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.

 

U.S. Spy Extracted After Trump ‘Discussed Highly Classified Intelligence’ with Russians

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
President Richard Nixon: "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal". We know what happened there.

There is a difference...


But the President did not actually declassify the information. Neither before, nor after.

If the President reveals top-secret information on CNN, the act of revealing is the act of declassifying it.

Did I really have to point that out?


"Congress can impeach for any reason or no reason whatsoever... just like they're doing now.

Good luck with that..."

No, there is due process.

Ummm... the act of impeachment is the embodiment of due process as outlines in the Constitution for the removal of a sitting President.




posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

WTF?... You start with the lie about Russian co-signers which your leftard journalist had to retract, and you end up with another lie from CNN to which there is no evidence whatsoever?... roflmao...



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
...
Also, if Trump didn't do that, why was he tweeting the day after "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...."?

Trump's May 16, 2017 post on Twitter.

Perhaps every excuse posed in this thread is the BS?

Trump revealed national secrets to the Russians and admitted it, later suggesting that he had an authority that exceeded the stipulations of the Espionage Act 18 USC, chapter 37 (which he doesn't have).
....


What did POTUS Trump reveal there?... Perhaps you didn't understand that he was making a JOKE, more so when he doesn't specify what he is talking about and the morons in the left have been claiming about his "Russia collusion for years"...

Perhaps you forget the 5 investigations, INCLUDING Mueller's and the pro-Clinton lawyers whom perused over a million pages of documents and interviewed over a hundred people and in the end what did they find?... NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION...

Were you in a dark cave with no internet and you are completely unaware that the collusion BS was debunked already yet you keep on going with this BS?...





edit on 12-9-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
does any of that actually make up for the fact that Trump told military secrets directly to the Russians, endangering the life of a US operative so much so that they had to remove him from field work?

I am really, truly beginning to fear for the future of our nation, when I read posts like this.


The new Prez made a boo boo. Plain and simple.

Read my lips... it ... did ... not ... happen.


I know you love your pithy Bush era sayings, but there is no way I can read your lips via an ATS post.



Also, if Trump didn't do that, why was he tweeting the day after "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...."?

Trump's May 16, 2017 post on Twitter.

Perhaps every excuse posed in this thread is the BS?

Trump revealed national secrets to the Russians and admitted it, later suggesting that he had an authority that exceeded the stipulations of the Espionage Act 18 USC, chapter 37 (which he doesn't have).

Several Constitutional lawyers suggested this alone was a violation of the Oath of Office and grounds for impeachment:





If we set this precedent, think about where it will lead?

The decision to share or not share information with an ally, which could help in winning a war, is a strategic one. There is no "something for nothing" in war.

Is the loss of an asset (who was extracted, and didn't die) is a price. But if the benefit is more valuable than that price, then it is a good decision.


How well would World War II have worked out if the US President had to be afraid of being prosecuted every time he told the British forces something one of America's spies uncovered? Any share of any information gained by spies can potentially reveal their identity.

But failing to share it can cost a soldier's life on the battlefield.

Are spies' lives more valuable than soldiers' lives?



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut
...
Also, if Trump didn't do that, why was he tweeting the day after "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...."?

Trump's May 16, 2017 post on Twitter.

Perhaps every excuse posed in this thread is the BS?

Trump revealed national secrets to the Russians and admitted it, later suggesting that he had an authority that exceeded the stipulations of the Espionage Act 18 USC, chapter 37 (which he doesn't have).
....


What did POTUS Trump reveal there?...


Trump revealed the details about a planned military operation on foreign soil, against Islamic State, including details of a Middle Eastern ally in the operation who provided some of the intelligence and was also contributing resources. The information was considered so sensitive that very few even within the government were allowed to know it.


Perhaps you didn't understand that he was making a JOKE, more so when he doesn't specify what he is talking about and the morons in the left have been claiming about his "Russia collusion for years"...


How is that a joke? Does making out that something was a joke take the crime away?


Perhaps you forget the 5 investigations, INCLUDING Mueller's and the pro-Clinton lawyers whom perused over a million pages of documents and interviewed over a hundred people and in the end what did they find?... NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION...

Were you in a dark cave with no internet and you are completely unaware that the collusion BS was debunked already yet you keep on going with this BS?...


The Mueller report said no such thing.

Firstly the Mueller report and the special counsel's investigation wasn't about the non-crime of "collusion".

Secondly it didn't say there was no evidence. It laid out a fair bit of evidence relating to conspiracy and obstruction but ultimately, it was insufficient evidence for prosecution of those who had not already been prosecuted prior to the release of the report. There were people prosecuted and convicted for crimes revealed under the investigation. That is because there was evidence that actual crimes had been committed.

In regard to the President specifically, the Mueller report points out that they were unable to indict a sitting President and that the President specifically was "not exonerated". It is that simple and clear.

edit on 13/9/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I think the problem is where we draw the line on revealing secret information.

Absolutely never revealing it no matter what can be gained is pretty stupid.

Revealing it even when there is nothing to gain, or little to gain and a lot to lose, is also pretty stupid.


A good ground rule would be that if you're going to reveal a spy's identity (or information that gives away their identity), then you should extract them first, and extract any assets they have been working.

Ending an operation early, when a spy was happy pursing it, isn't killing anyone. Just disappointing them. So there needn't be any law against causing a spy operation to end, if all assets are brought back alive.

edit on 14-9-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: too long



new topics

top topics
 
10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join