Classified Bombshell Hyperventilation
The result is has been a steady stream of nonsense all day regarding Trump’s alleged disclosure of highly classified information to Russia.
It took a collaboration of six (Jack Goldsmith, Susan Hennessey, Quinta Jurecic, Matthew Kahn, Benjamin Wittes, Elishe Julian) to come up with Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on the Washington Post’s Game-Changing Story.
The article starts out …
The Washington Post this afternoon published a stunning story reporting that President Trump disclosed highly-classified information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during their visit to the Oval Office last week.
After firing off rounds of innuendo from BuzzFeed, the New York Time, the Washington Post, and Reuters, the authors admit “the President did not ‘leak’ classified information in violation of law. He is allowed to do what he did.”
In a very long-winded synopsis, the article discusses six points.
- First, this is not a question of “leaking classified information” or breaking a criminal law.
- Second, this is not a garden variety breach, and outrage over it is not partisan hypocrisy about protecting classified information.
- Third, it is important to understand the nature of sources and methods information in order to fully understand the gravity of the breach.
- Fourth, it really matters why Trump disclosed this information to Russian visitors.
- Fifth, this may well be a violation of the President’s oath of office.
- Sixth, it matters hugely, at least from an atmospheric point of view, that the people in the room were Russian and one of them was Sergey Kislyak of all people.
Conjecture and Hype
Point number 1 is correct. So is point number 4. The rest is conjecture and hype.
In regards to point number four, Trump may very well have decided it was in the US’s best interest to cooperate with Russia. If so, I would agree wholeheartedly.
In points 2-6 the authors spew out hype about what Top Secret means and whether the president violated his oath of office.
I like this tidbit: “In general, a Top Secret classification is applied to information the unauthorized disclosure of which could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security…”
Does anyone believe that? I don’t. Stuff is kept top secret for years to cover up lies, false flag events, support for corrupt regimes, illegal operations, and in general “cover my ass” kind of stuff that would be embarrassing but would constitute no real threat to national security.
The New York Times joins the BS parade with its take Trump Revealed Highly Classified Intelligence to Russia, in Break With Ally, Officials Say.
The revelation also opens Mr. Trump to criticism of a double standard. The president made Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information through her private email server central to his campaign, leading chants of “lock her up” at rallies. But there was never any indication that Mrs. Clinton exposed sensitive information from an ally or gave it to an adversary.
There is no “double standard”. The president gets to decide what is classified and what isn’t.
Does the NY Times presume everyone gets to decide for themselves?
What Did Trump Disclose?
The answer is “information about an Islamic State plot” of some sort.
Good grief. After all the above hyperventilation, I have a simple question: Why shouldn’t we disclose to Russia pertinent facts regarding Islamic state plots?
Do we want to keep this information to ourselves as happened on numerous occasions in Europe? As happened more recently with the NSA developing and using loopholes in Microsoft code?
If the US has information on an alleged plot by ISIS we absolutely should disclose that fact to other governments unless we believe they may be involved or compromised.
Off the Deep End
Nancy Pelosi asks ‘What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?’
In another clickbait article Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz hypes ‘This is the most serious charge ever made against a sitting president’
When you write bullsheet like that, expect to be mocked, not taken serious, at least by any rational person.
Nutting was expected. I replied to Baum …
Impeachment?! Over What?
Hopefully, Baum was joking and I failed to catch it.
For the record, I disagree withy Trump on NAFTA, free trade in general, the Wall, his immigration order, and numerous other things.
However, talking with Russia makes sense, warmongering with Russia over Syria doesn’t.
Question of the Day
Would we be better off if we declassified everything but ongoing criminal and terrorist investigations?
Certainly, we would stop a lot of unwise, unconstitutional, and immoral activities if that was our new policy.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock