Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

7 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Because what I said was correct and my credibility isn't in question with most everyone on this board (look at my likes to posts ratio as an example).

Trump did confirm the story by stating he shared information, as his is right to do so.  He never refuted what the WaPo article said.  And yes, he can share whatever he wants with Russia (he can declassify anything he chooses).  The fact that you refuse to give his tweets critical thinking isn't my problem.

That's not the issue.  The issue is that he is outing sources in our intelligence capabilities and making it harder for us to gain useful information. Do you not realize that if anyone other than the president had done this, they would be charged with treason under the espionage act?

You are batting around 320 Brad. Just means that you say what people want to hear. Does not mean that you are correct.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

11 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Partisan stooge? Obama got a pass on everything while Trump is under constant full court press left media attack. If Clinton had won the election there would be no Russia wanna be story. 

Ever think that the media keeps putting stuff out there because they are getting info constantly from inside the White House?  Ever think that maybe, just maybe, people who work for Trump are concerned and are feeding the media info in order to out him as a novice with little clue as to how to run a country?  The media can't publish a story without sources, but there seem to be a whole lot of willing sources from within his own team.

It's unprecedented that this many leaks are coming from within the White House.  That should tell you something, and before anyone goes there, it's not a "deep state" thing when the people inside that building are all Trump staff.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, SaltyTiger said:

You are batting around 320 Brad. Just means that you say what people want to hear. Does not mean that you are correct.

.320 gets you into Cooperstown my friend.

And it doesn't mean I'm correct.  It means I'm thoughtful.  That was my point.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Ever think that the media keeps putting stuff out there because they are getting info constantly from inside the White House?  Ever think that maybe, just maybe, people who work for Trump are concerned and are feeding the media info in order to out him as a novice with little clue as to how to run a country?  The media can't publish a story without sources, but there seem to be a whole lot of willing sources from within his own team.

It's unprecedented that this many leaks are coming from within the White House.  That should tell you something, and before anyone goes there, it's not a "deep state" thing when the people inside that building are all Trump staff.

Think you are on to something here. Maybe the sources should be the story for a day. Right or wrong way to pursue the objective? 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

Think you are on to something here. Maybe the sources should be the story for a day. Right or wrong way to pursue the objective? 

Could be the sources only way of pursuing their objective.  And if it's coming from inside the White House, that objective seems to be one of alerting the country to the dysfunction that this POTUS has brought upon the office and potential shady dealings being done with a historical adversary that unequivocally tried to interfere with our election last year (per all intelligence agencies in open forums).

[TexasTiger 12,947]

If you doubt the WP:

 

http://theresurgent.com/i-know-one-of-the-sources/

[homersapien 11,385]

5 hours ago, Grumps said:

That's what I thought. You are saying that Trump saying:

"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 to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

is the same as him saying

(per your post) "He essentially confirmed the story this morning with his tweets stating that he can share whatever he wishes with Russia."

Can you see how this lessens your credibility? Why not use Trump's actual remarks to bash him?

You are making a difference without a distinction. 

The POTUS can share whatever he wants, period.  He did nothing that was strictly illegal.  He did something that was supremely stupid.  All because he was trying to show off.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If you doubt the WP:

 

http://theresurgent.com/i-know-one-of-the-sources/

There's a really concerning line in this, especially coming from a conservative voice like Erickson.

"I am told that what the President did is actually far worse than what is being reported."

If true, we as a country really need to put aside partisan B.S. and start thinking about the long-term effects of this presidency on the U.S.A.  There's a time for politics.  Now is not that time.

[homersapien 11,385]

5 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Partisan stooge? Obama got a pass on everything while Trump is under constant full court press left media attack. If Clinton had won the election there would be no Russia wanna be story. 

Fascinating

[AUDub 11,153]

20 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If you doubt the WP:

 

http://theresurgent.com/i-know-one-of-the-sources/

The "left media" continues the "full court press attack!"

 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Just so we're clear, no one here is saying that Trump did something illegal.  What we are saying is that he did something reckless, dangerous and irresponsible.

It's getting to the point with some of this stuff that, as David French from National Review says, saying "better than Hillary" isn't really a meaningful reply anymore.  It's starting to get to the point where you need to make the case that Trump is "better than Pence."  

[RunInRed 16,426]

For the Trump defenders in this thread, you can't have it both ways ...

Recall, one of Trump's primary campaign arguments was that Hillary could not be trusted / should be put in prison for the way she handled confidential and classified information.  And then he goes out and does something like this?  And Russia on top of it all?  Literally, you can not make this stuff up.  It would all be hilarious if it weren't so damn serious.  

