(05-16-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 12:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ok OO, I don't know if this was intentional (as in a quid pro quo), but man, oh man, the hits keep coming with regards to Trump and Russia. Just one little thing after another.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...839c174592

And I love this gem at the bottom:

Quid pro quo. if i swap a bushel of oramges for a knife, that is quid pro quo. if I stupidly tell you I have a bushel of oramges on my back porch, not quid pro quo.

I wasn't asking for a definition of quid pro quo, I was commenting that I didn't know if the divulging of top secret information was part of a quid pro quo.

Even if it wasn't, this seems like a big ol' oops!

sorry about the brevity of my post. This deserves a longer response. I was working on an Ipad in a hot car during a short break from a meeting.

I can agree that this was a big oops. It seems like a poor way to deliver promised information in return for Russians hacking and publishing the truth, which is what collusion is all about. Now, if they had persuaded the Russians to do a little doctoring, now that would be a big quid. But I just can't see anybody saying, "help us out, Vlad - Publish the DNC emails but without any editing". Seems to me that the Russians with Wikileaks did the job that the NYT and other journalists are supposed to - dig for the hidden truth and publish it.

If it will help you, I will postulate that Trump is not the best person we could have elected president. Not even close. He was just the better of the final two.

I shouldn't have even joked about the quid pro quo, apparently that was too shiny of an object.

This appears to be a major mistake by 45. He gave highly classified intelligence to a sovereign state, that was gathered by another ally, and that we were not given the green light to share. And I think most alarming is that it isn't clear if he realized what he did. You wanna talk about being careless with sensitive information? This may take the whole darn cake.

Lots of potential implications with this slip up, including for the asset on the ground as well as the plans that ISIS had.

We are getting multiple issues conflated. The issue of "collusion" is and likely will remain a hysterical construct the left is using to further the Resistance. The Russians hacked the DNC. Wikileaks published the material stolen. Trump benefited, it is assumed. He won, anyway. How can these things possibly NOT be related? That is the essence of the "collusion" theory. But it presupposes there must have been a point in time when Person A said to Person B, "Do this for me." and Party B said "OK. That's not something I would have ever thought of doing on my own, but for you, no problem." Then Party B said, either "In return I want __________"(and Party A said "Fine"), or, he said "You're such a good friend, I will expect nothing from you". When you put flesh on the bones of the theory, it becomes fantastical. So who was Party A? Flynn? What made this 30+ year veteran of America's armed forces suddenly decide to ask the Russians to steal DNC emails and get them published without a single addition or deletion and think that would turn the tide? Party A must have an IQ of 500 to figure that one out ahead of time.

Whether or not Trump accidentally leaked classified information to the Russians and what it is, and the ramifications of such leak, is unclear at this time. We have differing reports. So I will let this sort itself itself out a bit, but in the event that it proves to be true, it does appear to be inadvertent. If inadvertent, what does it prove, and what should be done about it? I have heard that codeword protected intel was on Hillary's server. If so, what did we do about that?

shiny objects? Really? Thank you for that. Us deplorables do get easily distracted.

(05-16-2017 08:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 12:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Quid pro quo. if i swap a bushel of oramges for a knife, that is quid pro quo. if I stupidly tell you I have a bushel of oramges on my back porch, not quid pro quo.

I wasn't asking for a definition of quid pro quo, I was commenting that I didn't know if the divulging of top secret information was part of a quid pro quo.

Even if it wasn't, this seems like a big ol' oops!

sorry about the brevity of my post. This deserves a longer response. I was working on an Ipad in a hot car during a short break from a meeting.

I can agree that this was a big oops. It seems like a poor way to deliver promised information in return for Russians hacking and publishing the truth, which is what collusion is all about. Now, if they had persuaded the Russians to do a little doctoring, now that would be a big quid. But I just can't see anybody saying, "help us out, Vlad - Publish the DNC emails but without any editing". Seems to me that the Russians with Wikileaks did the job that the NYT and other journalists are supposed to - dig for the hidden truth and publish it.

If it will help you, I will postulate that Trump is not the best person we could have elected president. Not even close. He was just the better of the final two.

I shouldn't have even joked about the quid pro quo, apparently that was too shiny of an object.

This appears to be a major mistake by 45. He gave highly classified intelligence to a sovereign state, that was gathered by another ally, and that we were not given the green light to share. And I think most alarming is that it isn't clear if he realized what he did. You wanna talk about being careless with sensitive information? This may take the whole darn cake.

Lots of potential implications with this slip up, including for the asset on the ground as well as the plans that ISIS had.

We are getting multiple issues conflated. The issue of "collusion" is and likely will remain a hysterical construct the left is using to further the Resistance. The Russians hacked the DNC. Wikileaks published the material stolen. Trump benefited, it is assumed. He won, anyway. How can these things possibly NOT be related? That is the essence of the "collusion" theory. But it presupposes there must have been a point in time when Person A said to Person B, "Do this for me." and Party B said "OK. That's not something I would have ever thought of doing on my own, but for you, no problem." Then Party B said, either "In return I want __________"(and Party A said "Fine"), or, he said "You're such a good friend, I will expect nothing from you". When you put flesh on the bones of the theory, it becomes fantastical. So who was Party A? Flynn? What made this 30+ year veteran of America's armed forces suddenly decide to ask the Russians to steal DNC emails and get them published without a single addition or deletion and think that would turn the tide? Party A must have an IQ of 500 to figure that one out ahead of time.

Whether or not Trump accidentally leaked classified information to the Russians and what it is, and the ramifications of such leak, is unclear at this time. We have differing reports. So I will let this sort itself itself out a bit, but in the event that it proves to be true, it does appear to be inadvertent. If inadvertent, what does it prove, and what should be done about it? I have heard that codeword protected intel was on Hillary's server. If so, what did we do about that?

shiny objects? Really? Thank you for that. Us deplorables do get easily distracted.

I am not getting anything conflated.

At the moment I am discussing the concerns associated with 45 sharing classified information, gathered from a foreign intelligence agency, with a political adversary, and without approval of the allied intelligence agency. I find it more troubling if this was inadvertent because it would be a damning piece of evidence that 45 does not understand why we classify intelligence, the implications in sharing it, and how, when we do share it, we should. If it was intentional, then at the least this will warn our allies that they need to be careful when sharing intelligence with us because it may be leaked to other agencies they do not want it leaked to.

The are NO differing reports. All respectable media outlets have reported the same thing, McMaster did not actually refute any of the news stories, and as of this morning, Trump is tweeting out a confirmation about what he did.

And two side notes. Why are you calling yourself a deplorable? I never said you were and I thought you have stated multiple times that you don't support Trump.

And for the love of God, why bring Hillary into this? She isn't POTUS.

(05-16-2017 08:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  shiny objects? Really? Thank you for that. Us deplorables do get easily distracted.

It's "We" deplorables ;-)

(05-16-2017 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 08:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 12:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wasn't asking for a definition of quid pro quo, I was commenting that I didn't know if the divulging of top secret information was part of a quid pro quo.

Even if it wasn't, this seems like a big ol' oops!

sorry about the brevity of my post. This deserves a longer response. I was working on an Ipad in a hot car during a short break from a meeting.

I can agree that this was a big oops. It seems like a poor way to deliver promised information in return for Russians hacking and publishing the truth, which is what collusion is all about. Now, if they had persuaded the Russians to do a little doctoring, now that would be a big quid. But I just can't see anybody saying, "help us out, Vlad - Publish the DNC emails but without any editing". Seems to me that the Russians with Wikileaks did the job that the NYT and other journalists are supposed to - dig for the hidden truth and publish it.

If it will help you, I will postulate that Trump is not the best person we could have elected president. Not even close. He was just the better of the final two.

I shouldn't have even joked about the quid pro quo, apparently that was too shiny of an object.

This appears to be a major mistake by 45. He gave highly classified intelligence to a sovereign state, that was gathered by another ally, and that we were not given the green light to share. And I think most alarming is that it isn't clear if he realized what he did. You wanna talk about being careless with sensitive information? This may take the whole darn cake.

Lots of potential implications with this slip up, including for the asset on the ground as well as the plans that ISIS had.

We are getting multiple issues conflated. The issue of "collusion" is and likely will remain a hysterical construct the left is using to further the Resistance. The Russians hacked the DNC. Wikileaks published the material stolen. Trump benefited, it is assumed. He won, anyway. How can these things possibly NOT be related? That is the essence of the "collusion" theory. But it presupposes there must have been a point in time when Person A said to Person B, "Do this for me." and Party B said "OK. That's not something I would have ever thought of doing on my own, but for you, no problem." Then Party B said, either "In return I want __________"(and Party A said "Fine"), or, he said "You're such a good friend, I will expect nothing from you". When you put flesh on the bones of the theory, it becomes fantastical. So who was Party A? Flynn? What made this 30+ year veteran of America's armed forces suddenly decide to ask the Russians to steal DNC emails and get them published without a single addition or deletion and think that would turn the tide? Party A must have an IQ of 500 to figure that one out ahead of time.

Whether or not Trump accidentally leaked classified information to the Russians and what it is, and the ramifications of such leak, is unclear at this time. We have differing reports. So I will let this sort itself itself out a bit, but in the event that it proves to be true, it does appear to be inadvertent. If inadvertent, what does it prove, and what should be done about it? I have heard that codeword protected intel was on Hillary's server. If so, what did we do about that?

shiny objects? Really? Thank you for that. Us deplorables do get easily distracted.

I am not getting anything conflated.

At the moment I am discussing the concerns associated with 45 sharing classified information, gathered from a foreign intelligence agency, with a political adversary, and without approval of the allied intelligence agency. I find it more troubling if this was inadvertent because it would be a damning piece of evidence that 45 does not understand why we classify intelligence, the implications in sharing it, and how, when we do share it, we should. If it was intentional, then at the least this will warn our allies that they need to be careful when sharing intelligence with us because it may be leaked to other agencies they do not want it leaked to.

The are NO differing reports. All respectable media outlets have reported the same thing, McMaster did not actually refute any of the news stories, and as of this morning, Trump is tweeting out a confirmation about what he did.

And two side notes. Why are you calling yourself a deplorable? I never said you were and I thought you have stated multiple times that you don't support Trump.

And for the love of God, why bring Hillary into this? She isn't POTUS.

Last things first: Thank God for that.

she is an example of a high Government official misdealing with the same kind of information as is the topic here.

We have conflicting statements from McMaster, Tillerson and another who was there, vs. unnamed former officials. Not exactly "NO differing reports".

I would be more concerned if it were done on purpose. I guess we differ there. If it was inadvertent, he can learn from this.

I didn't call myself a deplorable: Hillary did. But the "shiny" comment brought it to mind.

(05-16-2017 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 08:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 12:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  sorry about the brevity of my post. This deserves a longer response. I was working on an Ipad in a hot car during a short break from a meeting.

I can agree that this was a big oops. It seems like a poor way to deliver promised information in return for Russians hacking and publishing the truth, which is what collusion is all about. Now, if they had persuaded the Russians to do a little doctoring, now that would be a big quid. But I just can't see anybody saying, "help us out, Vlad - Publish the DNC emails but without any editing". Seems to me that the Russians with Wikileaks did the job that the NYT and other journalists are supposed to - dig for the hidden truth and publish it.

If it will help you, I will postulate that Trump is not the best person we could have elected president. Not even close. He was just the better of the final two.

I shouldn't have even joked about the quid pro quo, apparently that was too shiny of an object.

This appears to be a major mistake by 45. He gave highly classified intelligence to a sovereign state, that was gathered by another ally, and that we were not given the green light to share. And I think most alarming is that it isn't clear if he realized what he did. You wanna talk about being careless with sensitive information? This may take the whole darn cake.

Lots of potential implications with this slip up, including for the asset on the ground as well as the plans that ISIS had.

We are getting multiple issues conflated. The issue of "collusion" is and likely will remain a hysterical construct the left is using to further the Resistance. The Russians hacked the DNC. Wikileaks published the material stolen. Trump benefited, it is assumed. He won, anyway. How can these things possibly NOT be related? That is the essence of the "collusion" theory. But it presupposes there must have been a point in time when Person A said to Person B, "Do this for me." and Party B said "OK. That's not something I would have ever thought of doing on my own, but for you, no problem." Then Party B said, either "In return I want __________"(and Party A said "Fine"), or, he said "You're such a good friend, I will expect nothing from you". When you put flesh on the bones of the theory, it becomes fantastical. So who was Party A? Flynn? What made this 30+ year veteran of America's armed forces suddenly decide to ask the Russians to steal DNC emails and get them published without a single addition or deletion and think that would turn the tide? Party A must have an IQ of 500 to figure that one out ahead of time.

Whether or not Trump accidentally leaked classified information to the Russians and what it is, and the ramifications of such leak, is unclear at this time. We have differing reports. So I will let this sort itself itself out a bit, but in the event that it proves to be true, it does appear to be inadvertent. If inadvertent, what does it prove, and what should be done about it? I have heard that codeword protected intel was on Hillary's server. If so, what did we do about that?

shiny objects? Really? Thank you for that. Us deplorables do get easily distracted.

I am not getting anything conflated.

At the moment I am discussing the concerns associated with 45 sharing classified information, gathered from a foreign intelligence agency, with a political adversary, and without approval of the allied intelligence agency. I find it more troubling if this was inadvertent because it would be a damning piece of evidence that 45 does not understand why we classify intelligence, the implications in sharing it, and how, when we do share it, we should. If it was intentional, then at the least this will warn our allies that they need to be careful when sharing intelligence with us because it may be leaked to other agencies they do not want it leaked to.

The are NO differing reports. All respectable media outlets have reported the same thing, McMaster did not actually refute any of the news stories, and as of this morning, Trump is tweeting out a confirmation about what he did.

And two side notes. Why are you calling yourself a deplorable? I never said you were and I thought you have stated multiple times that you don't support Trump.

And for the love of God, why bring Hillary into this? She isn't POTUS.

Last things first: Thank God for that.

she is an example of a high Government official misdealing with the same kind of information as is the topic here.

We have conflicting statements from McMaster, Tillerson and another who was there, vs. unnamed former officials. Not exactly "NO differing reports".

I would be more concerned if it were done on purpose. I guess we differ there. If it was inadvertent, he can learn from this.

I didn't call myself a deplorable: Hillary did. But the "shiny" comment brought it to mind.

Not true at all. McMaster said:

Quote: At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed.

None of the articles ever suggested that took place - they said that intelligence was shared about broader ranging topics. The risk is that from that one could then infer sources and methods.

There is no question that Trump shared classified information with Russia - he even said he did so himself this morning. Please don't try and deny that.

(05-16-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 08:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I shouldn't have even joked about the quid pro quo, apparently that was too shiny of an object.

This appears to be a major mistake by 45. He gave highly classified intelligence to a sovereign state, that was gathered by another ally, and that we were not given the green light to share. And I think most alarming is that it isn't clear if he realized what he did. You wanna talk about being careless with sensitive information? This may take the whole darn cake.

Lots of potential implications with this slip up, including for the asset on the ground as well as the plans that ISIS had.

We are getting multiple issues conflated. The issue of "collusion" is and likely will remain a hysterical construct the left is using to further the Resistance. The Russians hacked the DNC. Wikileaks published the material stolen. Trump benefited, it is assumed. He won, anyway. How can these things possibly NOT be related? That is the essence of the "collusion" theory. But it presupposes there must have been a point in time when Person A said to Person B, "Do this for me." and Party B said "OK. That's not something I would have ever thought of doing on my own, but for you, no problem." Then Party B said, either "In return I want __________"(and Party A said "Fine"), or, he said "You're such a good friend, I will expect nothing from you". When you put flesh on the bones of the theory, it becomes fantastical. So who was Party A? Flynn? What made this 30+ year veteran of America's armed forces suddenly decide to ask the Russians to steal DNC emails and get them published without a single addition or deletion and think that would turn the tide? Party A must have an IQ of 500 to figure that one out ahead of time.

Whether or not Trump accidentally leaked classified information to the Russians and what it is, and the ramifications of such leak, is unclear at this time. We have differing reports. So I will let this sort itself itself out a bit, but in the event that it proves to be true, it does appear to be inadvertent. If inadvertent, what does it prove, and what should be done about it? I have heard that codeword protected intel was on Hillary's server. If so, what did we do about that?

shiny objects? Really? Thank you for that. Us deplorables do get easily distracted.

I am not getting anything conflated.

At the moment I am discussing the concerns associated with 45 sharing classified information, gathered from a foreign intelligence agency, with a political adversary, and without approval of the allied intelligence agency. I find it more troubling if this was inadvertent because it would be a damning piece of evidence that 45 does not understand why we classify intelligence, the implications in sharing it, and how, when we do share it, we should. If it was intentional, then at the least this will warn our allies that they need to be careful when sharing intelligence with us because it may be leaked to other agencies they do not want it leaked to.

The are NO differing reports. All respectable media outlets have reported the same thing, McMaster did not actually refute any of the news stories, and as of this morning, Trump is tweeting out a confirmation about what he did.

And two side notes. Why are you calling yourself a deplorable? I never said you were and I thought you have stated multiple times that you don't support Trump.

And for the love of God, why bring Hillary into this? She isn't POTUS.

Last things first: Thank God for that.

she is an example of a high Government official misdealing with the same kind of information as is the topic here.

We have conflicting statements from McMaster, Tillerson and another who was there, vs. unnamed former officials. Not exactly "NO differing reports".

I would be more concerned if it were done on purpose. I guess we differ there. If it was inadvertent, he can learn from this.

I didn't call myself a deplorable: Hillary did. But the "shiny" comment brought it to mind.

Not true at all. McMaster said:

Quote: At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed.

None of the articles ever suggested that took place - they said that intelligence was shared about broader ranging topics. The risk is that from that one could then infer sources and methods.

There is no question that Trump shared classified information with Russia - he even said he did so himself this morning. Please don't try and deny that.

Give me a link - I can't find it on Google.

(05-16-2017 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 08:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are getting multiple issues conflated. The issue of "collusion" is and likely will remain a hysterical construct the left is using to further the Resistance. The Russians hacked the DNC. Wikileaks published the material stolen. Trump benefited, it is assumed. He won, anyway. How can these things possibly NOT be related? That is the essence of the "collusion" theory. But it presupposes there must have been a point in time when Person A said to Person B, "Do this for me." and Party B said "OK. That's not something I would have ever thought of doing on my own, but for you, no problem." Then Party B said, either "In return I want __________"(and Party A said "Fine"), or, he said "You're such a good friend, I will expect nothing from you". When you put flesh on the bones of the theory, it becomes fantastical. So who was Party A? Flynn? What made this 30+ year veteran of America's armed forces suddenly decide to ask the Russians to steal DNC emails and get them published without a single addition or deletion and think that would turn the tide? Party A must have an IQ of 500 to figure that one out ahead of time.

Whether or not Trump accidentally leaked classified information to the Russians and what it is, and the ramifications of such leak, is unclear at this time. We have differing reports. So I will let this sort itself itself out a bit, but in the event that it proves to be true, it does appear to be inadvertent. If inadvertent, what does it prove, and what should be done about it? I have heard that codeword protected intel was on Hillary's server. If so, what did we do about that?

shiny objects? Really? Thank you for that. Us deplorables do get easily distracted.

I am not getting anything conflated.

At the moment I am discussing the concerns associated with 45 sharing classified information, gathered from a foreign intelligence agency, with a political adversary, and without approval of the allied intelligence agency. I find it more troubling if this was inadvertent because it would be a damning piece of evidence that 45 does not understand why we classify intelligence, the implications in sharing it, and how, when we do share it, we should. If it was intentional, then at the least this will warn our allies that they need to be careful when sharing intelligence with us because it may be leaked to other agencies they do not want it leaked to.

The are NO differing reports. All respectable media outlets have reported the same thing, McMaster did not actually refute any of the news stories, and as of this morning, Trump is tweeting out a confirmation about what he did.

And two side notes. Why are you calling yourself a deplorable? I never said you were and I thought you have stated multiple times that you don't support Trump.

And for the love of God, why bring Hillary into this? She isn't POTUS.

Last things first: Thank God for that.

she is an example of a high Government official misdealing with the same kind of information as is the topic here.

We have conflicting statements from McMaster, Tillerson and another who was there, vs. unnamed former officials. Not exactly "NO differing reports".

I would be more concerned if it were done on purpose. I guess we differ there. If it was inadvertent, he can learn from this.

I didn't call myself a deplorable: Hillary did. But the "shiny" comment brought it to mind.

Not true at all. McMaster said:

Quote: At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed.

None of the articles ever suggested that took place - they said that intelligence was shared about broader ranging topics. The risk is that from that one could then infer sources and methods.

There is no question that Trump shared classified information with Russia - he even said he did so himself this morning. Please don't try and deny that.

Give me a link - I can't find it on Google.

Read Trumps' twitter from this morning: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

An analysis by CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/d...index.html

A connection back to the previous public statements: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...38386.html

And the WashPo gives details on what was divulged:

Quote: It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft...

In their statements, White House officials emphasized that Trump had not discussed specific intelligence sources and methods, rather than addressing whether he had disclosed information drawn from sensitive sources.

The CIA declined to comment, and the NSA did not respond to requests for comment...

Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.

The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.

As you can see above, the WashPo did not say 45 discussed sources and methods, but he specifically revealed the city where the information came from.

(05-16-2017 11:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I am not getting anything conflated.

At the moment I am discussing the concerns associated with 45 sharing classified information, gathered from a foreign intelligence agency, with a political adversary, and without approval of the allied intelligence agency. I find it more troubling if this was inadvertent because it would be a damning piece of evidence that 45 does not understand why we classify intelligence, the implications in sharing it, and how, when we do share it, we should. If it was intentional, then at the least this will warn our allies that they need to be careful when sharing intelligence with us because it may be leaked to other agencies they do not want it leaked to.

The are NO differing reports. All respectable media outlets have reported the same thing, McMaster did not actually refute any of the news stories, and as of this morning, Trump is tweeting out a confirmation about what he did.

And two side notes. Why are you calling yourself a deplorable? I never said you were and I thought you have stated multiple times that you don't support Trump.

And for the love of God, why bring Hillary into this? She isn't POTUS.

Last things first: Thank God for that.

she is an example of a high Government official misdealing with the same kind of information as is the topic here.

We have conflicting statements from McMaster, Tillerson and another who was there, vs. unnamed former officials. Not exactly "NO differing reports".

I would be more concerned if it were done on purpose. I guess we differ there. If it was inadvertent, he can learn from this.

I didn't call myself a deplorable: Hillary did. But the "shiny" comment brought it to mind.

Not true at all. McMaster said:

Quote: At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed.

None of the articles ever suggested that took place - they said that intelligence was shared about broader ranging topics. The risk is that from that one could then infer sources and methods.

There is no question that Trump shared classified information with Russia - he even said he did so himself this morning. Please don't try and deny that.

Give me a link - I can't find it on Google.

Read Trumps' twitter from this morning: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

An analysis by CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/d...index.html

A connection back to the previous public statements: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...38386.html

And the WashPo gives details on what was divulged:

Quote: It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft...

In their statements, White House officials emphasized that Trump had not discussed specific intelligence sources and methods, rather than addressing whether he had disclosed information drawn from sensitive sources.

The CIA declined to comment, and the NSA did not respond to requests for comment...

Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.

The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.

As you can see above, the WashPo did not say 45 discussed sources and methods, but he specifically revealed the city where the information came from.

i see that. What i don't see is a confession. Or an admission, although I can see where one could infer that from reading between the lines. Lord knows I read between Hillary's lines often enough.

and CNN and WashPO as sources? yeah, let's go with the least biased and most respected - by the antiTrump resistance.

