Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:

2) I heard an "unnamed source" say that Obama was a lizardman. He saw it with his own eyes, apparently. Shall we start dissecting him to check?

Please be a little more intellectually honest. "Unnamed source" in an article does not exist without a fair degree of context - in particularly the quality standards and reputation of the reporter and journal.

Zontar:

If Washington Post is considered reasonable and reputable, then that says more about the sorry state of the media then it does those who choose to not believe known, consistent liars.

It's certainly not the most august media institution out there, but it's well up on the Toronto Sun, which you've seen fit to cite.

And I'm waiting to hear your proof that the WaPo has been prevented from "operating" (whatever that means, precisely) in Canada due to anti-propaganda laws.

And of all possible sources, it was apparently Israeli intelligence.

Since this thread has already descended into the 'but Clinton' before I got here, can you imagine what Fox News would be like right now if a President Clinton (or even Obama) had a no-press meeting with the Russians at the White House and passed on classified information from Israel? Especially given that Russia's allies are Syria and Iran?

Agema:
No. Critical thinking is subjecting things to rigorous forms of reasoned analysis. It's not doubting things for the principle of doubting things.

Nope. If you aren't subjecting everything to the same base layer of cynicism, you are effectively asking for more inherent belief without regard for evidence in certain things. At which point you become a religion.

altnameJag:

Catnip1024:

Epyc Wynn:
So where were you when you realized the United States president is a traitor and spy for Russia?

Also worth pointing out that the President has the authority to declassify information, according to the BBC article on the story. There is nothing illegal or treacherous about what he has done, it's just fucking stupid.

Not illegal, but potentially still treacherous. Though difficult to prove, and a GOP legislature is absolutely not going to move on it.

Now if, say, Obama had done something even remotely similar, they'd be calling for his head on pike.

A valid point. And the side currently howling for blood would be pointing out that it is within the Presidents remit to downclassify information, and that Obama was doing it for humanitarian reasons. And probably accusing him of being a spy, because why not.

Tribal politics at it's most basic.

i do find it funny and sad that trump wont read intelligence briefings as a few pages are too much for him so they have to reduce them to single page bullet points.. which he doesnt seem to pay attention to anyway

Adam Jensen:
It might be illegal if the information didn't come from a US intelligence agency and the source didn't give permission to disclose it to other parties.

Mmm...at that scale, I don't think questions of legality matter. I mean, it's obviously against Israeli law to disseminate Israeli secret intelligence, but is the president of the US subject to Israeli law? I don't think he is.

Adam Jensen:
But at the very least we should all be able to agree that this is even dumber than what Hillary did with her stupid e-mail server.

Bahahahahahaha yes.

Catnip1024:

altnameJag:

Catnip1024:
Also worth pointing out that the President has the authority to declassify information, according to the BBC article on the story. There is nothing illegal or treacherous about what he has done, it's just fucking stupid.

Not illegal, but potentially still treacherous. Though difficult to prove, and a GOP legislature is absolutely not going to move on it.

Now if, say, Obama had done something even remotely similar, they'd be calling for his head on pike.

A valid point. And the side currently howling for blood would be pointing out that it is within the Presidents remit to downclassify information, and that Obama was doing it for humanitarian reasons. And probably accusing him of being a spy, because why not.

Tribal politics at it's most basic.

If Obama did what Trump did, yes. But Obama didnt, Trump did. Thats a pretty big key difference. Infact, alot of terrible things Trump has done, that Obama has not done. We can say "If Obama did it, then blah blah blah" all we want, but he didnt. And Obama isnt President anymore, and Hillary wasnt President ever. Trump IS President, and doing everything he can to prove the Left right, and the Right as every negative the Left claims the Right is.

You can roll your eyes and go "yeah but" OR you can admit Trump is terrible and needs to be stopped and that maybe, MAYBE your side is wrong, cause it is.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnd the GOP/Republicans won't do SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

They haven't got a spine, just a bunch of weak all sack.

bastardofmelbourne:
Mmm...at that scale, I don't think questions of legality matter. I mean, it's obviously against Israeli law to disseminate Israeli secret intelligence, but is the president of the US subject to Israeli law? I don't think he is.

Well no. But if he broke the Oath of office it means that he did something illegal, something unconstitutional.

bastardofmelbourne:
-Snorp-

On the Trump side, my brain homed in on "make people obama", then "make russian people support obama". Then my brain segway'd to


Thank you for that brain fart, I've been needing a laugh.

Catnip1024:

Epyc Wynn:
So where were you when you realized the United States president is a traitor and spy for Russia?

Also worth pointing out that the President has the authority to declassify information, according to the BBC article on the story. There is nothing illegal or treacherous about what he has done, it's just fucking stupid.

"There is nothing illegal or treacherous."

Well you're half right. Legal treachery is not illegal.

Being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian is annoying in these online discussions. I see your point half way there insofar as this is legal, but he has crossed the ethical line and clearly betrayed the country. I frankly do not give a fuck about what the law says on this matter as he has put at risk this entire country's access to intelligence and insulted all of our allies.

And stupid? I will chalk this up to willful, intelligent evil and not buy into his act of being stupid. I acted stupid as a child in an effort to play off doing something wrong. Even the fools of the world can have an intelligent vile idea. He has willfully brought this upon us and it is an insult to the mentally handicapped to chalk up his unethical actions as merely being stupid.

Of course no insult on you. You are doing what other people are also presently doing in the form of excusing his atrocities as being something one can turn a blind eye to because they're only "legal" and "stupid". In reality these are willful betrayals of the United States citizens and our allied countries. Nixon would have had a political hard-on the size of King Kong if he knew he could get away with this much treachery.

Sonmi:

Zontar:

Agema:

If Trump drops a nuke on Quebec for shits and giggles, you'll still be crypto-defending him by saying at least Clinton didn't win.

If it was downtown I wouldn't be deflecting things, I'd be happy he cured a tumour and upset he didn't go for Toronto.

Hey, what the hell man?!

I've never hidden how I feel about you guys on the Island. The South Shore shall rise again!

Exley97:
The Seth Rich "story" is complete and utter bullshit.

Well it has more evidence for it then the claims that Russia did it, even if that is in the form of Wikileaks stating it was a member of the DNC who did it (which means either a member of the DNC did it or Wikileaks lied for the first time) and he had the circumstantial evidence of dying around someone who has a habit of those who are close to them dying for no apparent reason.

Sure that's pretty much nothing to go on, but hey, it's still more then what those claiming "Russia done it" have.

I have a question, given how Obama gave intelligence to Russia that was classified information due to the fact it was to help in Syria in the fight against ISIS, what exactly is this information Trump supposedly gave them anyway? Or is this the bod standard affairs of international politics and the left is just trying to turn it into a Watergate because it's that time of the month again?

Zontar:
I have a question, given how Obama gave intelligence to Russia that was classified information due to the fact it was to help in Syria in the fight against ISIS, what exactly is this information Trump supposedly gave them anyway? Or is this the bod standard affairs of international politics and the left is just trying to turn it into a Watergate because it's that time of the month again?

I'm gonna give you a moment to realize what fresh new faux pas you've opened up.

*Pauses*

Okay, moment's over. Now, try to realize that there's a difference between what we decide to tell people that will be beneficial to some mutual thing, and the leaking of information that was NOT set aside for that sort of thing, thus giving away something that other people were not suppose to have. We know Trump. He's an idiot. He'll open his big mouth on a dare.

Saelune:
If Obama did what Trump did, yes. But Obama didnt, Trump did. Thats a pretty big key difference. Infact, alot of terrible things Trump has done, that Obama has not done. We can say "If Obama did it, then blah blah blah" all we want, but he didnt. And Obama isnt President anymore, and Hillary wasnt President ever. Trump IS President, and doing everything he can to prove the Left right, and the Right as every negative the Left claims the Right is.

You can roll your eyes and go "yeah but" OR you can admit Trump is terrible and needs to be stopped and that maybe, MAYBE your side is wrong, cause it is.

I wasn't the one who brought Obama into this, you will note.

Also, I don't have a side, I'm just pointing out facts - what he did was technically not illegal, it was just inadvisable. The original story was weak because it had no verified source, which made it open to political machinations and bullshit.

FalloutJack:

Zontar:
I have a question, given how Obama gave intelligence to Russia that was classified information due to the fact it was to help in Syria in the fight against ISIS, what exactly is this information Trump supposedly gave them anyway? Or is this the bod standard affairs of international politics and the left is just trying to turn it into a Watergate because it's that time of the month again?

I'm gonna give you a moment to realize what fresh new faux pas you've opened up.

*Pauses*

Okay, moment's over. Now, try to realize that there's a difference between what we decide to tell people that will be beneficial to some mutual thing, and the leaking of information that was NOT set aside for that sort of thing, thus giving away something that other people were not suppose to have. We know Trump. He's an idiot. He'll open his big mouth on a dare.

So no one's going to actually say what this information even was then?

Zontar:
So no one's going to actually say what this information even was then?

The information concerned a suspected plot by ISIS to use laptop explosives to down passenger airlines. The information came from Israel, and the way Trump disclosed it - including naming the city the source was located in - gave the Russians enough material to pretty easily identify the source in question.

The real danger here is less what the impact of this particular bit of intelligence will have and more what impact it may have on future intelligence-sharing agreements. Israel, for example, is not friends with Iran. Russia is friends with Iran. Israel may suspect that if they give information to the US, it will find its way to Russia through Trump, and to Iran through Russia. They may then decide not to give such information to the US, which will be to the detriment of US national security, which relies very heavily on intelligence-sharing amongst allies.

Even if we're talking this one piece of information; Trump gave Russia (and from Russia, potentially Iran) enough circumstantial information to identify a Mossad source inside Syria. Iran does not like the Mossad very much. That source is probably not going to have a fun week.

Zontar:
Or is this the bod standard affairs of international politics and the left is just trying to turn it into a Watergate because it's that time of the month again?

We don't have to try to turn it into Watergate when Trump is doing that for us. It just came out that Trump actually asked Comey, to his face, to drop the investigation into Mike Flynn. That's, uh, that's basically Watergate. Like, that's actually what Watergate was.

This is coming from Comey's own memorandums!

Zontar:
So no one's going to actually say what this information even was then?

Of course not. Do you have any idea how dangerous that would be?

Anyway, immediately after Trump did this the WH officials alerted the CIA and the NSA to tell them what Trump had done. Probably so they could contact Israel (the intel originated from Israel and they are PISSED).

Zontar:

Exley97:
The Seth Rich "story" is complete and utter bullshit.

Well it has more evidence for it then the claims that Russia did it, even if that is in the form of Wikileaks stating it was a member of the DNC who did it (which means either a member of the DNC did it or Wikileaks lied for the first time) and he had the circumstantial evidence of dying around someone who has a habit of those who are close to them dying for no apparent reason.

Sure that's pretty much nothing to go on, but hey, it's still more then what those claiming "Russia done it" have.

No, actually. It doesn't have more evidence. From CNN:

"But Tuesday afternoon, Wheeler told CNN he had no evidence to suggest Rich had contacted Wikileaks before his death.
Wheeler instead said he only learned about the possible existence of such evidence through the reporter he spoke to for the FoxNews.com story. He explained that the comments he made to WTTG-TV were intended to simply preview Fox News' Tuesday story. The WTTG-TV news director did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

"I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News," Wheeler told CNN."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/16/media/seth-rich-family-response-claims-of-wikileaks-contact/index.html

The story is still bullshit. It was bullshit from the start. And it is most certainly bullshit now. And I'm pretty sure you know this.

EDIT: Also, Wikileaks NEVER said the DNC leak was from an insider. Not once. All of those reports are coming from Wikileaks "associates" or friends of Assange like Craig Murray, but WL has never officially confirmed those reports and has only said, officially, that they didn't get the DNC data from the Russia government.

