Trump shares classified information with Russian officials

[gabosaurus]

I am guessing that there is a difference between treasonous Hillary having classified information on her e-mail server and patriotic Trump divulging highly classified information in person to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador during a meeting last week. Someone here needs to let me know. :rolleyes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.edd57b2764ed

[Kathianne]

This is one time I can say, 'there's not enough information yet, to draw a conclusion.'

[hjmick]

I am guessing that there is a difference between treasonous Hillary having classified information on her e-mail server and patriotic Trump divulging highly classified information in person to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador during a meeting last week. Someone here needs to let me know. :rolleyes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.edd57b2764ed


Yes there most certainly is, and you would know this had you actually read the article YOU linked...

For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.


Now that you know the difference...


Trump is a fucking idiot. He can't get out of office fast enough for my tastes...


From the article:

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.


So now we potentially have partner who may choose, in the future, not to share intelligence because Trump is, at his core, a braggart.

Nice fucking move...

[Gunny]

Yes there most certainly is, and you would know this had you actually read the article YOU linked...

For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.


Now that you know the difference...


Trump is a fucking idiot. He can't get out of office fast enough for my tastes...


From the article:

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.


So now we potentially have partner who may choose, in the future, not to share intelligence because Trump is, at his core, a braggart.

Nice fucking move...


... and another one bites the dust ...

[Kathianne]

I'm waiting to see what McMaster has to say. Bottom line, IF actually true, harm will have been done with our allies and whomever gave them the information in the first place.

There's no doubt that there are many politicians and media, along with foreign representatives that want Trump gone. How this is going to play out is anyone's guess, but isn't he leaving for foreign trip soon, like in days?

[KarlMarx]

I am guessing that there is a difference between treasonous Hillary having classified information on her e-mail server and patriotic Trump divulging highly classified information in person to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador during a meeting last week. Someone here needs to let me know. :rolleyes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.edd57b2764ed


The difference is that Democrats will make an issue of one while continuing to totally dismiss the other.


18 US Code Section 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Subsection a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— ..... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (This applies to Hillary Rotten Clinton)

Subsection b) The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States. (This applies to President Trump)

Meaning that the President has the authority to authorize people to receive classified information....


Just like the part where the President has the Constitutional authority to fire the FBI director because the FBI director reports to the Attorney General who, in turn, reports to the President and both serve at the President's pleasure....

[Kathianne]

I'm going to say that if Trump keeps himself from tweeting anything about this, it's over. Both Tillerson and McMaster were in the room according to McMaster. Both said it didn't happen.

Even I cannot doubt everyone. There are no shortage of folks willing to 'leak' lies either.

[Gunny]

I'm waiting to see what McMaster has to say. Bottom line, IF actually true, harm will have been done with our allies and whomever gave them the information in the first place.

There's no doubt that there are many politicians and media, along with foreign representatives that want Trump gone. How this is going to play out is anyone's guess, but isn't he leaving for foreign trip soon, like in days?

Heads of State have ALWAYS shared classified info. It's only "different" because it's Trump. I doubt seriously in the wake of the ongoing Hitlery classified info scandal he's going to share anything of importance. If he does, he's a dummy and deserves what he gets. You don't think Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were discussing the latest MLB scores, do you?

What the leftwing MSM doesn't get is they are going to keep crying at every little move, reporting half-truths and flat out lies and propaganda until even the lefties get tired of hearing it.

[aboutime]

Anyone....and I do mean ANYONE, who believes this BULLSH$T to be factual.
HAS THEIR HEAD UP THEIR LIBERAL, STUPID ASS, wishing somebody would spray PREPARATION H on their brain to free their EMPTY mind.

[pete311]

MacMaster says the report is false. I'm not even coming to any conclusions yet. Let it play out.

[jimnyc]

The White House Responds to WaPo Report Trump Revealed Classified Info to Russians

A bombshell Washington Post report Monday night suggests that President Trump revealed classified information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov upon his visit to the White House last week.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster have responded with the following statement, insisting the WaPo report sensationalized the situation.

https://i.imgur.com/5WxmGyf.jpg

Rest here - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/05/15/wapo-report-n2327210

[jimnyc]

Deep State Leaks Highly Classified Info to Washington Post to Smear President Trump

Current and former U.S. officials, supposedly concerned that President Trump had shared some “highly classified information” with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador to the U.S. last week, leaked that information to the Washington Post in an article published Monday.

However, the report admits that it is “unlikely” Trump broke any laws.

“As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law,” the report said.

In addition, his national security adviser, who was at the meeting, told the Post nothing was shared that was not already publicly known.

“At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly,” said Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.

McMaster later told reporters at the White House, “Other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. I was in the room, it didn’t happen.”

“This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced,” added Dina Powell, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy, who also attended the meeting.

Rest here - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/15/deep-state-leaks-highly-classified-info-to-washington-post-to-smear-president-trump/

[BoogyMan]

I am guessing that there is a difference between treasonous Hillary having classified information on her e-mail server and patriotic Trump divulging highly classified information in person to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador during a meeting last week. Someone here needs to let me know. :rolleyes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.edd57b2764ed

There is PROOF that Clinton did wrong, there is NO proof that Trump did so other than a declared enemy of his administration publishing unverifiable claims.

It is quite interesting to see the people who most identify with the scumbaggery of the communist past trying to make claims that Trump is working with Putin to bring America down.

[Black Diamond]

There is PROOF that Clinton did wrong, there is NO proof that Trump did so other than a declared enemy of his administration publishing unverifiable claims.

It is quite interesting to see the people who most identify with the scumbaggery of the communist past trying to make claims that Trump is working with Putin to bring America down.
Minor details.

[jimnyc]

Reading the hysteria today about this supposed sharing is crazy. The media thought for sure they had him this time and ran with it as if he were guilty, and just as many politicians, from both sides, responded similarly.

[aboutime]

Funny how the likely characters from the Left, always tend to ignore anything that might make their FAKE NEWS look terrible.
How bout it gabby? Does this ring any bells? http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265200/flashback-bill-clinton-gave-china-missile-matthew-vadum
FLASHBACK: BILL CLINTON GAVE CHINA MISSILE TECHNOLOGY
Democrats intermittently talk tough about our enemies -- but only after aiding and comforting them.
December 21, 2016 Matthew Vadum
With all this talk of Russians allegedly interfering in U.S. elections, it is worth recalling that it wasn’t too long ago that the previous Democrat in the White House betrayed America by working hand in hand with our Communist enemies in mainland China.

[gabosaurus]

I knew I should have waited for the breitbart sanitized version of the story. :rolleyes:

Trouble is, all sorts of FBI and Congressional investigations into the Hillary matter could come up empty and people will still judge her guilty.
But all the Trump team has to say is "that's not true!" and he is in the clear. Trump supporters can then point to right wing blogs as their evidence.

Why does the media continually attack Trump? It's like this...
As POTUS, Trump is the most important (and thus reported on) person in the country. Anything Trump says or does will be debated. If those things are dump tweets or actions, then the media is going to jump in head first.
Trump could have avoided all this by not waging war with the media. If someone pisses you off, you are going to want payback.
What hurts the most is the fact that the leaks are coming from inside the Trump administration. From his own staff and support. It is difficult to play defense all the time and expect to move forward.

[gabosaurus]

Reading the hysteria today about this supposed sharing is crazy. The media thought for sure they had him this time and ran with it as if he were guilty, and just as many politicians, from both sides, responded similarly.

What if Trump is guilty? Will he ever accept it? Not likely. How many missteps can the right-wing blogs cover up?

[CSM]

What if Trump is guilty? Will he ever accept it? Not likely. How many missteps can the right-wing blogs cover up?

what if HRC is guilty? Will she ever accept it? Not likely. How many criminal acts can left wing liberal crackpots cover up?


See how that works?

[aboutime]

What if Trump is guilty? Will he ever accept it? Not likely. How many missteps can the right-wing blogs cover up?



Poor, Poor gabby. Like a crazed dog, looking for a BONE. Hoping to find some reason that will make her Already, Miserable Life...since Trump won...a little more comfortable with more MADE UP...Bad news.
gabby. You should work for PMSNBC. At least a few people pay more attention to them than WE DO TO YOU.

[pete311]

Need to wait for the next following few days to figure things out. Way too early to come to any conclusions.

[Black Diamond]

What if Trump is guilty? Will he ever accept it? Not likely. How many missteps can the right-wing blogs cover up?
What if trump is innocent? Will you ever accept it ? How many lies and conspiracy theories can CNN and the rest of the media propagate?

[jimnyc]

What if Trump is guilty? Will he ever accept it? Not likely. How many missteps can the right-wing blogs cover up?

You sit back and whine, and bash me simply for the sources of things I post. Then you ask me a question? Go fuck yourself.

Fact is, you ran with it and made an asshole out of yourself. Nothing was shared and I'll take the words of Mcmaster and Tillerson over the liberal MSM any day of the week.

