trump the traitor

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by nuglet

get a clue dude. or better yet, tune into any news source other than what you are swallowing.. you've been drinking wayyyyy too much cool aid.. Let's pretend, just for shits and giggles, you have an informed opinion.. yeah, let's do that.. hopefully he'll be indicted, just before a heart attack solves all the issues for us.. dying in shame is the legacy I'm wishing for him.

Yeah, well you just keep sucking up that pablum that the lamestream media is feeding you. They're telling you exactly what you want to hear. Get back to me when you have a source other than "un-named" or "anonymous". Baseless accusations just don't interest me anymore.

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by nuglet

get a clue dude. or better yet, tune into any news source other than what you are swallowing.. you've been drinking wayyyyy too much cool aid.. Let's pretend, just for shits and giggles, you have an informed opinion.. yeah, let's do that.. hopefully he'll be indicted, just before a heart attack solves all the issues for us.. dying in shame is the legacy I'm wishing for him.

Yeah, well you just keep sucking up that pablum that the lamestream media is feeding you. They're telling you exactly what you want to hear in spite of the truth. Get back to me when you have a source other than "un-named" or "anonymous". Baseless accusations just don't interest me anymore.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harv...mp-media-bias/

(Link added for emphasis.)

[nuglet]

ok, now the traitor has a name and it's an offspring of #45 that is working in the Whitehouse... Mind if I play through while you're taking your mulligan?

[gfejunkie]

Only an inbred would think of a son-in-law as "offspring".

Fore!

[nuglet]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Only an inbred would think of a son-in-law as "offspring".

Fore!

and only an off-spring OF AN inbred would construe what I said referred to a "son-in-law".. How's that cool-aid diet working for ya sonny? Five!!! some peoples' children LOL

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by actionjackson647

it looks like trump gave out highly classified info to the russians in the oval office..

I wonder how the trump humpers will spin this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.248f423c98ae

LOL this is the same Washington Post which also used "anonymous" sources to "prove" that Iraq had chemical and nuclear weapons programs???? Come on make me laugh. Every few days either the NYT, the WSJ, or the Washington Post prints more lies from "anonymous sources" claiming Trump has done this or that. Those three papers are fake. They are phony. They set out to "make a case" to invade Iraq in 2002 using "anonymous sources" and now they're doing the same thing with Trump.

Funny though how none of these alleged acts actually could even be violations of any law.... Funny about that.

So far not one legal scholar, or prosecutor, or judge, or law professor has said that any of these claimed acts is a violation of law EVEN IF THEY OCCURRED.

In fact, legions of Democratic law scholars, like Professor Alan Dershowitz, have gone on record repeatedly that none of these alleged acts can be illegal. That includes coordinating the release of emails with a foreign government, or stating information to a foreign government which would otherwise be illegal to disclose due to it's secrecy classification.

If the President decides to reveal classified information to a foreign government that is his right. He decides what to do with the information because he's the President. The President is not held to the secrecy oaths his employees are held too. He owns the information and can do with it whatever he want.

And in each case of alleged illegality the involved parties have stated they were not harmed and have no problem with what he was alleged to have done. In the case of the supposed statements to Russian officials the secret intelligence compromised supposedly came from Israel.

But what do the Israeli's have to say? They say it never happened and they have no problem.

So if the source of the "compromised intelligence" has no problem then who does???

Nobody.

It's just another smear and fake claim.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Originally Posted by pussycat

It's just another smear and fake claim.

I suppose its only smear and fake claims when its against Trump. All the smear and fake claims thrown at Obama and Hillary were justified, right?

#WatchingHypocritesComplain

[nuglet]

I guess some folks didn't get the newsletter.. ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIARS AND/OR THIEVES.. When was the last time an honest politician won an election? dunno,
I think it's required to have deep roots into somebodies pocket(s) to represent all us Americans!!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

If the President decides to reveal classified information to a foreign government that is his right. He decides what to do with the information because he's the President. The President is not held to the secrecy oaths his employees are held too. He owns the information and can do with it whatever he want.

But what do the Israeli's have to say? They say it never happened and they have no problem.

From everything I've read on the subject, Trump does not deny releasing classified information. Yes, he has the right to do so as President, but does that mean he SHOULD do it? What if he decided to tell Russia where our nuclear silos are located? And how the hell would Israel know what was said or not said in the meeting? Here are Trump's tweets on the subject:

"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," Trump said in a pair of tweets. "Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

I can't find any Israeli statements on the subject so since you have indicated that Israel has commented on it, please cite the source.

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

From everything I've read on the subject, Trump does not deny releasing classified information. Yes, he has the right to do so as President, but does that mean he SHOULD do it? What if he decided to tell Russia where our nuclear silos are located? And how the hell would Israel know what was said or not said in the meeting? Here are Trump's tweets on the subject:

"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," Trump said in a pair of tweets. "Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

I can't find any Israeli statements on the subject so since you have indicated that Israel has commented on it, please cite the source.

