WWTBAM Bored

Posted: **Mon May 15, 2017 4:15 pm**

At the meeting with Russia's ambassador and its Foreign Minister in the Oval Office last week, Donny disclosed highly classified information, obtained from a partner, that is so sensitive we have not shared it with our allies. He did so without the partner's permission. His disclosure jeopardizes a critical source of intelligence on ISIS. As a reminder, U.S. press was barred from the meeting. Russians, however, were permitted to bring electronic equipment (which they claimed was photographic equipment) into the Oval Office. But none of these disclosures were made in an e-mail, so I guess it's okay.

This was the very same week that the President of the United States fired the Director of the FBI because the FBI was investigating his presidential campaign. This was the same week that same President admitted that he had executive agencies create a pretext to support a decision he had already made. This was the same week we learned that the President of the United States had demanded a pledge of personal loyalty from the Director of the FBI less than two weeks after assuming his office.

What will it take before Congressional Republicans start calling for impeachment? --Bob

Posted: **Mon May 15, 2017 5:06 pm**

Is there anyone out there who is the slightest bit surprised by this?

Apparently, he was trying to impress the Russians with how much top secret information he had. This sounds like something out of a Mel Brooks movie, but it's actually happening.

And I'm sure that our allies are going to even more eager in the future to share secret intelligence information with us about ISIS or other terrorists.

Posted: **Mon May 15, 2017 5:43 pm**

If it walks like a sixth grader, talks like a sixth grader, texts like a sixth grader and tries to impress like a sixth grader .............

Posted: **Mon May 15, 2017 6:07 pm**

What was it that Paul Ryan said last year? Something to the effect that people who are extremely careless with classified information should be deprived of access to that information. Well, Speaker Ryan, Congress has the ability to put your words into action. What are you going to do about it? --Bob

Posted: **Mon May 15, 2017 6:14 pm**

Bob78164 wrote:What was it that Paul Ryan said last year? Something to the effect that people who are extremely careless with classified information should be deprived of access to that information. Well, Speaker Ryan, Congress has the ability to put your words into action. What are you going to do about it?

I doubt that Paul Ryan reads the Bored.

Posted: **Mon May 15, 2017 8:37 pm**

The President has the authority to do this. Supposedly the Russians are our allies against Daesh. Let's see if he can convince them to fight Daesh instead of helping Assad crush the Syrian resistance.

OTOH, he could anger or even endanger the allies who provided the intelligence.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 6:32 am**

Who knew this? I'm not asking about who thinks they know this, but who knew? What is the source, and chain of custody of the information, to the Washington Post?

How do we know this is not fake news? Has Trump admitted it? Has Putin acknowledged it? If not, how does one come to the conclusion that something few are supposed to know is told to someone in a private meeting where no one in the meeting has disclosed the contents of the meeting, yet it gets printed in a newspaper days after it supposedly happened?

This is a serious question.

Also, it seems to me that divulging the situation is as or more damaging than the initial disclosure, it it were in fact done.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 7:06 am**

BackInTex wrote:Who knew this? I'm not asking about who thinks they know this, but who knew? What is the source, and chain of custody of the information, to the Washington Post?

How do we know this is not fake news? Has Trump admitted it? Has Putin acknowledged it? If not, how does one come to the conclusion that something few are supposed to know is told to someone in a private meeting where no one in the meeting has disclosed the contents of the meeting, yet it gets printed in a newspaper days after it supposedly happened?

This is a serious question.

Also, it seems to me that divulging the situation is as or more damaging than the initial disclosure, it it were in fact done.

Yes, Trump has acknowledged it and says because he's President he can divulge anything he wants.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 7:08 am**

Bob Juch wrote: Yes, Trump has acknowledged it and says because he's President he can divulge anything he wants.

Then it wasn't a leak, it was sharing confidential intel. Who leaked that Trump shared confidential intel? That's the scandal.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 7:12 am**

BackInTex wrote:Also, it seems to me that divulging the situation is as or more damaging than the initial disclosure, it it were in fact done.

It's certainly more damaging to Trump.

But from what I can tell, it's a bunch of someones, the Washington Post simply got the information first from their sources.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 7:13 am**

Bob Juch wrote:
BackInTex wrote:Who knew this? I'm not asking about who thinks they know this, but who knew? What is the source, and chain of custody of the information, to the Washington Post?

How do we know this is not fake news? Has Trump admitted it? Has Putin acknowledged it? If not, how does one come to the conclusion that something few are supposed to know is told to someone in a private meeting where no one in the meeting has disclosed the contents of the meeting, yet it gets printed in a newspaper days after it supposedly happened?

This is a serious question.

Also, it seems to me that divulging the situation is as or more damaging than the initial disclosure, it it were in fact done.
Yes, Trump has acknowledged it and says because he's President he can divulge anything he wants.

Which, unfortunately, is true. As a commentator on NPR said this morning, the president is the "ultimate declassifier" and that the definition of classified information was "whatever the President didn't want people to know". Paraphrasing Ian Malcolm, "[The president was so preoccupied that he could, that he didn't stop to think if he should."

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 7:14 am**

BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: Yes, Trump has acknowledged it and says because he's President he can divulge anything he wants.
Then it wasn't a leak, it was sharing confidential intel. Who leaked that Trump shared confidential intel? That's the scandal.

I see that BiT had a healthy dose of Kool Aid with his breakfast this morning.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 7:20 am**

earendel wrote: Which, unfortunately, is true. As a commentator on NPR said this morning, the president is the "ultimate declassifier" and that the definition of classified information was "whatever the President didn't want people to know". Paraphrasing Ian Malcolm, "[The president was so preoccupied that he could, that he didn't stop to think if he should."

From what I've been able to gather, this information was given to the US by one "partner" with the understanding that it was not to be disclosed to our other allies. It could well be that the ultimate source of the information is a highly placed mole or bugging of ISIS. And my guess is that it was only leaked to the press after the damage was done, i.e., the information got back to the wrong hands, most probably from Trump's buddies in Russia.

This is the type of information that a President should make a decision to disclose only after the most careful consideration of risks and rewards, ideally with consultation from his intelligence community, not something he decides to do off the cuff in an effort to prove his manliness to the Russians.

I note that the information that is being made public is still rather cryptic, so some people are trying to protect the exact details of what was revealed.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 9:19 am**

BackInTex wrote:Who knew this? I'm not asking about who thinks they know this, but who knew? What is the source, and chain of custody of the information, to the Washington Post?

How do we know this is not fake news? Has Trump admitted it? Has Putin acknowledged it? If not, how does one come to the conclusion that something few are supposed to know is told to someone in a private meeting where no one in the meeting has disclosed the contents of the meeting, yet it gets printed in a newspaper days after it supposedly happened?

This is a serious question.

Also, it seems to me that divulging the situation is as or more damaging than the initial disclosure, it it were in fact done.

The sources (plural) are current and former officials of the United States government. The Posr had details that (in cooperation with current government officials) it did not divulge. Such as the details of the plot divulged to the Russians and the city that was the source of the leaked intelligence.

It seems to me you were up in arms about the potential harm to national interests that Secretary Clinton's e-mail could have caused. By all accounts, this is much, much worse. It was probably legal. But it was still immensely harmful to our national interest. And Donny did not make this decision after careful thought and consultation with knowledgeable people within our government. He disclosed this information on a whim to show off his knowledge to his betters. --Bob

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 9:30 am**

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:What was it that Paul Ryan said last year? Something to the effect that people who are extremely careless with classified information should be deprived of access to that information. Well, Speaker Ryan, Congress has the ability to put your words into action. What are you going to do about it?
I doubt that Paul Ryan reads the Bored.

Perhaps not. But I'm gonna hazard a guess that I won't be the only one demanding that he answer this question. --Bob

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 9:37 am**

Bob78164 wrote: By all accounts, this is much, much worse. It was probably legal. But it was still immensely harmful to our national interest. And Donny did not make this decision after careful thought and consultation with knowledgeable people within our government. He disclosed this information on a whim to show off his knowledge to his betters. --Bob

I would say that Trump has probably burned every bridge behind him about other countries revealing sensitive information to the U.S. Exactly how that's going to help us defeat terrorism is not very clear if other countries are reluctant to warn us about potential threats.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 2:12 pm**

Caution: because this comes from the New York Times, it's obviously fake news:

There is a growing sense that Mr. Trump seems unwilling or unable to do the things necessary to keep himself out of trouble, and that the presidency has done little to tame a shoot-from-the-hip-into-his-own-foot style that characterized his campaign.

There is a fear among some of Mr. Trump’s senior advisers about leaving him alone in meetings with foreign leaders out of concern he might speak out of turn. General McMaster, in particular, has tried to insert caveats or gentle corrections into conversations when he believes the president is straying off topic or onto boggy diplomatic ground.

This has, at times, chafed the president, according to two officials with knowledge of the situation. Mr. Trump, who still openly laments having to dismiss his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, has groused that General McMaster talks too much in meetings, and the president has referred to him as “a pain,” according to one of the officials.

In private, three administration officials conceded that they could not publicly articulate their most compelling — and honest — defense of the president: that Mr. Trump, a hasty and indifferent reader of printed briefing materials, simply did not possess the interest or knowledge of the granular details of intelligence gathering to leak specific sources and methods of intelligence gathering that would do harm to United States allies.

This is eerily akin to how they treat Alzheimer's patients. Anyone care to guess what's going to happen during this weekend's overseas trip?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/w ... .html?_r=1

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 3:10 pm**

Finally, there's at least one Congressional Republican willing to say something.

Rep. Barbara Comstock (VA-10) has called for immediate classified briefings concerning that meeting so that "Congress can at least know at least as much as Russian leaders." --Bob

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 6:34 pm**

Bob78164 wrote:Finally, there's at least one Congressional Republican willing to say something.

Rep. Barbara Comstock (VA-10) has called for immediate classified briefings concerning that meeting so that "Congress can at least know at least as much as Russian leaders." --Bob

Yep, nothing protects classified information and sources like telling a bunch of congressmen.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 6:47 pm**

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Finally, there's at least one Congressional Republican willing to say something.

Rep. Barbara Comstock (VA-10) has called for immediate classified briefings concerning that meeting so that "Congress can at least know at least as much as Russian leaders." --Bob
Yep, nothing protects classified information and sources like telling a bunch of congressmen.

I don't think any of them have ever leaked code word information to Russia, so I'm gonna say that I have more confidence in them than I have in Donny. --Bob

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 8:57 pm**

Bob78164 wrote: What will it take before Congressional Republicans start calling for impeachment?

A blowjob?

Posted: **Wed May 17, 2017 3:21 am**

Pastor Fireball wrote:
Bob78164 wrote: What will it take before Congressional Republicans start calling for impeachment?
A blowjob?

And you want to be taken seriously as a pastor?

Posted: **Wed May 24, 2017 8:02 pm**

And now he revealed the location of U.S. nuclear submarines for no apparent reason.

We don't do that. We never reveal the location of deployed nuclear subs. At most, we'll say that an undisclosed number of subs are part of a task force. This can have military consequences.

But at least he didn't reveal the information in an e-mail. --Bob

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 7:43 am**

And now we can add the details of the Manchester bombing to the list of confidential intelligence that Trump and company have leaked:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/europe/ma ... index.html

It's going to be a lot tougher to beat ISIS if no one wants to share their intelligence info with us.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 8:47 am**

silverscreenselect wrote:And now we can add the details of the Manchester bombing to the list of confidential intelligence that Trump and company have leaked:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/europe/ma ... index.html

It's going to be a lot tougher to beat ISIS if no one wants to share their intelligence info with us.

It seems to me that the leaks would be coming from holdovers from the 'resistance' and/or the 'deep state' rather than the Trump people. I don't know, but neither do you. But the left and the media are applauding the leaks because its another thing they can dump on the President they hate. Never mind the damage it does to our country, disparaging Donny is the most important thing.

WWTBAM Bored

Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia

Re: Trump leaked code word information to Russia