Its kind of a bizarre paradox too. The President is the only person with the authority to determine on a whim whether something should be classified or not (for the most part). So, if there was an actual disclosure of information (which the White House is saying is bullshit, but for the sake of argument), is it still classified if the President decides to share it?
From what I've read he can share anything he likes and not be held accountable for that exact reason, he holds the power to declassify anything he wants whenever he wants.
As much as the msm is willing to blow everything out of proportion he's really his own worst enemy. I just don't see him ever overcoming the week to week controversies that keep bogging down his agenda. At some point he'll shake up his inner circle but I just can't see him placing anyone around him that can handle the mess he creates.
And to add, the entire point of that executive authority was to share critical (i.e. classified) information with other foreign leaders without red tape.
I don't know much about this case - apart from conspiracy theories and emails to Wikileaks (how do you go through 44,000 emails?!), that article had one very curious section to me: That's about a twenty minute walk from the bar to his house, about half of that would go by (or through) Howard University - what was happening during those three hours? And, if he was having trouble juggling time for his work and personal life, maybe don't spend three hours in the middle of the night walking around, instead of sleeping? I don't know what I'm saying, other than that's odd.
The funniest thing is even though this is possibly a huge revelation, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT don't have a word about it. The story came out early last evening and....nothing.
But it also deserves the same skepticism as the Trump-Russia narrative. Rich's family has already said that his connections to Wikileaks are bullshit, so unless there is substantiated proof, theres no reason to run it. I know the liberal outlets never stop running "What if... Trump...Russia" stories as if theyre gospel, but the Rich story is probably bullshit too until proven otherwise.
What I find hilarious about this is that the democrats have been SO unwilling to admit that the reason they got stomped in the election against an admittedly pretty shitty right wing party was because Hillary was a disaster and their own party is a train wreck. They haven't at all looked inward to evaluate their own failures. What exactly do they do when they can't blame the Russian boogey man for all of their problems? The way the media is making scandals out of nothing with Trump and then ignores stories like this is getting really pathetic. Who knows if it's true, but still, it's at least worth considering, right? I would agree, but they sure as shit don't need proof for other scandals. And even if there is proof they decide to ignore it if it makes the left look bad.
Well the intelligence disclosure isnt nothing, either. Its just not illegal. If a foreign government provides classified intelligence, they are supposed to approve before its shared with another party. If he did that without consent, it could damage our intelligence sharing relationships going forward in a significant way. We dont know where the intel originated from, but if thats the case, that was a huge fuck up.
I'm still somewhat impressed at the pure level of incompetence required to make a pattern out of: Trump does something stupid. His staff coalesces around a narrative that deflects, denies, or rationalizes it. After 12 hours of pushing this narrative, Trump tweets something that completely undermines it.
Forgot to mention - it could all be bullshit, but the report is saying the FBI has e-mail exchanges between Seth Rich and wikileaks. If true that's a little more concrete than "OMFG Trump did this because Russia blah blah blah". We'll see what gets reported over the next few days...
It gives you an appreciation for how lousy the field of Republicans was for him to get the nomination, and how unelectable of a candidate Hillary Clinton was, that he is President.
Pretty much, our President has the temperament of a petulant teenager. People try to help him, he tells them to screw off he does what he wants and screws their hard work.
The irony is killing me, but yeah...this is nonsense. I mean, the story here is "Trump again strains relationships with intelligence and law enforcement community that he desperately needs." Not, "leaked classified info". One thing I've noticed: everytime Donny boy does something...less than presidential, the knee jerk reaction is still to bring up Hillary. Why? Is she somehow still relevant? My understanding of it now is she's essentially retired, right? Bringing up and bitching about Obama...sure, why not? Contrast is fun. But wtf does Hillary have to do with anything in the current news?
It also strains our overall relationship with our allies. Why would anybody work with us if they think that the president will reveal information or flip his stance on a whim? Why would lower rung people working with our allies pass the information up the ladder if they think the president will misuse it? This whole situation puts us on extremely shaky ground with every country we work with.
No I believe he's asking why when trump does something stupid people will say "well Hillary would have done.." as justification for it. Not making the argument on one side or the other since I don't have time to go find sources but that's what it seemed to me he was saying.
My question is more around "is Hillary in the news for being involved" or is it more accurate to say the sentiment is "Trump sucks, but we won, and fuck Hillary lolz"? Like, at this point in Trump's presidency, how is she relevant? And, Kampf...yeah, not sure what the connection is to Wikileaks in the current news cycle. I'm thinking about this "classified info leak" and it reeks of Democrats' picking an opportunity to paint the POTUS into a corner of hypocrisy. I think the biggest thing is the stunning turnaround: Obama was a relatively scandal-free president, and Trump has inspired so much outrage in a few short months I think part of Bannon's strategy is straight up exhausting his opposition and just causing public servants to give up. Maybe that's what he meant by draining the swamp: forcing the people who actually do the job of governing to quit, neuter them through ridiculously ineffective leadership, and bog them down in constant struggles against contrarian lunacy. I'm a rock throw away from DC, and....yeah. Scary times for the gubbies in the Belt.