It's a pickle indeed... or a two-scoops of ice-cream dilemma.
When a document is offered before a private meeting between President Donald Trump and Russia's Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov, it publicly shows the discussion is closed to the Press.
Then The Washington ComPost releases a story that states that President Trump told Mr. Lavrov information
that could jeopardise a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
But where does the culprits of this 'crime' lay...? The Post reports that 'current and former U.S. officials' told
the media that President Trump boasted the information the Russian Foreign Minister and that's how the
story broke. The media were not in the room as the document proclaimed, so what were the logistics of how
the private information was brought to light.
One of the important questions we have to ask is -is this standard practice for Government officials to
leak sensitive information or are these unnamed parties merely noble 'whistle-blowers' concerned for
their fellow-American's well-being?
I suppose the simple task would be to name who was in the meeting or close enough to overhear the
releasing of the information. The Washington Comic Post don't have to, President Trump just has to
recall who was there and it can be all dragged out into the light!
'President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador
in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s
disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence
-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly
restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials
said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings
of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage,
placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers
to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies.
Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
The revelation comes as the president faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related
fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into possible
links between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as
attempted obstruction of justice...'
SOURCE:
However, later in the Washington Post's article, it states:
'...For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal.
As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that
his disclosures broke the law.
White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about
terrorism...'
Oh. President Trump didn't break the law because this newspaper said so. Phew! thank God that
was said, but I think a more-responsible, non-partisan news outlet should've really put that up front
in the piece so that it didn't give the appearance of scare-mongering and sensationalising for click
-bait purposes.
But that's just me as a neutral being forced to defend someone in the name of fairness.
This for the adults in the room:
Do you really think that a background-checked, constantly monitored US Government Official who is
aware of highly classified information that relates to an external 'partner's' secret efforts to penetrate
a terrorist organisation would tell a newspaper of such an ongoing action...?!
Seriously?
It's implied that someone approached the Washington ComPost with information that could not only
cause serious damage in relationships with trusted countries and have this 'official' incarcerated as a
traitor, it's indicated that this person was willing to put themselves in this situation just so it can be
said 'Well, Trump said it first'! -And the newspaper takes their word for it?!!
But still, The Washington Arse-wipe Post have give us enough evidence that the Leader of The United
States of America told Russia's Foreign Minister -Sergei Lavrov highly classified information that is
only illegal to do so until he utters it. But surely, that is enough to haul his ass out of the White House?
Wait a moment... There's more!
The White House isn’t denying that Trump gave Russia classified information — not really.
'White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster just emerged from the White House to declare that
The Washington Post’s story about Trump giving highly classified information to Russia “as reported,
is false.”
But the rest of McMaster’s statement made clear he wasn’t actually denying the report.
And his entire brief statement — punctuated by McMaster walking away without taking shouted questions
— speaks volumes.
Here’s what McMaster said:
There’s nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people.
The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false.
The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries,
including threats to civil aviation.
At no time — at no time — were intelligence sources or methods discussed.
And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.
Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember it being
the same way and have said so.
Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources.
And I was in the room. It didn’t happen...'
SOURCE:
Hmmm. The Post will not reveal their informant who's committed treason and has no actual evidence
of the alleged revelations and a security adviser comes out and states that the article is false.
I think this is the point where The Washington Post must 'up their game' and produce the person
who was at least, in the room when Trump is supposed to have said what it's said he didn't say.
So who was in the room that is next to be removed?
Look at that or get back to be being a serious news outlet again.
Naaah... just kidding.
When a document is offered before a private meeting between President Donald Trump and Russia's Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov, it publicly shows the discussion is closed to the Press.
Then The Washington ComPost releases a story that states that President Trump told Mr. Lavrov information
that could jeopardise a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
But where does the culprits of this 'crime' lay...? The Post reports that 'current and former U.S. officials' told
the media that President Trump boasted the information the Russian Foreign Minister and that's how the
story broke. The media were not in the room as the document proclaimed, so what were the logistics of how
the private information was brought to light.
One of the important questions we have to ask is -is this standard practice for Government officials to
leak sensitive information or are these unnamed parties merely noble 'whistle-blowers' concerned for
their fellow-American's well-being?
I suppose the simple task would be to name who was in the meeting or close enough to overhear the
releasing of the information. The Washington Comic Post don't have to, President Trump just has to
recall who was there and it can be all dragged out into the light!
'President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador
in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s
disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence
-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly
restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials
said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings
of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage,
placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers
to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies.
Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
The revelation comes as the president faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related
fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into possible
links between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as
attempted obstruction of justice...'
SOURCE:
However, later in the Washington Post's article, it states:
'...For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal.
As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that
his disclosures broke the law.
White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about
terrorism...'
Oh. President Trump didn't break the law because this newspaper said so. Phew! thank God that
was said, but I think a more-responsible, non-partisan news outlet should've really put that up front
in the piece so that it didn't give the appearance of scare-mongering and sensationalising for click
-bait purposes.
But that's just me as a neutral being forced to defend someone in the name of fairness.
This for the adults in the room:
Do you really think that a background-checked, constantly monitored US Government Official who is
aware of highly classified information that relates to an external 'partner's' secret efforts to penetrate
a terrorist organisation would tell a newspaper of such an ongoing action...?!
Seriously?
It's implied that someone approached the Washington ComPost with information that could not only
cause serious damage in relationships with trusted countries and have this 'official' incarcerated as a
traitor, it's indicated that this person was willing to put themselves in this situation just so it can be
said 'Well, Trump said it first'! -And the newspaper takes their word for it?!!
But still, The Washington Arse-wipe Post have give us enough evidence that the Leader of The United
States of America told Russia's Foreign Minister -Sergei Lavrov highly classified information that is
only illegal to do so until he utters it. But surely, that is enough to haul his ass out of the White House?
Wait a moment... There's more!
The White House isn’t denying that Trump gave Russia classified information — not really.
'White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster just emerged from the White House to declare that
The Washington Post’s story about Trump giving highly classified information to Russia “as reported,
is false.”
But the rest of McMaster’s statement made clear he wasn’t actually denying the report.
And his entire brief statement — punctuated by McMaster walking away without taking shouted questions
— speaks volumes.
Here’s what McMaster said:
There’s nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people.
The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false.
The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries,
including threats to civil aviation.
At no time — at no time — were intelligence sources or methods discussed.
And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.
Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember it being
the same way and have said so.
Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources.
And I was in the room. It didn’t happen...'
SOURCE:
Hmmm. The Post will not reveal their informant who's committed treason and has no actual evidence
of the alleged revelations and a security adviser comes out and states that the article is false.
I think this is the point where The Washington Post must 'up their game' and produce the person
who was at least, in the room when Trump is supposed to have said what it's said he didn't say.
So who was in the room that is next to be removed?
Look at that or get back to be being a serious news outlet again.
Naaah... just kidding.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.