Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

McMaster on WaPo claim Trump gave Russians highly classified info: “I was in the room, it didn’t happen”

McMaster on WaPo claim Trump gave Russians highly classified info: “I was in the room, it didn’t happen”

“The story that came out tonight as reported is false.”

The Washington Post ran a story late this afternoon claiming Donald Trump, in his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador, disclosed highly classified information, including information that could reveal sources and methods.

Despite the length of the story, the allegations of substance are all in this single paragraph:

Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.

From that, WaPo argues:

The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow would be keenly interested in identifying that source and perhaps disrupting it.

Russia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support President Bashar al-Assad.

“Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said.

A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”

It’s important that the story, as written, does not say Trump exposed any sources. It says revealing the name of the city where the information was discovered could lead the Russians to figure out the source. There’s no way of assessing that, but it’s a matter of opinion not fact.

The story set the internet on fire, with the WaPo newsroom cheering as the incoming traffic numbers showed levels higher than even the Trump Access Hollywood tape story:

https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/864231063295582209

The reaction from #NeverTrump “conservatives” was among the most disgusting I’ve ever seen — there was absolute joy to the point of giddiness that Trump was going down.

There were a few voices, including me, urging caution, since almost every mainstream media anonymously sourced report on the Comey firing was wrong. Two excellent sources on that are What a breathless media got wrong about Trump, Comey and Russia this week and 8 FACTS Contradict The MSM’s Serial-Comey Lies.

It took a couple of hours for the White House to respond, and the response was fairly emphatic that the story was a lie. Every single person in the room denied the WaPo story.

Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell issued a statement as follows:

“This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued this statement:

“During President Trump’s meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, a broad range of subjects were discussed among which were common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism. During that exchange the nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods or military operations.”

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster issued a statement denying the story, one he repeated even more emphatically when he appeared before the cameras (emphasis added):

A brief statement for the record. There is 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 of the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, where intelligence sources or methods discussed. 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 the state, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Going on the record should outweigh the anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn’t happen. Thanks, everybody.

The spin against McMaster is that he denied things that WaPo didn’t report, an evasive move. But in fact, McMaster was specific to deny “the story … as reported.” That leaves no wiggle room.

So all three American officials who were present are denying the WaPo story.

More facts will come out, but at this moment there is a lesson we’ve been learning a lot when it comes to media coverage of the Trump administration: Don’t accept at face value any media report about Trump that relies on anonymous sources.

————

Note: For greater precision, shortly after publication I added the words “information that could reveal” to the first sentence.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The Bezos Post strikes again. The Masters of the Universe will stop at nothing. Constitution, voters and truth be damned. They will get what they want because that is what they want. The rest of us will be replaced by robots.

The media has been repeatedly burned by anonymous sources since Trump took office. You’d think they’d be a bit more careful rushing out the latest scoop but I guess page views are far more important than actual accuracy.

But in fact, McMaster was specific to deny “the story … as reported.” That leaves no wiggle room.

Professor, are you joking? Tonight, the LegalInsurrection Twitter retweeted a tweet of that quote from McKay Coppins that the start of threads where he explained exactly why that leaves so much wiggle room you could drive tank through it. All it means is at least one version of the story contained at least one error. “As reported” may very well not even refer to “as reported by WaPo.” More importantly, even if it does refer to “as reported by WaPo”, it does not, at all, counter the actual key claims of the WaPo story that you decided to ignore, all of which are statements of fact, not opinion:

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.

Assuming you read what you retweeted, how can anyone assume you’re being anything but intentionally dishonest here?

    Barry in reply to Awing1. | May 15, 2017 at 9:16 pm

    “…how can anyone assume you’re being anything but intentionally dishonest here?”

    LOL, Awing the dishonest questioning someone’s honesty. Does that pay extra?

      Awing1 in reply to Barry. | May 15, 2017 at 9:19 pm

      Why is it that you can’t actually argue against my points? Why is there zero substance, zero actual argument that I’m wrong, in any of the comments (except the one that claimed McMasters and Tillerson said things they quite clearly did not say)?

      You should be ashamed of yourself.

        Barry in reply to Awing1. | May 15, 2017 at 10:33 pm

        “Why is it…”

        Because you are a paid prog, dimmer than a blown light bulb, whose only value is to be mocked and laughed at.

        You’re the squeaky toy the cat plays with.

        That’s why.

          Awing1 in reply to Barry. | May 15, 2017 at 11:33 pm

          That’s the excuse you tell yourself for why you can’t come up with actual, substantive responses to my arguments?

          Whatever helps you sleep at night.

          My comment was primarily for Professor Jacobson, who knows exactly who I am, and has since shortly after I first found this blog in 2011 when looking up the professors that taught courses related to financial regulation at the law school I’d just been accepted to.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | May 16, 2017 at 9:29 am

          “who knows exactly who I am”

          I’ve no doubt the professor knows your a left wing commie kook.

        mariner in reply to Awing1. | May 15, 2017 at 10:44 pm

        Because your garbage isn’t worthy of a reply.

I’ve heard people call the mainstream media cheerleaders for the Democrat party but this is just ridiculous:

“Applause in the newsroom as the Russia-leak scoop breaks the Access Hollywood record for most readers per minute.”

Who cares if it’s accurate–ratings are through the roof!

Talk about the tail wagging the dog….

DouglasJBender | May 15, 2017 at 8:41 pm

Awing1:

In a battle of honesty between Professor Jacobsen and The Washington Post, there is no contest.

    Awing1 in reply to DouglasJBender. | May 15, 2017 at 8:51 pm

    I wouldn’t know how to begin to compare the honesty of Professor Jacobson and a nonhuman entity, and I really don’t understand why it’s relevant to whether or not my professor is being dishonest here.

      If ALL three people who were present have testified that the report is a lie, that all of the information that was shared was already public information, where is the Amazon… I mean the Bezos Post, getting their information? Who is this
      “anonymous source”? Has it been collaborated from another independent source? Only THREE people were present!

      You would think that with “fake news” becoming the initial reaction of a reading public that trusts journalists no more than they trust politicians, reporters would make every deffort to present solid evidence to the public. But yet another “anonymous”? Really? That works for you? This belongs in the trash upon receipt. It’s garbage. More fake news.

        Awing1 in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 15, 2017 at 9:16 pm

        If ALL three people who were present have testified that the report is a lie, that all of the information that was shared was already public information, where is the Amazon… I mean the Bezos Post, getting their information?

        Assuming you mean all three US officials that weren’t Trump that were present, I don’t really understand why you’d ask about some fantasy. Neither McMasters nor Tillerson have stated that all of information that was shared was already public information, nor did either deny that the substance of the report from WaPo (which Reuters has independently confirmed) was false.

        Do you not have basic reading comprehension skills?

          Did you miss the part about public trust? “Anonymous sources” from proven liars like REUTERS (geez) and the hopelessly compromized Bezos Post? It isn’t my reading comprehension skills here that questionable but your basic common sense. Did you just arrive on our planet recently? Do you not understand the problem we are having “journalism” and wall-to-wall institutional corruption? We need PROOF!!!

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | May 15, 2017 at 9:46 pm

          What more confirmation do you seriously need than McMasters not denying the substance of the articles, and instead only specifically denying claims that the articles didn’t actually make?

          It’s very depressing how right Trump was about the fact that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and his deranged supporters wouldn’t leave him.

          UJ in reply to Awing1. | May 16, 2017 at 1:13 am

          Nice. Dick much?

      Wisewerds in reply to Awing1. | May 16, 2017 at 12:46 am

      Awning: The burden is on those making this claim to come forward with specific evidence (not unnamed sources, rumour, and innuendo–EVIDENCE) to establish its truth. That has plainly not happened.

      The burden is not on those who question the veracity of this claim to deny it in exactly precisely the specific way that will satisfy you (which, even if they did, you would quickly tack to claim there is something else they didn’t, in your mind, adequately deny).

      So shove it.

      Also, uck-fay ou-yay.

This is new?
Trump is being “George Zimmermanized”

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to RodFC. | May 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    And it “ain’t” gonna work this time!

    It hasn’t worked once since Trump announced in summer of 2015….so it won’t work period!

I didn’t much like it when Obama had that power, but a President can de-classify any damn thing he wants.

Hillary allowed classified info to get out there for all the world to see and actually exposed several of our assets.

    Barry in reply to murkyv. | May 15, 2017 at 9:14 pm

    “…but a President can de-classify any damn thing he wants.”

    Yep, exactly.

    Of course, we know without any doubt it didn’t happen here. Why? Because it’s being reported by a fake news organization(s). Everything is fake.

    Milhouse in reply to murkyv. | May 16, 2017 at 12:02 am

    Yes, it’s true, the president by definition cannot leak. This is one of those cases where it’s literally true that if the president does it it’s not illegal. But it’s also irrelevant. As far as I can tell nobody is accusing Trump of a crime; what they’re accusing him of is endangering our intelligence sources through incompetence, which is not a crime, but is an impeachable offense.

    If the story is true, which I very much doubt, then Trump has provided the grounds for impeachment, should a majority of the house and 2/3 of the senate decide to get rid of him. If they don’t then it doesn’t matter what he does. Democrat presidents are impeachment-proof because Democrat senators have shown that they will never vote to convict a Democrat president no matter what he did. Republican presidents are not impeachment-proof because given sufficient evidence of a serious offense Republican senators will vote to convict. In this case, though, even if the story were true I doubt the Republicans would impeach him for it.

      tom swift in reply to Milhouse. | May 16, 2017 at 1:09 am

      which is not a crime, but is an impeachable offense.

      Cool—your copy of the Constitution must have some supplemental text which is missing from mine … and everybody else’s. Mine is depressing pedestrian; “crimes” are a definite requirement, with little leeway for fanciful enhancement.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | May 16, 2017 at 9:43 am

      You might as well speak plainly – anything is an impeachable offense, should the house choose to do so.

      The R party is as corrupt as the d party, but no, no impeachment is going to occur.

      The whole of DC is corrupt, way beyond most peoples comprehension. The “media” is part of the DC construct, long ago co-opted. This will be a continuing battle, might as well get used to it.

Just more ‘deep state/MSM’ BS. Don’t believe a word from WaPo.

MaxWebXperienZ | May 15, 2017 at 9:31 pm

The Left wants desperately to find a way back to the status quo. They call it return to checks and balances or whatever but they want to get on with their plan to saddle Christians and Jews with jihadists while they reduce us to powerless, unarmed, serfs

This is war. WaPo is an enemy combatant. BS is the only weapon in its arsenal.

The mainstream press has become utterly unglued.

VaGentleman | May 15, 2017 at 9:46 pm

Prof,
another great piece. Thanks!

To your comment:
The reaction from #NeverTrump “conservatives” was among the most disgusting I’ve ever seen — there was absolute joy to the point of giddiness that Trump was going down.

The #NeverTrump crowd cares only about destroying Trump. What’s best for conservativism never enters into it. They are driven only by their hatred for him.

Kurt Schlichter has a column today at Townhall ( https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/05/15/liberals-are-an-inferno-of-flaming-crazy-and-we-should-pour-gasoline-on-the-fire-n2326754?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad= ) where he asks:

Here’s a little test. It’s been about six months since Trump treated The Smartest Most Accomplished Woman In The World like a NordicTrack treats Harry Reid, and does anyone know even one person who has said, “You know, I voted for Trump, but now after Neil Gorsuch, General Mattis and H.R. McMaster, I really wish I had checked the box for Felonia von Pantsuit?”

I’m not talking about alt-right weirdos – they don’t count. I mean literally, unless they remove their off-brand Nike knock-offs. I mean normal people. Who voted for Trump and now says something remotely like this?

“Yeah, I really regret not letting Hillary pick a SCOTUS judge who thinks the Constitution bans guns but mandates taxpayer-subsidized transsexual abortions!”

“Wow, that 70% drop in illegal alien entries into America and all those deportations of MS-13 guys are depriving the country of valuable, productive future Democrat voters!”

“Gosh, I hate so much how Trump has paid attention to that sliver of our country lying between I-5 and I-95!”

He wasn’t talking about alt-right weirdos since they answer Yes.

If you really care about conservativism, and you have a friend with TDS, do you really have a friend?