There is nothing to worry about accepting as there is nothing to accept. No misstep to add as there was no misstep. You idiots like to invent shit, shrug your shoulders when it's found to be false, but then continue on as if it were true.

Go away and find something else to invent to make yourself happy.

[Black Diamond]

You sit back and whine, and bash me simply for the sources of things I post. Then you ask me a question? Go fuck yourself.

Fact is, you ran with it and made an asshole out of yourself. Nothing was shared and I'll take the words of Mcmaster and Tillerson over the liberal MSM any day of the week.

There is nothing to worry about accepting as there is nothing to accept. No misstep to add as there was no misstep. You idiots like to invent shit, shrug your shoulders when it's found to be false, but then continue on as if it were true.

Go away and find something else to invent to make yourself happy.
Still trying to make up for "the most qualified candidate in history" losing to the guy with "no experience". I imagine it's a daunting task.

[Gunny]

Deep State Leaks Highly Classified Info to Washington Post to Smear President Trump

Current and former U.S. officials, supposedly concerned that President Trump had shared some “highly classified information” with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador to the U.S. last week, leaked that information to the Washington Post in an article published Monday.

However, the report admits that it is “unlikely” Trump broke any laws.

“As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law,” the report said.

In addition, his national security adviser, who was at the meeting, told the Post nothing was shared that was not already publicly known.

“At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly,” said Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.

McMaster later told reporters at the White House, “Other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. I was in the room, it didn’t happen.”

“This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced,” added Dina Powell, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy, who also attended the meeting.

Rest here - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/15/deep-state-leaks-highly-classified-info-to-washington-post-to-smear-president-trump/The whackos on the left are desperate. Grasping at straws, twisting anything they can.

[revelarts]

Look, If Donald Trump was personal friends with any of us here.
WHO among you would trust Trump with just personal information that you wanted to keep secret?

let alone knowing that he was going to meet with people that you wanted to keep it secret from.

[pete311]

IMO WaPo just risked their credibility on this one. Big stakes for them.

[jimnyc]

Look, If Donald Trump was personal friends with any of us here.
WHO among you would trust Trump with just personal information that you wanted to keep secret?

let alone knowing that he was going to meet with people that you wanted to keep it secret from.

All alone in such meeting? I would be more concerned with the headlines. Considering Mcmaster and Tillerson have now both stated the story is false - I just don't see them placing their careers on the line so quickly.

[KarlMarx]

Anyone with a security clearance will tell you that if THEY had done what HRC had, they would be arrested for violating the Espionage Act and at the very least facing a grand jury.

I want to ask the libs on this board is there anything that HRC would do where they would be OK with her going to prison?

I have a feeling I'm going to be listening to crickets for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kathianne]

All alone in such meeting? I would be more concerned with the headlines. Considering Mcmaster and Tillerson have now both stated the story is false - I just don't see them placing their careers on the line so quickly.

Me either. Everyone knows my feelings towards Trump, while I do want him to succeed, nothing has changed my mind about why I couldn't vote for him. With that said, I'm going with what McMaster said, 'both he and Tillerson were in the room with Trump, it didn't happen as the Post reports. Nothing was discussed that wasn't already common knowledge.'

[jimnyc]

IMO WaPo just risked their credibility on this one. Big stakes for them.

Their sources say it was from current and former top officials in the first story? It's confusing to read the trail. But it's easy for their credibility, when it comes to accusing the president - simply complete the trail and point out where they got their information. Then so on and so forth. Something like this needs to be followed up on, if they want any credibility left anyway. Thus far, on Trump's side, he's had some heavy hitters already go against the story.

[Gunny]

Reading the hysteria today about this supposed sharing is crazy. The media thought for sure they had him this time and ran with it as if he were guilty, and just as many politicians, from both sides, responded similarly.

The media has thought they had him since Jan last year. Wonder how that's working for them so far .....:laugh:

[jimnyc]

Me either. Everyone knows my feelings towards Trump, while I do want him to succeed, nothing has changed my mind about why I couldn't vote for him. With that said, I'm going with what McMaster said, 'both he and Tillerson were in the room with Trump, it didn't happen as the Post reports. Nothing was discussed that wasn't already common knowledge.'

If they to shied away, then I would be more concerned. But both said the same thing. And McMaster, and his resume, I just can't see him lying.

[Kathianne]

IMO WaPo just risked their credibility on this one. Big stakes for them.

I disagree. No newspaper is going to lose their 'credibility' trashing a Republican, especially Trump.

[Black Diamond]

I disagree. No newspaper is going to lose their 'credibility' trashing a Republican, especially Trump.
I appreciate the quotes

[revelarts]

All alone in such meeting? I would be more concerned with the headlines. Considering Mcmaster and Tillerson have now both stated the story is false - I just don't see them placing their careers on the line so quickly.

putting their careers on the line by NOT making Trump look good, and not making this story go away so Trump and the nation doesn't look so bad?
Or
Them jumping on a bandwagon and telling A LIE that Trump DID give secrets away makes no sense. they came to the W.H. with him.

Seems to me they'd have AS MUCH incentive to cover for him as to tell the truth that he didn't really do it.
seems like we'll never know.

2 other points.
the Russian have no incentive to confirm they got any info.
But WHY would the CIA etc need to be notified to tell the our allies that he did it, if he really didn't.
that's the part that smells here among the WH, Mcmaster and Tillerson denials.

[pete311]

Their sources say it was from current and former top officials in the first story? It's confusing to read the trail. But it's easy for their credibility, when it comes to accusing the president - simply complete the trail and point out where they got their information. Then so on and so forth. Something like this needs to be followed up on, if they want any credibility left anyway. Thus far, on Trump's side, he's had some heavy hitters already go against the story.

I just can't imagine they run this story unless they are very confident. I mean they know it's a huge story and will be challenged by the WH.

[pete311]

I disagree. No newspaper is going to lose their 'credibility' trashing a Republican, especially Trump.

If it's bogus then I will be skeptical of further WaPo stories. I'm sure there are others like me.

[Kathianne]

If it's bogus then I will be skeptical of further WaPo stories. I'm sure there are others like me.

Yeah, from what I can see, that will happen when hell freezes over. Same with the opposite, Trump will never be wrong-other than he really should stay off twitter, though he does have a reason to go around the media-everyone wants him to fail.

The country has gone mad for the most part, IMO.

[Gunny]

IMO WaPo just risked their credibility on this one. Big stakes for them.What credibility? I read the post every day when I was in DC just to see if they could outdo yesterdays 10 ft tall stack of BS. when you're owned by the left, you have no credibility with people that can see through the crap.

[aboutime]

How funny can anyone get? Using the Washington Post as a reliable source for HONEST information is similar to asking Bill Clinton if he Likes BLUE DRESSES?

[BoogyMan]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9951&stc=1


I knew I should have waited for the breitbart sanitized version of the story. :rolleyes:

Trouble is, all sorts of FBI and Congressional investigations into the Hillary matter could come up empty and people will still judge her guilty.
But all the Trump team has to say is "that's not true!" and he is in the clear. Trump supporters can then point to right wing blogs as their evidence.

Why does the media continually attack Trump? It's like this...
As POTUS, Trump is the most important (and thus reported on) person in the country. Anything Trump says or does will be debated. If those things are dump tweets or actions, then the media is going to jump in head first.
Trump could have avoided all this by not waging war with the media. If someone pisses you off, you are going to want payback.
What hurts the most is the fact that the leaks are coming from inside the Trump administration. From his own staff and support. It is difficult to play defense all the time and expect to move forward.

[gabosaurus]

You sit back and whine, and bash me simply for the sources of things I post. Then you ask me a question? Go fuck yourself.

Fact is, you ran with it and made an asshole out of yourself. Nothing was shared and I'll take the words of Mcmaster and Tillerson over the liberal MSM any day of the week.

There is nothing to worry about accepting as there is nothing to accept. No misstep to add as there was no misstep. You idiots like to invent shit, shrug your shoulders when it's found to be false, but then continue on as if it were true.

Go away and find something else to invent to make yourself happy.

You are taking all this WAY too personally. I never attacked you. I was attacking breitbart. Which, believe it or not, is the mouthpiece of Trump. Breitbart has never been objective and never will be.
No one has been proven right or wrong on this. The WaPo reported its finding and Trump people denied it. That has happened a lot lately. As a conservative, you are always going to believe the Trump side. You don't have a middle ground.

No one is "inventing shit." Nothing has been found to be false. You simply get annoyed when someone challenges you. That happens to people who are convinced that they are never wrong.

[Neo]

I am guessing that there is a difference between treasonous Hillary having classified information on her e-mail server and patriotic Trump divulging highly classified information in person to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador during a meeting last week. Someone here needs to let me know. :rolleyes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.edd57b2764ed

Hi! Long time no post. That said....

a. It's a "leak" to the fake news monolith, the WaPo=questionable credibility.
b. NSA Director H.R. McMaster, who was there and who's credibility is beyond reproach, said it didn't happen.
c. Your Goddess Hillary broke several laws such as 18 US CODE(S) 798, 793, & 1905. These all dealt with the handling classified material. This was disclosed by Comey on July 5, 2017.
d. There is no evidence of wrong doing by Trump, only rumor and innuendo, YUGE difference.

