Poll of the Day > Trump allegedly gave classified security details to Russian ambassador

(+) Yeah! (+)

RedPixel posted...

I don't know why everyone disses Zeus here... he's a logical thinker who isn't biased toward a particular side.

The guy argues endlessly with liberal leaning posters every day. I can't think of a single time I have seen him argue with a conservative, and he frequently voices the same talking points trending on right wing media. Please tell me more about how unbiased he is.

Also I'd love the explanation of how Trump admitting he did this somehow means it is not positively scandalous.
---

---

I adore how the White House's official statement is denying it happened, and Trump's official statement is "Whatever, I do what I want."
---

darkknight109 posted...

The fact that Trump did nothing illegal - which has been acknowledged from the beginning - does not make this any less of a scandal.

Wait, why would that not make it less scandalous if he's perfectly within his right to do so? Is it going to be a scandal if he veto's something too?

It may or may not be stupid - we don't know what classified information he revealed if anything. But I certainly wouldn't call it 'scandalous'.

Mead posted...

Also I'd love the explanation of how Trump admitting he did this somehow means it is not positively scandalous.

Did he really admit to it though? As near as I can tell, people are just pointing to a tweet of his that says he wanted to 'share information about terrorism and flight stuff' with Russia. None of that is admitting he revealed classified information. People are making that assumption based upon the news reports. If he had said that prior to any of that reporting, no one would bat an eyelash.

Also, let's not forget that this isn't the first time that he 'admitted' to something but ended up being totally misleading. He also 'admitted' to not having paid his taxes due to a tax loophole, but then it turned out that he totally paid his taxes like he should.
---

Smarkil posted...

Did he really admit to it though? As near as I can tell, people are just pointing to a tweet of his that says he wanted to 'share information about terrorism and flight stuff' with Russia. None of that is admitting he revealed classified information. People are making that assumption based upon the news reports. If he had said that prior to any of that reporting, no one would bat an eyelash.

Both the white house staff and Trump himself have commented on the story and carefully avoided denying that anything detailed is false. They would not do that if it were not accurate. It is a forgone conclusion at this point.
---

Smarkil posted...

Also, let's not forget that this isn't the first time that he 'admitted' to something but ended up being totally misleading. He also 'admitted' to not having paid his taxes due to a tax loophole, but then it turned out that he totally paid his taxes like he should.

Lmao He paid so his mail order bride could get citizenship.
---

Smarkil posted...

Wait, why would that not make it less scandalous if he's perfectly within his right to do so? Is it going to be a scandal if he veto's something too?

Because he chose to do so abruptly with no warning to intelligence officials, despite prior protests from a nation that is our ally regarding sharing of the information, to a nation that is not an ally of the US, and by all reports with no shred of awareness that he was even doing it

At the very least this points foreign relations in jeopardy and damages our global intelligence structure
---

Mead posted...

Both the white house staff and Trump himself have commented on the story and carefully avoided denying that anything detailed is false. They would not do that if it were not accurate. It is a forgone conclusion at this point.

I wouldn't be so sure. It's a pretty common business tactic not to affirm or deny anything until the facts have been laid out. The nature of my work requires me to do it all the time.

If this were a court of law, nothing he or his staff has said so far would qualify as an admission of guilt.

I think we need to wait it out and see what happens. The situation seems to have bipartisan detractors, so it's unlikely that the truth won't come out eventually.

Mead posted...

Because he chose to do so abruptly with no warning to intelligence officials, despite prior protests from a nation that is our ally regarding sharing of the information, to a nation that is not an ally of the US, and by all reports with no shred of awareness that he was even doing it

At the very least this points foreign relations in jeopardy and damages our global intelligence structure

But that's not a 'scandal'. It's just stupid. Scandal implies something was done illegally or immorally. I don't a stupid decision qualifying as a scandal.
---

Smarkil posted...

I wouldn't be so sure. It's a pretty common business tactic not to affirm or deny anything until the facts have been laid out. The nature of my work requires me to do it all the time

If they knew the article was false they would flat out deny it. They have nothing to gain from allowing such a damaging story to gain a foothold if it isn't accurate.
---

Oh good it was only Israel

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/israel-was-source-intelligence-trump-shared-russia-sources-n760301

Tell me more about how this is a fake story
---

Lmfao
---

Mead posted...

Time will tell Zeus. In the opening post I clearly point out that this is an unverified claim.

Yet you insist it isn't true because you don't like the outlet reporting the story, despite the fact that you have nothing more credible to dispute it. How many times have you been proven wrong about these issues in just the last few days alone?

You're literally asking me to prove a negative. I also can't disprove the existence of flying spaghetti monsters, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're real. However, when a source with a grudge known for making shit up makes an unverified claim, that usually is a sign it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Mead posted...

Rolling Stone is more similar to Vice than anything else. They can get things wrong like anyone else though.

When you don't bother doing things like basic fact-checking, you tend to get things wrong.

Mead posted...

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster told reporters outside the White House that the "story that came out tonight, as reported, is false."

Gee I wonder why he felt the need to word it that way

Because that's standard talk?

FourthDimension posted...

Mead posted...

Hercular1 posted...

What are you on about?

It got moderated for calling people idiots.

Zeus alt confirmed

That would be hilariously transparent, considering his username.

I would never use numbers in a username, it's the height of lazy namemaking.
---

Mead posted...

RedPixel posted...

I don't know why everyone disses Zeus here... he's a logical thinker who isn't biased toward a particular side.

The guy argues endlessly with liberal leaning posters every day. I can't think of a single time I have seen him argue with a conservative, and he frequently voices the same talking points trending on right wing media. Please tell me more about how unbiased he is.

Also I'd love the explanation of how Trump admitting he did this somehow means it is not positively scandalous.

Except for the millions of times I argued with Grim Cyclone, especially over the need for schools to teach sex ed. But hey, if you ignore all the times I did something, you can say that I don't do that thing.

Mead posted...

Smarkil posted...

Did he really admit to it though? As near as I can tell, people are just pointing to a tweet of his that says he wanted to 'share information about terrorism and flight stuff' with Russia. None of that is admitting he revealed classified information. People are making that assumption based upon the news reports. If he had said that prior to any of that reporting, no one would bat an eyelash.

Both the white house staff and Trump himself have commented on the story and carefully avoided denying that anything detailed is false. They would not do that if it were not accurate. It is a forgone conclusion at this point.

Except for the statement that you yourself posted which has one such individual saying it's false.

darkknight109 posted...

And, strangely, all the conservatives who were screaming themselves breathless about what a shocking security breach Hilary Clinton's e-mail server was are nowhere to be found. It's almost like they don't think that literally revealing highly classified information to the Russians is a big deal as long as it's their guy doing it, but that would be grossly hypocritical of them, so I'm sure there's another explanation.

There's no way of knowing what classified information was leaked from Hillary's servers while she was secretary of state because she had thousands of emails deleted before they could be read even after she was subpoena'd. It's the sort of thing that would get people in the private sector arrested but, because government is so inherently corrupt, it barely elicits a shrug.
---

Zeus posted...

Except for the statement that you yourself posted which has one such individual saying it's false.

Actually read it. He very carefully never disputes anything stated in the article, but cleverly spins it so it sounds like he is doing so.
---

Smarkil posted...

Wait, why would that not make it less scandalous if he's perfectly within his right to do so? Is it going to be a scandal if he veto's something too?

It may or may not be stupid - we don't know what classified information he revealed if anything. But I certainly wouldn't call it 'scandalous'.

Because he turned over information to a foreign power hostile to US interests. I would think the "scandal" part of this would be self-evident.

Trump could publish the name of every informant and US secret agent in the middle east on a public website and, to the best of my knowledge, he would not be exceeding his authority. That would be a disastrous scandal that would almost certainly see him immediately face a blowback from both sides of the aisle, but he would be allowed to do it.

If you want some real-world examples, consider the fact that Bill Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was dubbed a scandal long before he did anything illegal. Keep in mind that Clinton didn't actually break the law until he lied under oath; had he openly admitted to the affair from the get-go, he would have not broken any laws, yet that wouldn't have changed its status as a scandal. Or, for a more recent example, consider that people still refer to Hillary Clinton's e-mail server as "The E-mail Scandal", despite the fact that multiple investigations determined that no crime had been committed and there was no basis for prosecution.
---

Mead posted...

Zeus posted...

Except for the statement that you yourself posted which has one such individual saying it's false.