Everyone, including the Russians, know the location of all silos containing ballistic missiles.

I think the point is that just because something is classified doesn't mean that it cannot be shared with particular people. For example, the US has intl sharing relationships with many countries in which classified information is shared for a particular purpose. It depends on what the particular information is and whether it would be constructive to share it or not. In the case of what Trump said to the Russians he determined that there would be no harm in disclosing it, and he turned out to be correct.

But to ask, "what if he gave away something that shouldn't be given away" so therefore he should not give away anything is absurd. Presidents and other officials disclose classified information to outsiders every day. It merely depends on the circumstances.

Truth to be told however in the past there have been disasters from intl sharing with allies and others when we relied on their confidentiality. In the 1950s the CIA shared with the British most of our covert operations directed against the USSR and North Korea and many others. As soon as we gave that information to the British spies in their services working for the Soviets passed along that information to their masters and all our operations were compromised. This went on for many years.

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

I suppose its only smear and fake claims when its against Trump. All the smear and fake claims thrown at Obama and Hillary were justified, right?

#WatchingHypocritesComplain

So far all legal scholars and authorities, such as even Alan Dershowitz, are in agreement that none of the allegations to date even point to illegal activity.

All these usual big, commercial media sources are cooking up false accusations because they hate Trump and they know their audience will love it. It's about ratings and money. As usual it's not about facts or journalism.

As for Hilary she's another issue.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

Everyone, including the Russians, know the location of all silos containing ballistic missiles.

I think the point is that just because something is classified doesn't mean that it cannot be shared with particular people. For example, the US has intl sharing relationships with many countries in which classified information is shared for a particular purpose. It depends on what the particular information is and whether it would be constructive to share it or not. In the case of what Trump said to the Russians he determined that there would be no harm in disclosing it, and he turned out to be correct.

But to ask, "what if he gave away something that shouldn't be given away" so therefore he should not give away anything is absurd. Presidents and other officials disclose classified information to outsiders every day. It merely depends on the circumstances.

Truth to be told however in the past there have been disasters from intl sharing with allies and others when we relied on their confidentiality. In the 1950s the CIA shared with the British most of our covert operations directed against the USSR and North Korea and many others. As soon as we gave that information to the British spies in their services working for the Soviets passed along that information to their masters and all our operations were compromised. This went on for many years.

I used missile silos as an example, maybe an incorrect example. The point is that President Trump has access to confidential information that should NOT be shared with other world leaders. Do you have anything to support your statement that the information he shared with Russia would not be harmful, or is it your opinion?

I certainly agree that at certain times sharing what was at one time confidential information with other world leaders could be in the best interest of our country. I have said since his election that Trump is taking a course in Politics 101 because he was so ignorant of how things are done in Washington. for example his unconstitutional Executive Order on immigration. He is learning but making mistakes along the way because of his ignorance.

You can drain the swamp but when you repopulate it with others just as incompetent as their predecessors, we are no better than before.

[pussycat]

Why would Trump misuse his authority to share intl more than other Presidents? I'm sure in the past other Presidents have given secret information to others and had it backfire. God knows the CIA and other agencies have given secret intl to others time and time again and then it had terrible consequences.

So I think the burden is on yourself to show why this particular sharing of intl was harmful. Until it's shown to be harmful it's just another event of sharing, which has always gone on and sometimes backfired. You just didn't hear about the other cases because everything this particular President does is exaggerated and distorted to be something sinister when it's not.

Such as the whole "talking to the Russians" fiasco. Many Presidents have sought secret channels with the Russians and in no other time was it ever considered sinister or malevolent.

Only when this President does it, so ask yourself why.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

Why would Trump misuse his authority to share intl more than other Presidents? I'm sure in the past other Presidents have given secret information to others and had it backfire. God knows the CIA and other agencies have given secret intl to others time and time again and then it had terrible consequences.

So I think the burden is on yourself to show why this particular sharing of intl was harmful. Until it's shown to be harmful it's just another event of sharing, which has always gone on and sometimes backfired. You just didn't hear about the other cases because everything this particular President does is exaggerated and distorted to be something sinister when it's not.

Such as the whole "talking to the Russians" fiasco. Many Presidents have sought secret channels with the Russians and in no other time was it ever considered sinister or malevolent.

Only when this President does it, so ask yourself why.

No, the proof is on YOU to back up your statements. I don't have to worry about proving whether or not there has been inappropriate activity with the Russians by the Trump team,. A special investigator will determine that. Flynn already guilty.

"Everyone, including the Russians, know the location of all silos containing ballistic missiles." Any proof to back that up???

"I'm sure in the past other Presidents have given secret information to others and had it backfire." Any proof to back that up???

It's so easy to throw out opinions as facts.

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It's so easy to throw out opinions as facts.

You should know.