Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Scarborough: Trump a “Jackass” who leaked info about group “that killed 20 little girls and their mothers last night”

Scarborough: Trump a “Jackass” who leaked info about group “that killed 20 little girls and their mothers last night”

“like the husband that runs down to the police station and says, hey, hey, hey, my wife’s missing and it’s not my gun”

https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=jXeNIagIMjI

On today’s Morning Joe, Scarborough  said that President Trump “revealed himself as the jackass that leaked top secret Israeli intel,”  adding that the intel that President Trump allegedly leaked was “about somebody on the inside of a terror organization that killed 20 little girls and their mothers last night.”

Scarborough first observed that in denying that he had mentioned Israel in his meeting with the Russians, Trump was denying something of which he had not been accused. Scarborough said that was like a man who runs into a police station saying “my wife’s missing and it’s not my gun that’s at the bottom of the pond in the back of our house by her body.”

In 2011, when on Morning Joe Mark Halperin called then President Obama a “d–k,” Joe Scarborough was furious that the seven-second delay hadn’t prevented the word from going out over the air. Scarborough ominously announced, “we’re going to have a meeting after the show.” MSNBC subsequently suspended Halperin indefinitely for his remark.

Let’s acknowledge that “jackass” is not as objectionable as the term Halperin used.  But if a network host had called President Obama a jackass, we can imagine the MSM outcry that would have ensued.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Just so you understand, I never mentioned the word or the name Israel. Never mentioned it in the conversation. They were all saying I did. So you had another story wrong. Never mentioned the word Israel.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Of course, Joe, no one ever said the president mentioned Israel in that meeting with the Russians. The focus was on the actual secrets he was spilling to Moscow and national security H.R. McMaster has said that trump never actually knew the source.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Mike Barnicle, if you are scoring at home and you’re trying to figure out, trying to divide the actions between malicious and just plain out stupid, you can put this on the stupid side. This is like the husband that runs down to the police station and says, hey, hey, hey, my wife’s missing and it’s not my gun that’s at the bottom of the pond in the back of our house by her body. And the police are like, hold it one second. Can we just — we’re going to cuff you to the radiator here. We need to go check your pond.

Admitting to something that nobody charged him of. And yet in so doing, revealed himself as the jackass that leaked top secret Israeli intel. By the way, intel about somebody on the inside of a terror organization that killed 20 little girls and their mothers last night.  

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

what a useless c*ckholster he is…

shouldn’t he be on vacation with Obola and the Wookie?

BTW: by definition, the President cannot “leak” classified information.

as the ultimate authority on “need to know”, he can release anything he wants, for whatever reason, to whomever he wants.

    Ragspierre in reply to redc1c4. | May 23, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Well, sorta….

    A POTUS cannot be legally held accountable for “leaking”.

    But a POTUS certainly CAN be the source of an anonymous leak of information.

    That is, in reality…

      redc1c4 in reply to Ragspierre. | May 23, 2017 at 3:27 pm

      by definition, a leak is a release of classified information by someone with access to it, but who lacks the decision making authority to make it public.

      thus, even if POTUS puts out the info through an anonymous channel, it is NOT a leak, since he is the ultimate authority on “need to know”.

      anything he wants to put out, he can, by whatever means he chooses.

      doesn’t mean he should, just that no one has legal grounds to call him on it.

        Ragspierre in reply to redc1c4. | May 23, 2017 at 4:11 pm

        Naw. Provide an authoritative source for that
        “by definition” claim. Any leak can be made by someone with a perfect LEGAL right to control the information.

        Otherwise, it appears we agree.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to redc1c4. | May 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm

        While the President does have the power to declassify a great deal of information (as with any government system there are caveats to that), there is still a process to be followed and it is a process that must be completed before that information is declassified.

        So if the President hasn’t ordered it declassified before releasing it, he is still releasing or “leaking” classified information and can be held accountable.

        A great example of this process is the e-mails that Hillary illegally transmitted/received that were later reclassified. She still should have been charged with mishandling of classified information because the documents were classified at the time of the mishandling their future status should have been irrelevant, since almost everything that is classified will eventually be declassified, with notable exceptions.

        The President still has to work within the law he enforces and the law says the process must be followed.

          Arminius in reply to Gremlin1974. | May 23, 2017 at 8:15 pm

          The law a President enforces says that he has the ultimate, unreviewable authority to classify or declassify information. There is a process for everyone else that he delegates authority to as an original classification authority or as a declassification authority.

          And the President establishes these rules via executive order. Here’s Obama’s.

          https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

          What possible process do you imagine could possibly exist that a President has to comply with when the only process that has ever been in place is established by the President directing subordinate officials how to exercise the authority he has delegated to them?

          All executive power resides in the President. If a President decides to declassify information, none of his subordinates who only have any authority at all because the President delegated it tho them can over rule his decision.

          The don’t have any independent power or authority to do so.

          And if the President decides an individual should have access to certain information that the individual wouldn’t otherwise be authorized to receive, the President can do so. And none of his subordinates who only exercise delegated, not independent authority, can gainsay him.

          By definition the President can’t leak. When a President provides information to an individual, regardless of that individual’s clearance level, status of employment with the USG, or even the individuals nationality, the President is making an authorized disclosure.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gremlin1974. | May 23, 2017 at 8:27 pm

          “By definition the President can’t leak.”

          That’s complete and utter bullshit.

          Are you suggesting that Obama could not pick up a phone and call the NYT and plant a story?

          Seriously…???

          Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | May 24, 2017 at 12:25 am

          No, he’s saying, correctly, that legally this would not be a leak but an authorized disclosure. You agree with this. Your point, also correct, is that it would still be a “leak” as the word is used outside the realm of the law on classified information.

        Arminius in reply to redc1c4. | May 24, 2017 at 12:55 am

        You made one small mistake. You said if the President decides to make something public he can do so. And he certainly could, but in this case trump didn’t make anything public.

        “Anonymous American Officials” who claim to know what Trump told Lavrov in a private meeting told the press, and the press couldn’t to tell the world. They illegally made it public. Had it stayed in the room with Trump, Lavrov and their aides as it should have the public would not know about it.

        We don’t know the exact information that Trump shared with Lavrov. And even if the anti-Trump media’s anti-Trump moles in the WH know the exact nature of the information, if the President didn’t know the source as McMaster confirmed then neither to the “anonymous white house sources.”

        They must be assuming it came from Mossad because they’ve never heard of a Mukhabarat.

        Trump acted appropriately. The moles in the White House didn’t; they leaked and broke the law. Then the media which should be prosecuted too told the world the information they illegally obtained and knew they should not have because they knew or believed to it to be classified.

        And merely saying during his press conference that he never mentioned the word Israel once during his meeting with Lavrov that is not confirming anything about the source of the information. In fact I’m sure the subject of how to handle this manufactured non-issue has come up more than once with McMaster, Tillerson, and Netanyahu as well. So Trump wasn’t being a loose cannon. Nobody was surprised or shocked that Trump mentioned that Israel was never a part of his conversation with Lavrov. They knew he was going to say it, and no doubt agreed he should.

        If this idiot Scarborough wants to blame anyone for a leak that killed those little girls he and the rest of the media should look in the mirror.

          Mannie in reply to Arminius. | May 24, 2017 at 7:34 am

          Exactly. What Trump did or did not do was not “leaking. No material was declassified, either. The material retains its classification, even if Trump gave it to the Russians.

          What Trump did is called diplomacy. We routinely share information with friends and not-so-friends when we judge it to be in our national interests. If he revealed anything, it was because Trump judged that there was something to be gained. That is a policy decision. We can, and probably will, argue the wisdom of that decision, but it is within his authority and duty to do so.

      SDN in reply to Ragspierre. | May 23, 2017 at 7:05 pm

      Note that neither chew toy nor his butt buddy Scarborough can provide any evidence that anything was leaked. One would expect a lawyer to know that three named eyewitnesses saying no is way more evidence than hearsay two layers deep….

      Someone needs to send their law degree back to CrackerJack.

        Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | May 23, 2017 at 7:32 pm

        Note that Ragspierre never suggested otherwise.

        My comment was not about your Great God Cheeto, but WAS about the idea of leaks generally.

        Odd that your are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo defensive of the cult-leader you worship.

        BTW, my law degree and MBA are not from Cracker-jacks. How ’bout yours, T-rump sucker…???

Pelosi Schmelosi | May 23, 2017 at 2:55 pm

Since Faux has decided to go full Left-Tard, THIS is what America now watches and listens to. This should end well.

What a despicable human being. Trying to lay that at the feet of our President. May God have mercy on his bereft soul.

Weren’t they ‘focusing on the Russia investigation’?

Joe Scarborough is a snake, remember when he was being criticized for being too chummy with Trump?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/12/media/joe-scarborough-donald-trump-nbc/

I remember when Morning Bozo first started out in tv and portrayed himself as a clean-livin’, flag-wavin’ regular family guy who happened to wander off to Congress in order to do good, blah blah. Look what a career in the media does to you.
Now: Leftstablishment outrage nozzle who’s banging his co-worker.

There is a serious illness in leftists that has drained all common sense from their brains and all common decency from their hearts. I can’t imagine it ending well for them.

Despicable douchebag.. and that’s insulting 2 douche

    Ragspierre in reply to mathewsjw. | May 23, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    ZOMG…!!! YOU can’t talk that way on a thread monitored by the doily-twisting school marm Finkelstein…!!!

    (Actually, you can…with perfect impunity…unless you are being critical of him, and he finds it useful to deflect what you say.)

      Rags: The data is in – The thinnest entity in the universe is your electronic skin, when someone criticizes your highly questionable analysis about President Donald Trump.

        Ragspierre in reply to Leslie Eastman. | May 23, 2017 at 7:40 pm

        Leslie, you are a lying, T-rump sucking cultist.

        Lil Marky never met me on the plain of T-rumpian critique.

        He assaulted me for the term “turd polishing” as applied to himself. He took my comment down.

        Talk about thin-skinned. And cowardly.

      Mark Finkelstein in reply to Ragspierre. | May 23, 2017 at 6:33 pm

      Rags, my beef is when you aim vulgar insults at fellow readers here. You and others have more latitude when you’re talking about public figures.

      Call me a school marm if you like, but answer this: why do you hide behind a screen name? Why don’t you have the courage to hurl your insults in your own name?

      And ultimately, what does insulting people with vulgar terms accomplish? Does it make you feel better or stronger in some way? I’m truly curious.

        One thing it accomplishes, it keeps people like me from being a regular donor to this site.

        It won’t be much, but I’d gladly pay a few bucks a month to keep the lights on here, but I really don’t feel I should have to be subjected to personal, profane, and juvenile taunts without that poster at least getting a public reprimand from those in charge here.

        Is that too much to ask of a place that is full of educated professionals?

        I just hope Rags kicks in enough each month to cover for the people who may feel like me and those who quit commenting or coming here altogether because of it.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mark Finkelstein. | May 23, 2017 at 7:53 pm

        No, Marky, that’s a lie. Actually, it’s several lies.

        You’ve never gotten you thong in a wad except when I’ve directly challenged/criticized you.

        Now you’re hiding being the notion that you did it to protect other posters.

        And you KNOW that the Prof knows who I am, where I practice law, and where I live. You want a piece of me, you know where to come, binky.

        As to murkyva, I haven’t addressed a comment to him/her/it in living memory that wasn’t just a response to its trolling of me, like SDNungus. They’re just part of the turd-swirl of ThoughtPolicing goons here.

          murkyv in reply to Ragspierre. | May 23, 2017 at 8:08 pm

          Poor rags. Always the victim and not the bully.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm

          Witness the last time I went after you, SDNungu, Butt-hurt Barry, etc., lying ssphole, except on defense.

          As here, you lying POS.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | May 23, 2017 at 11:08 pm

          Since you brought my name up…..

          You are what you accuse others of being.

          You are infantile in any response. When challenged on the facts you resort to BS and name calling.

          You, can still see that dastardly Lewandoski assaulting Michelle Fields when no such thing took place.

          It’s what progs do. Not a nickels worth of difference between you and them.

          murkyv in reply to Ragspierre. | May 24, 2017 at 8:07 pm

          Being on defense doesn’t mean one has to be a vulgar juvenile bully.

          You just can’t handle people who disagree with you, so you try to shout them down.

          Which is most definitely NOT a conservative trait no matter how you try to twist it in your favor.

          murkyv in reply to Ragspierre. | May 24, 2017 at 8:11 pm

          And please show me how to access your comment history, because I know for a FACT that you have been the one to pipe in with your taunts when a post had nothing to do with you.

        “And ultimately, what does insulting people with vulgar terms accomplish? Does it make you feel better or stronger in some way?..”

        Mark,you answered your own question.

        Now: the curiosity is why do you let it continue, and utterly diminish this blog?

Are we talking about the information that the Washington Post published for the world to read about?

And we’re supposed to be upset about a rumor that someone may have told someone else that President Trump told this information to a Russian diplomat at a meeting in the White House?

How do those two things even coexist in one mind?

If lives were endangered by telling this information in private to a Russian diplomat… wouldn’t it follow that publishing it in the paper would be much, much worse?

Walker Evans | May 23, 2017 at 4:15 pm

“If lives were endangered by telling this information in private to a Russian diplomat… wouldn’t it follow that publishing it in the paper would be much, much worse?”

Why, yes. Yes it would!

BUT … if it would help the Progressives tarnish President Trump it would be, ipso facto, a Good Thing!

    Ragspierre in reply to Walker Evans. | May 23, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    Um, no. No, it wouldn’t.

    Take the case of information passed to any hostile foreign power.

    Weeks later, the story is picked up by the press and published broadly.

    Is the press telling anybody anything new and exciting? Very likely not. Most likely, any power hostile to us has already broadcast it.

      Wrathchilde in reply to Ragspierre. | May 23, 2017 at 5:43 pm

      Yes, most likely any opposing power had already read this, and just in case they hadn’t we’re going to print it in a highly public forum to insure that all know of it.

      The press has set a pattern and practice of determining for themselves what the world needs to know, irrespective an any silly claptrap such as classification and need to know.

When nobody seemed to mention in the meeting of Trump and the Russians that the information came from Israel, the NYTimes jumped into breech to tell it’s readers that it was Israel.

Wrathchilde | May 23, 2017 at 5:36 pm

Well, there was at least one Jackass in that conversation, but his name wasn’t Donald.

People actually watch this guy?

To back up a bit, I’m confused. How exactly would sharing terrorist intel (assuming that happened) [I]cause[/I] a terrorist attack? This is the most non- of sequitors I’ve encountered in a while.

Man, I love this site! Don’t you feel the love?

Anyway, what I don’t understand is why Joe S. wants to throw his (insignificant) weight in with the Progressives/Lefties at MSNBC who take as a proven fact the allegation that Trump played fast and loose with some intelligence. Everybody there at the meeting, even the Ruskies, says that there was no exposure of previously classified information. (Hell, even the Jordanians said it wasn’t the Jews, so there)

The only explanation I can come up with to answer why Joe has become an ideological Mika-clone is that he may be afraid that his access to some horizontal refreshment may be severely curtailed if he does not toe the Prog line.

But that’s just me.

Rags: “Is the press telling anybody anything new and exciting? Very likely not. Most likely, any power hostile to us has already broadcast it.”

Don’t be silly. No-one in the meeting said Trump divulged sources and methods. The media did less than two days after the meeting with the Russians.

Who says the Russians are a hostile power with regards to ISIS laptop bombs?

    Ragspierre in reply to davod. | May 23, 2017 at 8:39 pm

    Yeh, not. The Israelis were just THRILLED to have their intel slobbered out by Der Donald as he bragged about his “great” intelligence.

    Which doesn’t mean what he thinks it means, any more than his knee-length ties….

Today John Brennan said that the damage was from the partisan leaks, not Trump.

House Intelligence Committee: John Brennan, CIA Director under President Obama
https://www.c-span.org/video/?428636-1/former-cia-director-saw-intelligence-information-warrant-investigation

@25:07

WHAT I’M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE SUBSEQUENTRELEASES OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PURPORTING TO TOPOINT TO THE SOURCE. THIS APPEARS TO BE DAMAGING LEAKS AND I FIND THEM APPALLINGAND THEY NEED TO BE TRACKED DOWN. THAT’S WHERE THE DAMAGE CAMEFROM, I THINK, IT WAS RELEASED IN THE PRESS.

As usual, Trump is his own worst enemy here, creating messes that his defenders have to clean up. No, nobody accused him of telling the Russians that the intel came from Israel. Nobody accused him of telling them which country supplied it. What he was accused of was telling them that the information came from someone in a particular city, later rumored to have been Raqqah.

McMaster immediately rebutted the accusation, saying that the information’s source was not discussed at all. Puzzlingly, the common reaction to this was to falsely claim that nobody had accused Trump of doing so, which left one wondering what he had been accused of. Later someone, I forget who, disclosed that Trump couldn’t have told the Russians where the information had come from, because he didn’t know this himself.

Meanwhile, even if the Russians had been told this, it’s doubtful that they’d have told the Syrians, let alone that it would then be passed on to ISIS. But the newspapers decided to publish it, thus ensuring that ISIS would find out, and be able to track down and eliminate the mole.

    randian in reply to Milhouse. | May 24, 2017 at 1:46 am

    “But the newspapers decided to publish it, thus ensuring that ISIS would find out, and be able to track down and eliminate the mole.”

    It does lead me to wonder how many Muslims have infiltrated our intelligence ranks and are leaking information. Using gullible Western liberals to do the publishing for them would be smart.

I give up, you are giving Jackass Joe more face time. I’ll say goodbye now.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend