking this stuff. And they want us to believe they are telling the truth?
-
SO again "your observations"
Did your observations lead you to witness the information that was disclosed by President Trump?
So if your kid's baby sitter said they become sexually aroused by children you would think then fit to be baby sitters since they were never caught in the act?
-
the news was reporting what "sources" said
people who were there went on the record saying that never happened
your "multiple statements" are trumped (lol) by people who were willing to go on the record
words matter
Not saying that people willing to go on record don't matter but in the grand scheme of things they are not some Trump card that absolutely settles the issue. Anonymous sources have reasons for being anonymous, and it isn't always because they are just making up stuff. Does it seem beyond the realm of possibility that maybe Trump's people who have lied to cover it up?
-
So if your kid's baby sitter said they become sexually aroused by children you would think then fit to be baby sitters since they were never caught in the act?
:wtf:
-
So if your kid's baby sitter said they become sexually aroused by children you would think then fit to be baby sitters since they were never caught in the act?
What does that have to do with foreign disclosure???
-
Does it seem beyond the realm of possibility that maybe Trump's people who have lied to cover it up?
does it seem beyond the realm of possibility that the "sources" are lying?
-
YES IT DOES WHAT PARTICULAR INFORMATION WAS SHARED BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS
and AGAIN what country was this?
You don't know then you don't know.
So stop with these guesses.
It matters whether the information shared was ok to share. Are you suggesting that just because they aren't saying what was specifically shared that we cannot believe that he shared it? If the information is classified then it should not be published what was specifically shared. What matters is if the information shared was open to being shared per the relationship the USA has with the info provider.
-
What does that have to do with foreign disclosure???
I am going along Inspector's line of reasoning that only actions matter. My apologies if that is not the same angle you were taking.
-
Not saying that people willing to go on record don't matter but in the grand scheme of things they are not some Trump card that absolutely settles the issue. Anonymous sources have reasons for being anonymous, and it isn't always because they are just making up stuff. Does it seem beyond the realm of possibility that maybe Trump's people who have lied to cover it up?
There are no points in your statements. You're like a drunk monkey trying to hump a football.
All your statements are pure speculation on issues that are very serious.
You have no understanding of disclosure whatsoever.
You have no facts to support your statements whatsoever.
You're just digging looking for anything that can support your hate for Trump.
Want a shovel instead of using your paws?
-
It matters whether the information shared was ok to share. Are you suggesting that just because they aren't saying what was specifically shared that we cannot believe that he shared it? If the information is classified then it should not be published what was specifically shared. What matters is if the information shared was open to being shared per the relationship the USA has with the info provider.
again what country was the originator?
If you don't know then you don't know what treaties we have with that country. In that treaty and/or policy there are guidelines.
Even if classified information was shared it is not public - because it is still CLASSIFIED!
-
I am going along Inspector's line of reasoning that only actions matter. My apologies if that is not the same angle you were taking.
that angle was sick and twisted and has absolutely nothing to do with sharing information between countries
I don't know how you came to that analogy of being aroused by kids.
Fucking sicko :grrr:
-
You've said you remembered something many times only to be proven wrong. Either you have such a source, or you're blowing smoke.
One thing to remember -- let's assume there was an unauthorized disclosure. That fact all by itself is classified. Therefore, if this is true and someone leaked it, that person is more guilty of disseminating classified than Trump.
Kind of tells you about the character of the people leaking this stuff. And they want us to believe they are telling the truth?
Many "whistle blowers" are breaking a law when it comes to speaking up about a government action. I don't agree with your line of reasoning that the person releasing the information is of poor moral character just because they broke the law. I also do not agree that the individual is more guilty than Trump. Trump's alleged violation is more serious than the violation of someone saying Trump did the violation.
Here is one article that covers protocol violations as well as diplomatic problems covered by Trump's sharing of classified information. It doesn't mention a specific disclosure agreement but it sure hasn't made Israel very happy.
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-brennan-trump-russia-classified-info-2017-5
Again, I am not saying Trump committed a crime but I am saying that Trump screwed up here
-
There are no points in your statements. You're like a drunk monkey trying to hump a football.
All your statements are pure speculation on issues that are very serious.
You have no understanding of disclosure whatsoever.
You have no facts to support your statements whatsoever.
You're just digging looking for anything that can support your hate for Trump.
Want a shovel instead of using your paws?
My statement is full of facts. What other facts do you want? You want me to prove that it isn't a good idea to share information that was provided to you with the understanding that it was not to be freely shared? I have referenced many items brought up in the news a lot since this story broke and much of it is in the original video.
You just sound desperate to defend Trump.
I'll admit I don't like Trump but when it comes to the facts I don't twist things. I give credit where credit is due and criticism where criticism is due. Trump supporters need to be able to recognize when Trump screws up otherwise they just look stupid.
-
It matters whether the information shared was ok to share. Are you suggesting that just because they aren't saying what was specifically shared that we cannot believe that he shared it? If the information is classified then it should not be published what was specifically shared. What matters is if the information shared was open to being shared per the relationship the USA has with the info provider.
No, what matters is that people IN THE ROOM when Trump allegedly divulged these secrets went on the record to say "It never happened."
Unless there is actual proof to the contrary, this should be a dead issue. The fact you still defend the anonymous sources over known officials contradicting the accusations is all we need to know.
-
again what country was the originator?
If you don't know then you don't know what treaties we have with that country. In that treaty and/or policy there are guidelines.
Even if classified information was shared it is not public - because it is still CLASSIFIED!
It appears that Israel was the originator. Israel has already expressed their displeasure with Trump sharing the information
-
that angle was sick and twisted and has absolutely nothing to do with sharing information between countries
I don't know how you came to that analogy of being aroused by kids.
