The Trump Presidency

[Il Duce]

I'm considering the source (MSN), but ....

So is there part of this that every president does with certain discretion, or is this as ugly as my initial reaction?

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

It's as bad as you think. A President could reveal classified information - then retroactively say it is 'declassified.' Bush 43 did this with many of the leaks from the VP's office during the run-up and justification for the Iraq War.

The nuance here is that the information was apparently a part of an intelligence sharing agreement with a partner nation. Meaning, they share intelligence with us but we're not allowed to share it with others without their express permission. Of course, as the President, he can renegotiate or pull us out of those intelligence sharing agreements. They're all entered into under executive authorities.

The other disturbing thing (to me) is the leak about this itself. I don't think there's much, if any, justification for leaking classified information - and I'd count the President's classified statements as in that category, no matter how negative my views of him might be. But, if you're an intelligence professional - who understands and cares about classification, intelligence oversight, intelligence agreements, and national security - this puts you in a tough spot. The President has just done something incredibly damaging to all of those things - and contrary to agreements we have entered into in good faith with our allies. He has done it to an adversary - with their state press present and ours forbidden from the meeting - and if you don't leak it no one will ever know about it (except those present). I still wouldn't have leaked what happened - but I can see the dilemma the person(s) were in.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

It's as if the man walks around playing the "I know a secret " game and wants to show off to Russia.

I am sure that the intelligence ally that gave us this information is very pleased that they may have been fingered.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I'm considering the source (MSN), but ....

So is there part of this that every president does with certain discretion, or is this as ugly as my initial reaction?

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

I would say yes, and no.

You have Five Eyes stuff, so sharing of classified information with certain allies. What we have hear is either someone lying to help with the headline or someone willing to be Deep Throat. Not sure.

 

[SpitfireV]

I would say yes, and no.

You have Five Eyes stuff, so sharing of classified information with certain allies. What we have hear is either someone lying to help with the headline or someone willing to be Deep Throat. Not sure.

Do you just type anything that comes to mind?

 

[ThunderHorse]

Do you just type anything that comes to mind?

Do you have anything to contribute?

 

[SpitfireV]

Do you have anything to contribute?

Let's not quote your latest performance reports. And yes and, I have.

My posts aren't gibberish though you see.

 

[Il Duce]

The National Security Advisor just released a statement saying the story 'as reported' was false. The exact words he used were 'no sources or methods were revealed, and no military operations not public knowledge were shared.' So, if you parse the statement the anonymous source could - and likely is - correct. The President shared intelligence gained from a partner that was not releasable.

I imagine to someone who knows the full story (and I am not one of them) it's likely a great case study to illuminate the difficulties in our classification system. It's the same thing HRC ran into in the email scandal. The IC can be pretty draconian about how things are classified, what can be shared/how it can be shared, and information derived from other sources. For those on the right when HRC was suffering the fallout from that stuff - newspaper articles on the drone program needing to be 'classified,' failure to mark things properly as 'confidential' - any hint at the nuance and difficulties navigating the classification process was shameful treasonous scumbags covering over blatant corruption. Now, the roles are reversed entirely.

From what I've heard so far it seems very likely both the anonymous source and NSA are technically correct - both stories line up once the words are parsed. I would speculate - based on his previous behavior - the President did not intend to share things he wasn't supposed to. He just doesn't understand, care about, or have the capability to acknowledge any IC rules or regulations. It seems like much of the stuff he does is not necessarily ill-intentioned - it's just massive ignorance combined with unshakeable confidence and lack of self-reflection.

 

[Salt USMC]

A well-reasoned explanation of why this is A Big Deal from lawfareblog

First, this is not a question of “leaking classified information” or breaking a criminal law.

Second, this is not a garden variety breach, and outrage over it is not partisan hypocrisy about protecting classified information.

Third, it is important to understand the nature of sources and methods information in order to fully understand the gravity of the breach.

Fourth, it really matters why Trump disclosed this information to Russian visitors.

Fifth, this may well be a violation of the President’s oath of office.

Sixth, it matters hugely, at least from an atmospheric point of view, that the people in the room were Russian and one of them was Sergey Kislyak of all people.

Seventh, Trump’s screw-up with the Russians in the Oval Office raises the stakes for whether he records conversations there.

Eighth, this episode raises the stakes on the nomination of the FBI Director to replace Comey.

Finally, Trump’s alleged screw-up with the Russians reveals yet again what we have learned many times in the last four months: The successful operation of our government assumes a minimally competent Chief Executive that we now lack.

This is more than a partisan issue.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Quoting myself from January 7, 2017.

Back on topic -

<snip>
Somewhere in the prior election thread I made a post stating that Trump would be a unifier. Specifically that if he turned out to be an immediate train wreck you would see the Dems and Republicans unify in near unanimous agreement and impeach him out of office before he has the opportunity to cause any real damage.

I am beginning to see that as a realistic outcome more everyday.

If the boys and girls who run things in Washington were going to make something happen, this might be the one they choose hang their hat on.

 

[CDG]

It's going to be pretty difficult to justify going after Trump when Hillary's leaks, among many others, have been swept under the rug. I know it's different, because he's POTUS. I get that. I am not defending Trump. I am saying that Washington has looked the other way for a long time about leaks, and paid lip service to national security issues as it relates to politicians. I don't see this going very far, but I obviously could be wrong.

 

[AWP]

You have Five Eyes stuff, so sharing of classified information with certain allies.

Are you using this as an example of classification agreements or is there something else to using "Five Eyes" as it pertains to this story?

 

[ThunderHorse]

Are you using this as an example of classification agreements or is there something else to using "Five Eyes" as it pertains to this story?

The former. As general sharing of classified data that happens...and quite obviously: Russia isn't NATO, Five Eyes, ABCA etc.

 

[TLDR20]

It's going to be pretty difficult to justify going after Trump when Hillary's leaks, among many others, have been swept under the rug. I know it's different, because he's POTUS. I get that. I am not defending Trump. I am saying that Washington has looked the other way for a long time about leaks, and paid lip service to national security issues as it relates to politicians. I don't see this going very far, but I obviously could be wrong.

Wait what? Didn't trump run on a campaign of promises to go after Hillary? Didn't people shout from the hills about sending her to jail? We just chilling on that now?

 

[amlove21]

It's going to be pretty difficult to justify going after Trump when Hillary's leaks, among many others, have been swept under the rug. I know it's different, because he's POTUS. I get that. I am not defending Trump. I am saying that Washington has looked the other way for a long time about leaks, and paid lip service to national security issues as it relates to politicians. I don't see this going very far, but I obviously could be wrong.

The thing with me is this- IF the story is to be believed (P Trump unwittingly laid out a plot that could give insight to sources and methods) that he shouldn't have- then we are talking about a different issue.

I'll take the administration Kellyanne's own words- he's not a candidate he's the president, and our president wanted to look powerful and display that he was a smart man and in that process he divulged information that could be harmful to the US. To Russia, of all people. While an investigation of his possible collision with Russia just won't go away.

I think this does go very far- problem is, at this point we all feel like this horseshit is normal. We haven't even gotten through the Comey firing yet, now we have to figure out how this mercurial businessman, the savior of the poor political outsiders can't get through a meeting he shouldn't have taken in an office he intimated may be bugged (let's hope so, actually, we'd actually know what he said) without betraying national security.

ETA- phone fat fingers

 

[Il Duce]

A well-reasoned explanation of why this is A Big Deal from lawfareblog



This is more than a partisan issue.

I thought this article in the Atlantic was the best summary I have seen of what this shows and why it's important: The Terrible Cost of Trump's Disclosures to the Russians

Of course, Eliot Cohen is going to give President Trump zero leeway - he is anti-Trump all the way. But, that doesn't mean his analysis and points are wrong. Just that he's in the 'hater' camp to use the President's parlance.

Quoting myself from January 7, 2017.




If the boys and girls who run things in Washington were going to make something happen, this might be the one they choose hang their hat on.

I don't know on this one. I think more and more the evidence points to there is very little President Trump can do to lose the approval of his base, and a solid portion of his party's elected officials. I've read many of his supporters look at any criticism of him - even/especially those supported by evidence - as attacks on them, their intelligence, their world view, and their choices and react with even stronger support. As someone on the other side of the political aisle I'd love to throw stones but if that's how they look at political issues are they holding up a mirror? Is that how we all do? I like to think my opinions and choices are about weighing information and values - but this phenomenon makes it seem like it's more about choosing a 'team' and sticking with it through thick and thin. It makes politics more of a religion than a philosophy. I'd like to think only conservatives are guilty and liberals like me are above that shit - but that kind of thinking is exactly the illogical crap that gets you into those problems in the first place 'my brain works differently than those people that are less than me because of their: race, gender, age, national origin, political views, and on and on.'

It's going to be pretty difficult to justify going after Trump when Hillary's leaks, among many others, have been swept under the rug. I know it's different, because he's POTUS. I get that. I am not defending Trump. I am saying that Washington has looked the other way for a long time about leaks, and paid lip service to national security issues as it relates to politicians. I don't see this going very far, but I obviously could be wrong.

I would think the opposite. HRC's email scandal - identified through the Benghazi investigation - caused multiple congressional hearings, a full FBI investigation - with findings made public throughout a tight election, and provided a consistent narrative and rallying cry for candidate-Trump with calls of 'lock her up' and a promise of sending her to jail after the election. The only hint of feeling differently was in the justification for firing director Comey - and the administration jumped off that lie within the first 48 hours.

How do you say HRC - investigated and castigated, but not found guilty of any crime - is terrible/criminal/treasonous for mishandling classified information that - to the best of investigators knowledge - never made it into foreign/unauthorized hands. Yet, if President Trump - the same guy screaming about how terrible all that shit was (along with his followers) - gives classified information directly to Russian diplomats, and Russian press let into the meeting with recording devices, that it's not a big deal?

I take your point on the hypocrisy part to forgive HRC - yet castigate President Trump. But, I think it more than cuts both ways. I also think there are plenty of people (like me) who thought the castigating Comey gave HRC was right - but also right that she shouldn't/couldn't be prosecuted - yet held their nose and voted for her anyways. I wonder if President Trump's supporters will also feel he was very wrong - but still deserves support. Or, if they'll say he didn't do anything wrong because - fake news, media is biased, liberals are assholes, leakers are bad, etc.

 

[Il Duce]

The former. As general sharing of classified data that happens...and quite obviously: Russia isn't NATO, Five Eyes, ABCA etc.

The way this was reported - unless it's fabricated, and if it was the NSA and others would have said that, not their carefully worded reply - this was not an issue of portion marking. This was an issue of releasing something protected by a codeword or SAP.

 

[CDG]

Wait what? Didn't trump run on a campaign of promises to go after Hillary? Didn't people shout from the hills about sending her to jail? We just chilling on that now?

Look man, I already said I wasn't defending Trump. I didn't say "we should let it go". What I said, was that Washington has made it NBD to leak classified information over years and years. If this is the one "they" decide to draw the line on, so be it.

The thing with me is this- IF the story is to be believed (P Trump unwittingly laid out a plot that could give insight to sources and methods) that he shouldn't have- then we are talking about a different issue.

I'll take the administration Kellyanne's own words- he's not a candidate he's the president, and our president wanted to look powerful and display that he was a smart man and in that process he divulged information that could be harmful to the US. To Russia, of all people. While an investigation of his possible collision with Russia just won't go away.

I think this does go very far- problem is, at this point we all feel like this horseshit is normal. We haven't even gotten through the Comey firing yet, now we have to figure out how this mercurial businessman, the savior of the poor political outsiders can't get through a meeting he shouldn't have taken in an office he intimated may be bugged (let's hope so, actually, we'd actually know what he said) without betraying national security.

ETA- phone fat fingers

I agree with you. I realize it's different. The fact that we've come to expect this behavior out of Washington is certainly a bigger problem. Like I said above, if this is where "they" decide to draw the line, so be it. There had better be a standard set though. Also, if POTUS is punished, after HRC was essentially let off the hook, then this country only becomes further divided. Again, I am not defending Trump, nor am I saying we should let this go. Just saying that people on both sides are looking for excuses to go Leroy Jenkins on political issues.

I would think the opposite. HRC's email scandal - identified through the Benghazi investigation - caused multiple congressional hearings, a full FBI investigation - with findings made public throughout a tight election, and provided a consistent narrative and rallying cry for candidate-Trump with calls of 'lock her up' and a promise of sending her to jail after the election. The only hint of feeling differently was in the justification for firing director Comey - and the administration jumped off that lie within the first 48 hours.

How do you say HRC - investigated and castigated, but not found guilty of any crime - is terrible/criminal/treasonous for mishandling classified information that - to the best of investigators knowledge - never made it into foreign/unauthorized hands. Yet, if President Trump - the same guy screaming about how terrible all that shit was (along with his followers) - gives classified information directly to Russian diplomats, and Russian press let into the meeting with recording devices, that it's not a big deal?

I take your point on the hypocrisy part to forgive HRC - yet castigate President Trump. But, I think it more than cuts both ways. I also think there are plenty of people (like me) who thought the castigating Comey gave HRC was right - but also right that she shouldn't/couldn't be prosecuted - yet held their nose and voted for her anyways. I wonder if President Trump's supporters will also feel he was very wrong - but still deserves support. Or, if they'll say he didn't do anything wrong because - fake news, media is biased, liberals are assholes, leakers are bad, etc.

Where in my post did I say Hillary was terrible/criminal/treasonous? You and TLDR20 both apparently missed the part where I said I was NOT defending POTUS. I never said it wasn't a big deal, and I never said Hillary was terrible, criminal, or treasonous (in that post ). I was offering an opinion about what I saw as a facet to this issue. Ardent Trump supporters will lose their minds if Trump faces actual punishment over this, when Hillary was never charged. They will fail to see the differences, and will make the two the same issue, and the country will be further divided. That was my point.

 

[amlove21]

@CDG I know you're not defending Trump on this one, but it's important that we don't frame this as a bipartisan issue at all, exactly like you said. This event stands on its own; so why bring up any other issue (like HRC) as a means to say, "The other guy wasn't punished for exactly this so don't go crazy." Even if some wacky democrat did something on this level and was completely ignored, P Trump's actions would still be wrong.

In the end, this conversation is moot anyway, the President said he had 'the right' to share information with Russia for ... reasons.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

In the end, this conversation is moot anyway, the President said he had 'the right' to share information with Russia for ... reasons.

Which brings me to my next natural question....in the world of what considered classified/Top Secret/etc, is the President the final say on "need to know?". Meaning if he determines that someone (or country) needs to know, is he well within his rights as President to share that information?

 

[TLDR20]

@CDG I know you said you aren't defending POTUS here. I don't think you are. But when taken in a larger context of conversations on this board, to see anyone rationalize this is surprising.