Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

 

Of course, now everyone has to deal with the fallout, because either:

1. the government will act as though the information has indeed been declassified which means highly sensitive information will undoubtedly be made public because people will request it, as is their right; or

2. Trump didn't actually declassify it and therefore he leaked it.

So if they choose option 2, would that mean he broke the law?  Or would they somehow pull the declassify card but then reclassify it somehow?

 

im trying to get past the outrage and actually get the facts, scenarios, and possibilities going forward.

[visionary]

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

4 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Secrets about how we killed some terrorists in a country where we are working together to defeat isis. OH NO HE DIDNT! The D bag who leaked this should be a arrested.  We are going to have to work with other countries to defeat Isis. This is silly ****.

 

Hahaha

[Burgold]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So if they choose option 2, would that mean he broke the law?  Or would they somehow pull the declassify card but then reclassify it somehow?

 

im trying to get past the outrage and actually get the facts, scenarios, and possibilities going forward.

I think the functional truth is more important than the "legal" truth.

 

If Trump is leaking Top top secrets to foreign powers whether because he is in cahoots or just can't control his mouth once he's buttered up that's bad. That's unfit for President bad. If he's giving away our secrets intentionally to a foreign power that's treason... whether he's President or not. 

[RedskinsMayne]

For you to commit treason you have to do something to intentially harm the country. Talking to Russian diplomats about the fight against Isis... hardly that.

[DogofWar1]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So if they choose option 2, would that mean he broke the law?  Or would they somehow pull the declassify card but then reclassify it somehow?

 

im trying to get past the outrage and actually get the facts, scenarios, and possibilities going forward.

I'm not sure if it means he broke the law.  I'm not aware of procedures to declassify then reclassify things.  It's such an unprecedented situation that I think the legal analysis will need a few days to catch up, and that's assuming no other shoes drop.

[twa]

The legal case is clear....he is authorized to share classified info....period

[Burgold]

5 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

For you to commit treason you have to do something to intentially harm the country. Talking to Russian diplomats about the fight against Isis... hardly that.

It is if you give up our sources, close doors to future intel, and give Isis a way to thwart future operations. We are further harmed if our partners choose to no longer share with us because they don't think their intel will be safe. It also potentially tells the Russians how to thwart our attempts to stop their activities against us. Since we know that the Russians are actively engaged in intelligence and cyber terrorism against us... I think you can make the argument that there is potential harm there.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Burgold

[visionary]

19 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Secrets about how we killed some terrorists in a country where we are working together to defeat isis. OH NO HE DIDNT! The D bag who leaked this should be a arrested.  We are going to have to work with other countries to defeat Isis. This is silly ****.

This is how you get allies and assets killed.  Working together doesn't mean we can trust them.  

They have bombed our assets before and will do so again.

Plus not every leak by Trump would be about the same thing.  

Think of it as the tip of the iceberg to come.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2017 by visionary

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, twa said:

The legal case is clear....he is authorized to share classified info....period

You are basing this on what exactly?  Are you saying there are no limits whatsoever?  And you have proof that he can share classified info with anyone legally and not that he has to declassify or change classification first?  Some links for me to look over would be awesome.  I haven't found anything that says this is the case.

[RedskinsMayne]

Just now, Burgold said:

It is if you give up our sources, close doors to future intel, and give Isis a way to thwart future operations. It also potentially tells the Russians how to thwart our attempts to stop their activities against us. Since we know that the Russians are actively engaged in intelligence and cyber terrorism against us... I think you can make the argument that there is potential harm there.

 

 

Dont you think every major major power in the world is actively engaged in intelligence and what you call "cyber terrorism" or are you just naive? Also, cyber warfare is more accurate. It's not terrorism. It was against a political party, not civilians.

[Burgold]

Just now, visionary said:

This is how you get allies and assets killed.  Working together doesn't mean we can trust them.  

They have bombed our assets before and will do so again.

Plus not every leak by Trump would be about the same thing.  

Think of it as the tip of the iceberg to come.  

 

 

 

 

Or the tip of the iceberg that we are so far aware of. What worse has he done that we don't know about?

[twa]

there are always limits 

 

Quote

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/15/trump-allowed-reveal-classified-intelligence-but-experts-say-s-risky/101730858/

 legal analysts and secrecy experts said Monday that American presidents have broad authority to disclose classified information, making them virtually immune from prosecution.

Every other government employee with a clearance could face criminal charges for disclosing classified information without prior permission. But the commander in chief has the power to unilaterally disclose any material – even the most secret intelligence – without going through any kind of formal process.

 

 

[RedskinsMayne]

Just now, Burgold said:

Or the tip of the iceberg that we are so far aware of. What worse has he done that we don't know about?

 

 

Well, if we are just going to take random news stories and turn them into something completely imaginary we are definately moving toward a post fact world.

[Burgold]

Just now, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

Dont you think every major major power in the world is actively engaged in intelligence and what you call "cyber terrorism" or are you just naive? Also, cyber warfare is more accurate. It's not terrorism. It was against a political party, not civilians.

Are you that much in the tank? Are you that afraid of admitting to major wrongdoing when the President of the United States is giving away our secrets to hostile powers?

 

It's been against civilians. The Russians have attacked financial institutions, corporations, and many other outlets. It wasn't just the DNC. 

[RedskinsMayne]

I think most things aren't a big deal. Most things aren't. I agree it's a bad look. But that's about the end of it.. In fact, maybe it improves our relationship with Russia.

Edited May 16, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[StillUnknown]

4 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

Dont you think every major major power in the world is actively engaged in intelligence and what you call "cyber terrorism" or are you just naive? Also, cyber warfare is more accurate. It's not terrorism. It was against a political party, not civilians.

 

if you could kindly remove your head from Trumps ass, you would see he is setting fire to everything he touches

[RedskinsMayne]

The deep state is real. It has to be. It's only natural. But, every president has had to deal with the deep state whenever they get elected after the opposite party. Trump has handled it poorly. I'm not stuck with my head up trumps ass, but this leaves me non plussed.

Edited May 16, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[haithman]

25 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

I think most things aren't a big deal. Most things aren't. I agree it's a bad look. But that's about the end of it.. In fact, maybe it improves our relationship with Russia.

unbelievable.

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, RedskinsMayne said:

The deep state is real. It has to be. It's only natural. But, every president has had to deal with the deep state. Trump has handled it poorly. I'm not stuck with my head up trumps ass, but this leaves me non plussed.

I wonder what it would take then? How far would Trump have to go for you to care? If he gives the Russians the codes to the nuclear football would that make a dent?

[RedskinsMayne]

If he gave the russians information about our military movements, our capabilities, acess codes, military projects, plans, etc. Then i would care. There are plenty of other things i'm probably not thinking about but would bother me.. But, sharing information about ISIS.. meh. It's not like Russia is supporting Isis. 

 

In fact, we are supporting the growth of ISIS more that Russia ever did. if we hadn't of stuck our big fat foot in Syria Assad would have firm grip over Syria and isis would not have a foot hold there. But we ****ed that up in the name of freedom and now have a pointless dispute with Russia over what to do there.

Edited May 16, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[BornaSkinsFan83]

3 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

The deep state is real. It has to be. It's only natural. But, every president has had to deal with the deep state whenever they get elected after the opposite party. Trump has handled it poorly. I'm not stuck with my head up trumps ass, but this leaves me non plussed.

 

Serious questions: do you ever stop and evaluate yourself? How often and why? Do you ever ponder why you feel certain ways and hold certain opinions? The origins of them? The motivations behind them?  How would you describe your levels of self-awareness and personal growth? 

 

Really not trying to take shots. I'm just curious about somethings. Mixture of personal and professional curiosity. If you prefer to PM me the answers, please feel free. 

[DogofWar1]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

there are always limits 

 

 

I'm unsure if the article is talking about "disclosing" or "declassifying."  It says disclose, but one of the first quotes, from McFaul, talks about declassification.  Disclosing and declassifying are two different things, and the differences are important.  Republicans have been talking all night about the President's power to "declassify," and I haven't heard much on "disclosure" powers.  I'm not sure if that article makes a distinction.

 

There's also the layer that this intel came from another country, which adds more layers to it, I think there are limitations on the President if it's intel from a foreign power, as the article notes.

[Isifhan]

2 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

If he gave the russians information about our military movements, our capabilities, acess codes, military projects, plans, etc. Then i would care. There are plenty of other things i'm probably not thinking about but would bother me.. But, sharing information about ISIS.. meh. It's not like Russia is supporting Isis. 

 

 

Extremely short sighted.  What ally would continue to share intelligence with us if they don't have confidence that anything they share can't be held in confidence and would risk said allies assets.  You don't think that would be a problem? You don't think that's already becoming a problem?  What happens when that lack of intelligence sharing directly leads to another 9/11 style attack?  Would you care then? Or would you still be non plussed. 

[daveakl]

4 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

But, sharing information about ISIS.. meh. It's not like Russia is supporting Isis. 

The country that gave us the info (that trump revealed) is not going to be willing to share information any more.

 

The operatives that gathered said information are more likely to be outed then they were before said information was shared.