Pages: 1 ... 132 133 [134] 135 136 ... 331   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 918213 times)

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2660 on: May 15, 2017, 06:35:59 pm »

Trump revealed classified information to Lavrov at White House meeting: Washington Post
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN18B2MX

"U.S. President Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister during their meeting last week, potentially jeopardizing a source of intelligence about Islamic State, The Washington Post reported on Monday, citing current and former U.S. officials.

The newspaper said the information Trump relayed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak had been provided by a U.S. partner through a highly sensitive intelligence-sharing arrangement.

The partner had not given Washington permission to share the material with Moscow, and Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State militant group, the Post said, citing the unnamed officials."


Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2661 on: May 15, 2017, 08:18:34 pm »

Looks like we won't be talking about Comey, or was it health care?  Can't keep up with all the accusations from liberal Washington Post.  McMaster denied that any sources and methods were released and Washington Post story was false


LT. GEN. H.R. McMASTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: "I have a brief statement for the record. There is nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. 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, where intelligent sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of the State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on the record accounts should outweigh anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn't happen."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/15/mcmaster_the_story_that_came_out_tonight_as_reported_is_false.html

Raul_82

  • Guest
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2662 on: May 15, 2017, 09:10:39 pm »

Trump revealed classified information to Lavrov at White House meeting: Washington Post
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN18B2MX

"U.S. President Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister during their meeting last week, potentially jeopardizing a source of intelligence about Islamic State, The Washington Post reported on Monday, citing current and former U.S. officials.

The newspaper said the information Trump relayed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak had been provided by a U.S. partner through a highly sensitive intelligence-sharing arrangement.

The partner had not given Washington permission to share the material with Moscow, and Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State militant group, the Post said, citing the unnamed officials."


Cheers,
Bart

I guess nobody new that he could be this stupid, it's almost an art form: "The Art of The Stupid"
Now back to the cycle: Everyone in awe, supporters calling it fake news.

I would rather have a crooked president than a stupid one, that's just me.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22813
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2663 on: May 15, 2017, 09:46:17 pm »

I would rather have a crooked president than a stupid one, that's just me.
He certainly fits both categories.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2664 on: May 15, 2017, 09:52:01 pm »

At one time, you had to wait until the major papers checked their sources and published anything. But most published stories were true. These days there is no guarantee that even Washington Post or New York Times stories are based on facts.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2665 on: May 16, 2017, 12:00:16 am »

The Washington Post and the NY Times hate Trump and often lie or just distort the news.  We've been coordinating terrorist info with the Russians for years.  They have a big problem with the Muslim Chechnya region where terrorists have blown u[p bombs in Moscow and from where terrorist have gone to the Mideast to support ISIS.  Chechnya is where the family of the two Boston marathon bombing brothers came from.  The Russians warned the FBI about them who checked a little but then dropped the ball and stopped watching them before the bombing.  By the way, that was on Comey's watch.  So now we're telling the Russians about laptop bombs which have been in the news publicly for a couple of weeks.  We started to stop allowing them on flights from certain Mideast countries and may expand the ban.  So the Washington Post takes an important terrorist safeguard between our two countries, sharing certain info,  and turns it into an attack on Trump.     

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2666 on: May 16, 2017, 01:11:27 am »

So now we're telling the Russians about laptop bombs which have been in the news publicly for a couple of weeks.

Oh, is that what Trump told the Russians? How do YOU know...WaPo and NYT went out of their way to give no hint or clue exactly what Trump told them. But Tillerson confirmed Trump told them "something"...

"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. During that exchange the nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods or military operations," Tillerson said in a statement.

So, Trump DID exchange the nature of specific threats but didn't discuss sources, methods or military operations...uh, huh...based on the potentially sensitive nature of the threats intelligence experts presume Russia may be able to reverse engineer where the intelligence came from potentially putting sources, methods or military operations NOT revealed still at serious risk.



But WTF were the Russians even doing in the Oval Office in the first place?

The Russians are not our friends...they tried to impact our elections (and most certainly did) and Trump agrees to allow them into the Oval, including Russian journalists & photographers, get's embarrassed by the Russians tweeting the photos and leaks intelligence to them?

What does Putin have on Trump that Trump is so willing to do really stooopid things on behalf of Russia and to the detriment of the USA?

Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2667 on: May 16, 2017, 01:49:56 am »



Just change the /14 to /17 and he would be right :~(
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2668 on: May 16, 2017, 03:54:13 am »

The Washington Post and the NY Times hate Trump and often lie or just distort the news. 
How would you characterize Fox News and rt.com ?

Actually, I get my news mainly from the Guardian and Spiegel. They both are amongst the firsts to report on any breaking news and their coverage is more global than of the American publications.

Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2669 on: May 16, 2017, 04:11:15 am »

At one time, you had to wait until the major papers checked their sources and published anything. But most published stories were true. These days there is no guarantee that even Washington Post or New York Times stories are based on facts.

Maybe things have become easier. When the official news comes from the White House, it's more likely than not fake news/alternative facts.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2670 on: May 16, 2017, 09:26:49 am »

Giant sleeper cells:

Raul_82

  • Guest
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2671 on: May 16, 2017, 09:30:59 am »

By the way, that was on Comey's watch.     

Did you even bother on checking the dates on this claim? Comey was confirmed on July and sworn on September 2013. The Boston Marathon incident was in April 2013.

Fake news! Sad!
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2672 on: May 16, 2017, 09:33:30 am »

Well, there you have it. Tillerson and McMasters officially denying it happened, Trump tweeting that he did do it.

Tillerson: Trump did not discuss 'sources, methods' in meeting with Russia's Lavrov
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tillerson-idUSKCN18B2PP
Trump did not discuss 'sources, methods' with Russia's Lavrov: McMaster
http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/05/15/trump-did-not-discuss-sources-methods-wi?videoId=371680773&videoChannel=1003

Trump, in tweets, defends his sharing of information with Russians
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tweets-idUSKCN18C19Y

Trump says he has 'absolute right' to share facts with Russians
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tweets-idUSKCN18C19Y

The only thing unclear is how highly classified the shared info was, but Trump doesn't make that distinction.

The reason that sources revealed this to the Washington Post suggests that they were very upset. They wouldn't have risked their positions if it was a harmless exchange.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Raul_82

  • Guest
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2673 on: May 16, 2017, 09:54:25 am »

Well, there you have it. Tillerson and McMasters officially denying it happened, Trump tweeting that he did do it.

Tillerson: Trump did not discuss 'sources, methods' in meeting with Russia's Lavrov
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tillerson-idUSKCN18B2PP
Trump did not discuss 'sources, methods' with Russia's Lavrov: McMaster
http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/05/15/trump-did-not-discuss-sources-methods-wi?videoId=371680773&videoChannel=1003

Trump, in tweets, defends his sharing of information with Russians
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tweets-idUSKCN18C19Y

Trump says he has 'absolute right' to share facts with Russians
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tweets-idUSKCN18C19Y

The only thing unclear is how highly classified the shared info was, but Trump doesn't make that distinction.

The reason that sources revealed this to the Washington Post suggests that they were very upset. They wouldn't have risked their positions if it was a harmless exchange.

Cheers,
Bart

Haha! I've got to say, it's always funny how he trashes all damage control efforts. My guess is that McAster should be on his desk right now with the hands on his head: "Noooo, What did you doooo!!!!" We had this!!!!!! 

Waiting for supporters to shift from fake news to presidential rights, any minute now.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2674 on: May 16, 2017, 10:35:29 am »

... The Russians are not our friends...

You sure you want them as our enemies? ;)

Raul_82

  • Guest
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2675 on: May 16, 2017, 10:58:40 am »

You sure you want them as our enemies? ;)

Babushka stronk, like bear!  ;)
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2676 on: May 16, 2017, 11:07:25 am »

How would you characterize Fox News and rt.com ?

Actually, I get my news mainly from the Guardian and Spiegel. They both are amongst the firsts to report on any breaking news and their coverage is more global than of the American publications.


First off the Washington Post (WAPO) and the NY Times (NYT) are American newspapers unlike RT which is Russian.  WAPO and NYT have had the most political influence throughout the world and in Washington DC.  Many of their articles are re-broadcasted to other media by reuters and other similar outlets throughout the world so they have immense power to influence public opinion throughout the world.  The rest of the world's newspapers just pick up the biased news from WAPO and NYT.  Unfortunately, both are biased liberal and pro-democrat and have been for decades.  Lately, the Post has gone off the rails totally with their Trump hatred and distorted news.  NYT tries to be less "tabloid" but their true colors shows.   A good way to tell who reads these papers is to look at the comments at the bottom of an article.  95% of the comments are anti-Trump.  The ones in WAPO are more vile then the more erudite anti-Trump comments in the NYT..  Both papers write for their liberal readership just like MSNBC broadcasts their liberal content for anti-Trump and liberal believing viewers. 

I don't know about the Guardian or the Spiegel.  But like I said, if they get their info from liberal media in the US, they're just taking the same liberal points of view as the NY Times and Washington Post.

Fox isn't a newspaper but a broadcaster on cable.  There are actually two Fox channels.  One is more conservative oriented and present more conservative panels like MSNBC and CNN present more liberal panels.  But FOX also does straight news that's more fair and balanced.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2677 on: May 16, 2017, 11:19:51 am »

Oh, is that what Trump told the Russians? How do YOU know...WaPo and NYT went out of their way to give no hint or clue exactly what Trump told them. But Tillerson confirmed Trump told them "something"...


  Trump tweeted that he discussed defeating ISIS terrorism and airline security.  One has to assume if he was discussing airline security, the big recent problem with laptop bombs came up.  We've stopped allowing laptops on planes leaving from ten Arab nations and it's likely to be expanded.  We're working with the Russians to defeat terrorism, a common enemy.  The Russian told us about the Boston bombers and we're telling them about the laptop bomb issue.  This is all perfectly legitimate and smart to discuss for both countries.  All the people present at the meeting stated no means and methods were discussed about how we got the info about the laptop bombs.  Of course the anti-Trump Washington Post finds something every day about Trump to gripe about.  Their dedication is to destroy Trump.  Today or tomorrow they'll be more bad news about Trump.  They're always crying "wolf". 

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2678 on: May 16, 2017, 11:44:46 am »

The issue of presidents and classified information is complicated. 

The president is the ultimate authority of classification for all classified information generated by the US. He has what is called Original Classification Authority (OCA).  Sometimes it is called original classifying authority.

The president can designate other US government officials with OCA.  For example, the Secretary of State has OCA for all classified information originating from the Department of State, but not for information originating from, for example, the Department of Defense.

When an OCA determines that a piece of information is to be protected at a classification level (classification), at another classification (reclassification) or that the information is no longer classified (declassification), this decision has to be documented.  Otherwise there is a real risk that different organizations will treat the same information at different levels. 

One could make the argument that the PotUS ain't gonna do no documentation as he has people to do so.  That is probably a viable viewpoint.  I don't think anyone expects the PotUS to actually sit down and fill out the classification/reclassification/declassification paperwork.  However, that means that the PotUS needs to coordinate his classification decision either before disclosure (best practice) or immediately after disclosure. In any case, the PotUS' classification decisions need to be documented.

A wise president would carefully coordinate classification decisions with the major stakeholders, but there is no legal requirement to do so.  The president is the OCA for the United States and not just for the Executive Branch.

There are no federal laws that restrict the president's OCA concerning information whose classification originates from the United State's government.  There are, however, policies that govern the OCA activity. 

6 U.S. Code § 485 is a federal law that establishes policy for information sharing within the US and foreign governments but does not limit the president's OCA. 6 U.S. Code § 485 does not address classified information at all, but uses general terms such as "terrorism and homeland security information".

If, and this has not been demonstrated, Trump disclosed classified information to someone, he has not violated any federal law.  He may have violated policy however.  But Law and policy are two different things.  If Trump did use his OCA in disclosing this information, there needs to be documentation of that classification decision.  Again, that is policy not law.

All this applies to classified information that originates from the US.

One of the issues of the alleged action was that the disclosure involved information that was classified by another country and given to the US under an information sharing agreement.  Some of these agreements are very sensitive.  Rarely are they are governed by US federal law (especially the sensitive relationships). However, there are US policies governing how this information needs to be handled.  There may be foreign laws involved, and most importantly, there are sensitive relationships that are formulated on mutual trust.

If, and this has not been demonstrated, Trump disclosed classified information that originated from a foreign government he has

1.  Not violated any US federal law. 
2.  May have violated US policy.
3.  May have violated the laws of the other country.  Not that this matters much as the president is, for practical purposes, not bound by federal laws of other countries.
4.  Probably violated the trust with regards to not only the country of agreement, but with other countries we have other agreements.  If he violated the trust of country A, why would countries B-Z think he would not violate their trust.

Assuming that Trump did what he is being accused of, and that has not been settled. Trump has

Not broken any federal laws
Broken policy
Certainly adversely affected the level of trust in other nations.

My opinion:  What he did was not illegal, but incredibly shortsighted and potentially harmful to the US' relationships of trust that will take years/decades to repair. 
« Last Edit: May 16, 2017, 12:50:01 pm by Otto Phocus »
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #2679 on: May 16, 2017, 12:45:23 pm »

All the people present at the meeting stated no means and methods were discussed about how we got the info about the laptop bombs.

Hum...General McMasters  while defending Trump at the WH briefing said that Trump had not planned on disclosing the classified info and there had been no plan to tell the Russians, it just came out during the course of the conversation (read: Trump was bragging about his good intel). And Trump didn't disclose the source of the information because, uh, well, Trump hadn't been briefed on where the intel came from...

Wait, what?

Somebody told Trump about the intel but wisely didn't tell him the source of the intel so he couldn't blab it out?

So, that begs the question, is Trump not getting his intel briefings for some reason or is he simply not paying attention?

Yeah, no way this doesn't hurt America...

#MAGA / #MRGA
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 132 133 [134] 135 136 ... 331   Go Up