The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Topkick said:
I am confident that there is not as much turmoil as some would like you to believe.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to wait out the long game on that.


U.S. lawmakers want Trump to explain giving intelligence to Russia

"President Donald Trump came under pressure on Tuesday from U.S. lawmakers, including some of his fellow Republicans, to give a fuller explanation of why he revealed highly sensitive intelligence information to senior Russian officials at a White House meeting last week."
 
DocIllinois said:
I'm willing to wait out the long game on that.


U.S. lawmakers want Trump to explain giving intelligence to Russia

"President Donald Trump came under pressure on Tuesday from U.S. lawmakers, including some of his fellow Republicans, to give a fuller explanation of why he revealed highly sensitive intelligence information to senior Russian officials at a White House meeting last week."
Click to expand...

They are doing their job. In my eyes the explanation after the fact is always expected. Congress and Senate always wants to know why..as they should ..that's why they exist. The American people want to know why and these folks are supposed to represent us. Trump should have to explain but it doesn't automatically mean turmoil. Its the system we use.


.
 
Topkick said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's exactly one of the points they made in the lawfare blog. I think it's worth a read but to summarize one of the issues is how you see the President's decision. Did he make an error or does he see this release as a part of a strategy? Even if it's the wrong strategy - he is absolutely empowered through election to do that. But, if it was a mistake - just blurting out shit without concern for the trust/agreement it represents it could be interpreted as a violation of his oath of office.

An example they cite in the blog is the President absolutely has the authority and would not be breaking the law (as long as he was the one doing it) to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note, take a picture, and tweet them out. But, it would raise the very legitimate question if he was actually executing the duties of his office the way he swore to 'uphold and defend.' It sounded like an extreme example, then I started thinking about the facebook photos of the President having an emergency planning session on North Korea in the Mar-e-Lago dining room and feel like I'm not going to tempt fate by going that far.

Ultimately I guess it's like almost everything when it comes to a President - it comes down to trust. There is enormous power in the executive - especially in the realms of national security, law enforcement, and intelligence. The line on trusting their judgment and actions - where you judge it to be - is a matter of interpretation and analysis much more than statute.

ThunderHorse said:
"Former Officials"...put your name to it. Either stand ready in the storm or shut it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's at all fair. There is no way to 'leak' this type of information other than anonymously - without going to jail.

It comes down to the argument about leaking in the first place. I think this sort of judgment (or misjudgment) from the President is incredibly pertinent to the public. But, it's secret for a reason. Just talking about the fact this came up means dangerous secrets are coming to light - not the least intelligence sharing from Israel. Even if the report is totally wrong the damage is done - trust by other nations for sharing intelligence with the US is harmed going forward, there's no getting around that. But, I think it's very difficult to hold that judgment against journalists. It's like saying 'if you report on police abuse people won't trust the police and crime will be worse' - that could be 100% true, yet in order not to report it the journalist would have to trust the institution to reform - without outside reporting/pressure. I think the history of our republic means journalists will always - and probably should - bias towards the release of information about institutional abuses.

The trick comes in for the leaker themselves - where I think that argument does hold water. They might feel the public has a right to know and the President is acting unconscionably. But, that doesn't alleviate them at all from the damage to the national security and intelligence apparatus their leak would entail. I do think this one case adds a wrinkle in that the President didn't just release the information to Russian diplomats - but also the Russian press. I think it's way harder to make the case the Russian press deserve the information but the US press does not.

I wouldn't have leaked the conversation but, I can see why someone with a deep commitment to national security and the IC would. I would not want to work at that level and have to deal with that kind of shit. I wonder if any of the political side of the administration feel the same way? Does it weigh on them to have to lie for the President? LTG McMaster wrote a book on the lack of moral leadership and ability to tell truth to power during the Vietnam war. I think he is sidling up to a big bowl of irony every morning now.
 
Il Duce said:
I don't think that's at all fair. There is no way to 'leak' this type of information other than anonymously - without going to jail.

