More on Trump

[Exterminator]

Surely you can't be as stupid and blind as you appear to be here.

Sure they can.  They prove it regularly.  They're also un-American.  Clapper said over the weekend that our American institutions are being eroded from the outside by the Russians and from the inside by the Trump administration and he's right.  It is a coordinated attack and these people don't give a fuck.

Interesting how the same people who claimed that Hillary's alleged mishandling of emails could have resulted in the Russians having access to classified information are defending Trump for handing it to them.

[me]

When are you people going to open your fucking eyes?

No, when are you going to open your eyes?

[Palehorse]

Yes, he did share info with them but it was info that needed shared and from the sounds of it it had to do with trying to make things safer for us and everyone else since it involved terrorism. If he had shared actual "classified" info why would he then tell on himself?

Sharing classified info with a country that practices military operations deemed aggressive by EVERY other country in the world daily, is stupidity defined. And treasonous. Especially without the agreement of congress beforehand.

The Raging Cheeto clearly feels he is above the laws of this nation. He inches closer toward a dictatorship every day. 😡😡😡

He betrayed the confidentiality of an allied nation further shattering diplomacy.

If President Obama had done anything close to this you and your ilk would have been screaming to the heavens for his head! 

Hypocrites!

[me]

Of course it was another anonymous source they got their info from. 

http://wishtv.com/2017/05/15/report-trump-shared-secret-info-about-is-with-russians/

Report: Trump shared secret info about IS with Russians
Associated Press
Published: May 15, 2017, 6:44 pm  Updated: May 15, 2017, 7:01 pm
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) 416Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)416 Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

This handout photo released by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, shows President Donald Trump meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, May 10, 2017. The Washington Post is reporting that Trump revealed highly classified information about Islamic State militants to Russian officials during a meeting at the White House last week. The newspaper cites current and former U.S. officials who say Trump jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on IS in his conversations with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. They say Trump offered details about an IS terror threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.(Russian Foreign Ministry via AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump revealed highly classified information about Islamic State militants to Russian officials during a meeting at the White House last week, The Washington Post reported Monday.

The newspaper cited current and former U.S. officials who said Trump shared details about an Islamic State terror threat with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The threat was related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

The White House denounced the report.

"This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced," said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy, who attended the meeting.

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who also participated in the meeting, downplayed the report as well.

"The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation," McMaster said. "At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly."

The anonymous officials told the Post that the information Trump relayed during the May 10 meeting had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement. They said it was considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government.

The Post said the intelligence partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russian officials. By doing so, Trump jeopardized cooperation from an ally familiar with the inner workings of the Islamic State group.

Afterward, White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency, the newspaper said.

The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment Monday evening.

It's unlikely that Trump has broken any law. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets.

Lawmakers from both parties were quick to weigh in.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters Monday evening that the Trump White House "has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and order."

He said he would have more to say when he knows more about the news report.

"The shame of it is there's a really good national security team in place and there are good, productive things that are under way through them and through others," Corker said. "But the chaos that is being created by the lack of discipline — it's creating an environment that I think makes — it creates a worrisome environment."

The story prompted Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., to tweet: "Protip: Don't give the Russians classified information. #Classified101."

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., tweeted: "If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians."

[Locutus]

You're simply unbelievable.  You're defending the indefensible.

[me]

Everyone who was actually in the room says WaPo story about Trump revealing classified info to Russians is false


And WaPo didn't reach out to any of them, relying exclusively on anonymous secondhand sources, in reporting the story.

Something really extraordinary has happened in the past 15 hours, and the Washington Post is at the center of it. But contrary to what you're being led to believe, the real scandal here is not President Trump supposedly revealing classified information to the Russians. That may or may not have happened, although I tend to doubt it, and I'm all but certain it didn't happen in the way the Post claims.

The real story here is the Post broke new ground in irresponsible reporting with the way it put together this story. To understand this, you need to know some of the basics of what journalists are taught to do. That will give you context for just how badly the Post strayed from these essential standards of the profession.

First, let's deal with the matter of anonymous sources. What you're taught in journalism school is that sources should be allowed to remain anonymous only under extraordinary circumstances, and if a source is going to be anonymous, he or she must be able to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the informaion he or she is presenting is true. In this case, the anomymous sources the Post relied upon were - without exception - not in the room when Trump supposedly said what he said. What that leaves us with is the Post's say-so that these people can be trusted, even though they were not eyewitnesses to the event they claimed to describe, and we're not able to assess whether they have axes to grind. For instance, some of them are identified as former national security officials. Oh? Would that mean they were Obama Administration officials? The Post won't tell us, but in order to assess the truthworthiness of the unnamed source, that would be a crucial piece of information.

