Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14805383
Washington Post wrote:President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

The revelation comes as the president faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as attempted obstruction of justice.

One day after dismissing Comey, Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a key figure in earlier Russia controversies — into the Oval Office. It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

The CIA declined to comment, and the NSA did not respond to requests for comment.

But officials expressed concern about Trump’s handling of sensitive information as well as his grasp of the potential consequences. Exposure of an intelligence stream that has provided critical insight into the Islamic State, they said, could hinder the United States’ and its allies’ ability to detect future threats.

“It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”

In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.

Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.

The Washington Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.

“Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive, and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.

The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow would be keenly interested in identifying that source and perhaps disrupting it.

Russia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support President Bashar al-Assad.

“Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said.

A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”

At a more fundamental level, the information wasn’t the United States’ to provide to others. Under the rules of espionage, governments — and even individual agencies — are given significant control over whether and how the information they gather is disseminated, even after it has been shared. Violating that practice undercuts trust considered essential to sharing secrets.

The officials declined to identify the ally but said it has previously voiced frustration with Washington’s inability to safeguard sensitive information related to Iraq and Syria.

“If that partner learned we’d given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first, that is a blow to that relationship,” the U.S. official said.

Trump also described measures that the United States has taken or is contemplating to counter the threat, including military operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as other steps to tighten security, officials said.

The officials would not discuss details of those measures, but the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed that it is considering banning laptops and other large electronic devices from carry-on bags on flights between Europe and the United States. The United States and Britain imposed a similar ban in March affecting travelers passing through airports in 10 Muslim-majority countries.

Trump cast the countermeasures in wistful terms. “Can you believe the world we live in today?” he said, according to one official. “Isn’t it crazy?”

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.

Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials, most notably in his contentious introductory conversation with the Australian prime minister earlier this year. He has also faced criticism for seemingly lax attention to security at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners.

U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders, but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points — and often ignores those.

“He seems to get in the room or on the phone and just goes with it, and that has big downsides,” the second former official said. “Does he understand what’s classified and what’s not? That’s what worries me.”

Lavrov’s reaction to the Trump disclosures was muted, officials said, calling for the United States to work more closely with Moscow on fighting terrorism.

Kislyak has figured prominently in damaging stories about the Trump administration’s ties to Russia. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign just 24 days into the job over his contacts with Kislyak and his misleading statements about them. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from matters related to the FBI’s Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had met and spoke with Kislyak, despite denying any contact with Russian officials during his confirmation hearing.

“I’m sure Kislyak was able to fire off a good cable back to the Kremlin with all the details” he gleaned from Trump, said the former U.S. official who handled intelligence on Russia.

The White House readout of the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak made no mention of the discussion of a terrorist threat.

“Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria,” the summary said. The president also “raised Ukraine” and “emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia.”


I thought that this should be discussed. I'm not sure what competing news organizations are saying.
#14805384
Trump cock-holsters will undoubtedly say that Trump (unlike Obama) can share classified information with the Russian government whenever he wants because he's the president and has broad discretionary powers. Others will say this is at worst further evidence at Trump and his associates being complicit in acts of treason, or at least further evidence of how enormously stupid the man is.

In this case, I don't think his intention was to do anything illegal:

In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.


The man is a buffoon to the point of needing to brag or boast about anything possible, which is probably the reason why he went off on a tangent and said what he did. The man who actually wrote "Trump's" The Art of the Deal, Tony Schwartz, shared some really interesting insights into the kind of person Trump is.
Last edited by Bulaba Khan Jones on 16 May 2017 00:44, edited 1 time in total.
#14805389
I agree that this sounds grossly incompetent instead of actively malicious. Though I doubt the Russians care either way.

It's almost as if facts would have been more useful than Trump's special snowflake feelings.

Suntzu wrote:National Enquirer?


That's actually owned by Trump friendly shills.
#14805448
Normally when politicians make gaffes it involves an unfortunate choice of words or an inability to remember every detail of a policy at the end of a long day. Trump is much more ambitious and genuinely doesn't get it. He boasts about being brilliant at business after under performing the market and squandering his inheritance; I expect his presidency will be the same.
#14805451
Some people are so deluded that they believe in Trump like a child does Santa Claus. There is pretty much nothing he can do to alienate his "base" (base intelligence?)

If a Democrat did a fraction of the shit even this one Trump story has done... well, they're bitching about Obama earning money from speeches after he has left office. That says how seriously they approach problems.
#14805457
Zagadka wrote:Some people are so deluded that they believe in Trump like a child does Santa Claus. There is pretty much nothing he can do to alienate his "base" (base intelligence?)

If a Democrat did a fraction of the shit even this one Trump story has done... well, they're bitching about Obama earning money from speeches after he has left office. That says how seriously they approach problems.


