Politics Trump's loose lips may get spy killed

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Wouldn't the unnamed sources be as complicit by leaking this to the press (who would also endanger the life of this spy), where it would get worldwide attention?

Aren't the real loose lips on the people who leaked this to the press?

 

[Natebishop3]

Wouldn't the unnamed sources be as complicit by leaking this to the press (who would also endanger the life of this spy), where it would get worldwide attention?

Aren't the real loose lips on the people who leaked this to the press?

Well, nobody is complicit, obviously, because it didn't happen.... right?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Well, nobody is complicit, obviously, because it didn't happen.... right?

an article was written.

 

[Natebishop3]

an article was written.

Who is your source? Until the writer says that he wrote the article.... I'm going to say fake news.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

www.google.com

 

[Natebishop3]

www.google.com

You're just trying to trick me into downloading one of those ransomware viruses.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

You're just trying to trick me into downloading one of those ransomware viruses.

the cuck porn websites you visit do that for you

 

[Further]

The Ruskies had press in there and they are friends with Assad Govt. So between the Russians and their press, the info would likely have gotten into the wrong hands, at least likely enough that the Israeli spy inside ISIS would have had to been evacuated either way, ruining the stream of inside information.

 

[Chris Craig]

Our allies aren't going to share important Intel with us anymore because Trump can't keep his fucking mouth shut.

 

[crandc]

It has been reported on NY Times, NBC, CNN that the individual is Israeli. What ISIS would do if they found an Israeli agent in their midst is not pretty to contemplate. Makes me wonder what kind of reception Trump will get if he goes through with planned visit to Israel. OTOH, he would be welcomed in Saudi Arabia, where they agree with him on women and he has hotels.

 

[Denny Crane]

because... reuters.

No legs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKCN18D1EA?il=0

Officials have told Reuters Trump's alleged disclosure of classified information to Russia's foreign minister is unlikely to stop allies who share intelligence with Washington from cooperating.

That view was reinforced on Wednesday when British Prime Minister Theresa May said her government had confidence in its relationship with the United States and would continue to share intelligence with Britain's most important defense and security ally.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Yes Denny, but what about the actual act of giving away secrets that might get an ally's asset killed? This is not defensible.

Here's a fun counterfactual: what would your response have been if this was Obama or Clinton?

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes Denny, but what about the actual act of giving away secrets that might get an ally's asset killed? This is not defensible.

Here's a fun counterfactual: what would your response have been if this was Obama or Clinton?

How do we know that some asset might be killed?

The leak of secret information is in the press, not in the meeting between Trump and the Russians.

As for Obama/Clinton, if Trump sends people out to lie, like "it was a youtube video," then I have equal problem with Trump administration as with Obama/Clinton.

The evidence we know as fact are:
1) Trump in no way compromised sources
2) Israel is claimed to be the source, but says they have full confidence in its relationship with the US and looks forward to deepening that relationship

If anyone is compromising sources, it's leaked information printed in the news media or reported on TV.

If there's real evidence McMaster is lying or deceiving the public, then I have HUGE problems with the administration. Haven't seen it yet.

 

[Nikolokolus]

All smoke and no fire huh? Just some giant MSM conspiracy to derail this administration? Or a cabal of unscrupulous leakers undermining their boss at every turn?

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation. This is a grossly incompetent man who is used to taking ethical shortcuts. This is exactly how he's run his businesses for thirty years, why would that change just because of a change of job title and address?

 

[Denny Crane]

All smoke and no fire huh? Just some giant MSM conspiracy to derail this administration? Or a cabal of unscrupulous leakers undermining their boss at every turn?

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation. This is a grossly incompetent man who is used to taking ethical shortcuts. This is exactly how he's run his businesses for thirty years, why would that change just because of a change of job title and address?

Giant MSM conspiracy. Yep.

They announced it on Jan. 20, and they continue to talk about their objectives.