You Libs are a never ending source of comedic relief with your knee jerk reactions! Try to relax, the next 7 1/2 years will just FLYYYY BY!:dance:

[Neo]

I just can't imagine they run this story unless they are very confident. I mean they know it's a huge story and will be challenged by the WH.

Really? You ARE talking about the WaPo, right? Aren't they the rag that wrote a bogus story about Spicer hiding in the WH bush's? Yeah..credibility, LOL! :laugh:

[Kathianne]

It's amazing how so many criticize WaPo, but get upset when others question the use of Breitbart. Yes, and vice versa. I've read decent articles from both and some BS from both. Those that just say, "Oh, THAT source, I won't read it," says more about the person saying that then any article.

There have been links to sources that just the name would give me pause, I do try to avoid 'bad' links. When I was using MS I did get a virus when I clicked on some far right link, Alex Jones? I've been careful of some ever since.

I do try though to not criticize an article or writer, just because of the name of the publication.

[revelarts]

It is interesting though that some Trump supporters, while saying that 'HE DIDN'T DO IT', are still willing to concede that he MAY HAVE done it. BUT even if he did he's still a GREAT POTOUS because it's legal for the POTUS to declassify stuff willy nilly.

I have to say, Maybe I'm to Old But i remember when Bill Clinton sent secret docs....Missile plans and sales I believe... to CHINA.
But I don't remember ANY on the right EVER bringing up the laws that say it's OK if the POTUS does that type of thing.
maybe I'm just not remembering correctly.
Seems AT posted something that reference it... here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?59039-Something-I-found-while-checking-my-Document-directory&p=865962#post865962)



This old Quote comes to mind
http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-when-the-president-does-it-that-means-that-it-s-not-illegal-richard-m-nixon-21-51-12.jpg

Basically the quote from Supporters of FILL IN THE BLANK POTUS should read.

When the President I supported does it, THAT MEANS that it's NOT illegal!
(and the other side is just making stuff UP!!:mad::mad::mad::lalala:)

[pete311]

It's amazing how so many criticize WaPo, but get upset when others question the use of Breitbart.

They are not on the same level. WaPo is biased, but Trump is not doing any favors. It's shooting fish in a barrel. Breitbart has one mission and one audience.

[Kathianne]

They are not on the same level. WaPo is biased, but Trump is not doing any favors. It's shooting fish in a barrel. Breitbart has one mission and one audience.

IF you are going to quote someone, quote fully or at minimum explain that you've 'clipped' for partisan reasons.

You are proving my point.

[Kathianne]

It is interesting though that some Trump supporters, while saying that 'HE DIDN'T DO IT', are still willing to concede that he MAY HAVE done it. BUT even if he did he's still a GREAT POTOUS because it's legal for the POTUS to declassify stuff willy nilly.

I have to say, Maybe I'm to Old But i remember when Bill Clinton sent secret docs....Missile plans and sales I believe... to CHINA.
But I don't remember ANY on the right EVER bringing up the laws that says it's OK if the POTUS does that type of thing.
maybe I'm just not remembering correctly.
Seems AT posted something that reference it... here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?59039-Something-I-found-while-checking-my-Document-directory&p=865962#post865962)



This old Quote comes to mind
http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-when-the-president-does-it-that-means-that-it-s-not-illegal-richard-m-nixon-21-51-12.jpg

Basically the quote from Supporters of FILL IN THE BLANK POTUS should read.

When the President I supported does it, THAT MEANS that it's NOT illegal!
(and the other side is just making stuff UP!!:mad::mad::mad::lalala:)


Off topic but the choice of your posted pic reminds me, has anyone else noticed that Adam Schiff looks a lot like Nixon?

9952

[pete311]

IF you are going to quote someone, quote fully or at minimum explain that you've 'clipped' for partisan reasons.

You are proving my point.

What? I'm not quoting anyone.

[Kathianne]

What? I'm not quoting anyone.

What you wrote:


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?59146-Trump-shares-classified-information-with-Russian-officials&p=867292#post867292



It's amazing how so many criticize WaPo, but get upset when others question the use of Breitbart.

They are not on the same level. WaPo is biased, but Trump is not doing any favors. It's shooting fish in a barrel. Breitbart has one mission and one audience.

Post you were quoting from:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?59146-Trump-shares-classified-information-with-Russian-officials&p=867290#post867290



It's amazing how so many criticize WaPo, but get upset when others question the use of Breitbart. Yes, and vice versa. I've read decent articles from both and some BS from both. Those that just say, "Oh, THAT source, I won't read it," says more about the person saying that then any article.

There have been links to sources that just the name would give me pause, I do try to avoid 'bad' links. When I was using MS I did get a virus when I clicked on some far right link, Alex Jones? I've been careful of some ever since.

I do try though to not criticize an article or writer, just because of the name of the publication.

[pete311]

What you wrote:


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?59146-Trump-shares-classified-information-with-Russian-officials&p=867292#post867292


Post you were quoting from:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?59146-Trump-shares-classified-information-with-Russian-officials&p=867290#post867290

Gotcha. Only wanted to respond to that one point. Nothing nefarious there.

[Black Diamond]

Off topic but the choice of your posted pic reminds me, has anyone else noticed that Adam Schiff looks a lot like Nixon?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9952&stc=1
Yes

[Kathianne]

Gotcha. Only wanted to respond to that one point. Nothing nefarious there.

Then make that clear, it's deceiving otherwise.

[Gunny]

Look, If Donald Trump was personal friends with any of us here.
WHO among you would trust Trump with just personal information that you wanted to keep secret?

let alone knowing that he was going to meet with people that you wanted to keep it secret from.

Completely different. First, you have no idea whether or not Trump's friends Trust him. You don't know because no one's said anything? There's a clue in that.

Second, Trump is head if state. He has to deal with the people on the international stage. That's business and that's the way it is. I've dealt with a LOT of people in quite a few foreign countries. Am I suspect for it?

The strategy on the left here is clear. The right re-opened the Hitlery investigation. The left is going to try and get back by accusing him of the same every time he talks to a foreign nation. Sorry, THAT is his job. Not to mention the people that were there said nothing of the sort happened.

Not to worry though for all you conspiracy theorists. leftwingnnuts and/or Trump haters .... I have in good authority the Dems have ordered the latest version of the Wile E. Coyote draing board from Amazon. A Russian told me.;)

[Drummond]

I knew I should have waited for the breitbart sanitized version of the story. :rolleyes:

Trouble is, all sorts of FBI and Congressional investigations into the Hillary matter could come up empty and people will still judge her guilty.
But all the Trump team has to say is "that's not true!" and he is in the clear. Trump supporters can then point to right wing blogs as their evidence.

Why does the media continually attack Trump? It's like this...
As POTUS, Trump is the most important (and thus reported on) person in the country. Anything Trump says or does will be debated. If those things are dump tweets or actions, then the media is going to jump in head first.
Trump could have avoided all this by not waging war with the media. If someone pisses you off, you are going to want payback.
What hurts the most is the fact that the leaks are coming from inside the Trump administration. From his own staff and support. It is difficult to play defense all the time and expect to move forward.

I think that 'fake news' somewhat adequately describes this. I don't believe for a second that Trump has done anything of what is now suggested.

You say in your post .. 'Anything Trump says or does will be debated.' I suggest that you're inaccurate in one word of that. The truth is .. ANYTHING TRUMP SAYS OR DOES WILL BE DEBASED.

I wonder what the American political scene is going to look like, four years from now ? Trump's enemies on the Left will, I'm sure, have proved by that time that they will literally say and do ANYTHING to try and debase Trump and his Administration. Their desperation to achieve that aim will go to staggering extremes, even by today's standards.

What matters is that the American people, by that time, are in no doubt as to the truth of that. By proving that they are utterly devoid of decency and therefore any fitness to govern, I'm hoping that the Left opposition will royally do to themselves what they dream of doing to Trump. And make themselves unelectable for generations to come.

[Gunny]

I think that 'fake news' somewhat adequately describes this. I don't believe for a second that Trump has done anything of what is now suggested.

You say in your post .. 'Anything Trump says or does will be debated.' I suggest that you're inaccurate in one word of that. The truth is .. ANYTHING TRUMP SAYS OR DOES WILL BE DEBASED.

I wonder what the American political scene is going to look like, four years from now ? Trump's enemies on the Left will, I'm sure, have proved by that time that they will literally say and do ANYTHING to try and debase Trump and his Administration. Their desperation to achieve that aim will go to staggering extremes, even by today's standards.

What matters is that the American people, by that time, are in no doubt as to the truth of that. By proving that they are utterly devoid of decency and therefore any fitness to govern, I'm hoping that the Left opposition will royally do to themselves what they dream of doing to Trump. And make themselves unelectable for generations to come.

I'm getting a list up of everyone on this board that has communicated with you and Noir and tailfins (since he has foreign wife) and balu and calling for a special investigation by the Dems. Lord only knows what kind of chicanery you foreigners have been up to. Probably dending copies of our posts to your intel sections.:laugh:

[pete311]

Then make that clear, it's deceiving otherwise.
deceiving? I'm responding to a single point. The little arrow icon links to your post where I quoted, so what is the big deal?

[pete311]

Trump confirms he shared classified info with Russians. Says he has the right, which is true, but not exactly the point.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-wanted-to-share-with-russia-2017-5

His tweets contradict McMaster's statement. I can't imagine anyone wanting to work for Trump. Just threw him under the bus.

[Gunny]

deceiving? I'm responding to a single point. The little arrow icon links to your post where I quoted, so what is the big deal?

What little arrow? HERE is an idea ... use the reply with quote like everyone else.

Idea #2 ... don't cherrypick post, taking them out of context to make a so-called point that has nothing to do with the overall intent of the post.

That one works too.

[Gunny]

Trump confirms he shared classified info with Russians. Says he has the right, which is true, but not exactly the point.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-wanted-to-share-with-russia-2017-5

His tweets contradict McMaster's statement. I can't imagine anyone wanting to work for Trump. Just threw him under the bus.

No they don't. Think anyone can't see through the latest leftwingnut ploy? Keep Trump defending himself instead of doing his job?

Someone needs to take his twitter account away. i don't think ANY elected official, much less the President, should be on social media and Trump is the poster child for why. I seriously think the topic should be addressed.

As far what he did or didn't say to the Russians? He's President. As has been pointed out it's legal. And none of the media's nor your nor the lefwingnut moonbats' business.

[Kathianne]

I'm going to say that if Trump keeps himself from tweeting anything about this, it's over. Both Tillerson and McMaster were in the room according to McMaster. Both said it didn't happen.

Even I cannot doubt everyone. There are no shortage of folks willing to 'leak' lies either.


Trump confirms he shared classified info with Russians. Says he has the right, which is true, but not exactly the point.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-wanted-to-share-with-russia-2017-5

His tweets contradict McMaster's statement. I can't imagine anyone wanting to work for Trump. Just threw him under the bus.

I'm going to say that I doubt McMaster was lying, which means that Trump just feels compelled or something to always have a last word. He probably wanted to 'assert his powers,' without realizing that this was a case where it's being said he shared info that was developed and shared with the US, with no permission given to share with any other entities. It could get someone killed. (Benghazi comes to mind, sloppy.) In this case, he's going to find once again that he will lose most of all but his core support, just when the Comey replacement find was getting underway. He put McMaster and Tillerson in bad situation.


No they don't. Think anyone can't see through the latest leftwingnut ploy? Keep Trump defending himself instead of doing his job?

Someone needs to take his twitter account away. i don't think ANY elected official, much less the President, should be on social media and Trump is the poster child for why. I seriously think the topic should be addressed.

As far what he did or didn't say to the Russians? He's President. As has been pointed out it's legal. And none of the media's nor your nor the lefwingnut moonbats' business.

Opening sentence, core support. That's fine, but it's denial to say that throwing on the 'someone needs to take his twitter away.' is an acknowledgment of another big blunder of his own making. He has decent people trying to help him and he is throwing them under the bus.

[Kathianne]

McMaster is going to have a briefing in about 20 minutes. I was planning on doing errands, but will wait to see what he has to say.

Came across this article, I can relate. I've tried and tried to look for any glimmers of 'bright side' since January, unfortunately still come up with temperamentally unsuited to be president, I keep hoping it changes, but...

Anyways, interesting. Written and published before the tweeting began:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447664/donald-trump-russia-washington-post-president-revealed-highly-classified-information?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=goldberg&utm_content=latest-russia


Trust But Verify by JONAH GOLDBERG May 15, 2017 9:52 PM

So what to make of the latest mess? I don’t know if the Washington Post story is accurate, but I do think it’s entirely plausible. Put aside whether the story is properly sourced and all that. When you heard the news, did you think it could be true? If your answer is yes, think about that for a moment. That right there is a problem.

No, I don’t think for a moment that Trump deliberately divulged to the Russians classified information at an event covered by Russian media (but not American media) the day after he fired the FBI director for not doing more to end the investigation of his campaign’s alleged involvement with the Russians. That’s “resistance” paranoia stuff.

But the idea that Trump — with his irrepressible need to boast to the point of narcissistic incontinence combined with his lackadaisical approach to the nuts-and-bolts demands of the job — somehow just let something slip is utterly and completely believable. It was apparently believable to various members of his own administration.

What’s harder to believe, however, is the idea that H. R. McMaster lied tonight. McMaster is a heroic figure with credibility and integrity to burn. But if you put aside McMaster’s reputation and just listen to what he said, his statement tonight was pretty thin. He denied things not alleged in the Washington Post story “as reported” and then, after 60 seconds, walked away without taking a single question.

...

I have a lot of faith in and respect for McMaster. But it’s worth recalling that just last week, the White House insisted that the president fired James Comey on the recommendation of the deputy attorney general. The vice president repeatedly said as much. Within 24 hours that storyline was discredited. Within days, the president himself threw the vice president and his communications team under the bus in his interview with Lester Holt. Donald Trump’s track record of screwing people who vouch for him is truly impressive. So is his ability to put honorable people in no-win situations.

You’d think that people would at least be somewhat chastened by this fact and take a wait and see, or even trust-but-verify, approach. In other words, I get why you don’t trust the Washington Post.

I don’t get why you trust the Trump administration.

[Kathianne]

Another source that had been big on Trump, once all the other possibilities fell aside is finding is difficult to understand the lack of self-control Trump exercises or rather doesn't. So many wanted him to not suck.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/16/trump-heck-yeah-shared-intel-russians/


Trump: Heck yeah, I shared intel with the RussiansPOSTED AT 8:41 AM ON MAY 16, 2017 BY ED MORRISSEY
I guess everyone can put the #fakenews hashtag away for a while, eh? Yesterday, the White House had nat-sec advisor H.R. McMaster issue a broad but unspecific denial (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/15/wapo-trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-russian-foreign-minister-ambassador/) after the Washington Post reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.84a1ecf9147f) that Donald Trump had blurted out highly classified intel to the visiting Russian delegation last week. Rex Tillerson followed suit and the White House communications team issued a terse denial before heading behind closed doors for a meeting.


This morning, as what seems to be a developing pattern, Trump took to Twitter and made hash of the hashtag from his supporters, as well as of White House communications strategy:

...

Trump’s rationale doesn’t make any sense either. Russia has less interest in attacking ISIS “terrorism” than it does in labeling anything opposed to Assad as “terrorism” and destroying it. That includes UN convoys (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/21/u-s-airstrikes-un-relief-convoy-syria-carried-russia/), civilians in Aleppo (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/28/secretary-kerrys-ultimatum-russia-stop-bombing-aleppo-cooperation-u-s-ends/), and at times bombing US allies (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/01/humiliation-kerry-appears-with-russian-foreign-minister-after-putin-bombs-cia-backed-rebels/) on the ground in Syria. Our friend and former colleague Noah Rothman has quite a list of the latter (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/russia-bombing-putin-trump-assad-syria/) in a March article at Commentary. The last diplomats to get access to the intel Trump shared should have been the two Sergeis — not to mention the TASS photographer who hung out at the meeting.


Trump’s supporters argue that he plays eight-dimensional chess when it comes to deals and politics, but so far we’re not seeing much evidence of it. Instead, it looks much more like an administration captive to an entirely whimsical president, one lacking the sophistication to know who his opponents are, and the wisdom to know when to keep his mouth (and Twitter app) shut. If true heavyweights like McMaster and James Mattis can’t impress upon Trump the need for discretion and strategy, we may be looking at the new normal — and it ain’t pretty. At least it’s not Hillary Clinton only lasts so long.

[gabosaurus]

This is getting REALLY confusing to me. The WaPo reports that Trump shared confidential information with the Russians. White House responds that the report is fake. WaPo stands by story. White House sends out officials to assure story is fake. Trump comes out and says he actually DID share info, and had a right to do so. White House says Trump had right to share info and attacks WaPo for reporting that Trump shared info.

[NightTrain]

This is getting REALLY confusing to me. The WaPo reports that Trump shared confidential information with the Russians. White House responds that the report is fake. WaPo stands by story. White House sends out officials to assure story is fake. Trump comes out and says he actually DID share info, and had a right to do so. White House says Trump had right to share info and attacks WaPo for reporting that Trump shared info.

Do you find it funny that you are the equivalent of 1990s-Era car alarms? I know I do.

Shrill, obnoxious and only good for annoying everyone around you for no good reason.

[Kathianne]

I'm just confused at how Hillary's sloppiness regarding emails, ignoring all the security clearance warnings, was given justified criticism-some calling it treasonous behavior.

Now Trump argues that he has the legal right to give out any damn intel his wishes, (presumably because he ultimate decides what is classified and at what level).

Either security classifications have no meaning or Trump has as much respect for those gaining intel, possibly risking their lives as Hillary did.

Then again, maybe he just doesn't understand what the fuss is about? Personally I don't find him ignorant, which leaves the conclusion to be something else.

[jimnyc]

Just a few more updates from a few more sources. Whether for bad or good, methinks Trump likes to fuck with the press as well.

----

Only Named Source In WaPo Report On Trump’s Leaking Of Classified Information Denies It

The Washington Post accused President Donald Trump of leaking “highly-classified information” in a recent meeting with Russian officials, but the only named source in the piece denies it.

Citing anonymous officials, the Post claims that Trump revealed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak unspecified yet high-value information provided by a unidentified partner in the fight against the Islamic State, potentially jeopardizing operations against ISIS and compromising U.S. intelligence sources.

The president reportedly revealed information surrounding an ISIS plot.

Buzzfeed corroborated the story, which cited two anonymous U.S. officials.

White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, the only identified source in WaPo’s report, denies that the president leaked information the U.S. government deemed classified.

Rest here - http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/15/only-named-source-in-wapo-report-on-trumps-leaking-of-classified-information-denies-it/


National Security Adviser Refutes WaPo Report: 'It Didn't Happen'; Trump Says He 'Shared Facts' With Russia

(CNSNews.com) - In two tweets around 7 a.m. Tuesday, President Trump addressed the latest White House controversy involving his discussion with Russian diplomats in an Oval Office meeting last week:

"As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining.......to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

An hour later, Trump issued a third tweet: "I have been asking Director Comey & others, from the beginning of my administration, to find the LEAKERS in the intelligence community....."

In a major leak to the Washington Post on Monday, unnamed "current and former U.S. officials" said President Trump "revealed highly classified information" to the Russian foreign minister and Russian ambassador at a White House meeting last week.

According to the newspaer, those officials "said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.”

President Trump's National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster released a statement Monday evening, refuting the anonymously-sourced Washington Post report.

Rest here - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/national-security-adviser-refutes-wapo-report-i-was-room-it-didnt-happen

[gabosaurus]

I will disregard Nightrain's ignorant statement in consideration of the fact that he lives off the grid and has not idea about what is happening in the civilized world. :p

[jimnyc]

I will disregard Nightrain's ignorant statement in consideration of the fact that he lives off the grid and has not idea about what is happening in the civilized world. :p

We are going to drop a TV by parachute later this month for his use. Only thing, the TV won't have a way to connect. NT is tough though, he'll just need to run himself like 437 miles of cable and he'll be back on the grid!

[Kathianne]

We are going to drop a TV by parachute later this month for his use. Only thing, the TV won't have a way to connect. NT is tough though, he'll just need to run himself like 437 miles of cable and he'll be back on the grid!
:laugh2: and if he runs into a grizzly on his way, he'll kill, cook, and eat it!

[Black Diamond]

:laugh2: and if he runs into a grizzly on his way, he'll kill, cook, and eat it!
Who does he think he is? Sarah Palin? :cool:

[NightTrain]

We are going to drop a TV by parachute later this month for his use. Only thing, the TV won't have a way to connect. NT is tough though, he'll just need to run himself like 437 miles of cable and he'll be back on the grid!

Please drop a laptop, too. I'd like to participate in this whole "Grid" thing. Might even be able to interact with moonbats on the internet that the occasional passing trapper tells me about.

Is it true that moobats can exist in two places at once, say, in Texas and California?

[Elessar]

I am becoming more and more convinced that if Mr. Trump even so much as
put on one of his socks inside out, the MSM would try to explode a huge
issue over it.

Face it....it appears a lot of them would be playing crossword puzzles right now
if they didn't have him to dog and focus on.

[Kathianne]

I am becoming more and more convinced that if Mr. Trump even so much as
put on one of his socks inside out, the MSM would try to explode a huge
issue over it.

Face it....it appears a lot of them would be playing crossword puzzles right now
if they didn't have him to dog and focus on.

If they thought it would get Trump in more problems, no doubt.

Then again, are you saying all these things are just fine, nothing to see here?

[Elessar]

If they thought it would get Trump in more problems, no doubt.

Then again, are you saying all these things are just fine, nothing to see here?

No, I am not saying that, but would rather accept what he and his staff have said about
the conduct and content of the meeting and move on.

Some 'unknown source' leashing out this accusation does not lend a great deal of integrity
to the report.

[gabosaurus]

The pattern is starting to emerge. First the report that Trump gave classified information to the Russian. Which the White House denied. Then Trump admitted he disclosed classified information to the Russians. Which the White House said was his right as president. Then the White House launched a counter offensive, saying that the real crime was not Trump giving classified information to the Russians, but some traitorous schweinhund leaking the information that Trump disclosed classified information to the Russians. I am reminded of those old war movies where the final loyal troops and advisers defend the Fuhrerbunker while Hitler cowers in the basement. :cool:

[Kathianne]

No, I am not saying that, but would rather accept what he and his staff have said about
the conduct and content of the meeting and move on.

Some 'unknown source' leashing out this accusation does not lend a great deal of integrity
to the report.

Problem is that it was put to bed, when McMaster spoke, at least for most. It was Trump on Twitter that brought this up, again.

The idea that a 'not politician, a guy who will plain speak and shake things up,' would expect all systems normal would have another think coming. Indeed, the very 'uniqueness' of his way of communicating is likely adding to the response on the parts of others to 'shake things up' or communicate.

All of it is very destructive, IMO.

[Neo]

It is interesting though that some Trump supporters, while saying that 'HE DIDN'T DO IT', are still willing to concede that he MAY HAVE done it. BUT even if he did he's still a GREAT POTOUS because it's legal for the POTUS to declassify stuff willy nilly.

I have to say, Maybe I'm to Old But i remember when Bill Clinton sent secret docs....Missile plans and sales I believe... to CHINA.
But I don't remember ANY on the right EVER bringing up the laws that say it's OK if the POTUS does that type of thing.
maybe I'm just not remembering correctly.
Seems AT posted something that reference it... here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?59039-Something-I-found-while-checking-my-Document-directory&p=865962#post865962)


This old Quote comes to mind
http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-when-the-president-does-it-that-means-that-it-s-not-illegal-richard-m-nixon-21-51-12.jpg

Basically the quote from Supporters of FILL IN THE BLANK POTUS should read.

When the President I supported does it, THAT MEANS that it's NOT illegal!
(and the other side is just making stuff UP!!:mad::mad::mad::lalala:)

With all due respect, your talking apples & oranges. Clinton SOLD supercomputer/advanced missile technology to a known adversary who did not have ICBM capabilities without it, thus making them a nuclear power. He was rewarded with a campaign donation (1.5 million) from a Dem supporter and chairman of Lorel Space & Communications, Bernard Schwartz.

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/02/flashback-bill-clinton-collected-donations-then-us-missile-tech-shipped-to-china/

Trump is "alleged" via the leak of an "unnamed source", blah, blah, blah. We are attempting to partner with Russia to squash ISIS. That makes them an ally of sorts, albeit at arms length. The sharing of some info is NOT unusual, nor a crime.

Clinton ran a pay-to-play operation out of the WH (sound familiar?) & sold out every American.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265200/flashback-bill-clinton-gave-china-missile-matthew-vadum

I haven't seen evidence on ANY of the b.s. the Left & their MSM allies have pushed since Election Day.

[Kathianne]

It's not ok with me if the president said things that could jeopardize foreign or domestic intel sources. However, Andrew McCarthy does make fair points about Trump not being the first or even second to have done so:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447682/trump-shared-classified-information-russia-obama-iran-hillary-clinton-email?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=mccarthy&utm_content=russia

[aboutime]

The Libs, Dems, Progessive, haters INSIST Trump is guilty of everything because...THEY ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID. IDIOTS, HYPOCRITES, and they hate it when they CAN'T PROVE what they insist...is TRUE.

[Neo]

It's not ok with me if the president said things that could jeopardize foreign or domestic intel sources. However, Andrew McCarthy does make fair points about Trump not being the first or even second to have done so:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447682/trump-shared-classified-information-russia-obama-iran-hillary-clinton-email?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=mccarthy&utm_content=russia


I'll go with McMaster, who said nothing sensitive was revealed. I believe him, his reputation is beyond reproach, i.e. impeccable.

[Kathianne]

eve him
i'LL go with McMaster, who said nothing sensitive was revealed. I believe him, is reputation is beyond reproach, i.e. impeccable.

Until the tweets, I agreed with you.

[pete311]

I'll go with McMaster, who said nothing sensitive was revealed. I believe him, his reputation is beyond reproach, i.e. impeccable.

That's why Israel (intel was about them) is all pissy now right?

[Elessar]

Problem is that it was put to bed, when McMaster spoke, at least for most. It was Trump on Twitter that brought this up, again.

The idea that a 'not politician, a guy who will plain speak and shake things up,' would expect all systems normal would have another think coming. Indeed, the very 'uniqueness' of his way of communicating is likely adding to the response on the parts of others to 'shake things up' or communicate.

All of it is very destructive, IMO.

Personally, since I do not indulge in Twitter (of even Facebook, for that matter),
I wish that it would suffer a catastrophic failure and wither away!:laugh:

[Neo]

Until the tweets, I agreed with you.

What tweets are you referring to? I'm on twitter everyday, all I see are a few nonsensical tweets from him from time to time, which are unfortunate. I wish somebody would make him stop, but whatta ya gonna do? He's "The Donald", but it don't make him guilty of squat.

[aboutime]

If so. Have you asked yourself? How many different ways can one man (Sean), answer the same question?
And, after answering the same questions, almost daily. HOW LONG does it take for the LAME STREAM PRESS hypocrites, and fans of Democrats to understand...WHEN WILL THE FINAL ANSWER THEY ENJOY, finally stop the endless Conspiracy LIES they tell?https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRegCI5n7N75N_6vN0QGiAvb3VUECIMH-GAstTrQ9x8EZLYACBh

[Kathianne]

It's Trump on Twitter, not most of the folks at DP.

Crisis followed by crisis followed by crisis will not be sustained. Most of the Congressional critters were home and are just hitting Washington this evening. Chaffetz has just said that all memos and any recordings regarding Comey and Trump need to be turned over to his committee by 5/24 or he will issue requests for subpoenas. Most are just being quiet, waiting to find out where this is going. It seems Ryan is saying that all the information needs to be brought into the open, by the oversight committees.

Let's hope that Trump feels the way so many of you do about Twitter in the morning and just keeps quiet. He really should leave for his trips early.

[aboutime]

It's Trump on Twitter, not most of the folks at DP.

Crisis followed by crisis followed by crisis will not be sustained. Most of the Congressional critters were home and are just hitting Washington this evening. Chaffee has just said that all memos and any recordings regarding Comey and Trump need to be turned over to his committee by 5/24 or he will issue requests for subpoenas. Most are just being quiet, waiting to find out where this is going. It seems Ryan is saying that all the information needs to be brought into the open, by the oversight committees.

Let's hope that Trump feels the way so many of you do about Twitter in the morning and just keeps quiet. He really should leave for his trips early.


Kathianne. Though I suspect you will disagree with me on this. My theory is. Trump has found that TWITTER for him, has become the ONE, and ONLY way he can honestly speak to the American people without Interference, Distortions, Lies, and Twisted Context the TV FAKE NEWS networks enjoy.
They have NO control over what Trump says. So they make a big deal out of everything, then accuse him of everything they feel will attract attention for them.

Personally. I do not use twitter. Tried during the election period, but there were so many other people typing..my line got lost in seconds.
Donald is using what seems to be the MOST EFFECTIVE method he feels will get to the people. Nothing wrong with that...until the LAME STREAM PRESS decides to start telling THE TRUTH.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. Though I suspect you will disagree with me on this. My theory is. Trump has found that TWITTER for him, has become the ONE, and ONLY way he can honestly speak to the American people without Interference, Distortions, Lies, and Twisted Context the TV FAKE NEWS networks enjoy.
They have NO control over what Trump says. So they make a big deal out of everything, then accuse him of everything they feel will attract attention for them.

Personally. I do not use twitter. Tried during the election period, but there were so many other people typing..my line got lost in seconds.
Donald is using what seems to be the MOST EFFECTIVE method he feels will get to the people. Nothing wrong with that...until the LAME STREAM PRESS decides to start telling THE TRUTH.

Whatever you think is fine. What it appears is happening is that he has undermined himself and the administration by its use. Yesterday McMaster made a strong statement that would have ended the whole 'loose lips' story, IF Trump would have left it alone-which I said at the time would just be smart, though I doubted he'd refrain.

He didn't refrain and basically said, "I wanted to say what I did to the Russians and had every legal right to do so, so I did." That is fine, he just undermined what McMaster had said the day before.

But no worries, now that, like Comey firing last week, is in the rear. Tonight it's all about 'obstruction of justice' and the fireworks continue.

This is not sustainable for the country.

[aboutime]

Whatever you think is fine. What it appears is happening is that he has undermined himself and the administration by its use. Yesterday McMaster made a strong statement that would have ended the whole 'loose lips' story, IF Trump would have left it alone-which I said at the time would just be smart, though I doubted he'd refrain.

He didn't refrain and basically said, "I wanted to say what I did to the Russians and had every legal right to do so, so I did." That is fine, he just undermined what McMaster had said the day before.

But no worries, now that, like Comey firing last week, is in the rear. Tonight it's all about 'obstruction of justice' and the fireworks continue.

This is not sustainable for the country.


Kathianne. Trump is the President. HE alone, has the power, and can determine WHAT IS, and WHAT ISN'T CLASSIFIED. That's what most of the nay-saying, crybabies want to ignore.
CLASSIFIED information, and it's Classification are determined, and assigned by the Originator...NAMELY....The President of the United States, and All Officers under his command. That's just a fact Kathianne.
Remember Harry Truman's desk sign????

https://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/hstr/image/obj/buckstops_big.jpg
THAT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS....FOR THE PRESIDENT.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. Trump is the President. HE alone, has the power, and can determine WHAT IS, and WHAT ISN'T CLASSIFIED. That's what most of the nay-saying, crybabies want to ignore.
CLASSIFIED information, and it's Classification are determined, and assigned by the Originator...NAMELY....The President of the United States, and All Officers under his command. That's just a fact Kathianne.
Remember Harry Truman's desk sign????

https://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/hstr/image/obj/buckstops_big.jpg
THAT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS....FOR THE PRESIDENT.


Yeah, great repeat of what I've been posting all day. He has the 'right' which doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do, especially when it appears so little thought was given of the repercussions, in political ways and in real life ways.

As I said, this crisis has already been overtaken by the next one, which actually circles back to days ago, Comey.

Like the new one, this one will surely be revisited, take heart.

[aboutime]

Yeah, great repeat of what I've been posting all day. He has the 'right' which doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do, especially when it appears so little thought was given of the repercussions, in political ways and in real life ways.

As I said, this crisis has already been overtaken by the next one, which actually circles back to days ago, Comey.

Like the new one, this one will surely be revisited, take heart.


Kathianne. Do you deny he is the President?

Would you side with all of those who say he's a liar, fool, and unqualified?

How much do you honestly know about HANDLING Classified Information?
Did you ever have a Government Security Clearance that allowed you to handle, and create Classified information?
Have you ever been in an ELECTED OFFICE like the President?
As for all of those CRISIS situations YOU mentioned above.

They were NOT created by Trump. They were created by those who WANT HIM TO FAIL, and they are doing everything in their CHEAP, FILTHY power to do it.
Is that what you want for Our Country, and Our President?
Not difficult questions. But why aren't you one who is willing to give him a chance, rather than being like PETEY, and REV...bringing everything down in NEGATIVITY???

If you disagree with me. I remind you of FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA...How did that work out?

[Kathianne]

AT, you do realize I've said he had the 'right' to say anything about any piece of intel, regardless of it's security classification, right? Many times I've said that. He is president, if he wants to read off whatever piece of info on the news, he can. It would just be 'declassified.'

Question is, would it be the right thing for the country?

If Obama, answer would be, "No! Traitor!" If Trump, ?

[aboutime]

AT, you do realize I've said he had the 'right' to say anything about any piece of intel, regardless of it's security classification, right? Many times I've said that. He is president, if he wants to read off whatever piece of info on the news, he can. It would just be 'declassified.'

Question is, would it be the right thing for the country?

If Obama, answer would be, "No! Traitor!" If Trump, ?



Never mind Kathianne. Nothing I say here will convince you either way. I tried to explain it to you, in the best way I knew how...as a FORMER TOP SECRET security clearance holder in the Navy. Think about that. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE TRUMP would be foolish enough, dumb enough, careless enough...Like Hillary, to just VOLUNTEER Highly classified information to the Russians?
UNLESS....You believe Trump is a RUSSIAN SPY????

[Kathianne]

Never mind Kathianne. Nothing I say here will convince you either way. I tried to explain it to you, in the best way I knew how...as a FORMER TOP SECRET security clearance holder in the Navy. Think about that. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE TRUMP would be foolish enough, dumb enough, careless enough...Like Hillary, to just VOLUNTEER Highly classified information to the Russians?
UNLESS....You believe Trump is a RUSSIAN SPY????

So what I wrote was factually wrong? Fine, somehow I didn't understand what you said, please explain what I said about his ability to immediately declassify whatever intel he chooses was factually wrong.

[pete311]

The point is that he gave away Israeli intel. It doesn't matter if he can technically declassify it. That's not how you treat your allies.

[NightTrain]

The point is that he gave away Israeli intel. It doesn't matter if he can technically declassify it. That's not how you treat your allies.

You don't know that.

[aboutime]

The point is that he gave away Israeli intel. It doesn't matter if he can technically declassify it. That's not how you treat your allies.


Okay petey. PROVE IT! Tell us exactly what intel he gave away. As the POTUS, as did every other POTUS in our History. He can do whatever he needs to do, or say to GET THIS....Defend the People of the United States of America.

That's why he is PRESIDENT. Check for yourself. You can begin with the Article 2 of the Constitution. See what his PRIMARY responsibility is. Then tell us he gave away something.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Sect ion_2:_Presidential_powers

[Kathianne]

You don't know that.

Trump's tweets imply he did, but you're right it's not 'known' at this time.

Hypothetically though, if true is it irrelevant, as so many seem to be saying? If Obama did the same, (which he pretty likely did) was that the same? If yes for both, why classify anything or do we just say that literally the President should always be granted the trust?

[gabosaurus]

Multiple sources, both U.S. and foreign, are reporting that Israel is the source of sensitive intel that Trump disclosed to the Russian. I will use the NY Times simply because they have the most detailed report.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html?_r=0

Meanwhile, Israeli sources report that their government is quite upset over the disclosures. Some are urging Netanyahu to cancel upcoming talks with Trump in protest.

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Bernard-Henri-L%C3%A9vy-to-Post-Trump-has-no-real-love-for-Israel-490919

http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Analysis-Does-intel-leak-mean-Trumps-trip-is-off-490963

http://www.israelherald.com/news/253208876/israeli-minister-frets-over-change-in-trump-rhetoric

All this is on top of the insensitive comments that a U.S. official made to Israel stating that the Western Wall was "not their territory."

http://www.israelherald.com/news/253208443/israeli-tv-us-tells-israeli-officials-western-wall-is-not-your-territory

[jimnyc]

Should We Trust the Trump/Russia Coverage?

The kerfuffle about what Trump said to the Russians continues. As I wrote today, I'm suspicious about the story. But for purposes of argument, let's assume the story is true: Trump did, through bragging about our really, really great intelligence, not only tell the Russians about why we believe laptop bombs are a threat, but disclosed enough that it would be possible for the Russians to infer sources and methods from it.

Now, as I seem to keep needing to remind people, I'm not a Trump fan: his perpetual self-promotion annoys me, his habit of shifting positions in moments unsettles me, his skeevy business practices in the past make it hard for me to respect him, and his apparent willingness to say anything to get a deal done makes it hard for me to trust him.

And yet, well, here is my immediate reaction on Twitter to the anonymous sourcing:

https://i.imgur.com/UD5FdFi.png

That was (I believe) before H.R. McMaster denied it, and certainly before I'd heard McMaster had denied it. It was a cynical prediction that turned out to be true.

So why is it that I, suspicious of Trump and merely glad that Hillary Clinton didn't win, react immediately to this story by suspecting it was untrue?

Simply enough, because however suspicious of Trump I might be, I've gotten to be even more suspicious of anonymously sourced stories about Trump from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and frankly, from all of the legacy media.

Why? Because they've proven to be untrustworthy. T. Becket Adams at the Washington Examiner started a comprehensive list in February, promising to keep updating the list -- after February 18 he stopped and I don't blame him. He probably threw up his hands in disgust. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist has her own list (and some useful hints about any WaPo Trump story).

Circa, a new website I heartily recommend, ran a story on May 12 documenting stories (I started to say "all the stories" but actually I wouldn't want to bet on that) of all the things the legacy media has reported about Trump that were wrong.

Rest here - https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/05/16/should-we-trust-the-trumprussia-coverage/

[jimnyc]

Too late, the Trump haters have declared him guilty already. I wonder, if anyone, any party, may have anything to gain by smearing Trump over and over, until his haters are in a frenzy...

---

Dennis Kucinich Calls ‘High BS Quotient’ on WaPo Story, Asks Who Leaked

Former Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a democrat, said on Fox News Tuesday morning that there is a “high BS quotient” on claims made by anonymous sources in the Washington Post story that claimed President Donald Trump provided classified information to Russian officials.

Kucinich told host Shannon Bream, “If this information was so sensitive, then why did intel leak it to the Washington Post? Whoever leaked it undermined the alliance.”

The Democrat former congressman continued:


…something is out of control here. there is an effort here to up end the relationship with russia. put us at odds. it started during the obama administration in october of 2016 when it was a peace agreement or an agreement to end the conflict with syria and all of a sudden it was up ended by people in the pentagon and c.i.a. so they were making policy over the president’s head. we have one president and he is being undermined by some people in intelligence.

Kucinich went on to say that he had read the Washington Post story very carefully and, based on his 16 years of experience in the U.S. Congress, “tracking all these things that are said about foreign policy,” that “there’s a high BS quotient going on right here.”

He added that the “meter should be going off all over town” and redirected attention to troubling leaks from the intelligence community. He said questions need to be asked about why and who within the intelligence community is leaking this information, “we don’t need to look to Russia for any affirmation here.” Kucinich went on:


Ya know we don’t need to look to Russia for any affirmation here. We need to ask questions about why is this intelligence community trying to upend the President of the United States with these leaks? Here’s the Washington Post story (holds up physical copy of the newspaper) I mean its, and all over town people are saying the President did this and that — look, I disagree with President Trump on a number of issues, but on this one, there can only be one President and somebody in the intelligence community is trying to upend this President in order to pursue a policy direction that puts us in conflict with Russia. The question is why? and who? and we need to find out.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/16/dennis-kucinich-calls-high-bs-quotient-on-wapo-story-asks-who-leaked/

[jimnyc]

This is not an excuse or anything like that. Just pointing out the hypocrisy from many Dems and their supporters is all.

---

FLASHBACK: Obama Administration Accused Of Repeatedly Leaking Israeli Military Secrets

TEL AVIV – Amid reports that President Donald Trump allegedly disclosed classified intelligence provided by Israel during a White House meeting last week with Russian officials, it may be instructive to recall that the Obama administration was repeatedly accused of deliberately leaking Israeli military secrets that may have damaged Israel’s defense capabilities.

In 2012, Israel suspected the Obama administration leaked information to prevent the Jewish state from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. The leak appeared in a Foreign Policy magazine article quoting anonymous U.S. officials that revealed Azerbaijan, which borders Iran, secretly provided Israel with airbases from which the Israeli military could strike Iran.

“The Israelis have bought an airfield,” one senior Obama administration official was quoted by Foreign Policy as saying, “and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.”

The White House denied it was behind the leak.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton did not believe the White House denials: “Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak. … It’s just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies.”

Ron Ben-Yishai, the defense analyst for Israel’s Yedioth Ahronoth daily newspaper, characterized the U.S. leaks as a “targeted assassination campaign.”

Ben-Yishai charged the Obama White House with attempting to “eliminate potential operational options available to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] and the State of Israel.”

Rest here - http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/05/17/flashback-obama-administration-accused-repeatedly-leaking-israeli-military-secrets/

[gabosaurus]

Read the Israeli media. Are you going to trust Israeli insiders or breitbart?

[jimnyc]

Read the Israeli media. Are you going to trust Israeli insiders or breitbart?

First off, your links don't tell much, did you even read them? No doubt they spoke of the terrorism issues, and what they got from Israel. But no laws were even remotely broken, nor does it appear things were stated as many think and/or are assuming.

For example: WHAT did Trump state?

---

Look, I've given you ENDLESS amounts of times to dispute things I may post from Breitbart. NOT ONCE have you been able to dispute facts posted. NOT ONCE have you apparently even tried. So how about either start proving things incorrect, or stop the babbling about Breitbart? Simply whining about it, without proving anything whatsoever wrong, is fucking annoying.

Considering Rick and myself have PROVEN much of your shit wrong, and we couldn't care less where it came from.... at least show the same in return. Otherwise, it sounds more like you like to whine about a source JUST so that you can avoid content. At any rate, I'm tired of always going over sources with you, while you solely bash sources, and nothing gets debated. Seriously, look at your reply before getting angry - you ASSUME I/we didn't read your sources, which I did. Then instantly into sources. NO content discussed whatsoever.

[NightTrain]

You just gotta love all the "Unnamed Sources" and "Close Sources" and "Some Sources" and "An Associate".

The devil is in the details and all of us should be sophisticated enough to spot these methods of covering one's ass when manufacturing stories by now.

Here's one that I can report with as much credibility as this bullshit :


An associate of NT's reported a UFO incident last night in his back yard after a BBQ. Another source confirmed the sighting, adding that he saw a memo that NT wrote describing the Unicorn's head affixed to the front of the interstellar spacecraft. NT refuses to confirm or deny the event and did not return phone messages at the time of this publishing.

But a nearby neighbor said she witnessed NT's cat acting oddly the day before and stated that she wouldn't be surprised if the cat was involved, with the cat's record of suspected mischief in the area.

"I think NT needs to come forward with any information he has regarding this UFO incident. We deserve to know what is happening in our neighborhood, and I'll take this to the Homeowner's Association if he won't!" said the Neighbor.

[jimnyc]

You just gotta love all the "Unnamed Sources" and "Close Sources" and "Some Sources" and "An Associate".

