It doesn't show that at all, though. You might as well accuse me of having business ties to Russia because I bought a coffee this morning and it turns out that Putin owns shares of Starbucks.
Lol, OK, the context between that and the President is so close, you almost have me convinced.
Trump on TV right now: "No politician in history has been treated more unfairly than me" lol
It's so unfair that they've reported on verified facts. Like how he was born in Africa because he doesn't look American, or how his Dad shot JFK, or how his wife is a transgender man, or how his foundation has committed untold horrors, it how he illegally wiretapped opposition candidates or, wait...
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
This is not an excusal here. You're assuming precident with vague accusations
I assuming reality and geopolitics. Ultimately even good guys have to work with bad guys to get things done, and the US has to work with Russia with ISIS, Iran nuclear, maybe North Korea, etc. And that if the US discovers some intelligence that may threaten Russian civilian lives and property, that they pass it on to the Russians and that the Russians do the same for the US.
Quote:
This does not mean that is either a) wise to divulge something you felt was so strongly secret you didn't divulge too allies, or b) wise to divulge in a boast without having been part of a planned disclosure.
It was specifically reported they haven't shared with allies. It seems to me you are picking and choosing which parts of the multiple reports your believing to for your interpretation
The main WaPo and NYT reports only say:
Quote:
He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.
Quote:
The intelligence disclosed by Mr. Trump in a meeting with Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, and Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, was about an Islamic State plot, according to the officials
Quote:
In fact, the current official said that Mr. Trump shared granular details of the intelligence with the Russians. Among the details the president shared was the city in Syria where the ally picked up information about the plot, though Mr. Trump is not believed to have disclosed that the intelligence came from a Middle Eastern ally or precisely how it was gathered.
But in many regards, the US has already publicly announced many of these details from March 31:
Quote:
U.S. intelligence officials believe ISIS and other terror groups have found a way to hide powerful explosives in electronic devices such as laptops. Intelligence officials also suggest that terrorists have stolen airport screening devices to learn how to conceal these bombs, finding ways to place them on commercial airliners undetected.
Quote:
Sean Spicer said, “Elevated intelligence that we’re aware of indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressive in pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks to include smuggling an explosive device in various consumer objects.”
Even the city:
Quote:
Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend said, “There’s an imperative to get isolation in place around Raqqa because our intelligence feeds tell us that there is significant external operations attacks planning going on emanating centralized in Raqqa.”
Quote:
The media isn't blameless, but your suggesting the President was not only acting with good intentions, but the correct one as well. Strange take to be sure
If McMaster is correct when he said that "the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.", I don't see much blame on Trump, unless Raqqa was a decoy and Trump told the Russians the real city.
On the other hand, virtually all of the new information that we know of so far came from the media leaks. That's why I blame the media.
Last edited by accord1999; 05-17-2017 at 11:57 AM.
This is a fascinating read on why it's likely Comey didn't come forward immediately. An interview with a former DOJ employee in the Obama's administration that worked with Comey. A couple of days after Comey was fired this guy tweeted that Comey would probably have extensive notes on any meetings.
Quote:
MILLER: Yeah. And Comey — he might have had two motives here. One is, when you’re put in this situation, you want to make a record, so if the other side ever tells their story, you can pretty clearly demonstrate with contemporaneous records that you acted appropriately.
I keep wondering — something in the back of my head keeps saying to me — maybe Comey was actually trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case against the president here. You know what I mean? Because Comey could handle this one of two ways: The president makes this request, and the first time Comey might say to him, ‘You know, Mr. President, it’s inappropriate for us to have this conversation, and I would appreciate if you would not make a request like this to me again.’ That’s a way to handle it that says very clearly to the president that this should never be repeated.
But if you’re trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case, you might want the president to keep talking, because everything he does is digging a deeper legal hole for himself.
Q: And that would be, ostensibly, a reason for him not to resign after that first conversation, as some people have suggested he should have.
MILLER: That’s exactly right. You have to remember, the president in that letter firing Comey said, 'You told me three times I wasn’t under investigation.' We have no idea if that’s true or not. But I think it’s also a little bit of a red herring, because the president’s campaign is under investigation. He is obviously the head of his own campaign, and when the Justice Department investigates any organization — whether it be a Mafia organization, a cartel or just a corporation — you’re always investigating and looking to make a case against the highest person possible. So they would always have in their minds, ‘We have no idea where this is going, but at the end of it, it could reach the very top of the campaign.’