But what about people who were actually in the room? When an anonymous source gives you information, standard operating procedure for a professional journalist is to try to confirm it with people who actually have direct knowledge, and will speak for attribution - meaning you can use their names in your story.

The Post didn't even try to do that here. They ran with a story using nothing but anonymous sources who were not present in the meeting. That left every single White House official who was present to come forward independently to correct the Post's reporting. There were three of them - Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell. All three say the Post's story is false:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell have all issued statements saying the report is wrong.

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

Powell said in a statement, "This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced."

McMaster told the Washington Post in a statement, "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation," said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. "At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly."

He also addressed the report in a statement to the press outside the White House:

"There is nothing the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false," McMaster told reporters. "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 continued, "Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh anonymous sources. And I was in the room, it didn't happen."

Now, if you want to disbelieve Tillerson, McMaster and Powell, you're free to do so. Maybe you think they have to lie for the boss and because of that you'll dismiss their account. I can't stop you from believing that. But you need to understand this: It bordered on criminal negligence for the Post not to even ask any of them if what their anonymous sources were telling them was true, and to write a headline as if it was a statement of fact that Trump revealed this information without a single person who was in the room confirming that it was true.

Look how extensively the Post relied on people who weren't in a position to know, just in this one passage of the story:

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump's disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump's decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump's meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

"This is code-word information," said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump "revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies."

Now let's break this down. Once we know that they're relying on both current and former officials, we have no idea whether a given quote comes from a current or former official, so we don't know the bias of the person speaking. We also don't know if they're really being honest or accurate in describing just how sensitive this information is, or whether they're in a position to know the things they're claiming about its effect on sources and methods.

The same is true for the details throughout the piece. We don't know who is claiming that Trump ignores the bullet points he's given, or if it's really true that he doesn't understand the nature of classified information. We don't know if the Senate Intelligence Committee has really been briefed (there are conflicting reports on that), and we don't know if it's really a big deal that the NSA and the CIA were contacted after the fact. The Post wants us to think that's extraordinary, and anti-Trump partisans are surely ready to believe it was. But since we're not told what was said in those calls or how the participants viewed the nature of the calls, we really don't know if the way this is being portrayed is the way it actually is.

GDP growth for Obama's final year? A measly 1.6 percent

I don't want to totally dismiss the possibility that Trump made a serious mistake here. But it's impossible to trust that it happened as described by people who were not in the room, not in a position to know and not authorized to talk about it (and in some cases don't even work for the government anymore), when everyone who was in the room says it didn't happen the way the Post claims it did.

And since the Post won't tell us the biases of its own anonymous sources, we can't use that filter to judge the veracity of what they're trying to sell us. We're just supposed to believe that a newspaper that's been looking for any way to damage Donald Trump for more than a year is now totally trustworthy in choosing its sources and fairly representing what they want to sell us.

I do not think so.

https://www.hermancain.com/everyone-who-was-actually-in-the-room-says

[Henry Hawk]

Really? 

Trump himself said it was true just this morning. 

How long are you going to keep blinders on Hank?

How long can you keep defending this complete incompetence that you and others like you have imposed upon the country?

Surely you can't be as stupid and blind as you appear to be here.

All Trump has claimed that he shared "facts" about terrorism....and he has every right to do that, he IS the POTUS.  What should really bother every one, is WHO is leaking this information to Wash Post?

When are you guys going realize he isn't incompetent like the media has lead you to believe?

You guys didn't give a "flip" about Obama sharing crap with Russia..."After my election I have more flexibility" or Hillary's Uranium deal to Russia...it was crickets.

[libby]

There's one word that describes what Trump, POTUS of the United States, doesn't seem to understand or have a clue about:

COVERT:

Adjective: Not openly acknowledged or displayed: "Covert operations against the dictatorship ...."

Synonym: secret, furtive, clandestine, surreptitious.  -- Merriam-Webster

To put it simply, if you or anyone else, with or without the need to know, knows about such information and passes it on to someone else without implicit (absolute, unquestioning) need to know, it ain't covert no more!    Big Trouble.

Trump obviously does not have the background, education, and job experience to understand that. He has now, has had people working for him who could guide and keep him out of trouble, but his ego has gotten in the way. 

[me]

There's one word that describes what Trump, POTUS of the United States, doesn't seem to understand or have a clue about:

COVERT:

Adjective: Not openly acknowledged or displayed: "Covert operations against the dictatorship ...."

Synonym: secret, furtive, clandestine, surreptitious.  -- Merriam-Webster

To put it simply, if you or anyone else, with or without the need to know, knows about such information and passes it on to someone else without implicit (absolute, unquestioning) need to know, it ain't covert no more!    Big Trouble.

Trump obviously does not have the background, education, and job experience to understand that. He has now, has had people working for him who could guide and keep him out of trouble, but his ego has gotten in the way.

What???? Do you not understand the story was false which means it didn't happen?

Everyone who was actually in the room says WaPo story about Trump revealing classified info to Russians is false


And WaPo didn't reach out to any of them, relying exclusively on anonymous secondhand sources, in reporting the story.

Something really extraordinary has happened in the past 15 hours, and the Washington Post is at the center of it. But contrary to what you're being led to believe, the real scandal here is not President Trump supposedly revealing classified information to the Russians. That may or may not have happened, although I tend to doubt it, and I'm all but certain it didn't happen in the way the Post claims.

The real story here is the Post broke new ground in irresponsible reporting with the way it put together this story. To understand this, you need to know some of the basics of what journalists are taught to do. That will give you context for just how badly the Post strayed from these essential standards of the profession.

First, let's deal with the matter of anonymous sources. What you're taught in journalism school is that sources should be allowed to remain anonymous only under extraordinary circumstances, and if a source is going to be anonymous, he or she must be able to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the informaion he or she is presenting is true. In this case, the anomymous sources the Post relied upon were - without exception - not in the room when Trump supposedly said what he said. What that leaves us with is the Post's say-so that these people can be trusted, even though they were not eyewitnesses to the event they claimed to describe, and we're not able to assess whether they have axes to grind. For instance, some of them are identified as former national security officials. Oh? Would that mean they were Obama Administration officials? The Post won't tell us, but in order to assess the truthworthiness of the unnamed source, that would be a crucial piece of information.

But what about people who were actually in the room? When an anonymous source gives you information, standard operating procedure for a professional journalist is to try to confirm it with people who actually have direct knowledge, and will speak for attribution - meaning you can use their names in your story.

The Post didn't even try to do that here. They ran with a story using nothing but anonymous sources who were not present in the meeting. That left every single White House official who was present to come forward independently to correct the Post's reporting. There were three of them - Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell. All three say the Post's story is false:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell have all issued statements saying the report is wrong.

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

Powell said in a statement, "This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced."

McMaster told the Washington Post in a statement, "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation," said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. "At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly."

He also addressed the report in a statement to the press outside the White House:

"There is nothing the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false," McMaster told reporters. "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 continued, "Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh anonymous sources. And I was in the room, it didn't happen."

Now, if you want to disbelieve Tillerson, McMaster and Powell, you're free to do so. Maybe you think they have to lie for the boss and because of that you'll dismiss their account. I can't stop you from believing that. But you need to understand this: It bordered on criminal negligence for the Post not to even ask any of them if what their anonymous sources were telling them was true, and to write a headline as if it was a statement of fact that Trump revealed this information without a single person who was in the room confirming that it was true.

Look how extensively the Post relied on people who weren't in a position to know, just in this one passage of the story:

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump's disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump's decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump's meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

"This is code-word information," said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump "revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies."

Now let's break this down. Once we know that they're relying on both current and former officials, we have no idea whether a given quote comes from a current or former official, so we don't know the bias of the person speaking. We also don't know if they're really being honest or accurate in describing just how sensitive this information is, or whether they're in a position to know the things they're claiming about its effect on sources and methods.

The same is true for the details throughout the piece. We don't know who is claiming that Trump ignores the bullet points he's given, or if it's really true that he doesn't understand the nature of classified information. We don't know if the Senate Intelligence Committee has really been briefed (there are conflicting reports on that), and we don't know if it's really a big deal that the NSA and the CIA were contacted after the fact. The Post wants us to think that's extraordinary, and anti-Trump partisans are surely ready to believe it was. But since we're not told what was said in those calls or how the participants viewed the nature of the calls, we really don't know if the way this is being portrayed is the way it actually is.

