Putin Claims He Can Prove Trump Did Not Pass on Classified Info

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: joemoe

a reply to: butcherguy

That's the way the story is being reported, and the reason for the outrage.

“In March, CNN’s Evan Perez had learned from numerous officials that intelligence deemed credible said that ISIS was developing laptop computer bombs to be used on international flights,” Tapper said.

“Perez talked to Trump administration officials, who cautioned Perez and subsequently CNN executives, to not report certain details about the threat, including the city from which some of the intelligence was collected,” he said.

Tapper continued, saying that administration officials told CNN that reporting the city’s name could “get people killed.” He then scolded the administration for not following their own advice. According to media reports, Trump revealed the name of the city where the intelligence came from to Lavrov.

ntknetwork.com...

CNN Reporting the name of the city is entirely different than informing a Lavrov.

Furthermore, the rub: Your source " According to media reports, Trump revealed the name of the city where the intelligence came from to Lavrov"

Here we go again, "According to media reports"...

mg

a reply to: missed_gear


....according to the leaker, in other words.

Look, you believe what you want. But a rejection of the source isn't a valid argument. The issue here is, Putin's offer to release the tapes.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: joemoe


Jake Tapper's sources are verified. They came from the White House.

Yet the Americans that were actually in the room when it happened all say that the allegation is false.

Who are these White House sources and how do they know what was said if they weren't there to hear it?

a reply to: windword

Rejection of the source here is relevant as there are no named sources.

The offer to produce tapes or transcripts to the US Congress is a slap against our media (or so called media) and the DNC because the Russians have been blamed for everything that went wrong with the DNC.

This is the re-entry of McCarthyism almost to the letter. Propaganda "Red-Scare"...

mg

a reply to: windword

1) I believe there is a witch hunt in DC for anything that can hurt the Trump Administration.
2) I believe that the Russians are being use as a boogie man more times than not.
3) I believe that we should not trust anything any news network tells us. (including anything from the pro Trump Camp)
4) Because of #3 we should require that proof is given and verified by multiple sources, especially if the source of the news are partisan.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: joemoe


Jake Tapper's sources are verified. They came from the White House.

Yet the Americans that were actually in the room when it happened all say that the allegation is false.

Who are these White House sources and how do they know what was said if they weren't there to hear it?

My source, Jake Tapper, talks about information that CNN obtained in March, and was told by the White House to squash. CNN has the information that Trump revealed. They did not reveal it, for reasons of National Security.

The Russian Oval Office meeting information was leaked by someone who was at that meeting, or listening in. That person, who thought it important enough to leak to the Washington Post, is risking their career and reputation, possibly their freedom. I doubt they would be doing that for "Fake News".

a reply to: joemoe


k

But, I don't know how you can intelligently discuss an issue if you reject the source of the issue. You can only argue "Fake News" and that there is no issue, for so long. The rest of us persevere, looking for the truth.

a reply to: windword

In the current political climate, sources should be confirmed by multiple outlets (preferably non partisan ... if such thing exists anymore). I am sure, if these charges were levied against Obama or Hillary, the demand for conformation of the sources would be just as strong on the left.

a reply to: bknapple32

Does anyone realize deepthroat was an unnamed source. It saved us from the lies of Nixon

Considering what has gone on the past year.

And the last president essentially wiretapping the whole country to unprecedented levels.

To wiretapping Trump and thousands of OTHER Americans.

People need to revist the Nixon era, and come to the only logical conclusion.

Nixon was a choir boy compared to the last administration.

a reply to: joemoe


Why do you think Putin is offering to release the transcript of that meeting? Why isn't the White House offering to do so?

a reply to: missed_gear

CNN Reporting the name of the city is entirely different than informing a Lavrov.

You now you accept that the location of the Israeli embedded spy was given to the Russians?

a reply to: windword

I guess we will see. What if the transcripts turned up and there was nothing major there, will it stop you and the rest of the left from the witch hunt? I doubt it. Here's a hypothetical question, what if Trump is trolling the left to put all of their political capital and energy into this Russian conspiracy when he knows he did nothing wrong? ... or maybe he's just a bumbling idiot that just played all his cards right to get to where he is. I don't know, but waiting with popcorn.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: joemoe


Jake Tapper's sources are verified. They came from the White House.

Yet the Americans that were actually in the room when it happened all say that the allegation is false.

Who are these White House sources and how do they know what was said if they weren't there to hear it?

My source, Jake Tapper, talks about information that CNN obtained in March, and was told by the White House to squash. CNN has the information that Trump revealed. They did not reveal it, for reasons of National Security.

The Russian Oval Office meeting information was leaked by someone who was at that meeting, or listening in. That person, who thought it important enough to leak to the Washington Post, is risking their career and reputation, possibly their freedom. I doubt they would be doing that for "Fake News".

Jake tapper is not a good source then.

Unless he has a time machine.

The meeting in question occurred on May 10th, well after March, when you say that CNN received the info,

a reply to: butcherguy


That's right. When Trump said that the information was "known", he didn't lie.

CNN had the information, and the White House knew it. They asked CNN to withhold certain aspects of the story, which was about terror threats and lap tops being banned about airlines. The White House told CNN that information, specifically, the location of the spy who reported the ISIS plot, could endanger the lives of spies in the field. CNN did not release that information. Jake Tapper reported this on behalf of CNN, after the Washington Post posted the leaker's info.

Whoever leaked the May 10th meeting info claims that the location of the Israeli spy who reported the plot was revealed to the Russians, endangering said operate.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: missed_gear

CNN Reporting the name of the city is entirely different than informing a Lavrov.

You now you accept that the location of the Israeli embedded spy was given to the Russians?

My argument stands. The two issues are independent of each other.

Putting words in my mouth, no good.

Nothing can be factuated at all, at this time. Nothing more than reports about reports.

Only the persons there, which have said this is all false, can be considered a source.

You agree?

Mg

a reply to: missed_gear


The White House has made statements and Trump's tweets speak for themselves. There is no doubt that sensitive information was given to the Russians, information that has those in the "know", including lawmakers, feeling very uncomfortable.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Putin and Trump have a strange love / hate relationship don't they?

Not really. Trump loves Putin. Putin is using Trump.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: missed_gear


The White House has made statements and Trump's tweets speak for themselves. There is no doubt that sensitive information was given to the Russians, information that has those in the "know", including lawmakers, feeling very uncomfortable.

"Feeling uncomfortable"? Poor do nothing lawmakers.

Really?

And exactly where is this "No doubt"?...sourced, claimed and proven..."that sensitive information was given."?

and 'those in the "know"'. Come up with better facts and return.

mg

originally posted by: Swills
Not really. Trump loves Putin. Putin is using Trump.

Trump stepped on Putin's crank in Syria, side stepped him completely with issues of N. Korea, blind sided Putin with making diplomatic overtures to China and succeeded and successfully pressed NATO to build again...on and on

Personally, I would be cautious of using elementary school yard comments to 'sum up" the relations of two world leaders


mg

a reply to: missed_gear

Really? We get all our transcripts from Vladimir Putin?

That's news to me.