Trump revealed highly classified information to Russians in meeting, officials say

You should think before you post.

Clearly this entire article is a piece of fiction, as explained by HR McMasters.

The MSM is welcome to keep up these daily make-believe sessions, the only thing they're doing in the long run is hurting their own credibility.

The citizens of this country already have a low opinion of the media, and this is just going to hurt liberals.

You will get some people to believe the bull**** initially, for sure.

The problem is that the truth will eventually come out and shine down on the progressive cockroaches exposing them for what they are.

Once people realize that they're being lied to, they'll just tune out anything the progressive MSM puts out.

Double down on losing dems, we're lovin it.

 

How do we know that actually happened?

 

From your own link.


But a source with direct knowledge of the conversation argued that the information was much ado about nothing, telling NBC News that it had to do with previously reported concerns that ISIS could use laptop computers on flights as weapons.

NBC News reported in March that the United States had banned travelers from carrying any electronic devices larger than smartphones on flights arriving in the country from 10 overseas airports, most of them in the Middle East......snip~

So here is NBC showing another source.....backing up McMasters and Dina Powell. Funny how WAPO or the NY Times isn't mentioning that.

 

And of course the WaPo has not revealed it's source. It clearly was not those from the US who were in the room. Addtionally the Russians lost ~ 200 souls to a bomb planted on an airliner over the Sinai Peninsula ~ 1 year ago. Their civilians are targets and filling them in on intelligence related to planting bombs on planes concealed in laptops is morally correct.

I just saw Greg Miller on Fox explaining the story and ramifications. What came to mind is the possibility that my cat could sit down at the computer and type out King Lear tomorrow. I've never seen such circular reasoning.

 

Again, a whitewashing you will go. Again, WAPO revised the story almost continuously yesterday. They reacted, in real time to the comments section that destroyed their unsubstantiated narrative, and assertions. I know. I was there.

So, two things, how credible do you think mr Miller to be? He, as a byline participant, was partially responsible for the content of the story,and it's not like he has the best track record of late on the truthiness of his articles. There are reports from within the WAPO oped bullpen that suggest that as soon as the story went on line that the staff erupted into an emotional outburst as the story went on line. LIke a scene from an illegal street fight. Do you really suppose that to be representative of a professional news organization? Seriously? These guys are the new National Enquirer, only without the scruples.

So, let me turn this around a little. Would you consider the reporting to be a violation of state secrets? As in the WAPOs reporting violated the national state secrets classification laws and did the nation a massive disservice by publishing knowingly highly classified materials for their financial benefit? How about a story about collusion between the WAPO and their advertisers, and having to guarantee a specific level of click traffic to justify their ad space rates? In both cases, a story not investigated by the liberal media, and yet, right there in the open for all to see if you're just willing to look.

How about this? How about you explain to the rest of us how the WAPOs publishing of this story was designed in any way to improve the public security, tranquility, or well being? More, try justifying why publishing this doesn't curtail the flow of vital security information between nations in an attempt to improve traveler safety on international flights.

 

Your opinion is noted. We disagree. While it wasn't smart for Hillary to have the server, she didn't actually share classified information with a foreign country. Trump on the other hand ….

 

Trump, himself, validated it on Twitter. He admitted it and said it was his right and he could de-classify and discuss anything he wants to.

 

I specifically asked you for a link to substantiate your claims. I got more opinion.

 

Sorry but until we get named and verifiable sources , this is all hogwash.

 

Bull $hit! Your hero is a loudmouthed braggart who needs to keep his trap shut and quit whining about the evil press. I am not a "dem" champ. But the GOP helped elect a loudmouthed lying blowhard to the highest profile position in the world and he is making a total jackass out of himself. Live with it...Lol

 

What is real?

 

Sure, that's why they immediately called the NSA and CIA for damage control.

 

You mean, you're unaware of her exposing our nuclear launch capabilities during a national presidential debate? It was televised, globally. You missed it? How convenient for you...

 

He validated he could share info with the Russians, and now your own NBC link is saying they have another source. Saying the info passed was much ado about nothing..

 

If Trump passed along classified intel concerning ISIS threats to Russian aviation, what's the issue?

Guess bloodthirsty leftist want Russian airline passengers to be blown out of the sky.

 

So now you doubt your own NBC link and what it saying?

 

Oh no, she did share it. The FBI has said that at least 5 countries hacked her server and gained the information on it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...erver-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546

That's three, it's now up to 5.

 

Another dodge and distraction. This thread isn't about Hillary Clinton. This is about Trump giving classified information to the Russians.

Did you ever locate that link I requested?

 

No, I doubt your interpretation.

There is no doubt that the Russians were told classified information. There is no doubt that the NSA and CIA were called immediately afterwards. If that seems like nothing to you, so be it.

 

LOL... Ok, so link to the actual source Miller is quoting. I double dog dare you. And all I will ever get is more opinion. Why not try to justify the irrationality of the reporting? Why so unwilling to engage? Inconvenient? Too illuminating?

 

Irrelevant to the substance of this thread. Are you OK with Trump giving classified information to the Russians?

 

Of course he can share it. I never said he COULDN'T. I said he SHOULDN'T. There is a big difference in those two words.

 

Irrelevant to this thread. What about Trump giving the Russians classified information? You ok with that?

 

What part of :

"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."

Do you not understand?

I'd think "at no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed...." be pretty clear, but apparently not.

If you think the MSM is in any way credible, we see things VERY differently.