The Fake News Lie that makes Trump look like a Boy Scout in compariso

[Seriati]

It would be, if it happened that way. If the FISA court or NSL was used, it wouldn't be breaking the law. Simple suspicion seems all that is needed when its a mosque or someone who happened to go to Pakistan to visit family. We're already living in a Hoover world which spanned many presidencies. The Nixon part, getting and using information on political opponents, is a far stretch based on what we now know.

Even for FISA simple suspicion is not the standard that applies, and its certainly not the standard for unmasking.  I don't know where you get a "far stretch" at this point it looks like the most likely reason for unmasking of certain people and lowering of intelligence standards was political.

Watched Shiff's press conference, missed Nunes.  Shiff looked to me like someone on the verge of panic.  He really is trying to refocus this on the Russia angle, and I'm thinking he's really concerned that it's about to get blown off the hooks with the prior administration spying on its opponents angle.  Can't know for sure of course until there's more detail, but we have zero facts released supporting collusion and definite proof of  unmasking and oversharing.  I know CNN is hard selling the leftist view, but I'm not sure if they can save the case if this goes where its looking.

[yossarian22c]

Except not even the republican you are taking about is making a claim that bold.

On Friday, Nunes walked further away from Trump's position.

"There was no wiretapping of Trump Tower," he said. "That didn't happen. ... It looks like this was all legal surveillance, from what I can tell," the chairman said, alluding to the mysterious evidence. That's not a different stance than he took on Wednesday, but it is a blunter one.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/24/521367161/paul-manafort-to-testify-on-russia-as-house-intel-committee-drama-continues

So it seems likely Trump appointees were recorded while speaking with Russian officials (or other foreign nationals) that the CIA/NSA were monitoring.  Unless there is something shocking in those transcripts there is really no news here.

[TheDeamon]

It should be pointed out that while the surveillance itself may have been legal. The sharing of certain data gathered from such activities probably shouldn't have (legally) been shared in the manner it was. Sadly, some of this likely post-9/11/01  and Patriot Act proceedings and processes being hijacked for political aims. Wouldn't be the first time in U.S. history, or the first time the Obama Administration had staffers get fingered for doing something like that.

[Seriati]

Except not even the republican you are taking about is making a claim that bold.

I didn't say he was, I said the Democrat looked nervous and that's my speculation about why.  His entire "case" of implication from anonymous sources could fall completely apart if its demonstrable that the prior administration were the ones spying.

On Friday, Nunes walked further away from Trump's position.

"There was no wiretapping of Trump Tower," he said. "That didn't happen. ... It looks like this was all legal surveillance, from what I can tell," the chairman said, alluding to the mysterious evidence. That's not a different stance than he took on Wednesday, but it is a blunter one.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/24/521367161/paul-manafort-to-testify-on-russia-as-house-intel-committee-drama-continues

Tell you what, if you say you're not wiretapping my house, and have transcripts of my calls none-the-less, it's a distinction without a difference.  Particularly if the reason you recorded someone else "legally" was to get at me "incidentally."  Step out from partisanship for a minute and think about what you're endorsing by implication.

So it seems likely Trump appointees were recorded while speaking with Russian officials (or other foreign nationals) that the CIA/NSA were monitoring.  Unless there is something shocking in those transcripts there is really no news here.

Not sure why you threw "Russian" in there (other than to make yet another unfounded implication).  Nunes specifically said there were unmasked people in transcripts that had nothing to do with the Russian angle. 

If there is nothing "shocking" in those transcripts then you have a felony case for the unmasking, or as you put it "no news", meanwhile you are prosecuting a "Russian angle" without any evidence in play.  Shocking, is not even enough of a word from what you're doing.

[yossarian22c]

Tell you what, if you say you're not wiretapping my house, and have transcripts of my calls none-the-less, it's a distinction without a difference.  Particularly if the reason you recorded someone else "legally" was to get at me "incidentally."  Step out from partisanship for a minute and think about what you're endorsing by implication.

If I have conversations of you talking with your mother who never committed a crime in her life and isn't under surveillance then that would be true.  However if the only transcripts I have are when you ordered food from a restaurant used to launder money for the mafia then it is tantamount to a lie to claim I wire tapped you. 

If it is true that Obama wiretapped everyone on Trump's staff then I would be outraged but if the only recordings are the conversations with foreign nationals then IMO it would have taken unprecedented micro-managing by Obama to avoid the transcripts being made.  I am firmly working under the assumption that the CIA and NSA have basically every non secure/encrypted phone belonging to any foreign national associated with any embassy "tapped."  If you doubt that look back at the Snowden leaks pertaining to foreign spying where we had tapped several foreign heads of states phones.  Spying on foreign governments is kind of their job, so it would be surprising if any unencrypted communication with the Russian ambassador (or any other staff member of any embassy) was not collected through some NSA e-surveillance.

There could be a smaller scandal that the recordings/transcripts were not properly handled, but IMO there is no scandal in the fact they were made.  And yes, it is a smaller scandal for classified material that should potentially have not been circulated to have been circulated among people with the proper security clearance than for the former president to have ordered Trump Towers to be wiretapped leading up to and following the election.  I view these as orders of magnitude different.  If I'm comparing to earthquakes improper circulation is a 5.0 (bad but not that uncommon with expected minimal damage) and deliberate wiretapping for political purposes a 9.0, in the words of Joe Biden a BFD.

So it seems likely Trump appointees were recorded while speaking with Russian officials (or other foreign nationals) that the CIA/NSA were monitoring.  Unless there is something shocking in those transcripts there is really no news here.

Not sure why you threw "Russian" in there (other than to make yet another unfounded implication).  Nunes specifically said there were unmasked people in transcripts that had nothing to do with the Russian angle. 

If there is nothing "shocking" in those transcripts then you have a felony case for the unmasking, or as you put it "no news", meanwhile you are prosecuting a "Russian angle" without any evidence in play.  Shocking, is not even enough of a word from what you're doing.

The Flynn transcripts are evidence of the Russian angle.  Since it was those transcripts that led to his resignation.  Also I'm not surprised by Nune's ascertain that some of the transcripts had nothing to do with Russia, as I said above I expect all of their conversations with foreign governments/embassies would have been collected as part of what the NSA considers routine surveillance.

[Fenring]

I expect all of their conversations with foreign governments/embassies would have been collected as part of what the NSA considers routine surveillance.

I'll just barge in on this conversation to mention that I am not comforted at all by considering what the NSA might, at this point, consider routine behavior. There has been a lot of behavior in American history that was considered 'routine' that is now viewed as a horror-show.

[yossarian22c]

I expect all of their conversations with foreign governments/embassies would have been collected as part of what the NSA considers routine surveillance.

I'll just barge in on this conversation to mention that I am not comforted at all by considering what the NSA might, at this point, consider routine behavior. There has been a lot of behavior in American history that was considered 'routine' that is now viewed as a horror-show.