Actually read it. He very carefully never disputes anything stated in the article, but cleverly spins it so it sounds like he is doing so.

Except it literally does refute it.

darkknight109 posted...

Because he turned over information to a foreign power hostile to US interests. I would think the "scandal" part of this would be self-evident.

Russia -- where ISIS is concerned, anyway -- isn't "hostile to US interests" because they're also trying to put the group down. #Context

darkknight109 posted...

If you want some real-world examples, consider the fact that Bill Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was dubbed a scandal long before he did anything illegal.

Because apparently having an affair is part of a president's normal duties, just like meeting with ambassadors and deciding what information to share which, by the way, the only source claiming was shared at all is WaPo.
---

Zeus posted...

Because apparently having an affair is part of a president's normal duties, just like meeting with ambassadors and deciding what information to share which, by the way, the only person claiming was shared at all is WaPo.

You're behind on the news, then. Other publications have since reached out to their own sources and confirmed the story (and Trump himself has done the same via tweeting). Note that others have revealed that the country in question was Israel, which the Post never did.

Zeus posted...

Russia -- where ISIS is concerned, anyway -- isn't "hostile to US interests" because they're also trying to put the group down. #Context

Mind that Russia's main ally in the Middle East is Iran. Do you think Israel would like their intelligence-gathering secrets shared with arguably the most hostile country to their existence? Because Trump very well may have just made that happen.
---

Once again, I feel the need to point out that Republicans up to and including Paul Ryan have demanded answers from Trump as to what the hell he's doing with regards to what happened. This is not the nothing-story you're implying.
---

Can any of you give an explanation for how this has any kind of negative impact on the US bc I'm seeing nothing but a desperate attempt at finding a scandal where there isn't one.... just another chapter in the leftist witch hunt

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

Because apparently having an affair is part of a president's normal duties, just like meeting with ambassadors and deciding what information to share which, by the way, the only person claiming was shared at all is WaPo.

You're behind on the news, then. Other publications have since reached out to their own sources and confirmed the story (and Trump himself has done the same via tweeting). Note that others have revealed that the country in question was Israel, which the Post never did.

The Trump tweet read as follows:
"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...."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/864436162567471104

Which isn't a specific admission that anything classified was shared and only defends Trump's general ability to discuss matters of security with Russia.

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

Russia -- where ISIS is concerned, anyway -- isn't "hostile to US interests" because they're also trying to put the group down. #Context

Mind that Russia's main ally in the Middle East is Iran. Do you think Israel would like their intelligence-gathering secrets shared with arguably the most hostile country to their existence? Because Trump very well may have just made that happen.

Their intelligence gathering on ISIS? Gee, I can't imagine how much damage a regime hostile to ISIS would do with that information gathered by another regime hostile to ISIS.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Once again, I feel the need to point out that Republicans up to and including Paul Ryan have demanded answers from Trump as to what the hell he's doing with regards to what happened. This is not the nothing-story you're implying.

Paul Ryan and much of the republican party have never been supportive of Trump from the beginning. Are you being willfully dense when it comes to that fact? Not to mention, Paul Ryan stands to have some solid personal gain if Trump gets impeached being that he's just behind Pence in the line of succession

darkknight109 posted...

Once again, I feel the need to point out that Republicans up to and including Paul Ryan have demanded answers from Trump as to what the hell he's doing with regards to what happened. This is not the nothing-story you're implying.

Based on the unverified claim made by WaPo.
---

Zeus posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Once again, I feel the need to point out that Republicans up to and including Paul Ryan have demanded answers from Trump as to what the hell he's doing with regards to what happened. This is not the nothing-story you're implying.

Based on the unverified claim made by WaPo.

That no politicians regardless of party are trying to claim is not accurate, because of course he did this.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Given that Trump seems to speak without filter and doesn't distinguish between classified and unclassified information I would not find this to be surprising.

The only thing I find surprising about it is that he didn't actually let the beans spill in a public place as opposed to private or didn't accidently reveal it.
---

OhhhJa posted...