Catnip1024:
Nope. If you aren't subjecting everything to the same base layer of cynicism, you are effectively asking for more inherent belief without regard for evidence in certain things. At which point you become a religion.

Cynicism is not, per se, critical thinking. It is a philosophical or mental inclination to distrust, and thus potentially unreasonable bias. If you mean "scientific skepticism", this has reduced applicability outside science itself. Furthermore, it is (in extremely simple terms) a philosophical stance of not believing things until sufficient evidence is in. It does not, however, demand we cannot make reasonable suppositions of what is the case (e.g. hypotheses) based on analysis of available evidence.

One way or another, whatever you are trying to argue, critical thinking is not dismissing evidence without sufficient appreciation and analysis of the evidence itself.

The other issue is possibly that I sense you are moving the goalposts, which is to turn this into an argument about whether the evidence of "unnamed source" (irrespective of other factors) is adequate to uphold a conclusion that Trump definitely did do that. In which case, just 'fess up to this shift now, and we can agree on that proposition.

Zontar:
I have a question, given how Obama gave intelligence to Russia that was classified information due to the fact it was to help in Syria in the fight against ISIS, what exactly is this information Trump supposedly gave them anyway? Or is this the bod standard affairs of international politics and the left is just trying to turn it into a Watergate because it's that time of the month again?

So that's several replies in, but I note you have still not addressed whether WaPo is or is not permitted to operate in Canada due to anti-propaganda laws.

Can you please confirm this? Or otherwise let us know it has no useful basis in fact, and is misinformation that should be scrubbed from our memories?

Can someone please explain to me why Clinton is STILL being brought up when she has zero power and Trump, who is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES AND HAS SO MUCH POWER "FOLKS, SO MUCH", gets defended as if he will reward you for the good work of defending him?

Zontar:

So no one's going to actually say what this information even was then?

The information that Trump gave to the Russians was above Top Secret. It was 'Code Word Level Secret', meaning that even people with Top Secret Security Clearance didn't necessarily have enough security clearance to see/know the unencrypted data.
If people high up in the U.S. government were not allowed to see the information there is now way in hell that it will be legally shared with civilians of any country.

Parasondox:
Can someone please explain to me why Clinton is STILL being brought up when she has zero power and Trump, who is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES AND HAS SO MUCH POWER "FOLKS, SO MUCH", gets defended as if he will reward you for the good work of defending him?

Because Clinton had those 33,000 emails that she deleted. Those were horrible e-mails that the world needed to see. And Benghazi! Clinton is corrupt and would have started World War III much sooner than Trump can. Believe Me!

Parasondox:
Can someone please explain to me why Clinton is STILL being brought up when she has zero power and Trump, who is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES AND HAS SO MUCH POWER "FOLKS, SO MUCH", gets defended as if he will reward you for the good work of defending him?

Well, how else can people argue that Trump was the better candidate? Excepting better as in be obviously worse, that is.

twistedmic:

Zontar:

So no one's going to actually say what this information even was then?

The information that Trump gave to the Russians was above Top Secret. It was 'Code Word Level Secret', meaning that even people with Top Secret Security Clearance didn't necessarily have enough security clearance to see/know the unencrypted data.
If people high up in the U.S. government were not allowed to see the information there is now way in hell that it will be legally shared with civilians of any country.

Unless/until Trump feels like telling everyone.

Catnip1024:

altnameJag:

Catnip1024:
Also worth pointing out that the President has the authority to declassify information, according to the BBC article on the story. There is nothing illegal or treacherous about what he has done, it's just fucking stupid.

Not illegal, but potentially still treacherous. Though difficult to prove, and a GOP legislature is absolutely not going to move on it.

Now if, say, Obama had done something even remotely similar, they'd be calling for his head on pike.

A valid point. And the side currently howling for blood would be pointing out that it is within the Presidents remit to downclassify information, and that Obama was doing it for humanitarian reasons. And probably accusing him of being a spy, because why not.

Tribal politics at it's most basic.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama but honestly, if he pulled something like this I would have at least assumed he knew what he was doing and had some plan and it was a calculated move. With Trump though? He probably didn't even understand the information was supposed to be classified or at the very least what the consequences will be.

Even if Trump made decisions I agreed with my reaction would still be 'God I wish someone actually competent was doing this'

bastardofmelbourne:
The information concerned a suspected plot by ISIS to use laptop explosives to down passenger airlines. The information came from Israel, and the way Trump disclosed it - including naming the city the source was located in - gave the Russians enough material to pretty easily identify the source in question.

So basically despite how the media is painting this the issue isn't the actual act of sharing information, but instead how it was done. Given how that isn't what the actual outrage seems to be focused on, seems like just another day of the media being the media.

Adam Jensen:

Zontar:
So no one's going to actually say what this information even was then?

Of course not. Do you have any idea how dangerous that would be?

Anyway, immediately after Trump did this the WH officials alerted the CIA and the NSA to tell them what Trump had done. Probably so they could contact Israel (the intel originated from Israel and they are PISSED).

Oh, so now suddenly the left cares about Israel instead of hating it on levels that are borderline antisemitic. That's a change of pace at least.

Exley97:
[No, actually. It doesn't have more evidence

As I said, there's circumstantial evidence (Wikileaks stating someone inside the DNC was their source coupled with his murder being suspect in its timing). It's not enough in itself to go on, but given how that's still more then what their is for the claims it was Russia (which is nothing even compared to that) it amazes me that between the two everyone in the left wing media is going with Russia despite the fact if they actually held themselves to halfway decent journalistic standards they'd say "we don't know" and leave it at that.

Of course they don't because they aren't journalists with standards, but then at this point no one can honestly pretend they are.

Agema:

Zontar:
I have a question, given how Obama gave intelligence to Russia that was classified information due to the fact it was to help in Syria in the fight against ISIS, what exactly is this information Trump supposedly gave them anyway? Or is this the bod standard affairs of international politics and the left is just trying to turn it into a Watergate because it's that time of the month again?

So that's several replies in, but I note you have still not addressed whether WaPo is or is not permitted to operate in Canada due to anti-propaganda laws.

Can you please confirm this? Or otherwise let us know it has no useful basis in fact, and is misinformation that should be scrubbed from our memories?

In the 1940s in response to wartime propaganda that Italian sympathisers where spreading out federal government passed a bill against misinformation media (it's why The Sun took so long to get off the ground), problem is with Googles current broken search issues every time I try and find it these days all the key search terms bring up are either our current hate speech laws or foreign issues.

Someone at Alphabet really needs to work on whatever they've done because even for mundane things I've been having problems recently.

twistedmic:

Zontar:

So no one's going to actually say what this information even was then?

The information that Trump gave to the Russians was above Top Secret. It was 'Code Word Level Secret', meaning that even people with Top Secret Security Clearance didn't necessarily have enough security clearance to see/know the unencrypted data.

"Above Top Secret" doesn't exist, Code Word just makes the old policy of "need to know" codified instead of trusting people not to abuse their clearance.

If people high up in the U.S. government were not allowed to see the information there is now way in hell that it will be legally shared with civilians of any country.

As others have pointed out the President is allowed to share any information he wants legally.

Parasondox:
Can someone please explain to me why Clinton is STILL being brought up when she has zero power and Trump, who is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES AND HAS SO MUCH POWER "FOLKS, SO MUCH", gets defended as if he will reward you for the good work of defending him?

The day people stop bringing up how great Clinton was and how much better she would have been (two things that are factually wrong given not only her stance on the TPP, but also the fact the media would have been completely behind her instead of completely against her, as would one and a half political parties be behind her instead of one and a half against) is the day that it'll stop.

Don't expect it any time soon.

Lieju:

Catnip1024:

altnameJag:
Not illegal, but potentially still treacherous. Though difficult to prove, and a GOP legislature is absolutely not going to move on it.

Now if, say, Obama had done something even remotely similar, they'd be calling for his head on pike.

A valid point. And the side currently howling for blood would be pointing out that it is within the Presidents remit to downclassify information, and that Obama was doing it for humanitarian reasons. And probably accusing him of being a spy, because why not.

Tribal politics at it's most basic.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama but honestly, if he pulled something like this I would have at least assumed he knew what he was doing and had some plan and it was a calculated move. With Trump though? He probably didn't even understand the information was supposed to be classified or at the very least what the consequences will be.

Even if Trump made decisions I agreed with my reaction would still be 'God I wish someone actually competent was doing this'

So basically even if Trump does something you want partisan politics has made it so you can't make yourself support his action?

on the upside.. we all know by now there are no aliens at area 51 and elvis is dead.. as trump would of tweeted it by now

Zontar:

Parasondox:
Can someone please explain to me why Clinton is STILL being brought up when she has zero power and Trump, who is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES AND HAS SO MUCH POWER "FOLKS, SO MUCH", gets defended as if he will reward you for the good work of defending him?

The day people stop bringing up how great Clinton was and how much better she would have been (two things that are factually wrong given not only her stance on the TPP, but also the fact the media would have been completely behind her instead of completely against her, as would one and a half political parties be behind her instead of one and a half against) is the day that it'll stop.

Don't expect it any time soon.

Great? Who said she was great. All I hear is that she was flawed but wouldn't make the USA a joke Yeah she would shit on the carpet but not smear it on the wall and blame it on someone else.

Seriously, Zontar. Stop playing this stupid game of one-upmanship and trying to win a stupid made up game in your head and actually listen, acknowledge and understand the facts and information given to you. Stop blowing smoke into the room and actually call out the smell of bullshit.

Zontar:
problem is with Googles current broken search issues every time I try and find it these days all the key search terms bring up are either our current hate speech laws or foreign issues.

Someone at Alphabet really needs to work on whatever they've done because even for mundane things I've been having problems recently.

Oh, come on! That's a weak defense - just use a different search engine.

Zontar:

So basically even if Trump does something you want partisan politics has made it so you can't make yourself support his action?

Even if he makes decisions I agree with his history and lack of experience is going to make me suspect he's just gonna screw things up. Most likely by making decisions based on gut feelings and having nothing concrete to follow with. Just like an unqualified politician doing anything would make me wish someone actually competent was putting those plans and changes in motion no matter what party they belong to.

Also, 'partisan'... Are you assuming I'm a democrat?

Parasondox:

Great? Who said she was great. All I hear is that she was flawed but wouldn't make the USA a joke Yeah she would shit on the carpet but not smear it on the wall and blame it on someone else.

Why not? worked for the previous 4 administrations.

Seriously, Zontar. Stop playing this stupid game of one-upmanship and trying to win a stupid made up game in your head and actually listen, acknowledge and understand the facts and information given to you. Stop blowing smoke into the room and actually call out the smell of bullshit.

Where was this attitude for the past 8 years? Outside of drone warfare it's hard to think of.

Baffle2:
just use a different search engine.

Don't most search engines just emulate Google's algorithm at the moment?

Lieju:

Zontar:

So basically even if Trump does something you want partisan politics has made it so you can't make yourself support his action?

Even if he makes decisions I agree with his history and lack of experience is going to make me suspect he's just gonna screw things up. Most likely by making decisions based on gut feelings and having nothing concrete to follow with. Just like an unqualified politician doing anything would make me wish someone actually competent was putting those plans and changes in motion no matter what party they belong to.

Well given who the three possible winners of the election where, I guess you where shit out of luck since it was between one person who had no political experience and two who had careers that showed a lack of competence.

Also, 'partisan'... Are you assuming I'm a democrat?

Well I doubt you're a republican just based on what the odds are in this place. Though even within the party there's still partisanship between the neo cons like Ryan and McCain and everyone else.

Zontar:

Don't most search engines just emulate Google's algorithm at the moment?

No idea, but then I'm not the one who needs to prove he isn't making stuff up in order to retain credibility (I make stuff up all the time but I try to cite my sources when I do so.)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here