Spicer on phone to WaPo:
"I was not IN the bushes!
I was AMONG the bushes!"
Editor:
Social media manager:
"I was not IN the bushes!
I was AMONG the bushes!"
Editor:
Social media manager:
How do you defend this? Trump shares classified data with Russians.
- Thread starter davidallen
- Start date
Ok I actually read the article. What an atrocious piece of trash dressed as journalism.
WashPo sucks. They offer anonymity and color everything in the worst tones. Find one random peeps on who once did this thing where he held clearance to comment. Maybe on the process of finding the guy 100 turned the WashPo away with other opinions.
Garbage. The Russians should be working closer with us. I applaud Trump for sharing something vital to the security of civilians with the Russians and for trying to work at Syria and Ukraine with them. You
can't just demand from Russia and not give too.
This is echo chamber circle jerk fodder.
WashPo sucks. They offer anonymity and color everything in the worst tones. Find one random peeps on who once did this thing where he held clearance to comment. Maybe on the process of finding the guy 100 turned the WashPo away with other opinions.
Garbage. The Russians should be working closer with us. I applaud Trump for sharing something vital to the security of civilians with the Russians and for trying to work at Syria and Ukraine with them. You
can't just demand from Russia and not give too.
This is echo chamber circle jerk fodder.
Trump leak: White House in damage control with McMaster statement
By Aaron Blake analysis
1:18 PM Tuesday May 16, 2017
White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster emerged from the White House to declare that the Washington Post's story about President Donald Trump giving highly classified information to Russia "as reported, is false".
But the rest of McMaster's statement made it clear he wasn't actually denying the report.
And his entire brief statement - punctuated by McMaster walking away without taking shouted questions - speaks volumes.
Here's what McMaster said:
"There's 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 [Russian] Foreign Minister [Sergey Lavrov] reviewed a range of common threats to our two counties, 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. Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of State, remember it being the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. And I was in the room. It didn't happen."
McMaster says that "at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed". But the Post's reporting doesn't say that they were.
Instead, the report states clearly only that Trump discussed an Isis (Islamic State) plot and the city where the plot was detected by an intelligence-gathering partner. Officials worried that this information could lead to the discovery of the methods and sources involved, but it didn't say Trump discussed them.
McMaster's statement that "the President did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known" is in the same vein - suggesting the Post has reported something that it hasn't in order to deny something. Military operations aren't even alluded to in the story.
At the end, McMaster refers to his own account and that of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and says, "I was in the room. It didn't happen". But again, he seems to be saying that the thing that didn't happen is something the Post never actually reported.
At no point in his statement to the Post before the story went live or in his appearance in front of reporters afterward does McMaster say, 'President Trump didn't share classified information with Russia' or anything close to it.
This is actually pretty par-for-course for the White House. When the media has reported based on anonymous sources in the intelligence community, the White House will often deny the reports without pointing to any specifics in the reporting.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer back in February denied an Associated Press report that said a Department of Homeland Security memo showed the Administration considered deploying the National Guard to rein in illegal immigration. The White House apparently didn't respond to requests for comment before the story went live. And we later found out that the memo was preliminary, but real.
Spicer issued a similar, "100 percent" denial a few weeks back when the Washington Post reported that the Trump Administration had sought to block fired former acting attorney-general Sally Yates from testifying before Congress by arguing that her conversations with the President were privileged. But documents showed the Administration had indeed asserted such privilege. It was simply rejected by Yates' lawyer:
"David O'Neil, an attorney for Yates, met at the Justice Department to discuss the issue with government officials on Thursday. At the meeting, O'Neil presented a letter in which he said the Justice Department had 'advised' him that Yates's official communications on issues of interest to the House panel are 'client confidences' that cannot be disclosed without written consent. O'Neil challenged that interpretation as 'overbroad' in the letter."
We'll see if the White House actually wants to quibble with any specifics in the Post's reporting. So far, they haven't cited anything specific that's false. And that's pretty telling.
- Washington Post
By Aaron Blake analysis
1:18 PM Tuesday May 16, 2017
White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster emerged from the White House to declare that the Washington Post's story about President Donald Trump giving highly classified information to Russia "as reported, is false".
But the rest of McMaster's statement made it clear he wasn't actually denying the report.
And his entire brief statement - punctuated by McMaster walking away without taking shouted questions - speaks volumes.
Here's what McMaster said:
"There's 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 [Russian] Foreign Minister [Sergey Lavrov] reviewed a range of common threats to our two counties, 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. Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of State, remember it being the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. And I was in the room. It didn't happen."
McMaster says that "at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed". But the Post's reporting doesn't say that they were.
Instead, the report states clearly only that Trump discussed an Isis (Islamic State) plot and the city where the plot was detected by an intelligence-gathering partner. Officials worried that this information could lead to the discovery of the methods and sources involved, but it didn't say Trump discussed them.
McMaster's statement that "the President did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known" is in the same vein - suggesting the Post has reported something that it hasn't in order to deny something. Military operations aren't even alluded to in the story.
At the end, McMaster refers to his own account and that of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and says, "I was in the room. It didn't happen". But again, he seems to be saying that the thing that didn't happen is something the Post never actually reported.
At no point in his statement to the Post before the story went live or in his appearance in front of reporters afterward does McMaster say, 'President Trump didn't share classified information with Russia' or anything close to it.
This is actually pretty par-for-course for the White House. When the media has reported based on anonymous sources in the intelligence community, the White House will often deny the reports without pointing to any specifics in the reporting.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer back in February denied an Associated Press report that said a Department of Homeland Security memo showed the Administration considered deploying the National Guard to rein in illegal immigration. The White House apparently didn't respond to requests for comment before the story went live. And we later found out that the memo was preliminary, but real.
Spicer issued a similar, "100 percent" denial a few weeks back when the Washington Post reported that the Trump Administration had sought to block fired former acting attorney-general Sally Yates from testifying before Congress by arguing that her conversations with the President were privileged. But documents showed the Administration had indeed asserted such privilege. It was simply rejected by Yates' lawyer:
"David O'Neil, an attorney for Yates, met at the Justice Department to discuss the issue with government officials on Thursday. At the meeting, O'Neil presented a letter in which he said the Justice Department had 'advised' him that Yates's official communications on issues of interest to the House panel are 'client confidences' that cannot be disclosed without written consent. O'Neil challenged that interpretation as 'overbroad' in the letter."
We'll see if the White House actually wants to quibble with any specifics in the Post's reporting. So far, they haven't cited anything specific that's false. And that's pretty telling.
- Washington Post
On the one hand we have:
-The Washington Post story citing anonymous sources
-Confirmation that the NSA and other agencies went into damage control mode after the meeting
-Congressional Republican leaders calling for a transcript of the meeting
-McMasters with a denial that doesn't really deny what was reported by the WaPo
-Trump tweets that verify that he shared classified information with the Russians
-The WH denying access to the meeting to U.S. media but allowing Russian photographers into the meeting
On the other hand we have:
-Cries of "fake news" by the right
-Cries of "what about Hillary"
-Cries of "what about Obama"
-Trump supporters citing McMasters' denial/non-denial as proof that it is fake news.
Even if you think the story is BS, you have to admit that it sounds like something within the margin of error for Trump, and that is a scary thing. I wasn't there, and neither were any of you. I understand that the media and Trump are at war with each other, but there is definitely some smoke to this story. Trump's tweets clearly show that.
Another scary thing. Whether the story is accurate or not, someone in that meeting leaked the story to the WaPo.
-The Washington Post story citing anonymous sources
-Confirmation that the NSA and other agencies went into damage control mode after the meeting
-Congressional Republican leaders calling for a transcript of the meeting
-McMasters with a denial that doesn't really deny what was reported by the WaPo
-Trump tweets that verify that he shared classified information with the Russians
-The WH denying access to the meeting to U.S. media but allowing Russian photographers into the meeting
On the other hand we have:
-Cries of "fake news" by the right
-Cries of "what about Hillary"
-Cries of "what about Obama"
-Trump supporters citing McMasters' denial/non-denial as proof that it is fake news.
Even if you think the story is BS, you have to admit that it sounds like something within the margin of error for Trump, and that is a scary thing. I wasn't there, and neither were any of you. I understand that the media and Trump are at war with each other, but there is definitely some smoke to this story. Trump's tweets clearly show that.
Another scary thing. Whether the story is accurate or not, someone in that meeting leaked the story to the WaPo.
I held an extremely high NATO security clearance for many years , and I had to leave the building when "code- word" info was disseminated . This is stuff that causes people to lose their lives. McMasters denied stuff that was not even in the article, which tells me exactly what was discussed. There is also something called EEFIs it stands for Essential Elements of Friendly Information, where by giving someone different parts of unclassified or lower classified bits of information they can take that and deduce highly classified info. Anyone else would and should be in prison
So the only possible sources would be Russians because the only Americans there have denied it.
And we're supposed to believe the Russians now, but they're liars when they deny leaking anything? I'm so confused on when to believe the Russians are telling the truth or lying
And we're supposed to believe the Russians now, but they're liars when they deny leaking anything? I'm so confused on when to believe the Russians are telling the truth or lying
Someone went to the WaPo with the story, and it wasn't someone from Russia. The denials I have seen don't really contradict the content of the story. Trumps tweets give the story some degree of credibility.
Based upon those tweets....
Can we at least admit he shared sensitive information with the Russian authorities for "humanitarian" reasons that he isn't sharing with the American people?
Aren't we due the same "humanitarian" concerns and information?
Trump has every right to release information....even classified information. The US people have very right to question his judgment in doing so.
Are you saying that you have a list of who was present and who wasn't? For all we know, there may be been 5/10/40 other people present, on top of the 3 you listed.
I don't know if this was in response to my post or not.
Assuming it is, Trump himself says he released information pertaining to terrorism and airline security for humanitarian reasons.
All the Russians had to do was turn on the TV where they were talking about the laptops for two weeks.
First of all, I'm always skeptical when its anonymous sources stating what when on. Given the hostility of the media against this president, I don't rule out made up stories. As for the basis of this story, the fact the meeting went on and discussed terrorism was public record. So just the fact that the meeting occurred does not verify the claim of WaPo. Finally, Trump as president does have latitude to share data with whomever he wants. If we have classified info that says Moscow airport is going to be bombed, I'd hope we share it even if its 'classified'. Maybe not share the details of how we got it, but I'd hope we'd share the plot beforehand and not just wait for the event to show up on CNN.
My personal expectation is that he did share something classified, but in an appropriate manner expected of good partners in the fight against terror. I expect that WaPo took that knowledge and spun the story like he just gave up every state secret and missile launch code. And David and Sys, like well-trained lab rats, found the cheese from WaPo and immediate came running to show it.
In the end, its irrelevant. Whether he did or didn't share some 'classified' info doesn't impact me on iota. It doesn't impact the markets, the job economy, or anything that connects back to me, short or long-term. Its just fluff to keep those who already don't like him riled up. I imagine we'll keep seeing these types of stories every couple weeks until the mid-terms so that the anti-Trump platform (all the Dems have) is viable.
My personal expectation is that he did share something classified, but in an appropriate manner expected of good partners in the fight against terror. I expect that WaPo took that knowledge and spun the story like he just gave up every state secret and missile launch code. And David and Sys, like well-trained lab rats, found the cheese from WaPo and immediate came running to show it.
In the end, its irrelevant. Whether he did or didn't share some 'classified' info doesn't impact me on iota. It doesn't impact the markets, the job economy, or anything that connects back to me, short or long-term. Its just fluff to keep those who already don't like him riled up. I imagine we'll keep seeing these types of stories every couple weeks until the mid-terms so that the anti-Trump platform (all the Dems have) is viable.
So, you haven't taken the time to read the original article from the Washington Post. Got it.
Neither do you.
I read the article. I'd hope they would do the same to ensure the safety of civilians.
The part of your post I bolded is the crux of the WaPo article.....that enough details re: location of the source of the info, etc. were released as to make it readily assessable as to how we got it.
I too am skeptical of anonymous sources without other corroboration. I don't know whether that happened. I can also question the wisdom of what Trump tweeted and the reasons for doing so in the context of everything else going on right now.
I don't know enough yet to have an opinion on this but it sure is interesting this dropped at the same time the Seth Rich thing heated up. We can all admit that is sure unusual timing.
Of course, based upon any bias one might have they could believe that the Seth Rich thing was dropped at the same time the Russia thing is heating up....but yes, interesting.
If Trump was smart...and he may be...but there certainly seems to be limits...he could play this nation/world like a fiddle. The media is so jacked up that he really could manipulate. Alas, I don't think he is that calculating. But if he was all he has to do is pick the narrative and toss it out and the press and politicians would do the work for him. The press was in such a frenzy last night that I wondered if he was driving this with a goal in mind or if he is just plain careless.
Impeach his ass!!!! Put Pence in there and watch him go evangelical on all the liberal dipshits. Their heads will f***ing explode! Be careful what you wish for.
Yes. That has been made clear. No one has accused Trump of breaking the law. No one. This is about the possibility that Trump revealed information that burned an intelligence source within ISIS. If true, it is within his powers to do this, but that doesn't make it any less of an issue.
You make a good point. That would be a nightmare, IMO. I don't want him impeached. Just want him to do a good job, be smart, and surround himself with good people who can help him effectively lead this country.
Doesnt take inherent bias to see the irony/improbability/what have you in two stories, both intended with similar design yet aimed in opposite directions, dropping simulataneously.
Conversely, from a pure strategic vantagepoint, it's not surprising at all.
You obviously have never dealt with highly classified information, it is not always the info that needs to be protected, it is how the information is obtained that is the most important
I agree.
The bias would be revealed in the phrasing of which one was dropped just as the other was heating up....which to an extent comments on the accuracy and truthfulness of one over the other.
So the WaPo is part of a conspiracy to cover up the reason behind the murder of Seth Rich?
The important point of your comment is the President has the authority to release any information, no matter how highly classified it might be, to anyone he wants. As President, Trump is an incompetent fool, no doubt; but he can tell the Russians anything he wants, and has the authority to do so. As he might put it: So Sad.
Let me spell it out for you.
Trump tells the Russian Ambassador...
"So, we got this awesome intel. from an ally that has an agent in Raqqa Syria. They told us all about the laptop plot and your country needs to know about this also".
Meanwhile, ISIS has only 3 guys, in Raqqa, who knew about the laptop plot. They grab all 3 of them and chop off their heads.
Now, we have lost our source who had infiltrated into a high level within ISIS, and our ally (let's say it is Israel) won't share future information with us, because we were responsible for their top agent being beheaded.
We aren't talking rocket surgery here.