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | May 16, 2017 at 9:08 am

    “I guess everyone can put the #fakenews hashtag away for a while, eh? Yesterday, the White House had nat-sec advisor H.R. McMaster issue a broad but unspecific denial after the Washington Post reported that Donald Trump had blurted out highly classified intel to the visiting Russian delegation last week. Rex Tillerson followed suit and the White House communications team issued a terse denial before heading behind closed doors for a meeting.

    This morning, as what seems to be a developing pattern, Trump took to Twitter and made hash of the hashtag from his supporters, as well as of White House communications strategy:

    Er … why not just say this last night? Why put McMaster in front of a podium to issue a denial if Trump was going to admit it anyway? McMaster’s credibility is one of the assets the White House has to make people comfortable with Trump and his nat-sec policies. They just threw it away for a 12-hour head start on a Trump reversal. It will be interesting to see whether McMaster sticks around after this, or whether he takes enough offense to leave the post. And if he does leave, it will be even more interesting to see who’d want to fill it after this episode.”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/16/trump-heck-yeah-shared-intel-russians/

    You should read the whole thing, of course. It includes T-rump’s tweets.

    Some here can’t read it, because LA-LA-LA…I can’t hear this…!!!!

      SDN in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 9:46 am

      Except that nothing in Trump’s tweets reveals what you claim it does. It is more than possible to discuss an abstract that reveals nothing classified. Done it dozens of times myself.

      It is your dishonest #NeverTrump opinion, echoing Hot Air’s dishonest #NeverTrump opinion, that he revealed something he shouldn’t.

        Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | May 16, 2017 at 11:21 am

        1. I made no claim

        2. He his own sef self-justified his right to divulge classified information

        3. He expressly said he “shared” information in pursuit of enlisting Russian aid

        4. The Russians are not our friends

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 9:47 am

      Some here will believe anything, because TDS…I only hear this…!!!!

      Rags, the progs best friend.

      tarheelkate in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 9:56 am

      I do read Hot Air, and other sites. Complaints about Trump are frequently process complaints, like this one. He doesn’t manage “news” cycles the way real politicians do, and Washington is bewildered and outraged by that.

      The question is whether he shared information detrimental to US interests, which is what the Post said, or implied, that he did. And the further question is who is telling these stories to the Post, and whether that person is credible.

      And the other question is whether outrage over this narrative is based in fact or purely in visceral personal opposition to the current occupant of the Oval Office. In the case of the Washington Post, NY Times, etc., I think so, and tend to disbelieve what they say because I think their bias is obscuring their vision and twisting their reporting into mere opinion.

        Barry in reply to tarheelkate. | May 16, 2017 at 10:51 am

        Dear fellow Tarheel,

        If you will flat out disbelieve anything coming out of the WP or NYT’s, you will be correct 99.999% of the time. Tending to disbelieve will get you no where near that level of accuracy. 🙂

        That was true before Trump, and will remain true after.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 11:25 am

      HotAir ans WaPo have become rags goto news sources on Trump.

      As prof said:
      The reaction from #NeverTrump “conservatives” was among the most disgusting I’ve ever seen — there was absolute joy to the point of giddiness that Trump was going down.

        Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | May 16, 2017 at 11:34 am

        …which was yesterday, prior to Der Donald’s contradictory tweets.

        I also note that Prof. Bill failed to name anyone, which I would have found very helpful in assessing his comment.

        I doubt very much he meant any conservative who had anything less than apologia for T-rump. Which is all you ever publish.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm

          Which is precisely why it was so disgusting.

          Have you thought that he didn’t name you because he thought it was obvious? Can 30 thumbs down be wrong? Was he one of them?

          Do you know that you are likely the only person on LI who didn’t think about what the effect of his vote would be on conservativism? And I am sure that you are the only one who didn’t know when he pulled the lever on Nov 8 whether Trump or Clinton was the better choice for conservativism. It should be even easier to answer now when you have more facts – and yet you won’t answer. This tells us where conservativism sits in your life.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 12:19 pm

          ^(*& cut and paste. First line should read:
          Because, like you, they wanted it to be true.
          Which is precisely why it was so disgusting.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 12:40 pm

          I made no comment yesterday, liar.

          Prof. Bill could not have been “disgusted” by anything I wrote, VAPigman.