Curious - what are the sources that WashPo cites?

so, let's say this is everything you claim, and every bit as important as you think, what should we do? Install President Pence?

Things have gotten so weird that I'm posting stories by Erik Erikson:

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

(05-16-2017 12:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 11:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Last things first: Thank God for that.

she is an example of a high Government official misdealing with the same kind of information as is the topic here.

We have conflicting statements from McMaster, Tillerson and another who was there, vs. unnamed former officials. Not exactly "NO differing reports".

I would be more concerned if it were done on purpose. I guess we differ there. If it was inadvertent, he can learn from this.

I didn't call myself a deplorable: Hillary did. But the "shiny" comment brought it to mind.

Not true at all. McMaster said:

Quote: At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed.

None of the articles ever suggested that took place - they said that intelligence was shared about broader ranging topics. The risk is that from that one could then infer sources and methods.

There is no question that Trump shared classified information with Russia - he even said he did so himself this morning. Please don't try and deny that.

Give me a link - I can't find it on Google.

Read Trumps' twitter from this morning: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

An analysis by CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/d...index.html

A connection back to the previous public statements: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...38386.html

And the WashPo gives details on what was divulged:

Quote: It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft...

In their statements, White House officials emphasized that Trump had not discussed specific intelligence sources and methods, rather than addressing whether he had disclosed information drawn from sensitive sources.

The CIA declined to comment, and the NSA did not respond to requests for comment...

Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.

The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.

As you can see above, the WashPo did not say 45 discussed sources and methods, but he specifically revealed the city where the information came from.

i see that. What i don't see is a confession. Or an admission, although I can see where one could infer that from reading between the lines. Lord knows I read between Hillary's lines often enough.

and CNN and WashPO as sources? yeah, let's go with the least biased and most respected - by the antiTrump resistance.

Curious - what are the sources that WashPo cites?

so, let's say this is everything you claim, and every bit as important as you think, what should we do? Install President Pence?

OO, c'mon man, you're not being reasonable at all by completely throwing out the reporting.

Is WSJ not right wing enough for you? https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house...1494890345

WashPo was just the first paper to break the story, which has now been confirmed by multiple media outlets. They did not name their sources (a pretty common practice in journalism when reporting on sensitive matters). However, I trust the paper when they stated in their original story that they withheld some information at the request of their sources.

Why is your initial response to this questioning the validity of a well-reported story?

And what I think we should do, in response to this story alone, is to make damn well sure the POTUS understand what faithfully executing his duty means, which includes making sure we aren't burning bridges with our allies by sharing intelligence information we are not supposed to share.

And literally, just now, NYTimes breaks that the information was obtained via Israel. So much for treating our allies well by being a good steward of their secrets: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world...share&_r=0

(05-16-2017 12:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Things have gotten so weird that I'm posting stories by Erik Erikson:

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

Ben Smith is also confirming Erickson's report that what Trump did is actually "far worse" than what has been reported.

(05-16-2017 12:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  so, let's say this is everything you claim, and every bit as important as you think, what should we do? Install President Pence?

I'm genuinely and respectfully curious as to why you evidently think this is an unpalatable outcome (I think you posted a few days ago that none of the succession alternatives to Trump such as Pence, Ryan, etc. would be preferable). You literally voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary, which I think was certainly a defensible rationale and indeed basically why he was elected overall. You explained you would have preferred Kasich, but since he wasn't on the ballot, you went with Trump. Fine. Well, mission accomplished: HRC cannot and will not be president, nor will any other Democrat, for the remainder of his term. Has he not fulfilled the entirety of his usefulness? Why wouldn't you prefer a President Pence? He (a) evidently is trusted by Trump, (b) evidently believed that Trump was qualified to be president, having agreed to serve under him, and © has the political executive experience that you've said you prefer your presidents to have - experience that it's painfully obvious Trump is lacking. Whatever you hope it is, policy-wise, that Trump might accomplish, don't you think the chances of those things happening are greater with someone *other than* Trump in charge of shepherding them to fruition?

It's like you picked somebody out of the stands to pitch and are determined to see if he can finish the game no matter how bad it gets, while you've got far better pitchers in the bullpen who could actually put out the fire and give your team a chance to score some runs.

(05-16-2017 04:43 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 12:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  so, let's say this is everything you claim, and every bit as important as you think, what should we do? Install President Pence?

I'm genuinely and respectfully curious as to why you evidently think this is an unpalatable outcome (I think you posted a few days ago that none of the succession alternatives to Trump such as Pence, Ryan, etc. would be preferable). You literally voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary, which I think was certainly a defensible rationale and indeed basically why he was elected overall. You explained you would have preferred Kasich, but since he wasn't on the ballot, you went with Trump. Fine. Well, mission accomplished: HRC cannot and will not be president, nor will any other Democrat, for the remainder of his term. Has he not fulfilled the entirety of his usefulness? Why wouldn't you prefer a President Pence? He (a) evidently is trusted by Trump, (b) evidently believed that Trump was qualified to be president, having agreed to serve under him, and © has the political executive experience that you've said you prefer your presidents to have - experience that it's painfully obvious Trump is lacking. Whatever you hope it is, policy-wise, that Trump might accomplish, don't you think the chances of those things happening are greater with someone *other than* Trump in charge of shepherding them to fruition?

It's like you picked somebody out of the stands to pitch and are determined to see if he can finish the game no matter how bad it gets, while you've got far better pitchers in the bullpen who could actually put out the fire and give your team a chance to score some runs.

I'd guess OO's aversion to Trump being ousted is because it would give credence to the news articles I've posted and some of the comments I've had. And that therefore, my side would "win."

I mean, I don't know when it happened, but at some point OO added the quote below to his signature. And that appears to mean that he cares a lot about opposing liberals.

Quote:Two ways to argue with a liberal - use facts or use logic. Neither one works.

I just want someone who I think is competent in the WH. I dislike a number of Pence's policies, but boy do I at least think he would treat the office with respect it deserves and do the work that is necessary to avoid all of the impressive pitfalls the Trump admin has fallen for.

Heck, if anything, Pence would likely read his meeting prep - even if he also asked it to be shortened to a few bullets.

And now it comes out Trump asked Comey to quash the Flynn probe....

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/po...p=cur&_r=0

It's hard to keep track of all the scandals at this point.

(05-16-2017 04:43 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 12:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  so, let's say this is everything you claim, and every bit as important as you think, what should we do? Install President Pence?

I'm genuinely and respectfully curious as to why you evidently think this is an unpalatable outcome (I think you posted a few days ago that none of the succession alternatives to Trump such as Pence, Ryan, etc. would be preferable). You literally voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary, which I think was certainly a defensible rationale and indeed basically why he was elected overall. You explained you would have preferred Kasich, but since he wasn't on the ballot, you went with Trump. Fine. Well, mission accomplished: HRC cannot and will not be president, nor will any other Democrat, for the remainder of his term. Has he not fulfilled the entirety of his usefulness? Why wouldn't you prefer a President Pence? He (a) evidently is trusted by Trump, (b) evidently believed that Trump was qualified to be president, having agreed to serve under him, and © has the political executive experience that you've said you prefer your presidents to have - experience that it's painfully obvious Trump is lacking. Whatever you hope it is, policy-wise, that Trump might accomplish, don't you think the chances of those things happening are greater with someone *other than* Trump in charge of shepherding them to fruition?

It's like you picked somebody out of the stands to pitch and are determined to see if he can finish the game no matter how bad it gets, while you've got far better pitchers in the bullpen who could actually put out the fire and give your team a chance to score some runs.

Your last paragraph makes sense, and if this were a baseball game there's no doubt it would be the sensible thing to do.

I think the issue that some might have with that outcome is that it wouldn't solve the 'problem'. First, it's really hard to tell how really bad any of this is (although it's certainly far from normal or ideal), in that it's been painfully obvious that the other side of the aisle hasn't been willing to give Trump any credit for anything at all, and the worst is assumed of any situation almost immediately. There's obviously a lot of valid criticism (probably a whole lot), but the venomous, unrelenting nature of the criticism that in some cases seems to border on fanaticism makes some people uncomfortable, even if they think Trump was an unqualified candidate and is doing a fairly poor job. There are times when the level of criticism and outcry actually has made a bad situation even worse.

In short, it's hard not to feel like the intent of the Democrats is not to just to 'get a relief pitcher' in to the game, but that they are gleeful in their exuberance and would love to gut the Republicans in the process.

I suppose some of that is inevitable for a variety of reasons, and I know that not all Democrats are playing this to the partisan hilt.

But my nature is not to join lynch mobs, and there's a point where the valid criticisms move from rational arguments to emotional crusades.

If I thought things would return to normal, and governing were to resume as you would think it might after an election that set up Republican majorities in both the Senate and House with a Republican president, and people would work together (i.e. Obamacare might actually get fixed and made more workable instead of what it has become - - and it didn't degenerate into something that will require increased taxation to sustain), I'd be more than happy to let Pence take over.

50,000 fans screaming obscenities and dumping garbage on the pitcher as he walks to the dugout is the picture I'm getting (or frankly worse). And that goes against my nature.

Don't know if that makes sense, but I don't like extremes on either side. It's possible to look to both sides, and not really want to join either one.

(05-16-2017 05:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now it comes out Trump asked Comey to quash the Flynn probe....

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/po...p=cur&_r=0

It's hard to keep track of all the scandals at this point.

This is the first time I actually think Trump will be impeached. See this line from the article:

Quote: Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president, the two people said.

FBI notes are apparently often used as evidence in court, and should these memos exist, my admittedly non-lawyer mind, thinks that this reeks of obstruction of justice.

(05-16-2017 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 05:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now it comes out Trump asked Comey to quash the Flynn probe....

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/po...p=cur&_r=0

It's hard to keep track of all the scandals at this point.

This is the first time I actually think Trump will be impeached. See this line from the article:

Quote: Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president, the two people said.

FBI notes are apparently often used as evidence in court, and should these memos exist, my admittedly non-lawyer mind, thinks that this reeks of obstruction of justice.

My understanding is that if Comey thought somebody was trying to obstruct justice, he was duty bound to report it. He didn't.

If Trump is impeached, I guess that will make Pence President. Or if you get them both, then Ryan is President.

(05-16-2017 10:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 05:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now it comes out Trump asked Comey to quash the Flynn probe....

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/po...p=cur&_r=0

It's hard to keep track of all the scandals at this point.

This is the first time I actually think Trump will be impeached. See this line from the article:

Quote: Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president, the two people said.

FBI notes are apparently often used as evidence in court, and should these memos exist, my admittedly non-lawyer mind, thinks that this reeks of obstruction of justice.

My understanding is that if Comey thought somebody was trying to obstruct justice, he was duty bound to report it. He didn't.

If Trump is impeached, I guess that will make Pence President. Or if you get them both, then Ryan is President.

I've not gotten that understanding about being bound to disclose those actions publicly.

I listened to some news tonight and a number of interesting points were brought up regarding the memo and Comey's decision not to come forward with it at the time. Ranging from the idea that the actions couldn't legally be obstruction of justice if there wasn't a criminal investigation going on at the time (just an intelligence probe), to the fact that Comey may not have wanted to jeopardize the Russia investigation that he was overseeing, as coming forward with that memo would have opened a whole can of worms.

But let's say he was bound by duty to report it, what difference does it make if it was brought forward after the fact? Is this admission outside a statute of limitations for disclosing obstruction of justice?

And yep, you have the order correct through the speaker of the House.

edit: I'd also like to point out that we are talking about a memo here that was written by Comey about the interaction he had with Trump due to the peculiarities of the meeting. Everything I've heard indicates that Comey himself said nothing about obstruction of justice - just that he wanted to continue a practice he regularly had done, which was document unusual interactions he had with people.

The obstruction of justice comments have come from the peanut gallery.

"... he wasn't Hillary, which I think was certainly a defensible rationale and indeed basically why he was elected overall."

With the exception of Hillary herself, every candidate running wasn't Hillary.
So, it wasn't just that.

(05-16-2017 11:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 05:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now it comes out Trump asked Comey to quash the Flynn probe....

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/po...p=cur&_r=0

It's hard to keep track of all the scandals at this point.

This is the first time I actually think Trump will be impeached. See this line from the article:

Quote: Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president, the two people said.

FBI notes are apparently often used as evidence in court, and should these memos exist, my admittedly non-lawyer mind, thinks that this reeks of obstruction of justice.

My understanding is that if Comey thought somebody was trying to obstruct justice, he was duty bound to report it. He didn't.

If Trump is impeached, I guess that will make Pence President. Or if you get them both, then Ryan is President.

I've not gotten that understanding about being bound to disclose those actions publicly.

I listened to some news tonight and a number of interesting points were brought up regarding the memo and Comey's decision not to come forward with it at the time. Ranging from the idea that the actions couldn't legally be obstruction of justice if there wasn't a criminal investigation going on at the time (just an intelligence probe), to the fact that Comey may not have wanted to jeopardize the Russia investigation that he was overseeing, as coming forward with that memo would have opened a whole can of worms.

But let's say he was bound by duty to report it, what difference does it make if it was brought forward after the fact? Is this admission outside a statute of limitations for disclosing obstruction of justice?

And yep, you have the order correct through the speaker of the House.

edit: I'd also like to point out that we are talking about a memo here that was written by Comey about the interaction he had with Trump due to the peculiarities of the meeting. Everything I've heard indicates that Comey himself said nothing about obstruction of justice - just that he wanted to continue a practice he regularly had done, which was document unusual interactions he had with people.

The obstruction of justice comments have come from the peanut gallery.

Good points. I haven't been able to spend much time in front of the TV lately, and won't be able to for a while, but what little I caught brought this aspect up.

I would think that not disclosing meant he did not think it was obstruction of justice.

My understanding is that Comey kept notes on every interaction he had with superiors, not just unusual ones.

I think a lot of the hoi polloi among the Resistance, the peanut gallery as you say, think without thinking, that somehow getting rid of Trump will put Hillary in office. They are still fighting the election. I am not sure without looking it up who is next after the Speaker of the House, but I am sure that Hillary is not in the line of succession.

Aside: peanut gallery? That was a name used for the crowd of kids in a popular children's show when I was young, in the 1950's, Howdy Doody. I am sure you are not that old. Pick it up from a father or grandfather?