That thought can easily be turned around into "Some people are so deluded that they hate Trump like a child hates eating brussels sprouts", even though it is a very healthy food.

Trump is very healthy for all Americans. Some people don't wish to see that yet, but I believe most of them eventually will. Of course some on the far left are incorrigible and Trump could create world peace and solve world hunger, and they will still hate any politician in the Republican Party.
#14805459
And your argument has all of the nuance of yelling "LALALA THINGS ARE GOOD MAGA" over and over. Which precisely what you've been doing for months. You're literally in a thread about direct national security issues talking about Brussels sprouts.

Unlike some people, I would be happy if someone made the world a better place, no matter which party they belong to. I have the capacity to be wrong and I have the capacity to critically think about who I support politically and change that policy based on their abject failures, lies, abortions of policy...

Set out some extra milk and cookies for Santa. He's going to need it.
#14805460
stephen50right wrote:...and they will still hate any politician in the Republican Party.


I quite liked Eisenhower, and still hold a soft-spot for Nixon. Of course, Teddy Roosevelt was the Man. He invented the modern progressive paradigm. During his Bull Moose run he advocated:

Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited the ability of judges to order injunctions to limit labor strikes.
A minimum wage law for women
An eight-hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations

Well, they sure don't make Republicans like that anymore.
#14805462
quetzalcoatl wrote:I quite liked Eisenhower, and still hold a soft-spot for Nixon. Of course, Teddy Roosevelt was the Man. He invented the modern progressive paradigm. During his Bull Moose run he advocated:

Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited the ability of judges to order injunctions to limit labor strikes.
A minimum wage law for women
An eight-hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations

Well, they sure don't make Republicans like that anymore.


Wow, I had no idea Teddy Roosevelt was a communist. :eh:

But seriously any ONE of these things would make him completely unelectable to most modern day republicans.
#14805464
Zagadka wrote:And your argument has all of the nuance of yelling "LALALA THINGS ARE GOOD MAGA" over and over. Which precisely what you've been doing for months. You're literally in a thread about direct national security issues talking about Brussels sprouts.

Unlike some people, I would be happy if someone made the world a better place, no matter which party they belong to. I have the capacity to be wrong and I have the capacity to critically think about who I support politically and change that policy based on their abject failures, lies, abortions of policy...

Set out some extra milk and cookies for Santa. He's going to need it.


<<< Unlike some people, I would be happy if someone made the world a better place, no matter which party they belong to. I have the capacity to be wrong and I have the capacity to critically think about who I support politically and change that policy based on their abject failures, lies, abortions of policy...>>>

I believe ya. I think most reasonable people are like that.

<<< Which precisely what you've been doing for months. >>>

Yes, to counteract what the left is doing.

Come on now...it's only been 100 days. We all knew there would be a learning curve involved with Trump. It's that way with all presidents. But Trump is an extremely fast learner, and he has already had a number of accomplishments for my side who voted for him. One of course is placing a magnificent Supreme Court justice on the bench.

There will be many more accomplishments to come for all Americans. Trump rounding up and getting rid of malignant drug dealers and gang bangers in the inner cities, is going to help opportunity for economic advancement and also freedom and liberty for the good folks there. All Americans will benefit from new and much better healthcare which will be brought to the table. The list goes on and on. Yes, not everything is complete yet, but it will be.

Mark my words, Trump will win the 2020 presidential election easily.
#14805477
People are playing with fire with this one. You can't use unnamed sources as to a small meeting, make serious allegations like this, lose your only named source and expect no repercussions.

The MSM has gone crazy. They can't compete with the internet for entertainment value so covering certain things better than small online groups can is their only shot but they aren't doing that, they're operating like propaganda for the DNC and it's ruining them.

To reiterate, WaPo is citing anonymous sources in a context where it's hard to believe sources could even exist and the allegation is a really serious one. Unless you give them a massive amount of credit, to the point where it doesn't matter that it looks physically impossible for them to have had sources, then they have been caught making up serious allegations.
#14805480
So the 3 named officials that were at the meeting are saying 'no, this did not happen' and the 'unnamed former officials' that were not at the meeting, and that CNN/washpo keeps parroting are saying 'yes, mah russia narrative'.

Holy shit the fake news is out in the open, faking the fakiest news that ever faked.

Edit: lol :lol:

Image
#14805492
Hong Wu wrote:People are playing with fire with this one. You can't use unnamed sources as to a small meeting, make serious allegations like this, lose your only named source and expect no repercussions.

The MSM has gone crazy. They can't compete with the internet for entertainment value so covering certain things better than small online groups can is their only shot but they aren't doing that, they're operating like propaganda for the DNC and it's ruining them.

To reiterate, WaPo is citing anonymous sources in a context where it's hard to believe sources could even exist and the allegation is a really serious one. Unless you give them a massive amount of credit, to the point where it doesn't matter that it looks physically impossible for them to have had sources, then they have been caught making up serious allegations.


I think Aesop wrote a fable which is pertinent to the Washington Post, something about a boy and a wolf, I forget it exactly.
#14805510
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39937258

Trump defends 'absolute right' to share 'facts' with Russia

US President Donald Trump has defended his "absolute right" to share information with Russia, following a row over classified material.
Mr Trump tweeted that he had shared "facts pertaining to terrorism and airline safety" and wanted Russia to do more against so-called Islamic State.

He met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Oval Office last week.
US media said Mr Trump had shared material that was passed on by a partner which had not given permission.
In his tweet early on Tuesday, Mr Trump said: "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 [IS] & terrorism."


A report in the Washington Post said Mr Trump had confided top secret information relating to an IS plot thought to centre on the use of laptop computers on aircraft.
Mr Trump's move is not illegal, as the US president has the authority to declassify information.

The action drew strong criticism from Democrats and a call for an explanation from his own Republican party.
But the BBC's Anthony Zurcher in Washington says this was a carefully constructed defence of the meeting, in which President Trump frames any revelation of intelligence information as a calculated move to advance US national security priorities.
After all, the controversy that swirled around the White House on Monday night was never legal, it was political, and this defence may be enough for Republicans to rally around, he adds.
What happened in the Oval Office?
In a conversation with the Russian foreign minister and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in the Oval Office, the president revealed details that could lead to the exposure of a source of information, officials told the Washington Post.
The intelligence disclosed came from a US ally and was considered too sensitive to share with other US allies, the paper reported.


Others at the meeting realised the mistake and scrambled to "contain the damage" by informing the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA), says the Post.
The meeting came a day after Mr Trump fired his FBI chief, James Comey, sparking criticism that he had done so because the FBI was investigating his election campaign's alleged Russian ties.
How did the White House initially respond?
National Security Adviser HR McMaster told reporters the story, "as reported", was "false".
"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."

The statement was echoed by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
But the Washington Post said this did not amount to a denial.
Speaking to the BBC, Post reporter Greg Jaffe said the story made it clear the president did not disclose sources or methods.
But he added: "Our story says that the nature of the information provided would have allowed the Russians to 'reverse engineer' to discover the sources and methods. He said so much that they could figure it out."

Golden rule: Frank Gardner, BBC security correspondent
Despite the denials issued by the White House that any actual intelligence sources were revealed to the Russians, whatever was said in that Oval Office meeting was enough to alarm certain officials and, reportedly, to alert the CIA and NSA.
They in turn will have needed to warn the country that supplied the intelligence. There is a golden rule in the world of espionage that when one government supplies intelligence to another it must not be passed on to a third party without permission of the original supplier. The reason is simple: it could put the lives of their human informants at risk.
In this case it appears to relate to the discovery of plans by jihadists in Syria to devise a way of smuggling viable explosive devices on board a plane inside a laptop computer. Given the well-publicised ban on laptops in cabins on certain Middle Eastern routes, whoever revealed that information is unlikely to be still in place.

What has the reaction been?
The Senate's second-highest ranked Democrat, Dick Durbin, said Mr Trump's actions appeared to be "dangerous" and reckless".
A spokesman for Paul Ryan, Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, said: "We have no way to know what was said, but protecting our nation's secrets is paramount.
"The Speaker hopes for a full explanation of the facts from the administration."

One senior Nato diplomat quoted by Reuters said: "If true, this is not going to instil confidence in allies already wary of sharing the most sensitive information."
In Russia, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov played down the incident, saying: "We generally do not want to have anything to do with this nonsense."
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova urged people not to read US newspapers.

Levels of US classification - from lowest to highest
Confidential: Information that reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security if disclosed to unauthorised sources. Most military personnel have this level of clearance
Secret: The same wording in the first sentence above, except it substitutes serious damage
Top Secret: Again, the same wording except to substitute exceptionally grave damage
Codeword: Adds a second level of clearance to Top Secret, so that only those cleared with the codeword can see it. Administered by the CIA. The material discussed by Mr Trump with the Russians was under a codeword, sources told the Washington Post


From everything I've read about the NSA McMasters, I will cautiously agree that any major security breaches was not revealed in that meeting.

But the optics and timing of this seem catastrophic. Can Trump now resist appointing a special prosecutor to investigate his and his teams dealings with the Russian government, officially and un-officially?

4 foot tall Chinese parents are regularly giving […]

Seeing that this place is filled to the brim with […]

Eugenics as a concept is quite interesting since i[…]

I understand that China had internal political tur[…]