          “Can 30 thumbs down be wrong? Was he one of them?”

          Yes, they can and often are, because of the turd-swirl of T-rump suckers here who work hard at ThoughtPolicing as pure Stalinist goons. You are among them.

          It’s funny you think that actually has any effect on me.

          You should ask Prof. Bill if he downthumbed me. His email is easy to find, VAPigman.

          “Do you know that you are likely the only person on LI who didn’t think about what the effect of his vote would be on conservativism?”

          No. I of course “know” such stupid, lying thing. I assessed the effect of my vote very carefully. I reassessed it constantly. I determined that I would not vote for either stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist fraud.

          You did. Your choice. All you thought about was YOU. Which is unimpeachable. It was your vote. Mine was mine.

          You stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist fraud.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 12:47 pm

          “Because, like you, they wanted it to be true.
          Which is precisely why it was so disgusting.”

          Again, you simply impute to me lies of your own making.

          I neither wanted or didn’t want any truth to be true. That would be as stupid as most of what you do.

          I’ve often counseled patience here, and for letting matters develop before jumping stupid one way or the other. See Zimmerman, George, etc.

          Lastly, I don’t know who “they” are, and nobody identified “them”. But, as is obvious, I was NOT one. You stinking, lying, pathological, Collectivist fraud.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 12:58 pm

          “I neither wanted or didn’t want any truth to be true.”

          But you can see that Lewandoski “assault” on Michelle Fields clear as day.

          Which is another prog lie parroted by you.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 1:13 pm

          And you repeat your ad hominem lies as big as day.

          It really is all you have. You are a TWOT.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 6:10 pm

          No lie as you well know.

          You even told us what you would do to Lewandoski…

          Care to lie some more, proggy?

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to VaGentleman. | May 16, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    RE: “The reaction from #NeverTrump “conservatives” was among the most disgusting I’ve ever seen — there was absolute joy to the point of giddiness that Trump was going down.

    The #NeverTrump crowd cares only about destroying Trump. What’s best for conservativism never enters into it. They are driven only by their hatred for him.”

    That’s because the never were “conservatives” in their entire, long lives.

Bezos’ WaPO is putting the “knee jerk” back into liberalism, or at least, its flying monkeys in the msm….

Is the story accurate? Who knows. IN the first place, we have no idea who0 the “source” is and, therefor, no way to verify its veracity or accuracy. Second, we have no specifics on the information allegedly disseminated. Without that information, we have no way to determine how sensitive the information was. What we are left with, is zip; nothing but inference and speculation disguised as fact.

Now, if the story id accurate, who really cares? Unless the President released some information which could really harm the US, such as our launch codes, the locations of our Trident submarines or the date of our invasion of NK or Russia, what harm was done?

This is nothing more than the same old BS fake news that we have been subjected to for the last year. Remember this about Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein were desperately attempting to find evidence that :President Nixon ordered, or at least knew, of the plans to burglarize the DNC. They never found any. All that they found was that Nixon knew about it AFTER the fact and likely agreed with the plan to cover-up of the involvement of some of his aides. The same game plan is in play here. The media is desperately attempting to suggest that the President is an ally of the Russian government, or at least a dupe. So far they have struck out on producing ANY evidence of this.

Close The Fed | May 15, 2017 at 10:19 pm

Hmmm.. What about the Pakistani doctor that helped us find Bin Laden?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/world/asia/pakistan-bin-laden-doctor/index.html

Soooo, how did that work out for the good doctor?

Trump is Prez no matter how much the left regrets it. He can declassify every damn thing he wants. You don’t like it? Don’t vote for him in 2020. In the meantime, full steam ahead.

I want Trump to tear down every presumption and edifice of the left. TEAR THEM DOWN. Ignore them. Let them scream bloody murder until they faint from oxygen deprivation.

From Wikipedia (I know, I’m sorry, it’s easy):

The US Secretary of Defense, who was then CIA Chief Leon Panetta, has confirmed the role of Dr Afridi in ascertaining the whereabouts of Bin Laden inside the compound in Abbottabad. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that Pakistan has no justification for holding Dr Afridi.[37] The U.S. Representative for the 48th District of California, Dana Rohrabacher asked President Barack Obama to intercede on Afridi’s behalf,[38] introduced two bills, H.R. 4069 to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Shakeel Afridi[39] and H.R. 3901 to declare Afridi a naturalised US citizen.[40]

The US Senate panel cut $33 million in aid to Pakistan over the conviction of Afridi: $1 million for each of the 33 years of Afridi’s sentence.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Close The Fed. | May 16, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    BRAVO!!!! I second that!

    RE: “I want Trump to tear down every presumption and edifice of the left. TEAR THEM DOWN. Ignore them. Let them scream bloody murder until they faint from oxygen deprivation.”

inspectorudy | May 15, 2017 at 11:02 pm

The only good that has come from this fake news is that like crying wolf over and over the press is destroying their credibility. When hillary was blabbing above Top Secret stuff all over the internet, the msm didn’t seem to think that was a very big deal. But for Trump to warn Russia that their airliners full of HUMAN BEINGS could be the victims of laptop bombs that we had discovered through intelligence, why that approaches treason! The only answer is impeachment! Can’t these fools see how stupid they are becoming?

Washington Post’s conjecture, not facts, and a menagerie of anonymous sources.

Trump is on defense right now – soon to go on offense.

WE are Trump. WE are not going down: the GOPe is.

The MSM and such as McCain and Lindsey Grahmnesty are now into total fabrication. This is the fourth story the WP has headlined in a week that has turned out to be absolutely false.

Bucky Barkingham | May 16, 2017 at 7:29 am

I consider anything published in the WaPooPoo as fake news, including yesterday’s sports scores.

What the WAPO and the rest of the MSM have sunk to is plainly this:
“Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism”. Wikipedia

tarheelkate | May 16, 2017 at 8:19 am

The Washington Post story appears to be dubious at best. What I want to know is, WHO are the sources? If only Trump, high-level American officials, and Russians were in the room, then to whom is the Post talking? If the Post is using anonymous leaks from Russians to attempt to undermine the US president, that’s a pretty serious matter. Probably neither criminal nor treasonous, strictly speaking, but wholly despicable.

    Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | May 16, 2017 at 11:02 am

    Did T-rump tweet what he tweeted, you irrational liar?

    Did T-rump lie about why he canned Comey, you irrational T-rump sucking cultist?

    Yes. AND yes.

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 11:11 am

      Irrational is precisely what you are. No one disputes the president tweets.

      You are on the side of McCain, Graham, the Washington Post, the New York Times, in effect any side that is for the destruction of America. You champion every lie they tell.

      You’re the progs best friend, parroting their fake news as fast as you can.

      SDN in reply to Ragspierre. | May 16, 2017 at 4:07 pm

      He didn’t tweet what you claim he did, chew toy.

      Squeak, chew toy, squeak.

Every damn story printed in the WP is fake. Every one.

Why any sane person would give any consideration to them is beyond me.

Just one false story should be a signal. A continuing narrative of fake news should be a clincher.

The Washington Post is a fake news site, dedicated to the destruction of America. Along with all the other fake news sites.

There are few evasions more transparent than denying what no one accused you of doing.
–Gary Kasperov

Some enterprising soul took the time to compare the way the Washington Post wrote up a similar meeting between BO and the Russians. It is instructive.

The Washington Post is a 100% objective and unbiased news source! Totally! Exhibit A:(i.redd.it)

https://i.redd.it/48fveatozqxy.jpg

Meanwhile, the kiddies over at Reddit are gleefully pointing out that the Washington Post pulled up this junk story within an hour of the latest breaking story about Seth Rich, who is rumored to be a Wikileaks contact. They are also taking great comfort in knowing that this Washington Post story was debunked within hours.

I checked that last point: It took 1.5 hours from the time of the Washington Post publication to publication via The Gateway Pundit of the video by McMaster.

From where I sit, it looks like somebody in the Trump administration had a bolt of lightning all limbered up and waiting for this bit of Fake News.

If the US and Russia are sharing limited intelligence with each other on potential threats, then it sounds like what Trump did was indirectly save American lives. Seems like a reasonable and, notwithstanding the media hysterics, more or less routine use of intelligence.

.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend