(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.