It's been amateur hour in the White House ever since Trump entered ... for those of us who had hoped he would get serious about actually governing and stop with the nonsense, sadly, our worst fears are proving correct with each day's headline.  Is there any end in sight?

A+ ? reel of Trump's previous statements on handling classified information, via @11thHour @nick_ramsey. Watch. pic.twitter.com/7NO4xLSvlk

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) May 16, 2017

[TexasTiger 12,947]

30 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Just so we're clear, no one here is saying that Trump did something illegal.  What we are saying is that he did something reckless, dangerous and irresponsible.

It's getting to the point with some of this stuff that, as David French from National Review says, saying "better than Hillary" isn't really a meaningful reply anymore.  It's starting to get to the point where you need to make the case that Trump is "better than Pence."  

Past that point. I can't stand Pence and would still breathe a sigh of relief. This ain't partisan. You get a Republican either way. 

[RunInRed 16,426]

Umm, Houston, we have a problem.

 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Let's also point something else out...even if we say that the attacks and the digging on this is motivated by hatred of Trump, even if that's true - the issue isn't why they looked into it.  The issue is simply whether he did this or not.  You being upset that you think Obama or another Dem wouldn't have been put under this same scrutiny is a side issue.  This is about Trump, not Obama or anyone else.  Full stop.

And let's remember: it's not like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or the Washington Post have bugged Trump's office and leaked this info.  The stuff coming out on this is coming from within Trump's own staff.  In other words, people working in his own administration are unnerved by how he handles critical and classified information. 

The time has come to stop looking for bogeymen to blame and deal with the issue at hand.

[AUDub 11,153]

He turned over that info on impulse. Oh lawdy. 

[TexasTiger 12,947]

32 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Umm, Houston, we have a problem.

 

"We don't entrust him with too many details."

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Because what I said was correct and my credibility isn't in question with most everyone on this board (look at my likes to posts ratio as an example).

Trump did confirm the story by stating he shared information, as his is right to do so.  He never refuted what the WaPo article said.  And yes, he can share whatever he wants with Russia (he can declassify anything he chooses).  The fact that you refuse to give his tweets critical thinking isn't my problem.

That's not the issue.  The issue is that he is outing sources in our intelligence capabilities and making it harder for us to gain useful information. Do you not realize that if anyone other than the president had done this, they would be charged with treason under the espionage act?

We have at least two issues that are being combined into one. I AGREE with you that Trump is reckless with sharing information and with Tweets and with a lot of other things. I am not trying to defend his actions.

The separate issue of whether what Trump tweeted is that same as what you claimed that Trump tweeted is what I have a problem with. If you think that the 2 statements are equivalent that there is probably nothing else to discuss about it. I certainly was not trying to say that you are not credible, only that your claim of the two statements as being equivalent LESSENS your credibility in MY opinion. As an apology I will give you some "likes" to help out your ratio!

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Regardless of who is in the White House (Republicans or Democrats...as they are all in cahoots with Russia in some shape or form) , we shouldn't be sharing anything with Russia.......not even fantasy football picks. 

There is absolutely to reason to trust anything the Russian government is doing.

 

[RunInRed 16,426]

 

[AUDub 11,153]

 Israel was the source.

[RunInRed 16,426]

I will repeat again, this is what happens when you put some one with no discipline, no intellectual curiosity and no diplomatic or government knowledge in the White House.  "Drain the Swamp" with an outsider sounds cute but experience matters.

[homersapien 11,385]

6 hours ago, AU64 said:

Poor WP offended because they were not invited to the WH runs another BS fake news piece which is refuted by every one who was in the meeting. WP story fits the narrative of the Trump haters and everyone who was in the meeting is lying ...sure...that's the answer.

No American press representatives were invited, only Russian.

 

[homersapien 11,385]

5 hours ago, Grumps said:

Is Trump a loose cannon? Absolutely!

Could that hurt the U.S.? Sure!

Do I wish he would "grow up"? Yes!

Do I wish someone else was POTUS? You bet!

Do I think that Trump is trying to aid Russia at the U.S.'s expense? No. Not based on what I have seen.

Just as it is stupid to ignore Trump's apparent nonchalant attitude about certain information, It is also stupid to believe (without waiting for evidence) reports of how horrible he is. Trump is certainly unlike any other POTUS in my lifetime, but the media is after Trump unlike any other POTUS in my lifetime as well. Trump is 1/12 through his term as POTUS and the country has not fallen apart yet. May it continue!

Are you willing to stick your head in the sand and ignore Trump's incompetency and self-inflicted chaos?   You betcha!  

 

[homersapien 11,385]

5 hours ago, AU64 said:

WP a source of truth?..you have to suspend any thinking at all on this subject to trust them..JMO.

Irony.