Specifically, they think if they can drive Trump's approval rating to 35%, republicans will jump ship and consider impeachment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ident-trump-has-begun/?utm_term=.6d033cea7406

The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun
By Matea Gold January 20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

Immediately after his inauguration, The Independent and The Washington Post each reported on efforts already underway to impeach Trump

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

All smoke and no fire huh? Just some giant MSM conspiracy to derail this administration? Or a cabal of unscrupulous leakers undermining their boss at every turn?

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation. This is a grossly incompetent man who is used to taking ethical shortcuts. This is exactly how he's run his businesses for thirty years, why would that change just because of a change of job title and address?

This sums up just about everything about this administration nicely. No conspiracies. Just a corrupt businessman who doesn't know what he's doing and is riding his reputation from one failed venture to another.

 

[Denny Crane]

A good read from a site that has a great rating for being unbiased:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/15/the-push-for-trumps-impeachment/

 

[Nikolokolus]

I'm not saying that the media isn't opposed to Trump, but to suggest they can whip up impeachable offense out of thin air, by fabricating stories to tank his approval ratings, overlooks one key fact: there has to be some actual grist for the mill to work. Trump or his surrogates have to cross some legal and ethical boundaries before the Republican Congress is going to risk their careers to bother with impeachment proceedings.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I'm not saying that the media isn't opposed to Trump, but to suggest they can whip up impeachable offense out of thin air, by fabricating stories to tank his approval ratings, overlooks one key fact: there has to be some actual grist for the mill to work. Trump or his surrogates have to cross some legal and ethical boundaries before the Republican Congress is going to risk their careers to bother with impeachment proceedings.

I'm pretty sure DC knows Trump is impeachable, he's just pissed that the MSM is reporting on it.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Writer of "Art of the Deal" isn't surprised by all this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...rump-his-self-sabotage-is-rooted-in-his-past/

 

[Rastapopoulos]

That view was reinforced on Wednesday when British Prime Minister Theresa May said her government had confidence in its relationship with the United States and would continue to share intelligence with Britain's most important defense and security ally.

Oh come on, Denny. Even you are not that naive, surely? You think Theresa May would come out and say "that's it, we're not sharing any more details!"? That means nothing about what's actually going to happen with intelligence agencies. Even if May truly meant that, it's on the agencies to reveal stuff, and if there are people there who care about their agents in the field, they're going to clam up.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not saying that the media isn't opposed to Trump, but to suggest they can whip up impeachable offense out of thin air, by fabricating stories to tank his approval ratings, overlooks one key fact: there has to be some actual grist for the mill to work. Trump or his surrogates have to cross some legal and ethical boundaries before the Republican Congress is going to risk their careers to bother with impeachment proceedings.

The actual "grist" is proving to be inaccurate or contradicted by other sources. It's not about declaring everything as fake news, but...

1) Comey did not request extra funding as reported, this was contradicted by the acting FBI director in sworn testimony
2) The acting FBI director contradicted the narrative that Trump or anyone else made any effort to impede their investigation
3) Trump fired Comey because of the Russia investigation

I can list quite a few more, and already have in this thread (like Israel wanting to deepen the intel sharing relationship with the US), or going back to prior to the election, the declaration that Clinton was going to win handily.

Occam's razor really tells us to be extremely wary of the media misrepresenting what's going on, and that the likelihood of today's hair on fire "scandal" is much ado about nothing, or making mountains out of molehills.

This is a serious problem for the nation when the media is failing to be accurate and as unbiased as possible. The ethics of journalism for reporting is that bias should not color or determine the outcome of investigation. This is not the same as opinion, editorial, etc.

I've repeatedly said I don't like the man but I am happy Clinton lost. Elections have consequences. I have posted several times that my hope is the republican congress contains his more reckless agenda items and that we get two awesome candidates in 2020. I have issues with many of Trump's policies, particularly those based upon religious agendas and the border wall and the treatment of hispanics and muslims (these things are what the media should be talking about 24/7, IMO). His fiscal agenda is perfectly fine by me, and a welcome change from the past 8 years.

I'm perfectly fine accepting that he's not a polished politician, he's not hired many polished political aids, that he came into office lacking training in government operations. I can see he talks without talking points and from his stream of consciousness, which we're not used to in government officials.

On the other hand, I want a government that doesn't require membership in some royalty class to be fit to serve. My preference is everyone in government would not be career politicians. By the people of the people for the people.

When there's actual evidence of crime or high crimes and misdemeanors, I will be all aboard the impeachment bandwagon. Until then, the burden of proof is incredibly high and I'm not going to just go with the obvious rage about the democrats' political failures.

When I post links like the ones below, it's because I am fact checking what the media is claiming. I'm finding there's outright lies and omissions and single sentences taken out of context.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/andrew-mccabe-fbi-chief-russia-trump.html

By ADAM GOLDMAN and MATTHEW ROSENBERGMAY 11, 2017

But Mr. McCabe, in only his second full day as acting director, made clear that he had witnessed no covert effort by the White House to influence the inquiry. He said that he had not talked to anyone at the White House about it and that there had been “no effort to impede our investigation.”

Mr. Warner sought assurances from Mr. McCabe that if the White House or others tried to intervene, he would sound the alarm.

...

Days before he was fired, Mr. Comey had asked the Justice Department for more prosecutors to aid in the investigation, according to four congressional officials, including Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. Mr. McCabe was not asked on Thursday whether Mr. Comey had specifically sought more prosecutors, but he was asked whether Mr. Comey had requested additional resources more broadly.

Mr. McCabe said he was unaware of any such appeal.

“We don’t typically request resources for an individual case,” he said.

He also said the F.B.I. had secured and preserved Mr. Comey’s files after he was fired.​

Here Trump states that firing Comey would lengthen the investigations, but that firing him was the right thing to do. Not that he fired Comey because of the investigations.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ey-whether-he-was-under-investigation-n757821

Holt asked Trump if he was "angry with Mr. Comey because of his Russia investigation."

"I just want somebody that's competent," Trump responded. "I am a big fan of the FBI, I love the FBI."

Trump said he never tried to pressure Comey into dropping the FBI probe of the Trump campaign and insisted, "I want to find out if there was a problem in the election having to do with Russia."

"As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," Trump said. "Maybe I'll expand that, you know, lengthen the time (of the Russia probe) because it should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over with a long time ago. 'Cause all it is, is an excuse but I said to myself, I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people."

Trump added of the investigation, "I want that to be so strong and so good. And I want it to happen."

Asked by Holt if by firing Comey he was trying to send a "lay off" message to his successor, Trump said, "I'm not."

"If Russia did anything, I want to know that," he said.​

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh come on, Denny. Even you are not that naive, surely? You think Theresa May would come out and say "that's it, we're not sharing any more details!"? That means nothing about what's actually going to happen with intelligence agencies. Even if May truly meant that, it's on the agencies to reveal stuff, and if there are people there who care about their agents in the field, they're going to clam up.

Teresa May contradicts your tweeter narrative.

Boo f'n hoo.

 

[Spud147]

Oh come on, Denny. Even you are not that naive, surely? You think Theresa May would come out and say "that's it, we're not sharing any more details!"? That means nothing about what's actually going to happen with intelligence agencies. Even if May truly meant that, it's on the agencies to reveal stuff, and if there are people there who care about their agents in the field, they're going to clam up.

Well Putin agrees the conversation was "wholly appropriate" and has offered up the transcript of the meeting from the Russian spies, I mean journalists, who were there. We can easily cross reference the truth about the meeting with the transcript from the US journalists who was there and... oh wait...

 

[stampedehero]

It could be worse. The spy (or set up guy as spy) may be a head slash vid direct from the barbarians. That would really fuck up Trump.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well Putin agrees the conversation was "wholly appropriate" and has offered up the transcript of the meeting from the Russian spies, I mean journalists, who were there. We can easily cross reference the truth about the meeting with the transcript from the US journalists who was there and... oh wait...

Both the US and Russia had official photographers present, not media.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/...-meeting-american-reporters-blocked.html?_r=0

But the Russians ... brought their own press contingent in the form of an official photographer.

...

official White House photographers have broad access to the president,

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh my!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html

WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Compromising an ally's bomb count isn't a great look, but compromising the safety of a human intelligence asset who is in the field is another thing entirely.