WaPo: Trump revealed highly classified information to Russians

[I Won - Get Over It]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[I Won - Get Over It]

So, the president tweeted he did indeed do this apparently. I believe he just introduced McMaster to the undercarriage of the bus.

Eh. Did what?

He didn't say that there were a 'highly classified information' about 'specific intelligence sources and methods'. There are no contradictions (so far).

[I Won - Get Over It]

wonder how his cultists are gonna spin this lmbo

As I already wrote in the first topic

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=264309.msg5651226#msg5651226

[I Won - Get Over It]

Russia is such a staunch ally with the U.S. against ISIS that it has openly allied with the Assad regime to launch massive bombing campaigns targeting other rebel groups in Syria who were also fighting ISIS and the civilians, hospitals, etc. in cities held by those groups.

Are you talking about guys like this one? "Moderate" rebels.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/anti-soviet-warrior-puts-his-army-on-the-road-to-peace-the-saudi-businessman-who-recruited-mujahedin-1465715.html

[I Won - Get Over It]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Der Speigel is reporting that the intelligence Trump shared with Russia he refused to share with the EU.

Trump is just paying Russia back for their hacking/support of the election

What European county would help Trump to bomb sh**t out of ISIS? (Not Sweden, at least).


Yeah, as I said, Putin's plan was to help Trump and... get information... about ISIS!

[I Won - Get Over It]

Has nothing to do with bombing ISIS....it's classified info about a potential terror threat that affects Europe too.

Here's the article from Der Speigel:

"According to the "Washington Post", Trump supposedly disclosed information about the terrorist "Islamic State" (IS) in the conversation with Lavrov and Kislyak. According to the report, Trump's attempts to deploy laptops in aircraft as weapons were described. It is obviously details Germany and other US allies had been asking Washington for weeks - without success."

So according to you it sounds like 'paying Russia back for their hacking/support of the election' ?

[I Won - Get Over It]

So, the president tweeted he did indeed do this apparently. I believe he just introduced McMaster to the undercarriage of the bus.

Eh. Did what?

He didn't say that there were a 'highly classified information' about 'specific intelligence sources and methods'. There are no contradictions (so far).

CNN

Washington Post

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Former Romney Advisor

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yeah...

Eh.. Yesterday they said that McMaster didn't not deny the story.
Not they are saying Trump denies McMasters's story.


Can you or anybody else specifically say what those contradictions are?

Trump said that he shared 'facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety.'

McMaster:
"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, were intelligence sources or methods discussed and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known,"

So it is not the same?

[I Won - Get Over It]

LOL. I can't wait for Trump to further undermine his staff's dismissals. I see we're now on the “national security needed it” line of argument.

Can you, please, explain to me what is new (other than semantics) in Trump's tweet comparing to McMaster's/Tillerson's explanation?

[I Won - Get Over It]

I am no fan of our Apprentice President, but the details that have been publicly revealed so far are neither worrying nor dangerous to our national security. The optics are bad, but so are the optics of monomania.

But the WaPo article is. Everything can be leaked now, apparently, even if it can undermine USA:s credibility.

[I Won - Get Over It]

the man is literally too stupid for a cover-up.

The same question to you...

Can you, please, explain to me what is new (other than semantics) in Trump's tweet comparing to McMaster's/Tillerson's explanation?

[I Won - Get Over It]

Eh.. Yesterday they say that McMaster didn't not deny the story.
Not they are saying Trump denies McMasters's story.


Can you or anybody else specifically say what those contradictions are?

Trump said that he shared 'facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety.'

McMaster:
"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, were intelligence sources or methods discussed and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known,"

So it is not the same?

Sure.

McMaster specifically said that, "The story that came out tonight was false." Now, as you correctly point out, what McMaster went on to specifically deny, the sharing of "sources and methods," was in fact NOT what the WP story accused Trump of. (The WP story simply accused Trump of sharing classified intelligence of the type of that would tend to compromise the source of the intel. Basically the allegation is that Trump blabbed the type of info that gets sources in the field killed). So yes, by carefully crafting his denial to only deny things not actually charged, McMasters was widely viewed as confirming the actual allegations contained in the story.

But Washington doublespeak aside, McMaster still went out and told the press the story was false. So of course this morning Trump sent out a tweet defending his decision to do exactly what the WP story alleged. So the story is true, and Trump admits it. That means McMaster lied when he said the story was false. Simple.

I still don't understand. Trump "admitted" what was already admitted by McMaster.

How is Trump's 'facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety' not technically the same as McMaster's 'The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation.'

But whatever. I can't explain better then I did.

[I Won - Get Over It]

Russian state media TASS is reporting that Trump leaked more stuff including US military operations:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sigh... Use google translate. The article literally says that it is what is claimed by WaPo. NOT by Russians.

[I Won - Get Over It]

#BREAKING Putin 'ready to provide recording' of Lavrov-Trump exchange
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/864805527137681408


wtf....

Do they troll the whole world?

Brothers in trolling



Curiouser and curiouser...

[I Won - Get Over It]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-latest-kremlin-tight-lipped-on-trump-info-sharing/2017/05/17/bc1dcbce-3aef-11e7-a59b-26e0451a96fd_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

[I Won - Get Over It]

#BREAKING Putin 'ready to provide recording' of Lavrov-Trump exchange
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/864805527137681408


wtf....

Which means Trump allowed the Russians to bring a recording device into the Oval Office.

Isn't always the case? That both parts record the meeting?

[I Won - Get Over It]

More on this.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKCN18D1EA
Vladimir Putin says can prove Trump did not pass Russia secrets

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Putin is really gentle and caring

[I Won - Get Over It]

Probably off-topic, but did not WaPo (indirectly?) put at risk the safety of USA:s citizens?

Only because they wanted to hurt Presidnet Donald J Trump? If they wanted to shed light on the investigation they could send this scoop to FBI (if they didn't already know it), Democrats or even McCain for example.

Do I miss something? Why publish information that may cause this>

NBC confirms that it was Israel, according to three sources.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand how Atlas members can say that this "incident" does not hurt our national security.
If other nations refuse to share any future intelligence information with us (because of the actions of the orange-haired clown), then this can have serious deadly consequences for many American soldiers, operatives and civilians in coming years.
Am I wrong ?

This this this. Forget the I-word - this is not impeachable. It is a grave danger to our natsec, though, in terms of international trust