So in that particular circumstance, Comey might have wanted him to keep talking to see what he says.
Quote:
MILLER: Yes. Look, there’s one thing I agree with the president on: That#Comey is a showboat. You just look at his actions in the [Hillary] Clinton case, where he made himself the central player when there was no reason for him to be the central player. That aside, his entire history shows that he likes to be at the center of attention. You look at the Ashcroft bedside incident where that unfolded in#one of the most dramatic congressional hearings in history. And it was pretty clear at the time that that hearing had been pretty well planned by Comey and by Preet Bharara — to uncover real wrongdoing by the Bush administration — but also to present Comey in a very favorable light.
Has any media source said the name of the city where intelligence was gathered, though? I've seen a lot of media sources say that they know the name of the city but have been told not to release it. And Washington Post has since said that the country involved is Israel, so apparently that isn't the same level of sensitivity as the city.
Thanks for that - I must have missed the follow-up stories where they say Israel. Any idea if they were first to mention it or if the story came after someone else spilled the beans?
Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend said, “There’s an imperative to get isolation in place around Raqqa because our intelligence feeds tell us that there is significant external operations attacks planning going on emanating centralized in Raqqa.”
Even if Raqqa is where this particular plan is emanating from, it's a huge leap to speculate that this is where the intelligence is being collected in. If the agent is in Raqqa where there is a lot of planning operations going on, it would be difficult for ISIS to pinpoint the agent. But if the agent is in a smaller center where there's a smaller number of ISIS operatives, it could be much easier to pinpoint the agent. What if he's in a city where there's only a couple ISIS officers who would have access to the type of information that had been gathered? Then the number of suspects for the agent could be small enough that it just makes sense for ISIS to either eliminate all possible suspects or simply cut that center out of its intelligence network. The apparent sensitivity of the information makes me think it's more likely the latter, rather than an agent in Raqqa, but it's certainly all speculation at this point.
I still haven't got an adequate explanation as to why this remix exists.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Even if Raqqa is where this particular plan is emanating from, it's a huge leap to speculate that this is where the intelligence is being collected in.
Sure, I'm just using it to show that one possible city has already been outed by the US military. The various reports say that it was very bad for Trump to tell the Russians the name of the city where the intelligence was obtained, but if Trump only said Raqqa than I don't see why this an issue since the US military has already put that name publicly out there. But if Raqqa was a decoy, or not the primary city and Trump proceeded to tell Russians the actual city, than there would be blame on him.
First Congressional Republican to float the possibility of impeachment. Says if interference with Comey memo is true and Trump did try to influence the FBI investigation, it would grounds to impeach him.
Quote:
Republicans are beginning to talk of the possibility that President Trump could face impeachment after reports that he pressed ousted FBI Director James Comey to end an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
While Republicans are choosing their words carefully, the fact that impeachment is even being mentioned is notable in Washington's polarized political environment.
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Wednesday said if the reports about Trump's pressure on Comey are true, it would merit impeachment.
Amash spoke a day after The New York Times on Tuesday reported that Trump tried to pressure Comey to stop investigating Flynn.
According to a memo written by Comey after the February meeting, the president told Comey "I hope you can let this go."
Asked by The Hill if the details in the memo would merit impeachment if they're true, Amash replied: "Yes."
"But everybody gets a fair trial in this country," Amash added as he left a House GOP conference meeting.
Thanks for that - I must have missed the follow-up stories where they say Israel. Any idea if they were first to mention it or if the story came after someone else spilled the beans?
From a cursory glance I think they're treating it as in the story below, where they're saying it's "reportedly" Israel, but they aren't confirming that this is what their own sources are saying. I take "reportedly" in this usage to mean that it's being widely reported in other media sources but they aren't confirming it. Generally if their original source had corroborated it, the correct thing to do would be to acknowledge that.
Although (potentially importantly) it doesn't directly say that Israel was the country whose operations have been jeopardized here; though that leap has widely been made. It says that "At least some of the details that the United States has about the Islamic State plot came from the Israelis". It seems possible, although unlikely, that another ally was the one to gather the bit of information in a particular city that Trump then conveyed to the Russians.
(Crazy extrapolation time: let's suppose for a moment that the information was gathered by, say, a Turkish agent or another less-obvious ally, and this is information that nobody wants out, for both political and intelligence-gathering reasons. So the US and Israel intelligence communities both let enough information leak for everyone to assume that Israel is the nation involved, without confirming it and without saying anything factually wrong. I think this is far less likely than it simply being the Israelis involved, but just a reason for skepticism.)
I quoted from the NY Times where even they say that Trump did not provide details about the source and method of the intelligence. That is something that the media disclosed to ISIS.
Whatever damage you think Trump did, the media did far worse.
Would the media have done anything if the President wasn't careless with classified information in the presence of foreign spies? No, they wouldn't. Because there would be no reason for them to do it. Like most of his wounds, this one is self inflicted.
Do you honestly believe any other elected official in that country would have discussed matters such as this, in particularly careless and vulgar fashion, with the Russian foreign minister?
Would the media have done anything if the President wasn't careless with classified information in the presence of foreign spies? No, they wouldn't. Because there would be no reason for them to do it. Like most of his wounds, this one is self inflicted.
If the leaker and media were so "outraged" about Trump's careless disclosure of classified information (regarding a plot to blow up civilian airliners by ISIS) to Russia, a co-belligerent against ISIS, why would the leaker and media proceed to reveal far more information to the world, than Trump did to the top levels of the Russian foreign service.
Quote:
Do you honestly believe any other elected official in that country would have discussed matters such as this, in particularly careless and vulgar fashion, with the Russian foreign minister?
Well, no other official could because they lack the power that the president has, which is to declassify information as needed. And which powers other presidents have used in the past and hope would continue to use in the context of fighting terrorist plots against civilians.
If the leaker and media were so "outraged" about Trump's careless disclosure of classified information (regarding a plot to blow up civilian airliners by ISIS) to Russia, a co-belligerent against ISIS, why would the leaker and media proceed to reveal far more information to the world, than Trump did to the top levels of the Russian foreign service.
Well, no other official could because they lack the power that the president has, which is to declassify information as needed. And which powers other presidents have used in the past and hope would continue to use in the context of fighting terrorist plots against civilians.
Trump to give a speech on radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. I can't imagine anything that could possibly go wrong with this
Quote:
President Trump will deliver a speech about radical Islam to leaders of Muslim countries when he is in Saudi Arabia for his first foreign trip, the White House said Tuesday.
The speech, said National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, will be "inspiring yet direct" about the need to confront radical ideology.
"The speech is intended to unite the broader Muslim world against common enemies of all civilization and to demonstrate America's commitment to our Muslim partners," said McMaster.
It is unclear if any of the the leaders from the seven Muslim-majority countries Trump initially singled out in his first executive order imposing a travel ban — Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen — will be in attendance at the meeting. The second draft of the order removed Iraq from this list, and both are currently held up in court.
Damn, a few months ago I would never have thought I'd be thanking posts by Duffman (et al.).
But now that some evidence is coming out about illegalities (Comey writing down his conversations etc), Trump is looking worse and worse.
Clearly a guy in over his head. And not a typical "I have so much to learn and this job is hard" type reaction, but more of a "you guys are being unfair to me... whyyyyyyy" reaction. It isn't very becoming.
_____________________________
I'd also like to make a point about the posts a few pages back criticizing him because of rumored mental health issues. People should NOT be criticizing anyone who has a mental health problem, no matter how important of a position they hold or in-denial they themselves may be about it. If one truly is ill, then they need help and not ridicule, even if they are the hated President of the United States.
That said, if the President is experiencing stress, age, or genetic mental health issues, he should do the right thing and seek treatment or step aside, depending on severity. But until he needs to leave office, it is not the public's concern nor is it their right to know (talk about a national security threat!). I think a lot of people would be surprised to know just how many of their coworkers, family, friends, politicians etc have or are suffering from some mental illness.
__________________ REDVAN!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to REDVAN For This Useful Post:
