Someone explain this story to me.

[Mouthwash]

Trump giving classified info to the Russians doesn't sound like a mistake or treason. It sounds like a perfectly rational thing to do.

The word 'classified' does not refer to hoarded secrets which a country must always keep to itself. It refers to information that is kept from the public eye and is often, in fact given freely to other countries. Giving classified info to the wrong party can damage US interests, but in this case the information was about an ISIS strategy to use laptops as explosives.

Russia is against ISIS. Against. Their interests and ours coincide. If it turns out Trump gave them info on the Ukrainian military or something, then it would be a problem. But this story sounds made up.

(Please don't quote 'anonymous officials' saying how troubling it was. That's the lowest form of journalism.)

 

[demiurgenext]

The report was he gave details that could out the sources of the intelligence. As these weren't our sources, it means that other countries won't likely trust us with said intelligence, which weakens our intelligence gathering. In the context of being investigated for potential collusion, firing the head of the FBI for that investigation, in a meeting where the US press was barred but Russian press was allowed in at the White House is concerning to most rational people. More explicitly, it was stated that this particular intelligence asset was also useful for intelligence on Russian and Syrian actions. The very next day we get information that Syria is involved in mass cremation of the regimes victims.

 

[AdrienIer]

(Please don't quote 'anonymous officials' saying how troubling it was. That's the lowest form of journalism.)

So if, as a journalist, an important official tells you this is big but doesn't want to be on the record, what do you do ?

 

[Mouthwash]

The report was he gave details that could out the sources of the intelligence. As these weren't our sources, it means that other countries won't likely trust us with said intelligence, which weakens our intelligence gathering.

So his real mistake was getting caught.

In the context of being investigated for potential collusion, firing the head of the FBI for that investigation, in a meeting where the US press was barred but Russian press was allowed in at the White House is concerning to most rational people. More explicitly, it was stated that this particular intelligence asset was also useful for intelligence on Russian and Syrian actions. The very next day we get information that Syria is involved in mass cremation of the regimes victims.

If Trump is assisting Russia in covering up massacres by Assad, I think it would be a little more low-key than this, no?

So if, as a journalist, an important official tells you this is big but doesn't want to be on the record, what do you do ?

You don't post it unless it's soon to be public knowledge anyway.

 

[Silurian]

So no deep throat then

 

[Cutlass]

So his real mistake was getting caught.



If Trump is assisting Russia in covering up massacres by Assad, I think it would be a little more low-key than this, no?



You don't post it unless it's soon to be public knowledge anyway.

No. His mistake was treason. Your mistake is being an apologist for treason.

 

[Mouthwash]

No. His mistake was treason. Your mistake is being an apologist for treason.

Which makes me legally punchable, I presume?

 

[Lexicus]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/the-terrible-cost-of-trumps-disclosures/526818/

 

[metalhead]

Trump giving classified info to the Russians doesn't sound like a mistake or treason. It sounds like a perfectly rational thing to do.

The word 'classified' does not refer to hoarded secrets which a country must always keep to itself. It refers to information that is kept from the public eye and is often, in fact given freely to other countries. Giving classified info to the wrong party can damage US interests, but in this case the information was about an ISIS strategy to use laptops as explosives.

Russia is against ISIS. Against. Their interests and ours coincide. If it turns out Trump gave them info on the Ukrainian military or something, then it would be a problem. But this story sounds made up.

(Please don't quote 'anonymous officials' saying how troubling it was. That's the lowest form of journalism.)

Trump himself has confirmed it.

This classified information was given to us pursuant to an intelligence sharing agreement. Trump sharing it with another country is in violation of that agreement. It proves us unworthy to take care of other nations' most sensitive information, which means they will think twice before sharing anything sensitive with us in the future.

In other words, it cripples our foreign intelligence sharing capabilities and very significantly harms our covert operations against ISIS and other targets. You're an absolute fool if you thought the harm here was simply the fact that classified information was shared, and you made no attempt to try to find out what this story was about before posting this weak rhetorical line of questioning.

Also, can we stop saying that Russia is against ISIS? Because that is quite clearly not true.

 

[Lexicus]

which means they will think twice before sharing anything sensitive with us in the future.

If they're capable of thought, it means they won't share anything at all with us.

 

[Cutlass]

Which makes me legally punchable, I presume?

Go out into the real world and tell people that you support treason and the killing of Americans and see what happens to you.

