Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 May 2017, 7:28 pm

Right...but why would the Russians bother hacking into Trump's server when they can just get it directly from him? Good thing there is idiot protection for Trump in that the president has the power to declassify information.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 May 2017, 10:36 am

freeman3 wrote:Right...but why would the Russians bother hacking into Trump's server when they can just get it directly from him? Good thing there is idiot protection for Trump in that the president has the power to declassify information.


We don't actually know what happened, do we?

Here's what is certain: someone in the government wants to make sure we know everything Trump does that they don't like. We don't know if this story is even accurate. We do know that one current government official and one past government official were the sources.

I am more concerned about the government officials who are trying to knee-cap Trump. I hope they are arrested soon.

Unless McMaster is lying, this seems like a nothing-burger.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 May 2017, 11:19 am

Sometimes being a lawyer is handy when someone is trying to bs...

Technically, I suppose McMasters did not lie (maybe). The Washington Post article said that Trump revealed details of an ISIS terrorist plot that was detected in a certain city...that the Washington Post did not discuss because it was too sensitive.

Anyway, Mcmasters said the story "as reported" was false. Ok...what does that mean? If any part of the story is incorrect then McMaster's statement is true. But it does not mean he is denying that classified information was related by Trump. McMasters does not specify which part of the story is false, but any minor facts wrong with the story could go serve to make McMaster's statement true.

He also notes that there were no intelligence sources or methods discussed. But the article does not say they were. McMasters also says that no military operations were discussed that were not publicly known. But, again, this was not discussed in the story.

McMasters did not deny that highly classified information was relayed to the Russians. Why would he not just say that if that were true?McMaster's denial is a lawyerly denial...which basically says nothing.

How could discussing intelligence about a terrorist plot by ISIS that is not publicly known, that we got from an ally, not be highly classified? Trump indicated that that's what he talked about!

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.c ... 3D47427490

Here is a discussion of McMasters non-denial.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagot ... y,amp.html
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 May 2017, 1:26 pm

fate
Here's what is certain: someone in the government wants to make sure we know everything Trump does that they don't like.


here's another reason they seem to be going to the media....

I tend to take these stories about the President with a grain of salt. We have seen key details of a number of salacious stories retracted within 48 hours. The media hates the President so much that they’ll run a negative story about him without very much provocation. Anti-Trump sources embedded within the administration in the career civil service, etc. will leak to the press and confirmation bias sets in.
What sets this story apart for me, at least, is that I know one of the sources. And the source is solidly supportive of President Trump, or at least has been and was during Campaign 2016. But the President will not take any internal criticism, no matter how politely it is given. He does not want advice, cannot be corrected, and is too insecure to see any constructive feedback as anything other than an attack.
So some of the sources are left with no other option but to go to the media, leak the story, and hope that the intense blowback gives the President a swift kick in the butt. Perhaps then he will recognize he screwed up. The President cares vastly more about what the press says than what his advisers say. That is a real problem and one his advisers are having to recognize and use, even if it causes messy stories to get outside the White House perimeter.
I am told that what the President did is actually far worse than what is being reported. The President
does not seem to realize or appreciate that his bragging can undermine relationships with our allies and with human intelligence sources. He also does not seem to appreciate that his loose lips can get valuable assets in the field killed.

http://theresurgent.com/i-know-one-of-the-sources/

This guy ERICK ERICKSON conservative enough for you Fate?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 May 2017, 2:27 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Here's what is certain: someone in the government wants to make sure we know everything Trump does that they don't like.


here's another reason they seem to be going to the media....