It comes down to the argument about leaking in the first place. I think this sort of judgment (or misjudgment) from the President is incredibly pertinent to the public. But, it's secret for a reason. Just talking about the fact this came up means dangerous secrets are coming to light - not the least intelligence sharing from Israel. Even if the report is totally wrong the damage is done - trust by other nations for sharing intelligence with the US is harmed going forward, there's no getting around that. But, I think it's very difficult to hold that judgment against journalists. It's like saying 'if you report on police abuse people won't trust the police and crime will be worse' - that could be 100% true, yet in order not to report it the journalist would have to trust the institution to reform - without outside reporting/pressure. I think the history of our republic means journalists will always - and probably should - bias towards the release of information about institutional abuses.

The trick comes in for the leaker themselves - where I think that argument does hold water. They might feel the public has a right to know and the President is acting unconscionably. But, that doesn't alleviate them at all from the damage to the national security and intelligence apparatus their leak would entail. I do think this one case adds a wrinkle in that the President didn't just release the information to Russian diplomats - but also the Russian press. I think it's way harder to make the case the Russian press deserve the information but the US press does not.

I wouldn't have leaked the conversation but, I can see why someone with a deep commitment to national security and the IC would. I would not want to work at that level and have to deal with that kind of shit. I wonder if any of the political side of the administration feel the same way? Does it weigh on them to have to lie for the President? LTG McMaster wrote a book on the lack of moral leadership and ability to tell truth to power during the Vietnam war. I think he is sidling up to a big bowl of irony every morning now.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. You either put your name to it, especially these "former officials" who actually know nothing, because they aren't there. It's very fair. You know, since we have those awesome whistleblower protection laws. All of these leaks from the previous and now current administration do is create problems for governance. It's bloody annoying. As far as the intelligence data is concerned, if it's as McMaster stated, that all of what was said is common knowledge due to currents journalism, then it wasn't exactly: "oh my bajesus he gave them secrets." And why does anyone think there was Russian Press in the meeting past the photo op.

In the end this all looks like shit. We're eating a shit sandwich.

Now...different topic, not that I can read it because it's behind a pay wall, but the NYT is reporting that Trump urged Comey to close the Flynn investigation. Now that is fucked up and I don't think will go very far. Donald Trump asked Comey to shut down Flynn probe, NBC News confirms
Times hasn't seen the memo...and it's been read to them. I don't trust that at all.
 
Il Duce said:
I wouldn't have leaked the conversation but, I can see why someone with a deep commitment to national security and the IC would. I would not want to work at that level and have to deal with that kind of shit. I wonder if any of the political side of the administration feel the same way? Does it weigh on them to have to lie for the President? LTG McMaster wrote a book on the lack of moral leadership and ability to tell truth to power during the Vietnam war. I think he is sidling up to a big bowl of irony every morning now.
Click to expand...
It sounds as though you've made up your decision on what took place albeit based upon anonymity and here say.
 
Blizzard said:
It sounds as though you've made up your decision on what took place albeit based upon anonymity and here say.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've made my assessment of what I think happened based on the reporting and statements so far. It certainly could be wrong, but I think the statements from all sides point to the same narrative. The President talked about ISIS and our efforts against them in a meeting with the Russian ambassador and limited Russian press. During the discussion he disclosed intelligence we gained through Israel that was not releasable per our agreement with them. Someone(s) in the meeting - and possibly others with knowledge of the meeting after the fact, as is common in these sorts of meetings where detailed notes are distributed - released the fact of the Israeli-intelligence disclosure to the Washington Post. They reported it and the damage control spin has been in full effect on all sides.

It could be something else happened, or key nuances off those basic facts have significant bearing on an interpretation of the events, but I think enough information is out to make those conclusions with a reasonable amount of confidence.

It's certainly true that anything through a filter of media reports - or through a filter of administration, public affairs, or political filter - could have significant inaccuracies or outright lies. But, part of being a consumer of information is sifting through that stuff and making conclusions. Elsewise you're just Plato in the cave speculating about shadows.
 