 

[mrt144]

You don't post it unless it's soon to be public knowledge anyway.

TASS is reporting it?

Just stop dude, you're itching for a fight that your feigned obtuseness can't possibly win.

 

[mrt144]

Which makes me legally punchable, I presume?

Okay Hannity, take your projection elsewhere.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Trump giving classified info to the Russians doesn't sound like a mistake or treason. It sounds like a perfectly rational thing to do.

Can someone explain to me why the Media went full ape [censored] over Clintons emails ?
Can someone explain to me why an extra marital affair requires testifying under oath and in Public when 3000 dead americians dosnt ?
Can someone explain to me why Isreal is now going bat [censored] over the Russian intell leak ?

 

[Mouthwash]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/the-terrible-cost-of-trumps-disclosures/526818/

Trump himself has confirmed it.

This classified information was given to us pursuant to an intelligence sharing agreement. Trump sharing it with another country is in violation of that agreement. It proves us unworthy to take care of other nations' most sensitive information, which means they will think twice before sharing anything sensitive with us in the future.

In other words, it cripples our foreign intelligence sharing capabilities and very significantly harms our covert operations against ISIS and other targets. You're an absolute fool if you thought the harm here was simply the fact that classified information was shared, and you made no attempt to try to find out what this story was about before posting this weak rhetorical line of questioning.

I don't see how any of this is new information, or why it refutes what I've said.

Also, can we stop saying that Russia is against ISIS? Because that is quite clearly not true.

It's quite true. Russia has far more reason than the United States to fear militant Islamists, and bombing them in Syria is a good way to improve ties with Iran.

Can someone explain to me why Isreal is now going bat [censored] over the Russian intell leak ?

If there's one good thing that will come out of this, liberals might actually feel some sympathy for Israel.

 

[Truthy]

I'm skeptical that it was that big of a deal or very unusual. I don't think I've seen (decent) evidence that Israel actually lost faith in the confidentiality of the American IC; I've only seen speculation that the source of the intelligence was Israel, combined with the previous reports of Israeli intelligence not trusting Trump ('decent' because some article quoted an anonymous Israeli who said "this confirms our worst fears," but this holds almost no weight given how easy it is for journalists to get hot takes from anonymous sources). Most of the articles I've seen are like the Atlantic one posted upthread, which was pretty low quality (the best point was that Trump's moral bacteria infect everyone around him).

But I still judge Trump as being a moron for how incompetently he responded. The White House sent McMaster (who's respected and credible supposedly), Tillerson, and Dina Powell out to deny that it ever happened and Trump immediately contradicted them by confirming that it did happen. We have a pattern of Trump or the White House sending his aides out to lie and cleanup after him, but then he contradicts them, exposing them as liars. Trump did the same thing to Rod Rosenstein and ensured the Comey firing destroyed his reputation. I don't know how his people are supposed to have any morale knowing that their boss sees them as pawns and totally ignores the damage he constantly does to their reputations. Plus, it's very troubling to see the people who are supposed to be reputable and honest obviously lying and defending Trump. He's forcing people like Rosenstein and McMaster to choose between their jobs and behaving honorably and ensures the public knows.

 

[mrt144]

But I still judge Trump as being a moron for how incompetently he responded. The White House sent McMaster (who's respected and credible supposedly), Tillerson, and Dina Powell out to deny that it ever happened and Trump immediately contradicted them by confirming that it did happen. We have a pattern of Trump or the White House sending his aides out to lie and cleanup after him, but then he contradicts them, exposing them as liars. Trump did the same thing to Rod Rosenstein and ensured the Comey firing destroyed his reputation. I don't know how his people are supposed to have any morale knowing that their boss sees them as pawns and totally ignores the damage he constantly does to their reputations. Plus, it's very troubling to see the people who are supposed to reputable and honest obviously lying and defending Trump. He's forcing people like Rosenstein and McMaster to choose between their jobs and behaving honorably and ensures the public knows.

That is an excellent point and highly underrated.

 

[FriendlyFire]

He's forcing people like Rosenstein and McMaster to choose between their jobs and behaving honorably and ensures the public knows.

People have been warned about attaching there careers to Trump administration, if its not the coming trainwreck, it will be the vindictive backbiting, corruption or incompetence
But then again, Republicans have shown they are willing to elect anything with an R next to its name.