Can any of you give an explanation for how this has any kind of negative impact on the US bc I'm seeing nothing but a desperate attempt at finding a scandal where there isn't one.... just another chapter in the leftist witch hunt

Well would you be willing to work with US intelligence officials if your life was on the line and our leader can't be trusted to not divulge highly classified intel for no apparent reason?
---

Mead posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Can any of you give an explanation for how this has any kind of negative impact on the US bc I'm seeing nothing but a desperate attempt at finding a scandal where there isn't one.... just another chapter in the leftist witch hunt

Well would you be willing to work with US intelligence officials if your life was on the line and our leader can't be trusted to not divulge highly classified intel for no apparent reason?

Here's an article dealing with that

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/chilling-effect-trumps-loose-talk-russia/
---

Mead posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Can any of you give an explanation for how this has any kind of negative impact on the US bc I'm seeing nothing but a desperate attempt at finding a scandal where there isn't one.... just another chapter in the leftist witch hunt

Well would you be willing to work with US intelligence officials if your life was on the line and our leader can't be trusted to not divulge highly classified intel for no apparent reason?

I'm still failing to see how divulging this particular info will have any negative impact. It makes for a good clickbait news story though i suppose

OhhhJa posted...

I'm still failing to see how divulging this particular info will have any negative impact

As has been widely reported, the details he gave them give them the ability to fairly easily decipher the source of the intel, which will effectively end that as a reliable source.

You also have to remember that the US is involved in an overseas conflict that Russia has also involved itself with, on the opposing side.
---

OhhhJa posted...

I'm still failing to see how divulging this particular info will have any negative impact.

are you part of the intelligence community? >__> this sounds like your admission of ignorance on the subject (which isn't a problem, per se). Like, yeah, maybe you wouldn't fully understand the ramifications of this if you aren't abreast in global diplomacy and international affairs. Just because you don't see the impacts, positive or negative, doesn't mean a) they don't exist or b) others don't.
---

Who's alt is @OhhhJa?
---

My only guess is Natemac
---

Thought as much.
---

OhhhJa posted...

Can any of you give an explanation for how this has any kind of negative impact on the US bc I'm seeing nothing but a desperate attempt at finding a scandal where there isn't one.... just another chapter in the leftist witch hunt

Then you're blind.

Incidents like this reduce trust in the US by her allies, making it far more likely that sensitive and potentially crucial information is withheld out of the (now understandable) concern it may wind up in someone else's hands, thus escalating the risk of a serious and preventable incident that could cost US lives.

This isn't hard to figure out.

Zeus posted...

Which isn't a specific admission that anything classified was shared and only defends Trump's general ability to discuss matters of security with Russia.

Sure, but that alone lends credence to the Post's story, given that it's a tacit admission that information was shared. Unrelated, but I also find it humorous that Trump calls the meeting "openly scheduled" when it was "open" only to the Russian press.

Zeus posted...

Their intelligence gathering on ISIS? Gee, I can't imagine how much damage a regime hostile to ISIS would do with that information gathered by another regime hostile to ISIS.

It goes towards intel on Israel's sources, methods, and reach, all of which would be of keen interest to Iran for less than altruistic reasons.

Zeus posted...

Based on the unverified claim made by WaPo.

Which he's clearly putting stock in. That fact should tell you something, particularly given that he - as the ranking house Republican - is privy to details that are not public.

I'm reminded of the old gambling adage - "Every table has a sucker. If you don't know who the sucker is, it's you."

OhhhJa posted...

Paul Ryan and much of the republican party have never been supportive of Trump from the beginning.

And it's never been difficult for most people to understand why that is.
---

Lol you guys are obsessed with alts here. I'll let you keep pondering though

I'm done pondering, as I said that's my only guess
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

I'm done pondering, as I said that's my only guess

Yeah yeah, I know it's probably keeping you up at night... a ball of anxiety firmly planted in the pit of your stomach. "Who is this guy disagreeing with me?! He must be an alt to have a different perspective! How else could you take an article with little to no info from a source with a reputation for being extremely biased and not call for immediate impeachment?!"

That post was doing the most, dude
---

I don't understand when alts deflect with shit like "why do y'all just ASSUME people are alts or care about alts".

Like people here have been using alts to play nerd of thrones for decades now it's not some far fetched conspiracy for a known shitposter to hide behind a different name.
---

It's just that everyone here who isn't a bleeding heart is assumed an alt. I, myself, find most of the people's extreme left perspective here to be pretty hard to believe and not at all reflective of the general population

But knowing leftists, you probably all believe you are intellectually superior to everyone else anyway

Mead posted...

