It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
62
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

It replayed just as I hit reply lol.




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
You took the bait from the Washington Post.
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: PepeTalk

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Is the single greatest threat to the National Security of the United States it's president?



Nah, it's the liberal left who lectured everyone about the travesty of even suggesting you might not accept the results of an election and then refusing to accept the results of an election.



They have no shame.




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   


The information shared with the Russians is said to have jeopardised a critical intelligence source and been revealed without the consent of the US


The Don 'grilled" boasting
Only Donny's twits will enlightend us

No takers ?



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Yet every article you linked cites WaPo as the source.....fake news begets fake news....


It's all "fake news" until it becomes impossible for the administration to maintain the lie. Then they go ballistic about "leaks" and make up BS like the "unmasking" deflection.

Let's set aside the role of Trump supporters in facilitating this slow-motion implosion by entertaining this insane jackass's lies while wagging fingers at everyone else and calling them liars and "fake news" — and address the first part of your response.

Now I can almost understand not reading the articles but the excerpts I posted prove you wrong:


two US officials confirmed to BuzzFeed News.


If you read the NYT article, it's clear that the Washington Post wasn't their source either. The only mention they make of WaPo is down toward the bottom:


The Washington Post first reported the disclosure, which immediately reverberated around Washington.


The wording is a little ambiguous and hell, the sources could even be the same for both WaPo and NYT, but if NYT had been citing the Washington Post, they would have made that clear to cover their own asses by starting out with something like "An explosive report in the Washington Post" or some such.
edit on 2017-5-15 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Looks like another campaign promise (the one about working with Russia to destroy ISIS) beginning to be fulfilled to me.




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Damiel



The information shared with the Russians is said to have jeopardised a critical intelligence source and been revealed without the consent of the US


The Don 'grilled" boasting
Only Donny's twits will enlightend us

No takers ?


LOL...any takers on a source other than one that references and parrots WaPo?



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna
So, why is the WaPost siding with ISIS? Certainly stopping them is more important than a political pissing match?


Considering that Trump might have just gotten o foreign agent inside of ISIS killed by trying to impress the Russians, I think that question is better directed at Trump.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Is interesting how the media outlets takes this type of "leaked information" by supposedly "official sources" and beat them like they were the source of life to feed the anti Trump masses.

Is just incredible.

And the leakers that get their hands on classified information are walking free, that is because the news are not reliable, but hell they are good enough to keep beating the drum.

I keep saying the crap the Democrats have done to this nation, treasonous, corruption, deceptions and lies in the last 8 years will put all of them in jail but hell they will remind as obstructionist to keep any investigation off their corrupted arses



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Let's assume this is true.

Is the leaker a whistleblower or guilty of leaking classified info?




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043








posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

"Current and former U.S. officials". Is that more legitimate than "unnamed sources"?



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Yet every article you linked cites WaPo as the source.....fake news begets fake news....


It's all "fake news" until it becomes impossible for the administration to obtain the lie. Then they go ballistic about "leaks" and make up BS about unmasking.

Let's set aside the role of Trump supporters in facilitating this slow-motion implosion by entertaining this insane jackass's lies while wagging fingers at everyone else and calling them liars and "fake news" — and address the first part of your response.

Now I can almost understand not reading the articles but the excerpts I posted prove you wrong:


two US officials confirmed to BuzzFeed News.


If you read the NYT article, it's clear that the Washington Post wasn't their source either. The only mention they make of WaPo is down toward the bottom:


The Washington Post first reported the disclosure, which immediately reverberated around Washington.


The wording is a little ambiguous and hell, the sources could even be the same for both WaPo and NYT, but if NYT had been citing the Washington Post, they would have made that clear to cover their own asses by starting out with something like "An explosive report in the Washington Post" or some such.


Ok, so.lets assume they all have completely different sources? So 6 people were there that "leaked" the info? They went off in pairs to leak to 3 different news organizations. Or maybe it was fake to begin with and 2 people claimed to have knowledge and sold their BS to the highest bidder?

I don't even have to defend my views on this really....all it takes is time and every single article from any "unnamed source" eventually dries up and disappears or is outright debunked. It is just par for the course really...

What are these "journalists" going to do when their integrity is questioned? It should be the second they are outed, yet it isn't and they are allowed to continue working....simply dumbfounding....i can't think of a job where I could go make stuff up, have it displayed in front of hundreds of thousands or even millions, then have no accountability for the outcome....madness really.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Apparently three people in room, trump, two officials and the russians.... so trump told the post or one of his two companions.... former members of the state soukdnt know trump said anything.... only trump or the other two americans.... the washington post is about to go tits up.... as well as cnn



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Let's assume this is true.

Is the leaker a whistleblower or guilty of leaking classified info?



Niether...The information leaked was instantaneously declassified when Trump shared Code-word sensitive compartmentalized intelligence with the Russians.

Trump and friends can claim it is classified and go after who-ever leaked this to Wapo..but then they would have to explain why Trump is sharing code-word classified intel with the Russians, but not allies.

My guess is that they are going to exploit the fact that a President can declassify anything anytime...as that allows them the dishonest rebuttal of "The President did not share classified information with the Russians"...because Trump decided to declassify it the minute he spoke.

If Trump made a stink about this being a leak of "classified" information... he would be admitting guilt simultaneously..

It was classified before because it put assets lives at risk. It isn't classified now, cuz Trump knows "The BEST intel!" He is told all kinds of big boy stuff all the time...and he was just desperate to impress the Russians.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aeshma
Apparently three people in room, trump, two officials and the russians.... so trump told the post or one of his two companions....


According to reporting, someone from the Trump admin immediately called the CIA and NSA and told them about it...Presumably so who-ever the intelligence originated from could immediately get their inside-isis asset out before he was killed.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Aeshma

Just need to state the news is now reporting differently since my last comment before you blast me.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Funny how the WaPo article admits itself to be complete BS:




White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about terrorism.

“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.”



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

When I read this article, I found it is heavy on the accusations and light on the proof, evidence and sources with a theme through-out that the writer hopes his target audience is stupid and suffers from short-term memory loss.

This is ludicrous online lies and should remain as such until, oh I dunno, say someone actually comes forward with something, anything, which would convince me this is not a fantasy story pluck out of a libtards ass.
edit on 15-5-2017 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

I think he overstepped his authority and violated his contract with the United States to keep dirty laundry out of the eyesight of the neighbors.


You are the first person I have ever met who's anti-whistleblower when the whistleblower was proven right. Then again if you voted Nixon I can see how you might have sour grapes.


I was born years after Nixon left office. I have studied a great deal of political history, however. I'm not so much anti whistleblower as I am pro-proper channels. There were mechanisms that should have been used to internally address Watergate prior to running to the press.




top topics



 
62
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join