I tend to take these stories about the President with a grain of salt. We have seen key details of a number of salacious stories retracted within 48 hours. The media hates the President so much that they’ll run a negative story about him without very much provocation. Anti-Trump sources embedded within the administration in the career civil service, etc. will leak to the press and confirmation bias sets in.
What sets this story apart for me, at least, is that I know one of the sources. And the source is solidly supportive of President Trump, or at least has been and was during Campaign 2016. But the President will not take any internal criticism, no matter how politely it is given. He does not want advice, cannot be corrected, and is too insecure to see any constructive feedback as anything other than an attack.
So some of the sources are left with no other option but to go to the media, leak the story, and hope that the intense blowback gives the President a swift kick in the butt. Perhaps then he will recognize he screwed up. The President cares vastly more about what the press says than what his advisers say. That is a real problem and one his advisers are having to recognize and use, even if it causes messy stories to get outside the White House perimeter.
I am told that what the President did is actually far worse than what is being reported. The President
does not seem to realize or appreciate that his bragging can undermine relationships with our allies and with human intelligence sources. He also does not seem to appreciate that his loose lips can get valuable assets in the field killed.

http://theresurgent.com/i-know-one-of-the-sources/

This guy ERICK ERICKSON conservative enough for you Fate?


It has nothing to do with conservatism. What you liberals cannot get your heads around is that Trump is no conservative.

I think we should be given the truth at this point so we can decide for ourselves.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 May 2017, 6:42 am

fate
I think we should be given the truth at this point so we can decide for ourselves


http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017 ... e-lead.cnn

CNN's Jake Tapper reports that in March CNN learned ISIS was developing laptop bombs to be used on international flights and was cautioned by Trump administration officials not to report certain details about the threat, including the city in which the intel was collected. President Trump later revealed that city in a meeting with Russians.


What truth? That Trump is an idiot who can't be trusted with classified intelligence? 7
Or that Trump tried to shut down the FBI investigation of Flynn?
Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/p ... .html?_r=0

You don't doubt that boy scout Comey wasn't accurate in his memorandum do you?

Or do you want to acknowledge the truth that Trump is ignorant of basic information on important stuff like heath insurance and the AHS?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ance-costs

You've condemned Clinton and Obama on pretty flimsy evidence... This pile of doo doo is not enough to pass judgement on a Republican President?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 17 May 2017, 8:02 am

I love how Senior officials at the FBI passed on information about Comey's memo. Gee, maybe Trump was onto something when he placed the spotlight illegal leaks. And maybe Comey purposefully defied Trump's request to place the investigation of leaks at the top of his priority list because he knew his own department would be found out as a major source of the leaks?

What a pageantry of egos.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 May 2017, 12:17 pm

rickyp wrote:You've condemned Clinton and Obama on pretty flimsy evidence... This pile of doo doo is not enough to pass judgement on a Republican President?


He's not a Republican. If he was, I would have voted for him.

So what re Tapper?

According to the security people who were IN THE ROOM when Trump said whatever he said, it's a not-much-burger.

As for Comey, we don't have the memo. I'd like to see it. Why not? I'm not satisfied with excerpts.

And, there's this:
When Osama bin Laden was killed, President Obama was not content to explain that fact to the American people. His administration gratuitously disclosed that the raid on the al-Qaeda emir’s compound in Pakistan produced a “trove” of actionable intelligence. From a national-security standpoint, this political grandstanding was a foolish: It gave al-Qaeda operatives a heads-up that their cells and activities had likely been exposed, providing them the opportunity to disappear before our forces could roll them up. And then there is the Obama administration’s leak disclosing (to the Washington Post) General Michael Flynn’s conversations with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. This was done with obvious malevolence to hurt Flynn and Trump (who had named Flynn national-security adviser). The beneficiary, however, was Russia. It received valuable information that its ambassador was under surveillance and that whatever countermeasures the Kremlin’s intelligence services had been taking had failed. This is apt to make Russian operatives more difficult to monitor in the future.

More to the point, does anyone believe that American presidents other than Trump do not make highly questionable disclosures in their negotiations with hostile regimes? Remember when Obama told Putin’s factotum, Medvedev, to tell ol’ Vlad he’d have much more “flexibility” to accommodate Russian concerns after his 2012 reelection — patently signaling that Putin should just be patient and not pay too much attention to campaign rhetoric about dealing sternly with Moscow? And what of the to-and-fro over Obama’s coveted Iran nuclear deal? Is it necessary to remind Democrats that Obama entered secret side deals with the “death to America” regime that were withheld from Congress and the American people? That was not an instance of what Trump was apparently doing — sharing some intel with a hostile government in the (probably naïve) hope of getting cooperation from that government against a common enemy. Obama was actually partnering with a hostile regime through arrangements that were against American interests and that promoted Iranian interests.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... nton-email
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 May 2017, 9:18 am

dag
Gee, maybe Trump was onto something when he placed the spotlight illegal leaks.


The clown who threatened Comey with "tapes" of the conversation.
This guy?
The life of a spy placed by Israel inside ISIS is at risk tonight, according to current and former U.S. officials, after President Donald Trump reportedly disclosed classified information in a meeting with Russian officials last week. The spy provided intelligence involving an active ISIS plot to bring down a passenger jet en route to the United States, with a bomb hidden in a laptop that U.S. officials believe can get through airport screening machines undetected. The information was reliable enough that the U.S. is considering a ban on laptops on all flights from Europe to the United States. The sensitive intelligence was shared with the United States, officials say, on the condition that the source remain confidential...many in the counter-terrorism community say what the President did was a mistake. “Russia is not part of the ISIS coalition,” Olsen said. “They are not our partner.” Dan Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, now a senior visiting fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, agreed. In an interview with ABC News, he called the president and his team “careless,” saying that the reported disclosures demonstrate a “poor understanding of how to guard sensitive information." Shapiro was most concerned, however, that the president’s move could make Israel think twice about sharing intelligence with the United States, warning that it will “inevitably cause elements of Israel's intelligence service to demonstrate more caution.”
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 May 2017, 8:51 pm

rickyp wrote:dag
Gee, maybe Trump was onto something when he placed the spotlight illegal leaks.


The clown who threatened Comey with "tapes" of the conversation.
This guy?
The life of a spy placed by Israel inside ISIS is at risk tonight, according to current and former U.S. officials, after President Donald Trump reportedly disclosed classified information in a meeting with Russian officials last week. The spy provided intelligence involving an active ISIS plot to bring down a passenger jet en route to the United States, with a bomb hidden in a laptop that U.S. officials believe can get through airport screening machines undetected. The information was reliable enough that the U.S. is considering a ban on laptops on all flights from Europe to the United States. The sensitive intelligence was shared with the United States, officials say, on the condition that the source remain confidential...many in the counter-terrorism community say what the President did was a mistake. “Russia is not part of the ISIS coalition,” Olsen said. “They are not our partner.” Dan Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, now a senior visiting fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, agreed. In an interview with ABC News, he called the president and his team “careless,” saying that the reported disclosures demonstrate a “poor understanding of how to guard sensitive information." Shapiro was most concerned, however, that the president’s move could make Israel think twice about sharing intelligence with the United States, warning that it will “inevitably cause elements of Israel's intelligence service to demonstrate more caution.”

He won.

Clinton lost.

That's my response to every unrelated "Btw" you want to post.

Trump won.

Oh, and btw, Trump never could have been elected if the idea of qualifications hadn't been nuked when Obama was elected.

Btw, Clinton' would have done one thing right; fired Comey on Day one.

And Democrats would have cheered.

Btw, fyi, and also, Mueller is going to clear Trump.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 May 2017, 6:40 am

fate
He won.

Clinton lost.


Everyone lost when Trump won.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6593
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 May 2017, 6:55 am

rickyp wrote:fate
He won.

Clinton lost.


Everyone lost when Trump won.


Proof?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 May 2017, 7:37 am

Kind of self-evident...like the sun coming up in the morning.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6593
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 May 2017, 8:31 am

freeman3 wrote:Kind of self-evident...like the sun coming up in the morning.


Considering the rotational aspects of our solar system, that would be self evident.

Not everybody lost. Maybe everyone in your circle, but there are many who are not happy with Trump. Saying that there are nobody who won is just another pointless barb.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 May 2017, 8:45 am

I suppose. Trump voters still mostly like him. I'm sure there are conservatives who like his appointment of Gorsuch, his immigration policies, and other policies that social conservatives favor. So those people are happy he won, sure. 35 percent of the country have a subjective opinion in favor of him.

When I say that everyone lost it's my opinion (based on facts) that objectively speaking we all lost because he is undermining democratic institutions. I am sure 35% of the country (or maybe more) disagrees with me. But give it another year...