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

a reply to: UKTruth

It could burn out or turn into a bonfire. It's too early to tell. You Trump supporters are always so eager to shut down discussion critical of Trump.

It's indisputable now that Trump shared intelligence with Russia, McMaster was careful to say that it was appropriate for him to do so. McMaster is technically correct. It is legally appropriate for the President to share anything, no matter how classified or sensitive with whomever he wants to.

The discussion is should he have. What will the blowback be from such an impulse? Did he burn an intelligence source? What were the Russians even doing in the Oval Office? They shouldn't have been invited in let alone dictate that American media couldn't be in there.

Now it's come out that Trump didn't know where the intelligence came from which is an even worse bungle than we thought. He's just spouting off intelligence whenever to whoever? Maybe he should start attending his daily intelligence briefings huh?

Chalk a plus one up for anonymous sources inside the White House. The president himself confirmed what an insider leaked to the Post. Good stuff. McMaster can smooth this over as much as he wants. Capitol Hill republicans are going to want better answers than "the President made a spurt of the moment decision" to share intelligence with Russia.

We're barely 120 days into this charade. You think the true GOP republicans are going to stand behind this jackass for 4 years? Give me a break. When the ship starts to sink real Republicans are going to bail out.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UKTruth

It could burn out or turn into a bonfire. It's too early to tell. You Trump supporters are always so eager to shut down discussion critical of Trump.

It's indisputable now that Trump shared intelligence with Russia, McMaster was careful to say that it was appropriate for him to do so. McMaster is technically correct. It is legally appropriate for the President to share anything, no matter how classified or sensitive with whomever he wants to.

Reporter to McMasters: It is a simple yes or no question. Did the President share classified information with the Russians.

McMasters: Again, we don't say what is classified or what is not classified.

...

that was priceless..

In reality, this started in the press but will be hammered out in closed door Senate and House intelligence committees..

GOP and Dems alike are trying to get a handle on how severe a liability Trump is an what damage he has done thus far.

originally posted by: Majic
It looks like the Post continues to be played by its "anonymous sources".

A newspaper without credibility ceases to be a threat.

How so?

Note, McMasters gave a Q&A this afternoon with reporters where he was unable to deny anything the Post reported.

He retreated to the position that the "premise" of the article was wrong in that what Trump did was "appropriate"..

Asked if the intel had been shared with other intel partners apart from Russia?
No comment/wont say

Asked if the president shared classified intel with the Russians...yes or no?
Won't say..

a reply to: N9neXkrayzie

As I said, if this were a 'D' president, you'd have self-destructed by now. But with Trump, you're prone to philosophical rationalizations. Hypocrites. And emphatically YES:

Worst. President. Ever.

lord...you can just picture him saying it...

Bragging to the Russians..

"I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day," one official with knowledge of the meeting described Trump as saying, according to the Post, before the President reportedly relayed specific intelligence.

I now know why the Russians are smiling so big in this picture..

They are over the moon...

You don't need much imagination to understand what these two guys are thinking..

originally posted by: Indigo5

You don't need much imagination to understand what these two guys are thinking..

"SWEET! Our gamble to influence the American election back in November is paying off!"

a reply to: Indigo5

You don't need much imagination to understand what these two guys are thinking..

Yet that's all you have.

This thread has deteriorated into Anti-Trumpers trying to "save face" after yet another instance of having your hopes dashed. Come on.. begin focusing on finding a Presidential candidate for 2020. You'll need a damn good one.

a reply to: Indigo5

EdTA: Nevermind that was from another picture. My bad.

a reply to: Kali74

It could burn out or turn into a bonfire. It's too early to tell. You Trump supporters are always so eager to shut down discussion critical of Trump.

In all fairness, in just about every negative post about Trump, there is evidence based fact showing that it was either taken out of context, or turned out to be completely false.. Nobody can still name one thing illegal that he has done. At least that is what I have witnessed here. And in all honesty, I have had a few doubt's, and would gladly call him out IF something of real substance and meaning came to light.

originally posted by: carewemust
This thread has deteriorated into Anti-Trumpers trying to "save face" after yet another instance of having your hopes dashed. Come on.. begin focusing on finding a Presidential candidate for 2020. You'll need a damn good one.

Lol. I'm not getting my hopes up for impeachment unless the Dems retake the House in 2018. I am under no delusions that the Republicans will ever stop valuing party over country and come to their senses to hold Trump accountable. Each new event that Trump does just gets added to a list that will be pursued in 2018 though.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
Nobody can still name one thing illegal that he has done.

I already have. Obstruction of justice for firing Comey for investigating Trump's Russia ties during the election AND trying to make Comey take a loyalty test.

Though I don't really need to name anything. There is no clear definition for "High crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution. So Congress can move on impeachment for whatever it wants as long as it has the votes to do so.

Meanwhile, classified information leaked by unelected bureaucrats, unaccountable, unelected and faceless officials, to a hostile press and their obsequious followers, all for the purpose of undermining a democratically elected leader, doesn't even get mentioned.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Influence the American election? What did they do exactly? Expose Clinton, Podesta, Brazille, Wasserman-Schultz, and the rest of the DNC for the lyin' conniving scum they really are at their core?

FBI: Hey, DNC, we have indications Russia may have hacked into your computer systems. Let's take a look at those computers and your server.

DNC: " No, thanks. It's okay."

a reply to: queenofswords

Hacking and influencing an American institution is wrong regardless of what was exposed. You just don't care because it isn't your partisan side that was exposed.

haha according to latest news, Israel now may have American foreign policy by Trump's ba**s. What concessions will they demand? Interesting turn of events.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I do care. But, it's been going on for many many years. It became suddenly a big deal when Hillary lost. That's all I'm saying. Plus, why did the Dem-wits refuse the FBI access to their server to investigate?

a reply to: queenofswords

Of course they didn't want the FBI involved. Seth Rich leaked the e-mails, and the DNC murdered him for it. There never was any hack, not by Russia, China, Liechtenstein, or anyone else.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I do care.

Your words make me believe otherwise.