This actually is the job the NSA/CIA/FBI are officially tasked with.  Some of the employees of most embassies are members of foreign intelligence services.  If we aren't spying on them, then we shouldn't be spying on anyone, which is why I said it would take extra-ordinary micromanaging by the Obama admin to make sure that none of the conversations the incoming Trump admin had with those people were not recorded. 

[DonaldD]

if you say you're not wiretapping my house, and have transcripts of my calls none-the-less, it's a distinction without a difference.

Yossarian explained this point pretty well above, but if you really can't see the difference... let's go back to what wiretapping literally means (or meant).  It was the physical process of adding wires and circuitry to one person's phone line - basically wires connecting the phone to the network, either at the very end point, or at the last switch connecting the particular phone line to the network - putting an electronic "tap" (faucet, valve, whatever) onto a person's phone line.

"Wire tapping" is now more of an analogy - but still one with relevance; as it is now far more likely that packets of digital data are intercepted across networks rather that physical phone lines are being tapped, the difference is that only those communications involving a particular party are targeted, in an equivalent fashion to the old physical wires attached to only one party's communication device.  And from what Nunes had unilaterally published/broadcast, all the evidence he saw was of the nature of the third party being surveilled, not Trump, his tower, or his domestic associates. You can bet that if the domestic side of things was targeted, Nunes would have been screaming that at the top of his lungs, and he would NOT have characterized the actions as "legal".

If bugs had somehow been planted directly into foreign agents mobile phones, or onto their physical land lines coming out of the embassy, and had those bugs picked up communications involving Trump and his associates, would you still say there was a distinction without a difference?

[Seriati]

If I have conversations of you talking with your mother who never committed a crime in her life and isn't under surveillance then that would be true.  However if the only transcripts I have are when you ordered food from a restaurant used to launder money for the mafia then it is tantamount to a lie to claim I wire tapped you.

I like how you jump to the mafia.  Is it your assertion that every foreigner is equivalent to a member of the mafia?  The FISA authority does not legally extend to wiretapping any foreigner, not even any foreigner associated with an embassy.  Your standard implies its legal to take diplomatic communications.  That's been understood to be spying forever.

Its whack that no refugee can be a terrorist, but every foreigner is a spy in your world.

I am firmly working under the assumption that the CIA and NSA have basically every non secure/encrypted phone belonging to any foreign national associated with any embassy "tapped."

Which is criminal even under FISA.  If that is the case then your case fails as these recordings were not legally made. 

There could be a smaller scandal that the recordings/transcripts were not properly handled, but IMO there is no scandal in the fact they were made.

There may or may not be a scandal over how they were made.  If what you believe occurred, did in fact occur, then the recordings were the result of illegal wiretaps, and that is compounded by the unmasking, which is also illegal.

And yes, it is a smaller scandal for classified material that should potentially have not been circulated to have been circulated among people with the proper security clearance than for the former president to have ordered Trump Towers to be wiretapped leading up to and following the election.

First, I haven't seen convincing evidence that all communications (regardless of whether they are with foreign nationals) are not recorded.  The Snowden leaks, the reports on the FISA courts activities, certainly imply that the NSA has real time access to the communications backbone and that they pre-emptively collect all calls and then seek FISA warrants to go back on the data they have already collected.  If that is true, then the idea of a need for a separate physical wire tap is friggin red herring.  The president will never order one cause there is NO FRIGGIN NEED when the calls have already been recorded and stored.  All they have to do is access them.

We have evidence that some calls (if not all) were in fact recorded, accessed and illegally unmasked.  I can't imagine the world in which a Republican does this to Hillary's campaign and you make the arguments you made above.

So it seems likely Trump appointees were recorded while speaking with Russian officials (or other foreign nationals) that the CIA/NSA were monitoring.  Unless there is something shocking in those transcripts there is really no news here.

Not sure why you threw "Russian" in there (other than to make yet another unfounded implication).  Nunes specifically said there were unmasked people in transcripts that had nothing to do with the Russian angle. 

If there is nothing "shocking" in those transcripts then you have a felony case for the unmasking, or as you put it "no news", meanwhile you are prosecuting a "Russian angle" without any evidence in play.  Shocking, is not even enough of a word from what you're doing.

The Flynn transcripts are evidence of the Russian angle.  Since it was those transcripts that led to his resignation.  Also I'm not surprised by Nune's ascertain that some of the transcripts had nothing to do with Russia, as I said above I expect all of their conversations with foreign governments/embassies would have been collected as part of what the NSA considers routine surveillance.

We were talking about Nunes, and he specifically said some of the unmasked transcripts had nothing to do with Russia.  That makes their collection and unmasking almost certainly the result of political operations.

If you want to talk about Flynn, then you might want to note he was fired by the Administration for lying about his contacts.  I guess you've jumped so far down the rabbit hole you believe that's because he got caught, rather than because he lied to the administration.  You turning a victim into a secret colluder?

[yossarian22c]

If I have conversations of you talking with your mother who never committed a crime in her life and isn't under surveillance then that would be true.  However if the only transcripts I have are when you ordered food from a restaurant used to launder money for the mafia then it is tantamount to a lie to claim I wire tapped you.

I like how you jump to the mafia.  Is it your assertion that every foreigner is equivalent to a member of the mafia?  The FISA authority does not legally extend to wiretapping any foreigner, not even any foreigner associated with an embassy.  Your standard implies its legal to take diplomatic communications.  That's been understood to be spying forever.

Its whack that no refugee can be a terrorist, but every foreigner is a spy in your world.

Yes it is spying, that is what the NSA/CIA/FBI counter-espionage do.  I don't know what fairy tail world you live in where you think that just because a country calls something a diplomatic communication that every other country doesn't also try to read it.  Spying on foreign diplomats has been standard practice for at least the last 500 years (see Giovanni Soro) and probably long before that.  If you are interested in American spying read up on the black chamber and how it effected the arms control treaty with Japan post WWII.  America and every other country with the ability has a long history of reading diplomatic communications other countries.

I've never claimed no refugee can be a terrorist nor that every foreigner is a spy.  I stated that is my assumption that the NSA/CIA/FBI will treat every foreign national working for an embassy as a spy.

I may (I don't remember if I posted on that topic) have argued Trump's ban was stupid and ineffective (b/c it was/is) but it doesn't mean the risk is zero.  But our risk among refugee's is very low, especially compared to the European countries who just got the people who showed up at their door, we to a certain extent have picked who we wanted from among the people in refugee camps.

Its whack that no refugee can be a terrorist, but every foreigner is a spy in your world.

I get that it is easier?/fun? to argue against some liberal straw man in your head but it is much more interesting and educating (for both of us) if we actually try to respond to the arguments made instead of some "typical" liberal/conservative stereotype we have in our heads.

[yossarian22c]

I am firmly working under the assumption that the CIA and NSA have basically every non secure/encrypted phone belonging to any foreign national associated with any embassy "tapped."

Which is criminal even under FISA.  If that is the case then your case fails as these recordings were not legally made. 