Zeus posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Once again, I feel the need to point out that Republicans up to and including Paul Ryan have demanded answers from Trump as to what the hell he's doing with regards to what happened. This is not the nothing-story you're implying.

Based on the unverified claim made by WaPo.

That no politicians regardless of party are trying to claim is not accurate, because of course he did this.

How could politicians who weren't there claim that it was or wasn't accurate? More importantly, they need to see a transcript to see if if it did or didn't happen *because* they don't know if it was or wasn't accurate. And why don't they? Because the ONLY source for this is a completely unverified WaPo claim.

Mead posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Can any of you give an explanation for how this has any kind of negative impact on the US bc I'm seeing nothing but a desperate attempt at finding a scandal where there isn't one.... just another chapter in the leftist witch hunt

Well would you be willing to work with US intelligence officials if your life was on the line and our leader can't be trusted to not divulge highly classified intel for no apparent reason?

Given that the laptop ban on flights from Europe was announced recently, don't you think that'd be a tipoff to terrorists if the confidential information truly was what some in the blogosphere are claiming?
---

darkknight109 posted...

Sure, but that alone lends credence to the Post's story, given that it's a tacit admission that information was shared. Unrelated, but I also find it humorous that Trump calls the meeting "openly scheduled" when it was "open" only to the Russian press.

Except it doesn't, unless you're selectively reading it to mean what you want it to mean.

darkknight109 posted...

It goes towards intel on Israel's sources, methods, and reach, all of which would be of keen interest to Iran for less than altruistic reasons.

Collection pertaining to ISIS, unless they have some NSA-level shit monitoring all of the world's emails which they'd hardly reveal to the US.

darkknight109 posted...

Which he's clearly putting stock in. That fact should tell you something, particularly given that he - as the ranking house Republican - is privy to details that are not public.

Except you can't know what has or hasn't been said without seeing a transcript and, generally speaking, when serious charges are leveled, they're often investigated in order to debunk or determine the nature of a claim.

darkknight109 posted...

I'm reminded of the old gambling adage - "Every table has a sucker. If you don't know who the sucker is, it's you."

The sucker at the table is anybody willing to buy into WaPo knowing WaPo's history and bias. I'm reminded of the old Soviet adage about fools being useful for spreading propaganda.
---

ClarkDuke posted...

Who's alt is @OhhhJa?

The irony or hypocrisy is amusing.

RCtheWSBC posted...

My only guess is Natemac

Nate was more articulate, so I doubt it's him.
---

48% of Americans would support impeachment.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333589-poll-42-percent-of-voters-support-impeaching-trump
---

papercup posted...

48% of Americans would support impeachment.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333589-poll-42-percent-of-voters-support-impeaching-trump

Coincidentally 48% of voters voted Clinton.

Salt is real.
---

Zeus posted...

How could politicians who weren't there claim that it was or wasn't accurate? More importantly, they need to see a transcript to see if if it did or didn't happen *because* they don't know if it was or wasn't accurate. And why don't they? Because the ONLY source for this is a completely unverified WaPo claim.

Yet no one in Washington is even questioning the validity of the article.

Think about that. This is not a partisan issue. You're just gonna have to deal with it.
---

Blighboy posted...

papercup posted...

48% of Americans would support impeachment.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333589-poll-42-percent-of-voters-support-impeaching-trump

Coincidentally 48% of voters voted Clinton.

Salt is real.

And only 55% of people eligible to vote did

So that's a much larger number than Clinton (or Trump) voters
---

Blighboy posted...

papercup posted...

48% of Americans would support impeachment.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333589-poll-42-percent-of-voters-support-impeaching-trump

Coincidentally 48% of voters voted Clinton.

Salt is real.

51%*

Is the tolerant left not counting the people who threw away their votes for third parties? Okay then.
---

Blighboy posted...

Is the tolerant left not counting the people who threw away their votes for third parties? Okay then.

Nobody counts the hipster vote

Blighboy posted...

Is the tolerant left not counting the people who threw away their votes for third parties? Okay then.

It's also larger than the tiny number of third party votes in case you don't follow the math or need it explicitly stated

48% of the country is significantly more than Clinton plus third party votes. Or Trump plus third party votes. 48% of the country is more than the number of voters that participated in the election at all (41% of the country).
---