Trump “revealed more information to Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies”

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Actually any information provided to the US by foreign intelligence / governments / military's retain their classification level as a carry over. It still does not negate the fact that once in US hands the President can still discuss it publicly. It means the nation who provide it might not provide more.

Multilateral agreements over intelligence collaboration has wide ranging effects with written in penalties when the agreement is breached. The difference in legal systems could put people in jeopardy abroad due to the differences in legal parameters and standards.

Finally the peo0ple who were in the room when this occurred say it never happened so your legal source may want to brush up on lawyering 101 - never make a claim / ask a question you dont already know the answer to.

Notice I didn't make any claims whatsoever that the statements are true. The White House has every reason to lock this down as rapidly as possible.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Ok I also don't understand everyone's logic when calling BS on anonymous sources or calling bs on a source title that doesn't give a name...

If you work for a company... and the company isndoingnsome shady stuff.. and you become a whistleblower.. Are you going to blow said whistle without anonymity? You could get fired, push back, star your reputation.

Members of Trumps own cabinet can be leaking this info to the press as anonymous.

Why would they give their name? So they can get fired lose their job and have their reputation ruined as a "rat"

Let's be logical.. no one Is giving any insider info on the president and his dealing without anonymity...

So you are calling Mcmaster a liar, as he claims none of this happened?

a reply to: shooterbrody

What exactly did Mcmasters tell us about what was said in that room?

What I heard, it was "we didn't speak about intelligence operations or people". Which stills opens the window speaking about locations, plans, etc.

He did not tell a lie, but I think that Mcmasters didn't tell the very important things the WaPo, NYT etc are horrified about.

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

or not lock anything down if the story is not true... At what point did we give up holding the media accountable?

I am surprised trupster hasnt turned this around on the media by releasing some fake news through a "leaker" and then calling them out at the presser. It would be so unbelievably easy to do as they seem to release stories before vetting them.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I am surprised trupster hasnt turned this around on the media by releasing some fake news through a "leaker" and then calling them out at the presser. It would be so unbelievably easy to do as they seem to release stories before vetting them.

Its already fake news courtesy of what Washington Compost.

I've been perusing a few sites and some seem to be omitting parts of the statement so here it is:

“The story that came out tonight as reported, is false,” he said flatly.

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time,” he repeated for emphasis, “were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.”

“Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state,” he continued, “remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record account should outweigh those of anonymous sources.”

“And I was in the room, it didn’t happen,” he concluded. “Thanks everybody.”

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

or not lock anything down if the story is not true... At what point did we give up holding the media accountable?

The WaPo would have to be absolutely insane to post the story if the source(s) weren't vetted. The person who reported it might be making things up, but if he/she/they are they could probably serve jail time. I am hoping this one isn't true, because if it is we will probably have an international incident on our hands.

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

or not lock anything down if the story is not true... At what point did we give up holding the media accountable?

The WaPo would have to be absolutely insane to post the story if the source(s) weren't vetted. The person who reported it might be making things up, but if he/she/they are they could probably serve jail time. I am hoping this one isn't true, because if it is we will probably have an international incident on our hands.

It has already been proven they didnt vet the story. They used their "anonymous sources" yet made absolutely no attempt to contact the people who were in the room for comment / verification.

ETA - See JimMI post above yours.

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

The WaPo would have to be absolutely insane to post the story if the source(s) weren't vetted.

On that, many would agree!

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Are you daft?
Mcmaster is still active duty military.
By military law he is required to report any national security shenanigans period.
Mcmaster was awarded 2 bronze stars and a purple heart.
Do you really think he will throw away his career to lie for trump or anyone else?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

or not lock anything down if the story is not true... At what point did we give up holding the media accountable?

The WaPo would have to be absolutely insane to post the story if the source(s) weren't vetted. The person who reported it might be making things up, but if he/she/they are they could probably serve jail time. I am hoping this one isn't true, because if it is we will probably have an international incident on our hands.

It has already been proven they didnt vet the story. They used their "anonymous sources" yet made absolutely no attempt to contact the people who were in the room for comment / verification.

When I say "vet" I mean check the bonafides of the people making the report. If they weren't senior counsel or people who would have been present they would have to be stupid to report on this as anything other than a rumor without covering inch of the article saying "untrustworthy source" and disclaimers like "still under investigation with high suspicion." Lacking any of those things the Post could and rightfully should be tried for sedition if the full transcript shows it was public information.

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Except for the fact the Washington Compost has an agenda. A simple phone call to the people who were actually present would have debunked the story yet they opted to go with "anonymous sources". I am so sick of anonymous sources its not even funny. The media has made anonymous sources the new national enquirer.

I will take the word of named individuals who were present over a biased article citing anonymous sources.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Except for the fact the Washington Compost has an agenda. A simple phone call to the people who were actually present would have debunked the story yet they opted to go with "anonymous sources". I am so sick of anonymous sources its not even funny. The media has made anonymous sources the new national enquirer.

I will take the word of named individuals who were present over a biased article citing anonymous sources.

McMaster was careful with his wording which makes me think there probably was some breach. He denied everything up to, but not including what the Post alleged. I just hope it's something minor that can be brushed under the rug.

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Except for the fact the Washington Compost has an agenda. A simple phone call to the people who were actually present would have debunked the story yet they opted to go with "anonymous sources". I am so sick of anonymous sources its not even funny. The media has made anonymous sources the new national enquirer.

I will take the word of named individuals who were present over a biased article citing anonymous sources.

McMaster was careful with his wording which makes me think there probably was some breach. He denied everything up to, but not including what the Post alleged. I just hope it's something minor that can be brushed under the rug.

really
You understand Mcmaster can be court marshalled for lying about classified info?
Guess you think a career military person would throw a career away by lying and covering for trump?

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Except for the fact the Washington Compost has an agenda. A simple phone call to the people who were actually present would have debunked the story yet they opted to go with "anonymous sources". I am so sick of anonymous sources its not even funny. The media has made anonymous sources the new national enquirer.

I will take the word of named individuals who were present over a biased article citing anonymous sources.

McMaster was careful with his wording which makes me think there probably was some breach. He denied everything up to, but not including what the Post alleged. I just hope it's something minor that can be brushed under the rug.

for me someone willing to stand behind something without hiding their identity instantly trumps an anonymous source. with 2 others standing behind his statement aswell... well ill go with that any day of the week.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Except for the fact the Washington Compost has an agenda. A simple phone call to the people who were actually present would have debunked the story yet they opted to go with "anonymous sources". I am so sick of anonymous sources its not even funny. The media has made anonymous sources the new national enquirer.

I will take the word of named individuals who were present over a biased article citing anonymous sources.

McMaster was careful with his wording which makes me think there probably was some breach. He denied everything up to, but not including what the Post alleged. I just hope it's something minor that can be brushed under the rug.

really
You understand Mcmaster can be court marshalled for lying about classified info?
Guess you think a career military person would throw a career away by lying and covering for trump?

McMaster didn't lie at all, that I am absolutely sure of. Everything he said carefully avoided the exact allegations outlined in the WaPo article.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Thats not lying, it is "leaving out the essential parts". Read between his lines, think about what he said exactly, not what you think he meant with it.

Some day you will have heard enough politicans talk so you know that they usually say exact the words they intend the listeners to hear, not a word more nor less. You may regret that day, because you have heard so many politicans talk till then, but that day may come.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with any military career of Mcmasters, he is a politician.

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

WaPo alleges:

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

McMasters stated:

“were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.”

Now maybe it's me missing something here. Can you fill in what is the misunderstanding?

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

really
still
what part of the story is false or
i was in the room it did not happen do you not get?
mcmaster made both those statements