Trump revealed classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

[The_Doctor]

Hold on.

I read the article; how do we know for a certain fact that he did leak intelligence he wasn't supposed to? All it says that he leaked code word information to the Russians we haven't shared with our allies and it pertains to an anti-ISIS mission. While I'm pretty sure the God-Emperor PROBABLY did this, it could be easily a disgruntled leaker in the intel community (who he ticked off by being insulting towards during the Russian investigation in which they correctly concluded Russia interfered in our elections).

Not saying I don't believe it ... I just want corroboration before taking this story as more of a "take down" leak story.  The details are sparse and is the Washington Post really able to assess that level of intelligence to determine if the source is accurate in characterizing the leaked information? Someone could have told the Post x and y and then concluded Z and the Post ran with it trusting the source. Not that I don't trust the Post; I do ... but I strain credulity to think that someone wasn't in the room with him to tell him to STFU when he was talking like this.

(Regardless, it was a stupid move to let the Russians into the Oval Office with a photographer who probably bugged the place).

[The_Doctor]

Let me go through the article and make some sort of judgment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, current and former officials. I'll explain why I'm concerned with that language.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK so why are former intelligence officials commenting on this given the nature of the information? Wouldn't it be solely current officials? If this is so highly sensitive and closely held, why are former intel officials (presumably Bush and Obama officials) given the ability to know this and comment on it? Wouldn't it just be current Trump officials?

Here, we have this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again - how does he know?

Guys, I don't want to jump into the bushes and condemn Trump on this without more information.

[The_Doctor]

Secondly, while very dubious, how do we know the White House didn't intentionally share the information to fight ISIS? Trump has said on the campaign trail he wants to share information with Russia to fight ISIS. While I think that's very stupid, isn't this necessarily plausible that the National Security Council discussed and signed off?

I'm just saying, I want to see more before we all say "Trump's a moron" (Well he is) for the 1000th time. Maybe I'm just burned by Mensch and all the Russian stuff and trying to dig through all the articles.

[The_Doctor]

Secondly, while very dubious, how do we know the White House didn't intentionally share the information to fight ISIS? Trump has said on the campaign trail he wants to share information with Russia to fight ISIS. While I think that's very stupid, isn't this necessarily plausible that the National Security Council discussed and signed off?

But the problem is, Trump's behavior has been so reckless and idiotic that it actually seems more plausible that he just shared it out of sheer stupidity or maybe even some ridiculous urge to impress. He's a very superficial man, and his behavioral weaknesses are well-known.

I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but maybe that's just me.

I agree which makes it hard to judge if this is a genuine scoop or information by slanted  people he ticked off with his incompetence as a person and President.

Secondly, while very dubious, how do we know the White House didn't intentionally share the information to fight ISIS? Trump has said on the campaign trail he wants to share information with Russia to fight ISIS. While I think that's very stupid, isn't this necessarily plausible that the National Security Council discussed and signed off?

I'm just saying, I want to see more before we all say "Trump's a moron" (Well he is) for the 1000th time. Maybe I'm just burned by Mensch and all the Russian stuff and trying to dig through all the articles.

This is the Washington Post, not Louise Mensch. We're not talking about poorly photo copied fakes here. This story got thoroughly vetted and reviewed, to be sure.

Agreed but do we know anything about the intelligence why Russia wasn't supposed to have it? I don't distrust the Post, but I want to know the angle of the sources.

It's way too easy for Trumpy to deny this or say he exchanged information lawfully after the NSC signed off on it and we don't necessarily have information to rebut it.

Secondly, while very dubious, how do we know the White House didn't intentionally share the information to fight ISIS? Trump has said on the campaign trail he wants to share information with Russia to fight ISIS. While I think that's very stupid, isn't this necessarily plausible that the National Security Council discussed and signed off?

I'm just saying, I want to see more before we all say "Trump's a moron" (Well he is) for the 1000th time. Maybe I'm just burned by Mensch and all the Russian stuff and trying to dig through all the articles.

     It's always good to ask questions. Maybe Trump committed some horrible offense by doing this, but an article and a chorus don't prove that. Playing Devil's Advocate and probing at weak points in the argument is important.

Right. I'd like to be on solid ground when I attack Trump. I believed the Comey story given the background and what I knew. I don't know anything about this background.

[The_Doctor]

Also I am baffled that he would do this in a meeting he knows that is widely monitored. This is with the Russians. Is this man that incompetent truly?

[The_Doctor]

Bad. Stupid. Wrong. Not illegal or impeachable, however.

This is impeachable.

Agreed if true. But Corker being ticked off is a bad sign indicating that yup Trump has screwed up.

[The_Doctor]

Bad. Stupid. Wrong. Not illegal or impeachable, however.

This is impeachable.

From WaPo: "For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law."

That covers "illegal." This behavior is clearly impeachable.

Once again: "As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law."

Again: I'm not defending his actions. I'm just saying they are not worthy of impeachment from what we know now.

If it is true it's a grave breach of national security. Congress can deem anything it wants as impeachable.

[The_Doctor]

Um J-Mac if this is true he just harmed national security. The question is if he actually was this incompetent as a president, not if it was bad that he did it.

[The_Doctor]

Did McMaster basically confirm the story? There are reports saying he didn't deny the details.

[The_Doctor]

Well, one thing we can neutrally establish is that maybe Trump has lost the intelligence community and that his crisis management skills suck. Let's see how his polling looks over the next few days to assess the fallout.

I am now more inclined to believe this story since the McMaster statement referred to sources and so on, and didn't directly denounce the piece. Also apparently the WH asked the Post not to run the piece, but they did, indicating there is some level of truth.

Ultimately, on the heels of the Comey firing, this looks pretty bad optics wise for the White House. The bigger truth is that this may harden the image of Trump being too Russian-friendly. I begin to wonder if his ability to govern is too far gone now and Trump is now effectively being waged war on by the IC and FBI communities.

I have never heard language like what I've heard from the FBI and the intelligence agencies. I am beginning to wonder, as I've said, about Trump's ability to govern with any semblance of legitimacy outside his hard right base. I figured he could ride out the storm and he may still, but this coupled with the Comey firing may harden a narrative that may be impossible to unspool.

The independent prosecutor, I think, is something that will happen now, but we'll see.

[The_Doctor]

Don't forget the Flynn indictment is still yet to come, plus the Manafort and Page cases.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hahaha! So many of Trump's closest advisors love to leak to the press!

Is he being satirical? I think he is.

[The_Doctor]

As has been commented on Twitter, the President's tweets are like a time traveler unable to warn himself. God help us if he tweeted about nuclear clouds, lol.