Fucking sicko :grrr:
Read inspectors reply. The angle is irrelevant, I am just applying his logic to an extreme situation to illustrate that his logic is foolish.
-
Many "whistle blowers" are breaking a law when it comes to speaking up about a government action. I don't agree with your line of reasoning that the person releasing the information is of poor moral character just because they broke the law. I also do not agree that the individual is more guilty than Trump. Trump's alleged violation is more serious than the violation of someone saying Trump did the violation.
Here is one article that covers protocol violations as well as diplomatic problems covered by Trump's sharing of classified information. It doesn't mention a specific disclosure agreement but it sure hasn't made Israel very happy.
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-brennan-trump-russia-classified-info-2017-5
Again, I am not saying Trump committed a crime but I am saying that Trump screwed up here
Then you are a fool.
There are channels for reporting unauthorized disclosure of classified. If that happened, and their first act was to inform the Washington Post, Then it's obviously a political move.
They could have easily accomplished the right thing by reporting the "spillage" and letting the right people clean it up. Instead, they tried to hurt Trump.
Saying they are a "whistle blower" and afraid to come forward is bullshit. They had official procedures to follow which would have avoided the whole thing.
Your bias is showing.
-
It appears that Israel was the originator. Israel has already expressed their displeasure with Trump sharing the information
Where did you read that? Who was talking to Israel to get that tidbit?
-
No, what matters is that people IN THE ROOM when Trump allegedly divulged these secrets went on the record to say "It never happened."
Unless there is actual proof to the contrary, this should be a dead issue. The fact you still defend the anonymous sources over known officials contradicting the accusations is all we need to know.
I am not defending an anonymous source, I am looking at the whole picture objectively. I recognize that anonymity brings in a question of reliability but I also recognize that sometimes people tell the truth anonymously for a good reason. You are intent on trying to discredit the allegation rather than to evaluate whether it is true. Try to be a little more objective and consider all the possibilities here. Yes, a guy in the room said it never happened, but did you ever ask yourself, what if that man was lying?
-
Where did you read that? Who was talking to Israel to get that tidbit?
It is in the article i posted
-
I am not defending an anonymous source, I am looking at the whole picture objectively. I recognize that anonymity brings in a question of reliability but I also recognize that sometimes people tell the truth anonymously for a good reason. You are intent on trying to discredit the allegation rather than to evaluate whether it is true. Try to be a little more objective and consider all the possibilities here. Yes, a guy in the room said it never happened, but did you ever ask yourself, what if that man was lying?
No one in the public can "evaluate whether it is true." So you're just arguing for the sake of argument.
The simplest answer is it never happened, and someone is feeding lies to the press anonymously to hurt Trump.
The accusation itself doesn't hold water because the nature of the disclosure isn't a crime.
Next you'll be saying he cut the tags off his government-furnished mattress, making him a criminal as he's not the owner!
-
It is in the article i posted
Show me where it said Israel complained.
-
Then you are a fool.
There are channels for reporting unauthorized disclosure of classified. If that happened, and their first act was to inform the Washington Post, Then it's obviously a political move.
They could have easily accomplished the right thing by reporting the "spillage" and letting the right people clean it up. Instead, they tried to hurt Trump.
Saying they are a "whistle blower" and afraid to come forward is bullshit. They had official procedures to follow which would have avoided the whole thing.
Your bias is showing.
You really expect a news organization to report a leak of information about a president doing something wrong? Investigative journalists don't get a good reputation by reporting to the authorities every individual that tells them something in an improper way. No one would trust them anymore.
Yes, there are official procedures but how often do you think that has worked out? Snowden went to the media because of multiple instances where the proper channels didn't work.
Irregardless, make the argument all you want that the leaker broke the law, ok fine. Trump still screwed up. You are just deflecting by pointing out that the leaker broke the law.
-
Show me where it said Israel complained.
Near the bottom,
"Israel's ambassador said in a public statement that Israel still has confidence in its intelligence partnership with the US, but Israeli officials said privately that Trump's disclosures to the Russians were "our worst fears confirmed.""
-
No one in the public can "evaluate whether it is true." So you're just arguing for the sake of argument.
The simplest answer is it never happened, and someone is feeding lies to the press anonymously to hurt Trump.
The accusation itself doesn't hold water because the nature of the disclosure isn't a crime.
Next you'll be saying he cut the tags off his government-furnished mattress, making him a criminal as he's not the owner!
The fact that it is not a crime does not make it a non issue.
And that is not the simplest answer, it is just one possible answer. And saying we can never know because it is classified just covers up rather than trying to get to the bottom of it.
-
Near the bottom,
"Israel's ambassador said in a public statement that Israel still has confidence in its intelligence partnership with the US, but Israeli officials said privately that Trump's disclosures to the Russians were "our worst fears confirmed.""
This gets better and better ....
Two Israeli intelligence officials confirmed to BuzzFeed News Tuesday that Israel had shared specific intelligence with the US regarding ISIS plots to smuggle explosive laptops onto planes, and that it appeared that that intelligence had been shared with Russia without prior coordination.
Really? Israel, who has real hostile enemies, lets their "Intelligence Officials" talk to Buzzfeed about possible US failure to protect their information?
Damn! Buzzfeed must have sources in all the national intelligence circles. LOL!!!
Based on the circumstantial evidence, it's also possible the Russians obtained that information independent of the US.
-
"our worst fears confirmed."
you said "complained"...
-
Buzzfeed has no problem telling lies to make Trump look bad ....
https://youtu.be/cFSBSSGGlvs