Umm, no. From Wikipedia:

Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.[17] Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power", and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent.

Since foreign nationals employed by their embassies are the definition of an agent of a foreign power I have no doubt that the FISA court rubber stamps surveillance for every single foreign employee of an embassy.

[yossarian22c]

And yes, it is a smaller scandal for classified material that should potentially have not been circulated to have been circulated among people with the proper security clearance than for the former president to have ordered Trump Towers to be wiretapped leading up to and following the election.

First, I haven't seen convincing evidence that all communications (regardless of whether they are with foreign nationals) are not recorded.  The Snowden leaks, the reports on the FISA courts activities, certainly imply that the NSA has real time access to the communications backbone and that they pre-emptively collect all calls and then seek FISA warrants to go back on the data they have already collected.  If that is true, then the idea of a need for a separate physical wire tap is friggin red herring.  The president will never order one cause there is NO FRIGGIN NEED when the calls have already been recorded and stored.  All they have to do is access them.

And again here is a very different claim from "Trump Tower" was wire tapped and Obama is a sick guy.  Trump as president could order an end to such a program and ask congress to pass a law to prevent that kind of collection in the future, but again we are going really far away from a specific targeted wire tapping of Trump to a general violation of the 4th amendment.  We could discuss what the legal boundaries should be, but the argument that the government is collecting everything justifies Trump's specific claim is a joke.

We have evidence that some calls (if not all) were in fact recorded, accessed and illegally unmasked.  I can't imagine the world in which a Republican does this to Hillary's campaign and you make the arguments you made above.

We have evidence that some calls were recorded (legally according to Nunes).  We have no evidence other that Nunes assertion that he felt that some of the recordings were improperly unmasked to conclude that a crime was committed.  I am almost certain that there exist recordings of people from Hillary's campaign speaking with people from foreign embassies and that some junior analyst somewhere read them all because its their job to read everything staffer X at embassy Y does because someone at CIA believes staffer X is a member of a foreign intelligence service.

In my opinion here the only possible crime is potentially that some of the (legally made) recordings were improperly accessed/unmasked.  And yes that is orders of magnitude less scandalous than illegally recording everything from the Trump campaign in an effort to find information to sway the election.  And yes I would make the same argument if Bush had done this to Obama (the answer is the recording almost certainly happened, unlawful unmasking or access probably not, but without an investigation you would never know).

[yossarian22c]

The Flynn transcripts are evidence of the Russian angle.  Since it was those transcripts that led to his resignation.  Also I'm not surprised by Nune's ascertain that some of the transcripts had nothing to do with Russia, as I said above I expect all of their conversations with foreign governments/embassies would have been collected as part of what the NSA considers routine surveillance.

We were talking about Nunes, and he specifically said some of the unmasked transcripts had nothing to do with Russia.  That makes their collection and unmasking almost certainly the result of political operations.

Collection as a result of a political operation almost certainly not.  Unmasking maybe, and if you listen to Nunes he said most of the recordings where properly masked but the context was clear enough to give it away in some cases.  So that leaves a pretty weak case for systematic unmasking for political purposes.

If you want to talk about Flynn, then you might want to note he was fired by the Administration for lying about his contacts.  I guess you've jumped so far down the rabbit hole you believe that's because he got caught, rather than because he lied to the administration.  You turning a victim into a secret colluder?

No I'm using the fact that the Flynn/Russian ambassador transcripts existed for Flynn to get caught as evidence that some of the recordings that are being referenced are between the incoming Trump admin and the Russians.  You claimed I had no evidence that some of the recordings were between the Trump admin and Russian officials, I provided you with the highest profile example of a recording between a member of the Trump admin and a Russian official.  The Flynn transcripts are evidence for the claim I made, I didn't make a statement one way or the other as to why I think Flynn was fired.  I'm not sure why you think that is relevant at all to the claim I made.

[Pete at Home]

But if you ever want to convince me that I've misjudged you

You're beyond convincing and beyond judgement.  I wrote you privately as I did djq to try to resolve our differences, and in response you posture with a public assault that you knew I could not respond to.

If you're going to pat yourself on the back for getting me to respond with incivility, enjoy that. 

I've been here longer than youhave, Sci Fi, and I'm a lot nicer now than when you arrived.  I have changed for the better while you have changed for the worse.

You have not improved in your ability to read what I write and respond in good faith.

It's hard to read your writing in "good faith," when you do stuff like this:
(1) come out and without any examples or specifics, accuse me of destroying Ornery.
(2) sit silent for a few days, failing to respond to any material points by anyone.
(3) hardly an hour AFTER I send you an olive branch personal message letting you know that I'm banned from the forum and that you can now enjoy it without me, you pop back on here and make more personal attacks on me, knowing that I cannot respond.
(4) You completely fail to enter any other discussions during the 2 weeks I'm banned.

You haven't acknowledged the factual errors in your posts in this thread

I don't know what you're talking about, and you haven't given specifics in any of your personal attacks on me.

YOU attacked my integrity because I challenged your hasty and wrong conclusions.

   

Is it an attack on your integrity to say that what you've done in this post speaks poorly of your integrity?

If you're going to pat yourself on the back for getting me to respond with incivility, enjoy that.

You are engaging in classic abusive behavior.  Blame me for abusing me, and then claim that I'm enjoying it.  It's really not like you.  Pray tell, how do you manage to blame your incivility to Seriati on me?

[scifi to Seriati]... That's pathetic.  ... It's called context.

patronize much? 

[scifi to Seriati] I think you're trying to distract.

Motive reading on top of incivility.  Right in a thread where you accuse me of patting myself on the back for making you be incivil. 

[scifi to Seriati]Why are you using the stupidest arguments possible?

Really classy, scifi. In your paranoid construction, am I laughing maniacally and patting myself on the back as you behave incivilly to others on Ornery?  Don't blame SciFi, Pete made him this way?

 Don't get me wrong; I do this crap too when my head gets hot, and I've said things just as rude to Seriati less than a month ago.  But it speaks poorly of your integrity when you not only blame me for your incivility, but accuse me of engineering your misbehavior and laughing demonically when you misbehave.  Like I'm the devil on your shoulder.  Put on your big boy pants and take responsibility for yourself.

It misrepresents BLM by suggesting that BLM is about the leading cause of death, instead of about a particular kind of pattern of injustice.  And your point about "increased police presence" COULD be relevant, but you just introduced that.  And by doing so, you suggest that BLM is against "increased police presence", which they are not. 

It kind of demonstrates you're arguing with strawmen instead of real arguments.

No, it doesn't.  Pete doesn't seem to have read or understood my posts. 

I've read and responded to your posts. If I've missed some factual arguments, please bring them up rather than continuing this temper tantrum. 

The argument in question was a straw man.  You went into an Emperor's New Clothes frenzy, ridiculing me when I asked where Trump had suggested that refugees were going to massively increase the danger to all of us on the street.  In response to your ridicule, I asked you rather politely for a source, and you responded rather rudely that you didn't have to give me a source.

I was suspended for my argument with djquag, who I'm trying to work things out with.  It had nothing to do with you. 


As for not acknowledging facts, I acknowledged my error above on this thread when Wayward proved me wrong about the population breakdown of those that entered. 

It misrepresents BLM by suggesting that BLM is about the leading cause of death, instead of about a particular kind of pattern of injustice.  And your point about "increased police presence" COULD be relevant, but you just introduced that.  And by doing so, you suggest that BLM is against "increased police presence", which they are not. 

Many BLM leaders such as Marrissa Johnson ARE explicitly against increased police presence, while others call for changes that would make even maintaining the current police presence completely impracticable.  Seriati showed that nicely on a pro-blm thread that I started; you might check that out if you become interested in a good faith argument.

[Pete at Home]

Well, no, that doesn't actually prove what Trump was claiming.

If somebody else has their communication surveilled, and Trump is then in contact with that somebody else via the surveilled communication method, then that particular piece of communication would have been picked up.  That's what "incidental" means in this case. This is, in fact, exactly what people have been saying likely happened with the others in Trump's camp whose communications were collected while communicating with Russian state agents.

You have to seriously move the goal posts, not just across the field, but into a completely different sport, to even pretend that's relevant.

Remind us how Obama is a "sick guy" for being president while the US federal government security organizations collect the communications of foreign competitors, some of which Trump was in contact with while they were being surveilled.

To be really, really clear - Trump's "sick guy" remark made it very plain that he was claiming that Obama ordered surveillance of him, the Donald, not just that the USA surveilled foreign state agents. You know this, Seriati.

Not necessarily that Obama ordered it, but that he knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Which is tacitly what Obama's nondenial denial suggests.   If it happened on Obama's watch, and Obama tacitly approved, by not "interfering." then the buck stops at Obama.  Just as it would stop at Nixon if he allowed and did not prevent the Watergate burglary.

Now if it was justifoed, then out with it.  Why the obfuscation and denials?

[DonaldD]

Which obfuscation, Pete?  You're not seriously suggesting that a former president has a responsibility to get into a public pissing match with the current office holder with the likely result of weakening the country's stature, are you?

Also, not interfering with what, exactly?  The surveillance of foreign agents?  Trump's claim was that Obama wire tapped him and/or Trump tower, and that Obama was a bad (or sick) guy because he ordered those "tapps".  What is the "it" that you keep mentioning in your post, if not the non-existent "tapps"?

[linuxfreakus]

I think the problem here is that the CIA/NSA pretty much record every single phone call and email in the whole country at all times.  Ostensibly they use it "only for metadata" but the systems they've built allow them to pull up pretty much anyone's data with absolutely, no warrant, no special orders,  no accountability at all.  They're even allowed to just randomly hack people's computers if they feel like it and go on fishing expeditions... they just have to see you using encryption or tor or various other things that they don't like and then they can use that as justification to hack you if they want.

So it would be really easy for anyone with access (such as a president) to just ask someone to try to pull up some dirt on someone on a whim.  Whether or not it actually happened is somewhat debatable, difficult to prove, and easily denied, but the fact that they went from flat denials early on to now saying there was no "physical wiretapping" is telling.  Because anyone who knows how this stuff works these days knows that they almost never use "physical wiretapping" anymore.  There is no reason to when they already have all the data they could ever use and so many "smart" devices with microphones all over the place that can be listening devices.

The surveillance state is dangerously out of control.

[Pete at Home]

Which obfuscation, Pete? 

You didn't quote, so I'm not sure what you're asking about.  The greatest bit of obfuscation in this whole Trump Russia story is that the hullaballoo is designed to distract us from the contents of the emails that wikileaked out.  Demonstrating that Clinton took millions of dollars from ISIS contributors, and that Clinton and Obama knew this.  But since Trump hasn't picked up on that either, I can only assume that he's as bought off as the Bushes and Clintons and Obama before him.

You're not seriously suggesting that a former president has a responsibility to get into a public pissing match with the current office holder with the likely result of weakening the country's stature, are you?

Not at all.  Silence was an option.  He also could have said that to his knowledge that Trump was never targeted for wiretaps, and that if this was done, it was without his authorization.  Instead, he said that he made it a point to not "interfere" with federal investigations.  I do find that statement somewhat obfuscatory, and it does more towards engaging in a "pissing contest" than the other options I just suggested.

Also, not interfering with what, exactly?

So now you ask ME to elucidate the very question that Obama obfuscated?

" Trump's claim was that Obama wire tapped him and/or Trump tower, and that Obama was a bad (or sick) guy because he ordered those "tapps". "

Indeed, I cringed and assumed that Trump was off his nut, until Obama's queer and evasive response made me rethink that.

[scifibum]

Pete, I didn't respond to your Facebook message because I have no desire to let anything that happens on this site intrude into any other venue.  Your message DID remind me to come check this thread which is why I responded to your posts shortly afterward. 

Calling that message an "olive branch" is not a fair characterization.  Feel free to post your message here in full if you want to dispute my disputing of that characterization. 

It's hard to read your writing in "good faith," when you do stuff like this:
(1) come out and without any examples or specifics, accuse me of destroying Ornery.
(2) sit silent for a few days, failing to respond to any material points by anyone.
(3) hardly an hour AFTER I send you an olive branch personal message letting you know that I'm banned from the forum and that you can now enjoy it without me, you pop back on here and make more personal attacks on me, knowing that I cannot respond.
(4) You completely fail to enter any other discussions during the 2 weeks I'm banned.

So does this list explain your behavior, considering that all of it happened after the behavior I was complaining about? 

You didn't destroy Ornery, and it was dumb and hyperbolic to say that you are the reason it sucks now.  But the way you ignore details in my posts, don't follow links, and don't seem to make an effort to understand me?  That does suck.  And it's been going on a long time, and hasn't improved. 

Whether you're banned or not, I have a right to respond to you here, however prompt or tardy that response is. 

I don't know what [factual errors] you're talking about, and you haven't given specifics in any of your personal attacks on me.

That's funny - because I did tell you what factual errors I'm talking about.  Page 1.   

You are engaging in classic abusive behavior.  Blame me for abusing me, and then claim that I'm enjoying it.

Um, no.  I'm not blaming you for my bad behavior, I'm blaming you for yours.  You accused me of "making stuff up" and "playing stupid" before I got mad.  Page 1.

And, at the same time, were demonstrating that you hadn't really paid attention to the content of my previous posts, by not acknowledging that the Orlando attack HAD been counted in the comparison you were criticizing for not including Orlando, and that stories that didn't include Orlando were published well before Orlando happened.  That was stuff I pointed out, and also stuff that was supported in links I provided, by the time you were accusing me of dishonesty. 

[scifi to Seriati]... That's pathetic.  ... It's called context.

You're quoting Seriati, here.  Do you see the pattern yet?

But it speaks poorly of your integrity when you not only blame me for your incivility, but accuse me of engineering your misbehavior and laughing demonically when you misbehave.

I wasn't blaming you for anything I said to Seriati.  Where did you get that? 

My comment was this:

If you're going to pat yourself on the back for getting me to respond with incivility, enjoy that.

Because you had just said:

....someone needs to take the higher ground here.

I wasn't attempting to present any justification for anything that happened after you made the post I was responding to.  I hadn't even responded to Seriati at the point you made the post I was responding to.  How could I claim you were patting yourself on the back for events that hadn't yet occurred when the patting occurred? 

Your interpretation is bizarre and unjustified.

The argument in question was a straw man.  You went into an Emperor's New Clothes frenzy, ridiculing me when I asked where Trump had suggested that refugees were going to massively increase the danger to all of us on the street.  In response to your ridicule, I asked you rather politely for a source, and you responded rather rudely that you didn't have to give me a source.

None of this is correct!  I claimed that Trump was fear mongering and trying to scare people and make them feel unsafe without his intervention.  You then required evidence that Trump claimed the average Joe was going to face direct threat in the street.  I told you that this was an arbitrary challenge, which is true (you were asking for something more specific than I had claimed existed). 

If you have read my posts, you'll already understand that I later provided specific examples of the fear mongering I was talking about.  If you had said "can you provide examples of fear mongering", I would not have called that an arbitrary challenge. 

But there was no "frenzy" about that. 

When I got mad is when you demonstrated that at the same time you were asking me to provide sources and back up my argument with specifics, you had not paid attention to specifics that I had already mentioned, and were accusing me of making things up.


Even in this most recent post where you are trying, again, to take me to task for incivility, you have quoted Seriati and chided me for his words.  You have bizarrely misconstrued my remark about patting yourself on the back, and said that your construction speaks poorly of my integrity. 


And you haven't shown that you understand your errors I pointed out on page 1, in my first post in this thread.  Those errors appeared to form a large part of the basis for your outrage expressed in the opening post. 


That sucks.  And asking me to repeat the specifics over and over doesn't wash.  I'm disgusted because of a long term pattern of misconstruing and misrepresenting my words, and making conclusory remarks if I don't dance to the tune you play when I object.

[Pete at Home]

Calling that message an "olive branch" is not a fair characterization. 

It's as fair a characterization as my calling this last post of yours an "olive branch."  Since even though 99% of it is questionably justifiable complaints about me, it refrains from pure personal attack, and you also step back on your earlier more vicious attacks, for example:

You didn't destroy Ornery, and it was dumb and hyperbolic to say that you are the reason it sucks now.

Olive branch accepted, even though you may not characterize it as such.

Feel free to post your message here in full if you want to dispute my disputing of that characterization.

No.  I don't dispute that you dispute it.  It's a legitimate difference of view.  I view any deescalation as a sort of olive branch, whether it's taking a public fight to private correspondence, or admitting that the nastiest thing you said wasn't really true.

 

So does this list explain your behavior, considering that all of it happened after the behavior I was complaining about? 

You didn't complain about any behavior that I know of.  If you haven't said anything specific, you haven't said anything at all.

But the way you ignore details in my posts, don't follow links, and don't seem to make an effort to understand me?  That does suck.

 

Well that would suck, if I did it.  But I followed Wayward's like quickly and admitted he was right when I couldn't find stuff to show it.  Did I miss some link or argument you made?  Beats me.  If you hadn't made a public attack without specifics, I might be inclined to try to figure out what you're talking about.  But here we are.

Whether you're banned or not, I have a right to respond to you here, however prompt or tardy that response is. 

Absolutely.  And I have a right to say what I said about your timing and to question your vague and dubious explanations, as I did.  But I won't rehash that because we seem to be de-escalating.

  I'm not blaming you for my bad behavior, I'm blaming you for yours.

You aren't now, but you did earlier blame me for your bad behavior when you speculated that I was gloating over your losing your temper.

And, at the same time, were demonstrating that you hadn't really paid attention to the content of my previous posts, by not acknowledging that the Orlando attack HAD been counted in the comparison you were criticizing for not including Orlando, and that stories that didn't include Orlando were published well before Orlando happened.

I do remember your bringing up Orlando, and your link bore out that I was wrong about that not being counted.  I am sure I wrote a post acknowledging that.  Some of the stuff I post somehow snags when my ISP hiccups.  I'll check it out later, and if you're right that I didn't successfully publish my acknowledgment of my mistake on Orlando, I'll apologize. 

That's funny - because I did tell you what factual errors I'm talking about.  Page 1.   

Yes, but that was before the insults.  I'll look at it tomorrow if I'm in a better mood.

 

You accused me of "making stuff up" and "playing stupid" before I got mad.  Page 1.

  That was stuff I pointed out, and also stuff that was supported in links I provided, by the time you were accusing me of dishonesty. 

I'll check that out. 

You're quoting Seriati, here.  Do you see the pattern yet?

Mistake pattern.  Apologies to you and Seriati for the misattribution. 

I wasn't blaming you for anything I said to Seriati.  Where did you get that? 

Here:

If you're going to pat yourself on the back for getting me to respond with incivility, enjoy that.

Because you had just said:

....someone needs to take the higher ground here.

By that I meant that I'd restrained myself from trying to say something as mean as what you just today withdrew as hyperbolic.  Which I did.  OTOH, if I did, as you say, call you "dishonest" earlier, then it would not be reasonable for me to claim to take "the higher ground."

I wasn't attempting to present any justification for anything that happened after you made the post I was responding to.  I hadn't even responded to Seriati at the point you made the post I was responding to.  How could I claim you were patting yourself on the back for events that hadn't yet occurred when the patting occurred? 

The question hurts my head, and I can't promise to get back to it.

Your interpretation is bizarre and unjustified.

I'm doing my best, SciFi. 

If you have read my posts, you'll already understand that I later provided specific examples of the fear mongering I was talking about.  If you had said "can you provide examples of fear mongering", I would not have called that an arbitrary challenge. 

LoL!  That's an absurd question that I could answer myself.  Every news source fearmongers.  You do it yourself, as do I.  My question was when Trump had made any suggestion that Muslim immigrants posed a dramatic threat on the street.  I think I could show Trump arguing that Mexican immigrants dramatically increase our average day to day violence.  With Islamist terrorism, the threat isn't the sheer number of dead or wounded, but the efficacy of demoralizing terrorism.  Your argument that the Syrian immigrants aren't terrorists, even if true (and it mostly is true), THEREFORE the demoralization argument fails, in no way excuses the dishonest straw man (not your straw man; the one discussed in the OP which was not about you, SciFi) that the whole fear-the-white=Christian propaganda pretends to address.

When I got mad is when you demonstrated that at the same time you were asking me to provide sources and back up my argument with specifics, you had not paid attention to specifics that I had already mentioned, and were accusing me of making things up.

