Trump gives highly classified information to the Russians

[Jedidiah]

More fake news from anonymous sources?

Fake or not jump right on it quick. If it turns out to be fake (as in this case) you can just drop it. The stain might still stick.

[seer]

Fake or not jump right on it quick. If it turns out to be fake (as in this case) you can just drop it. The stain might still stick.

Yep!

[firstfloor]

What might happen now is that US allies around the world will be less willing to share intelligence until the GOP decides to get POTUS measured for a straightjacket (the gold cufflinks model) and a black hood.

[RumTumTugger]

While several of those present have provided unqualified rebuttals of the anonymous, unsubstantiated claim that Trump provided classified information to the Russians what is beyond any doubt is just this last June Obama did give some information to the Russians (through the Syrians) concerning some of the things happening on the ground there. As a result the Russians attacked some of those sites of our allies.

Didn't Hilary during one of the presidential debates vs Trump give up information about certain aspects of our nuclear readiness?

[Starlight]

Didn't Hilary during one of the presidential debates vs Trump give up information about certain aspects of our nuclear readiness?

No. She repeated information that had been publicly disclosed years before by senior intelligence officials. Republicans did their usual "Hillary said something, this must be a scandal" dance in response and promulgated the false rumor that Hillary was disclosing classified information.

[rogue06]

Didn't Hilary during one of the presidential debates vs Trump give up information about certain aspects of our nuclear readiness?

It depends on whether or not it was a government secret that it takes about 4 minutes for when the president gives an order to launch nuclear weapons.

FactCheck took the question over whether the actual time of the delay being a secret and twisted it into something for which they could give the answer they wanted to give. They launched right away into a debate over nuclear missiles remaining on high alert avoiding the question by dismissing it by saying it isn't a secret they are kept on high alert.

[Starlight]

It depends on whether or not it was a government secret that it takes about 4 minutes for when the president gives an order to launch nuclear weapons.

Can it be a 'secret' when it's been a matter of open discussion since the cold war?

FactCheck took the question over whether the actual time of the delay being a secret and twisted it into something for which they could give the answer they wanted to give.

You might prefer snopes.

[Starlight]

McCain: Trump scandals reaching 'Watergate size and scale'

What is it going to take for conservative posters here to accept that these events are serious? 12 months after Trump has been impeached by a Republican-majority congress are you still going to be denying the relevance or truthfulness of these events?

[Tassman]

Again, what McMaster claimed "didn't happen" was not the story as reported by the Washington Post. He was being disingenuous, which probably explains why he didn't stick around for questions.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._mcmaster.html

[Starlight]

Again, what McMaster claimed "didn't happen" was not the story as reported by the Washington Post. He was being disingenuous, which probably explains why he didn't stick around for questions.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._mcmaster.html

WaPo: He did it.
NYT: He did it.
AP/Reuters: He did it.
McMasters: He did NOT do it.
Russia: He did NOT do it.
Trump: I did do it.
Fox News: Dead DNC staffer conspiracy, something, something!
Trump supporters: Mainstream media is fake news!

[rogue06]

Can it be a 'secret' when it's been a matter of open discussion since the cold war?

You might prefer snopes.

It appears to be what is called an "open secret" where the information is known or suspected in some circles but never confirmed. Hillary confirmed it.

And as has been noted nobody blinked an eye when the Obama Administration leaked secrets last June -- or even earlier. From 2014:

Source: White House mistakenly identifies CIA chief in Afghanistan

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Plame's position was another example of an "open secret" widely known in Washington which is only wrong to confirm if a Republican was involved.

[Tassman]

It appears to be what is called an "open secret" where the information is known or suspected in some circles but never confirmed. Hillary confirmed it.

And as has been noted nobody blinked an eye when the Obama Administration leaked secrets last June -- or even earlier. From 2014:

Source: White House mistakenly identifies CIA chief in Afghanistan

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Plame's position was another example of an "open secret" widely known in Washington which is only wrong to confirm if a Republican was involved.

[Meh Gerbil]

A really simple way to handle this is to be consistent.
All you have to write is: "There is evidence Hillary committed a crime, she should be tried and if found guilty, jailed."

The whole reason this comes up is because you insist on applying a double standard.

This is why you've not used O'Reilly for the last week.
When evidence came out that he was a bad man every conservative here threw him overboard.
What is so difficult about throwing bad Democrats overboard?

[One Bad Pig]

Can it be a 'secret' when it's been a matter of open discussion since the cold war?

You might prefer snopes.

Snopes is about as non-partisan as you are.

[Sparko]

A really simple way to handle this is to be consistent.
All you have to write is: "There is evidence Hillary committed a crime, she should be tried and if found guilty, jailed."

The whole reason this comes up is because you insist on applying a double standard.

This is why you've not used O'Reilly for the last week.
When evidence came out that he was a bad man every conservative here threw him overboard.
What is so difficult about throwing bad Democrats overboard?

Watch it Gerbil! His (and JimL's) absolute refusal to hold Hillary and the other democrats to the same standard as Trump or conservatives, is the exact same attribute that makes manipulating those two in a debate so easy. And fun. Don't go pointing it out to them and making them become reasonable on us.