And gotta love how some gobble that stuff up as fact. Even folks that used to demand facts and sources, now love this stuff as it allows them to smear Trump.

[gabosaurus]

Jim, you are not getting my point. I discredit breitbart because it is not impartial. Breitbart state media. Sort of like TASS and DPRK. Breitbart is the word of Trump. You will never see anything on breitbart that does not favor the far right. You can attempt to discredit the NY Times, WaPo and CNN all you want, but they report down the middle. They report Trump good and bad. They reported Hillary good and bad. When Trump does something that doesn't make sense, CNN will say it doesn't make sense. Breitbart will find some way to try to make sense out of it. Breitbart and pjmedia are not impartial.

[Black Diamond]

Jim, you are not getting my point. I discredit breitbart because it is not impartial. Breitbart state media. Sort of like TASS and DPRK. Breitbart is the word of Trump. You will never see anything on breitbart that does not favor the far right. You can attempt to discredit the NY Times, WaPo and CNN all you want, but they report down the middle. They report Trump good and bad. They reported Hillary good and bad. When Trump does something that doesn't make sense, CNN will say it doesn't make sense. Breitbart will find some way to try to make sense out of it. Breitbart and pjmedia are not impartial.
trolling is Americas new favorite pastime.

[NightTrain]

Jim, you are not getting my point. I discredit breitbart because it is not impartial. Breitbart state media. Sort of like TASS and DPRK. Breitbart is the word of Trump. You will never see anything on breitbart that does not favor the far right. You can attempt to discredit the NY Times, WaPo and CNN all you want, but they report down the middle. They report Trump good and bad. They reported Hillary good and bad. When Trump does something that doesn't make sense, CNN will say it doesn't make sense. Breitbart will find some way to try to make sense out of it. Breitbart and pjmedia are not impartial.

Says who? You?

You've got a track record of saying some really stupid things and have been unable to back any of them up from what I've seen.

And if you ever DID read Breitbart, which you've stated you never do, you'd see that there ARE critical articles about his performance and critics.

How the hell can you make such a statement when you've said you never read it? Where are you getting your information? That's one hell of an industrial grade bubble you've got there, toots.

[jimnyc]

Jim, you are not getting my point. I discredit breitbart because it is not impartial. Breitbart state media. Sort of like TASS and DPRK. Breitbart is the word of Trump. You will never see anything on breitbart that does not favor the far right. You can attempt to discredit the NY Times, WaPo and CNN all you want, but they report down the middle. They report Trump good and bad. They reported Hillary good and bad. When Trump does something that doesn't make sense, CNN will say it doesn't make sense. Breitbart will find some way to try to make sense out of it. Breitbart and pjmedia are not impartial.

EVERY station/site is impartial. Look at CNN, they are the worst, IMO - but yet I visit them daily. Even with their slant, they still have to post facts, or their credibility is GONE. Of COURSE Breitbart leans to the right, no one ever said otherwise. But that doesn't mean that they post articles full of lies - in fact I haven't seen any proven to be lies yet. I have yet to see a medium/major story that is not covered on ALL of these sites. They just have different slants in who is the writer.

CNN - when McMaster disputed and said the WaPo article was false - I couldn't find a followup from them, but they continued smearing Trump. I think they should have posted a follow up at least, even if jaded, and then let the readers make up their minds.

You may think that those 2 sites you point out are the worst, but from my POV I see CNN and MSNBC as the worst. Makes sense considering I'm a conservative and you're a liberal. But again - regardless of slants in reporting - that's different than lies, which you quite often state that Breitbart does. EVERY site/media or whatever you want to call it is going to have a slant, just the way it is. Look at Breitbart today - all articles about the latest controversy and who wants to go after Trump. Don't act like they hide things from their readers.

Last point - EVEN IF - which it isn't - why not just destroy the facts each time then? Why not prove things a lie? Prove things otherwise? Wouldn't that make more sense than "blah blah blah Breitbart source blah blah blah" ? Same with me - if you post something from some site I feel is WAY leaning, and I find an issue with the "facts", or I think it's an outright lie, I couldn't give a crap about the source at that very moment, my ass is proving that shit is a lie and/or BS, guaranteed.

[Black Diamond]

EVERY station/site is impartial. Look at CNN, they are the worst, IMO - but yet I visit them daily. Even with their slant, they still have to post facts, or their credibility is GONE. Of COURSE Breitbart leans to the right, no one ever said otherwise. But that doesn't mean that they post articles full of lies - in fact I haven't seen any proven to be lies yet. I have yet to see a medium/major story that is not covered on ALL of these sites. They just have different slants in who is the writer.

CNN - when McMaster disputed and said the WaPo article was false - I couldn't find a followup from them, but they continued smearing Trump. I think they should have posted a follow up at least, even if jaded, and then let the readers make up their minds.

You may think that those 2 sites you point out are the worst, but from my POV I see CNN and MSNBC as the worst. Makes sense considering I'm a conservative and you're a liberal. But again - regardless of slants in reporting - that's different than lies, which you quite often state that Breitbart does. EVERY site/media or whatever you want to call it is going to have a slant, just the way it is. Look at Breitbart today - all articles about the latest controversy and who wants to go after Trump. Don't act like they hide things from their readers.

Last point - EVEN IF - which it isn't - why not just destroy the facts each time then? Why not prove things a lie? Prove things otherwise? Wouldn't that make more sense than "blah blah blah Breitbart source blah blah blah" ? Same with me - if you post something from some site I feel is WAY leaning, and I find an issue with the "facts", or I think it's an outright lie, I couldn't give a crap about the source at that very moment, my ass is proving that shit is a lie and/or BS, guaranteed.
How do you visit CNN and the like without getting aggravated ?

[jimnyc]

How do you visit CNN and the like without getting aggravated ?

Trust me, it IS, and just as much so at MSNBC. But you actually will find things from time to time that you may not see elsewhere. Plus, it's just interesting, daily, to see the different angles of reporting. :)

[Kathianne]

Jim, you are not getting my point. I discredit breitbart because it is not impartial. Breitbart state media. Sort of like TASS and DPRK. Breitbart is the word of Trump. You will never see anything on breitbart that does not favor the far right. You can attempt to discredit the NY Times, WaPo and CNN all you want, but they report down the middle. They report Trump good and bad. They reported Hillary good and bad. When Trump does something that doesn't make sense, CNN will say it doesn't make sense. Breitbart will find some way to try to make sense out of it. Breitbart and pjmedia are not impartial.

WaPo and the NYT are not unbiased. Not in news, certainly not on the choice of editorials. PJ Media has some that are pro and anti-Trump, much like Hot Air. I'm not keen on Breitbart since Andrew died, though that doesn't mean that there isn't good stories, there are. Actually one reason to read it, it does have a finger on the pulse of the admin. Drudge couldn't have been more in the bag for Trump during and immediately following the election. Not so one sided anymore. My personal thinking is that Matt is trying to get Trump to see some of his problems, which are legion at this point.

[Black Diamond]

WaPo and the NYT are not unbiased. Not in news, certainly not on the choice of editorials. PJ Media has some that are pro and anti-Trump, much like Hot Air. I'm not keen on Breitbart since Andrew died, though that doesn't mean that there isn't good stories, there are. Actually one reason to read it, it does have a finger on the pulse of the admin. Drudge couldn't have been more in the bag for Trump during and immediately following the election. Not so one sided anymore. My personal thinking is that Matt is trying to get Trump to see some of his problems, which are legion at this point.
I haven't read drudge. Are they as bad as hannity? I've never been of hannitys. Only reason I ever watch is because he has Newt and Rudy on frequently.

I would much rather hear analyses from krauthammer and rove.

[Kathianne]

I haven't read drudge. Are they as bad as hannity? I've never been of hannitys. Only reason I ever watch is because he has Newt and Rudy on frequently.

I would much rather hear analyses from krauthammer and rove.

Until 2 months ago or so, Drudge, Hannity, Fox & Friends-it was all the same. Drudge has started putting some of the down news regarding Trump. I think he's very concerned where the tweeting, firing, and even the nepotism are going.

I don't find Rove correct all that often, but Krauthammer's analysis is usually spot on.

[gabosaurus]

My problem is not even with breitbart and pjmedia themselves. It is the over reliance on them as sources. I try to use as many sources as possible. One of my big problems with Balu was that he always used some outlet of TASS as a source. TASS is state run media. Same with breitbart. It is Trump's media arm. If you want to introduce a topic, try using more than a handful of source. Try crossing the road and read some sites you don't normally access. It doesn't help your argument if you use the same predictable sources every time.

[Black Diamond]

My problem is not even with breitbart and pjmedia themselves. It is the over reliance on them as sources. I try to use as many sources as possible. One of my big problems with Balu was that he always used some outlet of TASS as a source. TASS is state run media. Same with breitbart. It is Trump's media arm. If you want to introduce a topic, try using more than a handful of source. Try crossing the road and read some sites you don't normally access. It doesn't help your argument if you use the same predictable sources every time.
Breitbart and hannity attempt to cancel out the rest of the media that wants trump to hang.