None of your specifics provide any justification that Trump or any other listened-to conservative source has been arguing that all Americans are in imminent threat of physical harm from Muslim immigrants.  That's something they slander Mexican immigrants with, not Muslims.  Muslims are unfairly tarred as terrorist sleepers, not as a general physical threat to individuals at large.

Pete, I didn't respond to your Facebook message because I have no desire to let anything that happens on this site intrude into any other venue. 

That would not be a ridiculous excuse if I'd posted it to your public facebook "venue" rather than trying to take it up privately via messenger.

[DonaldD]

So after Nunes sabotaged the perceived independence of the committee he was leading by reporting to the very people being investigated (or at least, to their boss) before sharing the information with the rest of the committee, we find out, unsurprisingly, this: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/intelligence-contradicts-nunes-unmasking-claims/index.html

After a review of the same intelligence reports brought to light by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal, multiple sources in both parties tell CNN.

So even the Republicans reviewing the same information that triggered Nunes' tryst at the White House have found nothing unusual in those documents, that there was no "there" there in the first place.

[Pete at Home]

Interesting.  But did you post this to the right thread?

[DonaldD]

Yup.  There are only 20 other references to/mentions of Nunes on this page, but that should be enough to make it relevant.

[Seriati]

It's a lot less interesting when you realize that CNN doesn't actually know if they viewed the same reports as Nunes.  You can find it buried in their other articles on the topic.

It's literally just spin.   

[DonaldD]

I'm sure there are a number of pertinent items included in other articles.  Do you have any specifics that jumped out at you?

[DonaldD]

Can you point out in which other articles on the topic CNN has buried this information, Seriati?  I haven't found such an article yet.

[Seriati]

Sorry, they had five or six articles on the day I read it, and now they only have the one still up.

[DonaldD]

Well, the articles that I saw on the date of your claim made no such suggestion, which is why I asked for a link. Since CNN doesn't delete articles, you should really make the effort to dig up the support for your strong claim; because at this point, it's even odds that such a reference actually was made or that you simply imagined such a reference being made.

[Seriati]

Well I was on vaca last week.  I'll see if I can dig it up this week.  It was in the body of the article, not the headlines or the lead paragraphs and it was just an acknowledgement that they don't know if they reviewed the same materials as Nunes.

[Fenring]

Some more fake news making the rounds, this time about Trump having committed "treason" by giving "classified" information over to Russia. Sounds pretty bad, right? Here's a typical headline on the subject, and one of the tamer versions at that:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/trump-russia-classified-information/

President Donald Trump shared highly classified information with the Russian foreign minister and Russian ambassador to the US in a White House meeting last week, The Washington Post first reported Monday.

Interesting that they should phrase it as "highly classified information." Really, is that a specific technical term, or just a way of making the story sound damning to Trump? Here's another article on the subject, this time by the BBC, who we should trust a heck of a lot more than CNN (one of the epicenters of fake news):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39937258

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."

So the big hubbub isn't that Trump gave over 'classified' info to Russia, which makes it sound like he's a traitor just like everyone has been claiming. Rather, it seems to be a fact that the President has the right to declassify info at will, which actually means it is literally impossible for the POTUS to give away classified information to anyone. If he chooses to give it away, then it's ipso facto ok for him to do so. BUT the issue here is that he didn't consult with the foreign intelligence service which supposedly gave the U.S. that information, and so this story might speak to a breach in the protocols with that country. The real headline should be that Trump may have screwed over a foreign intelligence service, which is still bad, but has nothing to do with him being a Russia spy. Notice how most of the headlines you'll find on this subject very deliberately allow their headline to feed into the 'Trump and Russia' narrative? And also notice how all the same parties claiming Hillary did nothing wrong want Trump impeached over this, which he had every right to do legally? The double standard is staggering. And even what the BBC article says requires us to accept that the specific information Trump gave comes from a non-U.S. intelligence service, which is interesting, because unless that "totally secret" source was revealed how can the media (or even most white house staffers) know where the info came from? Whoever does know would surely never tell the press, because that would, indeed, be criminal.

The funniest thing about the story is that the information Trump admitted to giving over (despite the way the articles make it sound like they caught him red handed) via Twitter was info about ISIS and how to fight them. Trump says he wants to help Russia deal with ISIS more effectively. Some years ago any talk of finding ways to deal with ISIS would have met with applause. Obama (deceitfully) claimed he was fully intent on dealing with them, and the public would have supported it. But when Trump is involved and wants to help a foreign country deal with terrorists he's a traitor! So much for the public zeal to deal with what was supposed to be the worst danger in the mid-East, which all the papers previously made their headlines about without end and now appear to think is not nearly as important as focusing on how to turn Trump into a villain.

I was never a Trump fan, and am not happy he was elected, but my god, with all the vitriol I see on social media and in the press, I'm starting to feel bad for the guy. I'm not at all pleased that all the zealotry about him is pushing me towards having to defend him on occasion, because it's not particularly my favorite thing to do. And actually I think that's part of the trick: attack Trump, and dare anyone to claim they're actually defending that monster. Trump is absolutely not wrong when he talks about how much fake news is out there in the MSM, and how deceptively these organizations operate.

[NobleHunter]

The claim is that he provided sufficient information to identify a source belonging to another country. This was information that had been withheld from US allies in order to maintain security regarding the source's identity. Giving Russia this information allows them to ID the source and potentially disrupt or disable it. Given that our friends on the ground are opposed to their friends on the ground in Syria, this is a bad thing. ISIS may be "the worst danger" in the Middle East but they're hardly the only one.

[Fenring]

The claim is that he provided sufficient information to identify a source belonging to another country. This was information that had been withheld from US allies in order to maintain security regarding the source's identity. Giving Russia this information allows them to ID the source and potentially disrupt or disable it. Given that our friends on the ground are opposed to their friends on the ground in Syria, this is a bad thing. ISIS may be "the worst danger" in the Middle East but they're hardly the only one.

You are right that there may be a story here worth reporting. The problem is that it isn't the one generally being reported. They're zeroing in on "classified information" and letting the reader draw the obvious conclusion from that (criminal). A story about having caused consternation in a foreign intelligence service - well, I don't think that would be nearly as successful as clickbait, right? Part of the issue with 'fake news' isn't even necessarily the intent to maliciously deceive; the appeal of making headlines maximally clickbaity is enough to explain most of what we see in the media. Basically most news stories of this sort of what we elsewhere call s**tposts.

[TheDeamon]

I was never a Trump fan, and am not happy he was elected, but my god, with all the vitriol I see on social media and in the press, I'm starting to feel bad for the guy. I'm not at all pleased that all the zealotry about him is pushing me towards having to defend him on occasion, because it's not particularly my favorite thing to do. And actually I think that's part of the trick: attack Trump, and dare anyone to claim they're actually defending that monster. Trump is absolutely not wrong when he talks about how much fake news is out there in the MSM, and how deceptively these organizations operate.

Glenn Beck has been hilarious to "check in" with periodically since the election, as he was part of the "never Trump" crowd in the first place.

In November he was warning the press about exactly this. Commenting that if they're not careful, they're going to end up "in much the same place" that HE was in circa 2009 with Obama. Which is not a "good thing" in his book, because that means the "Mainstream Media" will have a credibility rating MUCH lower than the already low levels it enjoyed going into Trump's Presidency. But like lemmings running off a cliff, they're full speed ahead, and he's sitting there going "They have become the me of 8 years ago."

I guess they're hoping for an outcome somewhat like Beck had with 9/12 and the Tea Party and that they'll be able to "stop Trump" but the problem they have is that they're the not the first ones to get there(Tea Party still exists, as does its sentiment, and it's OPPOSED to where they("the media") "want to go"). Much of that ground has already been claimed, they're going to be a day late and a dollar short on that front.

[NobleHunter]

Regarding the highly classified language, it is alleged that the information Trump revealed was "code-word information." I'm pretty sure that means it's information for which an individual has to be specifically cleared rather than more generic Secret or Top Secret clearance. Highly classified seems like a reasonable description.

[Mynnion]

Are there conditions where the President can be held accountable for releasing classified information?  My knowledge is limited to what I read in the media (both sides).  If it can be shown that US interests were directly compromised by a release of information is that treason?  I keep wondering if the GOP will keep him around as long as it is convenient then get rid of him.  He certainly is giving them lots of fuel.

[Seriati]

Not sure why "anonymous sources" are given so much credibility.  The official word is that what Trump gave was not particularly sensitive.  Now, what the leaker gave the media and the media reported to the public appears to be more sensitive than what Trump gave to the Russians.  How do you square the outrage over this with the media widely disseminating what they apparently thought was too sensitive for Trump to even share?

At this point, we need criminal charges for some leakers.

For the record, whether or not its a good idea for a President to share something aside, it doesn't appear that its possible under law for him to violate the classification laws.

[Mynnion]

Not to get picky but if Trump or any president disclosed the nuclear codes to a foreign power is that illegal? 

In the case of the leak I have to wonder what you would charge a person with who disclosed that the president had done something but not the specifics.  At worst I could see them removed from their position.  Now if they released the actual information than that is a different matter.

[NobleHunter]

Not sure why "anonymous sources" are given so much credibility.  The official word is that what Trump gave was not particularly sensitive.  Now, what the leaker gave the media and the media reported to the public appears to be more sensitive than what Trump gave to the Russians.  How do you square the outrage over this with the media widely disseminating what they apparently thought was too sensitive for Trump to even share?

At this point, we need criminal charges for some leakers.

For the record, whether or not its a good idea for a President to share something aside, it doesn't appear that its possible under law for him to violate the classification laws.

The media has specifically not reproduced the information they claim was most sensitive to disclosure. Unless some one's published the location the information came from?

I'm not sure why official sources are granted so much credibility.

[Seriati]

The media has in fact published the supposed country that provided it, has reported that it relates to an undercover agent, that it could be used to discover the location and/or methods involved, that it was specifically barred from sharing (and the access level), among other items.  NONE OF WHICH apparently was disclosed by Trump.

Effectively, any long term consequence here is almost solely the result of the leaker and the media.

Official sources expressly stated that Trump wasn't even aware of some of those details (hence not able to disclose them), and the level of the information he discussed (which sounds like it was either generally known or generally known in the intelligence community, and not particularly proprietary).

I really don't get why you don't have a problem with this.  The leaks that are going on, such as this one, are 100% detrimental to our national interests, and not even plausibly related to a higher purpose (as one could argue with Manning or Snowden).  They are purely partisan exercises that do nothing but damage to our country.

[Pete at Home]

The media has in fact published the supposed country that provided it, has reported that it relates to an undercover agent, that it could be used to discover the location and/or methods involved, that it was specifically barred from sharing (and the access level), among other items.  NONE OF WHICH apparently was disclosed by Trump.

Effectively, any long term consequence here is almost solely the result of the leaker and the media.

Official sources expressly stated that Trump wasn't even aware of some of those details (hence not able to disclose them), and the level of the information he discussed (which sounds like it was either generally known or generally known in the intelligence community, and not particularly proprietary).

I really don't get why you don't have a problem with this.  The leaks that are going on, such as this one, are 100% detrimental to our national interests, and not even plausibly related to a higher purpose (as one could argue with Manning or Snowden).  They are purely partisan exercises that do nothing but damage to our country.

Aha.  I was wondering why the hell Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning after Trump's election.

Note the hypocrisy of those Americans who accuse Snowden and Wikileaks and their contacts of "espionage" and yet continue to broadcast this stuff.

[Pete at Home]

Not to get picky but if Trump or any president disclosed the nuclear codes to a foreign power is that illegal? 

It may or may not be illegal, depending on what Congress determines in the impeachment trial.  Surely you know that impeachment is the only remedy for any criminal action by a president, right?  I think that handing over the nuclear codes would be the clearest case of espionage against the president.  But only an illiterate or dissembling jackass would use the term "treason," as we are not at war with Russia.

Congress has the power to find that what Trump did constitutes an act of espionage.

Meanwhile, what US press agencies are doing right now is, by definition, espionage.

[Pete at Home]

If it can be shown that US interests were directly compromised by a release of information is that treason? 

If you rape someone really really really hard, is that arson? 

No, it's still rape.  And espionage is still espionage.

Espionage may also be treason under the circumstances which the Constitution defines as treason.  "US interests were directly compromised" does not meet that test.

What you're asking is like what the ultraconservatives tried to do when Obama made the nuclear deal with Iran and made peace with Cuba.  Both of which, from a certain point of view, arguably directly compromised US interests.  Being one of our more honest types, I think you will recognize on reflection that "against US interests" is not a reasonable measure for treason.

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

Not sure why "anonymous sources" are given so much credibility.

Because the official source lies so frequently as to have lost all credibility, whereas anonymous sources have nearly a perfect record when they contradict the official source.

I can't imagine why anyone would trust something said by Trump, Spicer or any information source which they control unless they are so blinded by partisanship that they have lost the ability to differentiate reality from fantasy.  They have lied when there is video and audio evidence that directly contradicts them - frequently; why do you think they would be more honest when their aren't cameras and recordings to directly contradict them?

As to 'what is publicly known' - we know it is a laptop bomb; we know it is ISIS; we might also know it is from within Syria.  The minute a 'laptop' ban was done - ISIS knew that the plot had been discovered.  As to the country that might or might not have been known by ISIS already - it seems likely that they did.  So none of this stuff which has been reported by the media endangers the source - given that the action of the ban provided that information already.

Also the damage to the US was done by Trump betraying the country that the information originated from.  His betrayal of their trust is what the true damage is and will put American lives in danger because it decreases the probability of any ally sharing intelligence with the US, and it makes US intelligence operatives more likely to conceal their sources or withhold information out of fear of them being killed by Trump saying something stupid.

[Fenring]

Also the damage to the US was done by Trump betraying the country that the information originated from.  His betrayal of their trust is what the true damage is and will put American lives in danger because it decreases the probability of any ally sharing intelligence with the US, and it makes US intelligence operatives more likely to conceal their sources or withhold information out of fear of them being killed by Trump saying something stupid.

Maybe it's possible Trump's action had this result. Or maybe some people deliberately caused the information in question to be leaked after he did something sloppy but less serious than that, so that the fallout could be pinned on him. Maybe your version of it is what happened, maybe not. Now I'm reading in the news that this is all about an Israeli spy that had been planted in ISIS, and that it's Israel Trump has screwed over. So LR, you seem to be making this case, that Trump not only gave Russia some intel about how to deal with ISIS, but also told them point blank he got it from Israel. Because what I heard previously what that it was supposed that it could possibly be traced back to the source, not that Trump blatantly told them the source or revealed it. So this story is not consistent, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

That being said, for reasons totally unrelated to whether Trump did or didn't screw over Mossad, I don't particularly believe that Israel has agents within ISIS whose purpose it is to help defeat ISIS. Here's my wild theory of the day: Israel has various intel about ISIS, which they retain while nevertheless hoping ISIS defeats their enemies, and Trump went and used some of that intel to help Russia, who is helping Israel's enemies, and now Mossad is screaming about it and making a stink. It's fairly clear to me that the Israel/Saudi interest is in ISIS having the run of Syria, and they are both displeased at what Russia is doing to forestall ISIS, as well as currently pissed off that their intel is being used in a way that is against what they see as their interests. And that's the real game, isn't it? If one country has a vested interest in the success of a terrorist organization (even if they don't directly sponsor them) and their ally (America) helps someone like Russia to defeat the terrorists, is it a "betrayal" to take steps to help stop the terrorism? I thought the deal was that "you are either with us, or with the terrorists?" Bah. Even the hidden premises behind these public positions are fake news.

[Pete at Home]

LR ...  Surprised that you think that warning Russia about a laptop bomb would constitute an intelligence breach that is significant given out history of dealings with *Israel.*

[cherrypoptart]

Even if Trump told Russia exactly who the Mossad agent is in ISIS, is Russia going to release that information to ISIS and the press? It seems like the Russians are very good at keeping such secrets if they want to. It's also Trump's prerogative to declassify such information, or in this case not declassify it for public release but to decide that, at the highest level, the Russians can know about it. The real treason lies in whoever leaked the story to the press.

If FDR revealed to Stalin during WWII information about Germany including information that could reveal sources, would that be a crime? Or would the crime be telling the Germans and the world that FDR revealed to Stalin such information?

Let's also remember that the Russians told us point blank about the Boston bombers. They may be trying to fracture NATO, but they are definitely our allies against ISIS and Muslim terrorism in general.

[Pete at Home]

FDR told Churchill about the A bomb, and that info got leaked through the Brits to Stalin.

[cherrypoptart]

I'll take the point there that the only way to keep information secure is not to share it, but on the other hand it seems like the Russians would have a lot more spies in foreign governments than ISIS does. But then ISIS doesn't seem to need to have spies in our government or in Russia's when they have our media who is more than willing to do that job for free. If whoever leaked the information about Trump sharing intel with the Russians had kept their mouth shut, it would have made it much less likely that the information could ever have gotten to ISIS. They didn't do our country or anti-ISIS efforts any favors.

[NobleHunter]

Even if Trump told Russia exactly who the Mossad agent is in ISIS, is Russia going to release that information to ISIS and the press? It seems like the Russians are very good at keeping such secrets if they want to. It's also Trump's prerogative to declassify such information, or in this case not declassify it for public release but to decide that, at the highest level, the Russians can know about it. The real treason lies in whoever leaked the story to the press.

If FDR revealed to Stalin during WWII information about Germany including information that could reveal sources, would that be a crime? Or would the crime be telling the Germans and the world that FDR revealed to Stalin such information?

Let's also remember that the Russians told us point blank about the Boston bombers. They may be trying to fracture NATO, but they are definitely our allies against ISIS and Muslim terrorism in general.

No but Russia might share it with their allies Assad and Iran.

[Seriati]

Seriati,

Not sure why "anonymous sources" are given so much credibility.

Because the official source lies so frequently as to have lost all credibility, whereas anonymous sources have nearly a perfect record when they contradict the official source.

Perfect record really?  There's an expression that comes to mind about doing your business or getting off the toilet.  Let's see the proof on Russian collusion, period end of story, now.  There is absolutely zero question that most of the Washington bureacracy is actively hostile to the administration, there is absolutely no question that no matter what the real information is what will get widely printed as "the story" is a version that is actively hostile to the administration even if its not accurate at all. 

In fact, even if you accept the anonymous source (which are subject to gross cherry picking problems), the way they get reported is never accurate.  How many headlines about President implied he illegally released information (not apparently possible), or imply that the Comey memo is proof of obstruction of justice, when by it's language it wouldn't support such a charge, it's a one person account (and necessarily self serving), and if Comey thought Trump tried to obstruct justice he was legally obligated to report that to the Justice Department.

Even the substance here appears to be something that was widely known, ie that there was a laptop risk, and the media accounts are what, if any thing, is causing the actual damage with an ally and putting the agent at risk.  Honest to god, there is NO REASONABLE REASON that a non-illegal action for security cooperation should ever have been the subject of a leak, the "gotcha" value is only in the minds of the deluded and the damage to us is real.

If you have an inside source on a crime that actually harms the country bring it up, and frankly at this point, if they aren't willing to go on the record with the large number of allies waiting to take up their cause they are not credible.

I can't imagine why anyone would trust something said by Trump, Spicer or any information source which they control unless they are so blinded by partisanship that they have lost the ability to differentiate reality from fantasy.

Because they have said far more that is true than false, and a large portion of the "false" is twisting of words and unfavorable interpretations.

There is literally nothing they can say on or related to Russia that won't be misinterpreted.  Let me posit a question, if there was no collusion, then what the hell is the legitimate point of all this? 

They have lied when there is video and audio evidence that directly contradicts them - frequently; why do you think they would be more honest when their aren't cameras and recordings to directly contradict them?

Frequently?  Really.  Give me 10 examples, soft references are fine I'll look up the details myself.  But they better be real lies.

Also the damage to the US was done by Trump betraying the country that the information originated from.  His betrayal of their trust is what the true damage is and will put American lives in danger because it decreases the probability of any ally sharing intelligence with the US, and it makes US intelligence operatives more likely to conceal their sources or withhold information out of fear of them being killed by Trump saying something stupid.

Just knowing what he told them is a gross breach of our security that is FAR more troubling to our allies than what Trump did.  We literally are in a position where an ally has to assume any conversation they have will the US will be leaked if it serves a partisan political goal.  You're really missing the forest for the trees if you want to pretend to be outraged here.