President Trump on Tuesday defended revealing sensitive information to top Russian diplomats, tweeting that he has an "absolute right" to do so. Do you agree?
Well no, it was totally inappropriate. When it comes to Mr. Trump there seems to be a certain disconnect at what should, he basically makes up his own rules when he messes up. Hey, I'm the president, therefore I can do it...right?
He has the legal right but also has the responsibility to not undermine our allies and their agents . People get killed with off the cuff Goofy Don says and does . Now we might not get intel from this country that could prevent an attack on US because they now don't trust US from sharing to a common enemy aka Russia
Sure, he technically has that right. However, it was an incredibly stupid move on his part.
He has the right to. It can just be dumb to
From the article:
"“The story that came out tonight as reported is false,” McMaster told reporters during an on-camera appearance at the White House.
McMaster said Trump and the Russians “reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation” but said his on the record account should be given more credence to stories based on anonymous sources.
“I was in the room. It didn't happen,” he said."
Who asked this question? Do you have a job with mainstream media or work for a late night tv show? Talk about MAJOR distortion of facts.
What we really should be interested in is WHO FROM INTELLIGENCE KEEPS LEAKING STUFF????? They are traitors and should be sentenced accordingly.
What happened to the election attitude of "the leaker is a patriot for giving us this information"?
Do you realize that you're falling hook, line, and sinker for the "official" excuse for this mess up from the propagandist-in-chief? Unbelievable. Think independently for once.
If Hillary did this, would anyone care?
Are you kidding the republicans blasted her for years but she didn't invite Russians into the Oval Office with only the Russian media and share the top most classified info with them.
I hate to sound like I'm a Trump apologist, but he never "defended revealing highly sensitive info."
He Tweeted that he talked to them about laptops and flight risks. That's not classified information. Not even close.
That's because he is incompetent in this job and doesn't recognize his bragging to our enemies that he has good intel and share it with them
You reply is literally unintelligible. What?
What's to understand - Goofy Don told the Russians he gets great intelligence and then proceeded to give them a top secret
What was the top secret? Do you know?
It's discussed in every media form in US . Spend a little reading
This is worst excuse yet. He literally cannot justify his huge mistake any other way than screaming "I get to do what I want!"
Yes, he should have the ability to do what is in the best interest of national security. No law was broken here. It is still debatable whether he did harm or made a bad judgement. Since I don't know the informatio, I can't know whether or not it was a good decision.
The issue isn't if he CAN, it's if he SHOULD.
I'm only okay with this because it helps with the destruction of ISIS, who is a mutual enemy of the U.S. And Russia. If we released info on the rebels or Assad, I'd be vehemently against it and probably believe the collusion stories. But I think working with Russia against the Islamic State is generally a good thing.
Yes. He has the right to be clueless. He has the right to be a traitor.
What was the "sensitive information"?
Trump's tax returns - of course!
He gave away info on Isis that the city our agent came from . The basic agreement between countries is we tell you stuff and you tell us stuff but you can't share unless you get our permission first - which he violated . So now countries will be less likely to share with Goofy Don
Yet again, BlackC's reply is literally nonsense. You didn't say anything, just threw some words together. Learn how to compose a sentence, kiddo.
This forum , in case you haven't noticed , is not English 101 or long answers or proper sentence structure.
Trump admits that he revealed sensitive information to the enemy, Russia.
This shouldn't be ok for any American citizen!
Where did Mahatma Trumpenji admit that?
I believe Caleb copied and pasted the first sentence of the article which yields an unwarranted assumption. Within the article, it states that Trump was providing facts about ISIS and airline safety to Russia. If Trump is simply revealing information about ISIS to a Nation who has a common enemy with us, I don't have a problem with it.
In a tweet.
What would be the exact text of the particular tweet?
Of course, we would need to the details of the information that Trump released to Russia to make an accurate judgement. I do wish that Trump could stay off of Twitter.
It's not an unwarranted assumption. It's a failure of reading comprehension. The tweet in question,
"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. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."
Does not contain a Defence of revealing sensitive information, or an admission of revealing sensitive information either.
Tweets at 6 am today bluebird
"President Trump on Tuesday defended revealing sensitive information to top Russian diplomats".
No, he didn't.
WaPo article: Trump discussed with Russians sensitive/classified info about specific terrorism threat (related to use of laptops on planes). Leakers told us so.
Trump today: I wanted to share with Russia facts about terrorism and airline flight safety. Also, we need to find these leakers.
Classic Trump, get as close to flat out admitting something as you possibly can, but leave enough wiggle room for some form of plausible deniability.
You have a right to believe that Trump may not have done the right thing. But a president needs the flexibility at any moment to share what ever information he feels is necessary to do the right thing for the country. Roosevelt did it all the time in WWII. And that's the real question.
The President should not have unilateral power to reveal state secrets.
Well they do. And they should. It's the trust you have to have in them when you elect them. If that trust is broken and the president makes the wrong judgment you have the right to impeach them. Like I said, it happened all the time in the past. Especially between the allies.
I didn't vote for him and I don't trust him. I don't believe that any president should have that power, unless in the case of a national emergency.
Well, the congress will certainly determine if it was necessary or not and make a decision on his authority. If they determine that he was wrong. And I'm not sure they will in this case, then we may have Pence as president. From what I've heard. This is mostly fake news and what he shared wasn't classified.
Sorry. If they find he was wrong, and I don't think they will. I wish this app had an edit feature.
Sounds fair. I think an investigation isn't necessary, since all the articles I've read don't attribute the source.
*IS necessary. I agree with the edit feature.
They have a real problem with a Uri in the office leaking information to the democrats.
Whether Trump was right in the moment. A president needs to have the option at any time to share what he needs to get his job done. If you don't think that happened during WWII then you don't know history.
The President has the final say on the classification of all information. He can declassify on the fly if he wants to. The question is whether it was prudent to do so in this circumstance.
Sorry. I should have read your post first. We're on the same page.
Getting tired of listening to news stories about news stories. I remember something about Hillary leaking a source's name and thereby getting him killed.
I'm getting tired of waking up every morning to the latest inappropriate thing that Trump has done! Are we great yet?
Trump didn't do anything. False information was leaked by anonymous sources to the media again so they ran the fake story.
Agree, Cowboy. When the news says "news from the white house is.....(fill in derogatory term)", the news referred to is not from the White House at all. It's from the news source itself. Unpleasant images pop into my brain but I won't bother describing them.
The NSA advisor said nothing was said that was revealing. The story is who leaked this false information.
I don't know. Does anyone know for certain who isn't a partisan tard on either side?
Or are we just speculating?