The Trump Presidency

[Blizzard]

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

I'm not going to jump to Trump's defense on this either but at the same time we need to maybe take the story with a grain of salt.

According to McMaster, "At no time, at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known." "I was in the room, it didn't happen," added McMaster.

Trump says he had 'absolute right' to share info with Russia

If the Washington Post wants to call out such stories, they should put names to their sources. With these types of stories, the media is just as questionable as the President's decision. The anonymous stuff doesn't carry nearly as much weight.

 

[TLDR20]

I will say I am 100% against naming sources. You do something like that, the next step is retribution. The step after that is no one coming forward to expose bullshit. Next thing you know we are living in a black hole of information.

Journalists can and should protect their sources. People should be able to comment anonymously. It is part of our system.

 

[Blizzard]

I will say I am 100% against naming sources. You do something like that, the next step is retribution. The step after that is no one coming forward to expose bullshit. Next thing you know we are living in a black hole of information.

Journalists can and should protect their sources. People should be able to comment anonymously. It is part of our system.

I understand that argument and agree to an extent but there is always someone with an axe to grind and they only have half the story/telling half truths. Have you ever read a media report on an event that you had first hand knowledge about? They're usually full of errors; typically as a result of sloppy journalism (which we see a lot of). Now consider such reports with an anonymous source that no one can follow up with for clarification. It's problematic.

 

[TLDR20]

I understand that argument and agree to an extent but there is always someone with an axe to grind and they only have half the story/telling half truths. Have you ever read a media report on an event that you had first hand knowledge about? They're usually full of errors; typically as a result of sloppy journalism (which we see a lot of). Now consider such reports with an anonymous source that no one can follow up with for clarification. It's problematic.

Sure it is. In this case the President said he did it and said he was allowed to do it. So it is obviously correct in the basic facts. If POTUS was like "fuck no I didn't do shit, prove it" that would be a much different story. In reality he said something more along the lines, "I do what I want" which is much more problematic in a republic like ours...

 

[Blizzard]

Sure it is. In this case the President said he did it and said he was allowed to do it. So it is obviously correct in the basic facts. If POTUS was like "fuck no I didn't do shit, prove it" that would be a much different story. In reality he said something more along the lines, "I do what I want" which is much more problematic in a republic like ours...

The devil is in the details, right? He didn't say that he discussed sources of the intel, collection methods, etc. That's the important detail in question. But, you're correct, he does admit to having conversations about it which, technically, he does have the right to do. Important splitting of hairs. Confirming what was really said/took place in this case is pretty problematic.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Journalists can and should protect their sources. People should be able to comment anonymously. It is part of our system.

But....journalism has definitely changed with the inception of the Internet, and certainly blogs. Gone are the days when an intrepid reporter from NY Times or Chicago Tribune could run a story quoting anonymous sources, and you knew you could trust that story because of the publication it originated from. Now literally anyone with a blog can play mini-reporter and pass along info that they heard, or read somewhere else, (or simply make up to get clicks) and claim "confidential source". While it has made me a much more skeptical reader (and viewer for that matter), it does become difficult to know what (and who) to believe.

 

[Topkick]

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?

I didn't think for a minute that it would ever happen. Clinton, Inc. is above the law. Disappointing was his statement " she is a good person" immediately after he won the election!

 

[CDG]

@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.

I agree. I think the events are separate. You think they are separate. D thinks they are separate. A lot of America does not though. There's what "should" happen, and there's what will happen. My point, is about what will happen. I don't agree with it, but it's still the reality.

As to him saying he had a right to share the info, I don't even know where to start with that one. So, so wrong.

@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.

I'm not rationalizing anything. Like I said above, should vs. will. He was dead wrong. However, we all know the state this country is in. This will turn into a bipartisan issue like everything else.

 

[Poccington]

Trump: I shared information with Russia and I had 'absolute right' to do so

I guess this pretty much confirms Trump may have said too much to the Russians and he again displays his willingness to let his staff push out a narrative before he blows it out of the water.

 

[ThunderHorse]

This guy man...so uncouth. Can he just shut up for a couple of days?

 

[Il Duce]

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?

Not so much 'need to know' but all classifications are derived from the President's authority. It is 100% legal for the President to share anything he wants - because ultimately he's the authority by which classification is decided. His subordinates in the IC make the day-to-day rules - but he's the authority under which they do so.

The lawfare blog - quoted by @Salt USMC earlier in the thread - has the best explanation I've seen of all the in's and outs. Here is the link: Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on the Washington Post’s Game-Changing Story

So, not illegal at all - but still very problematic. They lay out the case in much more detail and better than I could do. But, anybody that says the President broke the law is wrong. It's essentially what President Nixon said (and they cite in the blog) 'if the President does it - it's not illegal.' Of course, it was - and still is - totally illegal for anyone other than the President to do what he did.

 

[CDG]

Yet another twist to the story. We got the intel from Israel. I wonder how the Israelis feel about the sharing of information with Russia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/w...6&nl=breaking-news&nlid=79207956&ref=headline

 

[Topkick]

Not so much 'need to know' but all classifications are derived from the President's authority. It is 100% legal for the President to share anything he wants - because ultimately he's the authority by which classification is decided. His subordinates in the IC make the day-to-day rules - but he's the authority under which they do so.

The lawfare blog - quoted by @Salt USMC earlier in the thread - has the best explanation I've seen of all the in's and outs. Here is the link: Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on the Washington Post’s Game-Changing Story

So, not illegal at all - but still very problematic. They lay out the case in much more detail and better than I could do. But, anybody that says the President broke the law is wrong. It's essentially what President Nixon said (and they cite in the blog) 'if the President does it - it's not illegal.' Of course, it was - and still is - totally illegal for anyone other than the President to do what he did.

In the end, the CinC is responsible for what does or does not happen. He was voted in to make tough decisions to protect the American people. I also believe we have Israel' s back and McMaster is known to be brutally honest. If Trump shared info with Russia which will help destroy ISIS, as he says, I am all for it. What am I missing? Before you refer to me as a supporter of the religion of Trump, understand that I don't agree with everything he does.

 

[ThunderHorse]

"Former Officials"...put your name to it. Either stand ready in the storm or shut it.

 

[Blizzard]

Yet another twist to the story. We got the intel from Israel. I wonder how the Israelis feel about the sharing of information with Russia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/w...6&nl=breaking-news&nlid=79207956&ref=headline

So, that's not the President outing Israel. That's the NY Times and an anonymous "current and a former American official" outing the source. No one else has publicly stated how or where the info came from.

 

[CDG]

So, that's not the President outing Israel. That's the NY Times and an anonymous "current and a former American official" outing the source. No one else has publicly stated how or where the info came from.

I didn't say the President outed Israel.

 

[Topkick]

He said/ she said at this point.

 

[Blizzard]

I didn't say the President outed Israel.

I know you didn't. My comment wasn't directed at you; rather just a comment in general about the article and the types of reports that are being published.

 

[DocIllinois]

Have they stated what information? He said/ she said at this point. I don't believe there is any evidence yet?

No need to bother with those kind of details, Top. The next impulsive leadership decision/ distraction to overshadow legislative priorities such as health care and tax reform is enroute.

 

[Topkick]

Yep, but it comes from both sides.