Il Duce said:
Yes, I've made my assessment of what I think happened based on the reporting and statements so far. It certainly could be wrong, but I think the statements from all sides point to the same narrative. The President talked about ISIS and our efforts against them in a meeting with the Russian ambassador and limited Russian press. During the discussion he disclosed intelligence we gained through Israel that was not releasable per our agreement with them. Someone(s) in the meeting - and possibly others with knowledge of the meeting after the fact, as is common in these sorts of meetings where detailed notes are distributed - released the fact of the Israeli-intelligence disclosure to the Washington Post. They reported it and the damage control spin has been in full effect on all sides.

It could be something else happened, or key nuances off those basic facts have significant bearing on an interpretation of the events, but I think enough information is out to make those conclusions with a reasonable amount of confidence.

It's certainly true that anything through a filter of media reports - or through a filter of administration, public affairs, or political filter - could have significant inaccuracies or outright lies. But, part of being a consumer of information is sifting through that stuff and making conclusions. Elsewise you're just Plato in the cave speculating about shadows.
Click to expand...
General McMaster was in the room too. He says it was appropriate. He said/ she said.
 
Topkick said:
General McMaster was in the room too. He says it was appropriate. He said/ she said.
Click to expand...

Appropriate doesn't disagree with the anonymous source - it just gives a value judgment. The fact that LTG McMaster, SEC Tillerson, et al are not disputing the fact of President Trump's disclosure - just it's impact and context - is part of what makes the anonymous sources very believable to me.
 
Il Duce said:
Appropriate doesn't disagree with the anonymous source - it just gives a value judgment. The fact that LTG McMaster, SEC Tillerson, et al are not disputing the fact of President Trump's disclosure - just it's impact and context - is part of what makes the anonymous sources very believable to me.
Click to expand...

If everyone in the meeting agrees that what Trump disclosed was appropriate, I am done here.
 
Topkick said:
If everyone in the meeting agrees that what Trump disclosed was appropriate, I am done here.
Click to expand...

Presumably the anonymous sources were in the meeting. You can form whatever opinion you like - but I somehow doubt 'everyone in the room is in agreement' as the test for legitimacy, appropriateness, or wisdom is a standard you're likely to apply in other cases. Everyone sounded in agreement in the room on most of Nixon's Watergate tapes - totally legit I guess in your book now.

If you want to reach for a reason to say President Trump did right and criticism of him is unfair you don't have to reach that far. His tweets this morning pretty well sum it up 'I'm the President, I can share what I want, this is part of my plan to defeat ISIS in the first 30 days of my Presidency.'
 
Il Duce said:
Presumably the anonymous sources were in the meeting. You can form whatever opinion you like - but I somehow doubt 'everyone in the room is in agreement' as the test for legitimacy, appropriateness, or wisdom is a standard you're likely to apply in other cases. Everyone sounded in agreement in the room on most of Nixon's Watergate tapes - totally legit I guess in your book now.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have a different source but the only people in the room per all reports I've seen (so I'll consider this to be fact until shown otherwise) were: President Trump, National Security Adviser McMaster, Deputy National Security Adviser Powell, and Secretary of State Tillerson. The only others present were the two Russian diplomats and the photographer from the Russian media.

New details on "inappropriate" info Trump shared with Russia - CBS This Morning - CBS News
CBS News article said:
"I was in the room, it didn't happen," McMaster said.

According to McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and senior White House official Dina Powell were also present during the meeting, but American reporters were barred, with the only pictures provided by Russian state media.

In paper statements, Tillerson doubled down on McMaster's denial and Powell said "this story is false."
Click to expand...
Since all the U.S. members in attendance stated the report is not accurate, are you suggesting the anonymous source was one of the Russians? Or are you suggesting one of the four is lying and is actually the anonymous source? Or maybe Trump is right and someone is bugging his office?!
 
Last edited:
Blizzard said:
Perhaps you have a different source but the only people in the room per all reports I've seen (so I'll consider this to be fact until shown otherwise) were: President Trump, National Security Adviser McMaster, Deputy National Security Adviser Powell, and Secretary of State Tillerson. The only others present were the two Russian diplomats and the photographer from the Russian media.

Since all the U.S. members in attendance stated the report is not accurate, are you suggesting the anonymous source was one of the Russians? Or are you suggesting one of the four is lying and is actually the anonymous source? Or maybe Trump is right and someone is bugging his office?!
Click to expand...
And I highly doubt the photographer was there past the photo op.
 
Blizzard said:
Perhaps you have a different source but the only people in the room per all reports I've seen (so I'll consider this to be fact until shown otherwise) were: President Trump, National Security Adviser McMaster, Deputy National Security Adviser Powell, and Secretary of State Tillerson. The only others present were the two Russian diplomats and the photographer from the Russian media.

Since all the U.S. members in attendance stated the report is not accurate, are you suggesting the anonymous source was one of the Russians? Or are you suggesting one of the four is lying and is actually the anonymous source? Or maybe Trump is right and someone is bugging his office?!
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm suggesting at least one of the anonymous sources was in the room. After re-reading the initial WaPo article they don't specifically state the source(s) were in the room - only they had knowledge of the conversation. I haven't seen anything to indicate those were the only people in the room - though they were the only ones in the Russian media photograph - as there are almost always people in the room to take notes, answer questions, and run things down - as was indicated by the immediate contact of the heads of the CIA and NSA (as reported in the original article) - to try and contain the damage from the disclosure.

Also, none of the people in the room you're describing are denying the leakers' claim - that codeword protected intelligence from Israel, not authorized for release, was shared with the Russians in attendance. They've stated only that the characterizing of that release as damaging or inappropriate was/is inaccurate.

President Trump did imply he made tapes of his conversations with Comey - so maybe there is a record of the conversation (other than the one the Russian state media made). I believe in technical terms it's referred to as 'having your wires tapped' now.

This is the part of the article to me that indicated more people were likely there:

"Lavrov and Kislyak were also accompanied by aides.

A Russian photographer took photos of part of the session that were released by the Russian state-owned Tass news agency. No U.S. news organization was allowed to attend any part of the meeting.

Senior White House officials appeared to recognize quickly that Trump had overstepped and moved to contain the potential fallout. Thomas P. Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, placed calls to the directors of the CIA and the NSA, the services most directly involved in the intelligence-sharing arrangement with the partner.

One of Bossert’s subordinates also called for the problematic portion of Trump’s discussion to be stricken from internal memos and for the full transcript to be limited to a small circle of recipients, efforts to prevent sensitive details from being disseminated further or leaked.

White House officials defended Trump. “This story is false,” said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy. “The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced.”

But officials could not explain why staff members nevertheless felt it necessary to alert the CIA and the NSA."

But, it does not specify how long they were in the meeting. I also assume you can't have transcripts and notes without staffers there to do it - but maybe LTG McMaster has awesome shorthand.

Bottom line, you are correct - I am making assumptions, but I think they're reasoned and informed. But, probably everybody thinks that about their assumptions so there you go - impasse.
 
Last edited:
Il Duce said:
Bottom line, you are correct - I am making assumptions, but I think they're reasoned and informed. But, probably everybody thinks that about their assumptions so there you go - impasse.
Click to expand...

And your assumptions are not without reason. This is what we are all being fed, whether its the whole truth or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marauder06
It's OK That You Didn't Go To War
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Devildoc
Devildoc
AWP
HAPPY MONDAY FROM THE BOOK SUPPOSITORY BUILDING!!!!
Replies
13
Views
788
Muppet
Muppet
CQB
Kyiv supplied Intel to Tuareg rebels.
Replies
4
Views
678
CQB
CQB
Devildoc
Imminent national security threat?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Marauder06
Marauder06
AWP
Your Weekend Safety Brief
Replies
7
Views
1K
Mad boomer
Mad boomer
Back
Top