GDP growth for Obama's final year? A measly 1.6 percent

I don't want to totally dismiss the possibility that Trump made a serious mistake here. But it's impossible to trust that it happened as described by people who were not in the room, not in a position to know and not authorized to talk about it (and in some cases don't even work for the government anymore), when everyone who was in the room says it didn't happen the way the Post claims it did.

And since the Post won't tell us the biases of its own anonymous sources, we can't use that filter to judge the veracity of what they're trying to sell us. We're just supposed to believe that a newspaper that's been looking for any way to damage Donald Trump for more than a year is now totally trustworthy in choosing its sources and fairly representing what they want to sell us.

I do not think so.

https://www.hermancain.com/everyone-who-was-actually-in-the-room-says

Of course it was another anonymous source they got their info from. 

http://wishtv.com/2017/05/15/report-trump-shared-secret-info-about-is-with-russians/

Report: Trump shared secret info about IS with Russians
Associated Press
Published: May 15, 2017, 6:44 pm  Updated: May 15, 2017, 7:01 pm
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) 416Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)416 Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

This handout photo released by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, shows President Donald Trump meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, May 10, 2017. The Washington Post is reporting that Trump revealed highly classified information about Islamic State militants to Russian officials during a meeting at the White House last week. The newspaper cites current and former U.S. officials who say Trump jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on IS in his conversations with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. They say Trump offered details about an IS terror threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.(Russian Foreign Ministry via AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump revealed highly classified information about Islamic State militants to Russian officials during a meeting at the White House last week, The Washington Post reported Monday.

The newspaper cited current and former U.S. officials who said Trump shared details about an Islamic State terror threat with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The threat was related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

The White House denounced the report.

"This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced," said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy, who attended the meeting.

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who also participated in the meeting, downplayed the report as well.

"The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation," McMaster said. "At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly."

The anonymous officials told the Post that the information Trump relayed during the May 10 meeting had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement. They said it was considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government.

The Post said the intelligence partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russian officials. By doing so, Trump jeopardized cooperation from an ally familiar with the inner workings of the Islamic State group.

Afterward, White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency, the newspaper said.

The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment Monday evening.

It's unlikely that Trump has broken any law. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets.

Lawmakers from both parties were quick to weigh in.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters Monday evening that the Trump White House "has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and order."

He said he would have more to say when he knows more about the news report.

"The shame of it is there's a really good national security team in place and there are good, productive things that are under way through them and through others," Corker said. "But the chaos that is being created by the lack of discipline — it's creating an environment that I think makes — it creates a worrisome environment."

The story prompted Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., to tweet: "Protip: Don't give the Russians classified information. #Classified101."

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., tweeted: "If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians."

[Exterminator]

You're simply unbelievable.  You're defending the indefensible.

She's as bat shit crazy as Trump is.

[Exterminator]

When are you guys going realize he isn't incompetent like the media has lead you to believe?

Let's see...should I believe the former Director of National Intelligence or some uneducated clown from Andertucky...such a difficult decision!   

...or Hillary's Uranium deal to Russia...it was crickets.

Because it wasn't Hillary's deal at all, liar.

[Exterminator]

What???? Do you not understand the story was false which means it didn't happen?

Is there some part of Trump admitting on Twitter this morning that it did happen difficult for you to wrap your little pea brain around?

[me]

Is there some part of Trump admitting on Twitter this morning that it did happen difficult for you to wrap your little pea brain around?

What do you not understand about the info wasn't something classified but info about terrorist activities.

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

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....
7:03 AM - 16 May 2017

    13,690 13,690 Retweets
    46,007

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

...to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
7:13 AM - 16 May 2017

    12,388 12,388 Retweets
    45,866

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-classified-terrorism-russia-20170516-story.html

[Exterminator]

What do you not understand about the info wasn't something classified but info about terrorist activities.

You're like a little kid who sticks her fingers in her ears and yells, "la la la la la la la."

[Henry Hawk]

Because it wasn't Hillary's deal at all, liar.

Whatever....Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Moscow bank with ties to the Kremlin....(why didn't you guys scream about this?)...No technically, it wasn't Hillary's deal..........but Uranium One, which "became" in control of Russia, through various "dealings" by our former Sec of State....and amazingly, donations to the Clinton Foundation, BY a Russian investment bank, that has connections directly out of the Kremlin and Uranium One stock...(Funny how MSNBC didn't bother reporting about this!)
Could you imagine the shit hitting the fan if Trump had made such a speech with this connection?

Just MORE hypocrisy by the left.......maybe if you didn't listen to the "fake news" all the time you would understand little things like this.