McMaster explains the fake news of the liberals

Thing1 said:
It's a story about intelligence.

Yeah - I can see why they'd reach out to people w/ experience in the intelligence community. Journalism 101. If those were their ONLY sources, that could be problematic, but they weren't.
Click to expand...


You are missing a key point. The Washington Post used them as PRIMARY sources as in they spoke as if they knew what happened in the meeting. If a former intelligence agent comments about a meeting they obviously didn't attend about classified information, what would that lead you to believe?


I get it, you are predisposed to believe the worst about Trump and will never give him the benefit of the doubt, so maybe I am wasting my time?
 
I Love America said:
You are missing a key point. The Washington Post used them as PRIMARY sources as in they spoke as if they knew what happened in the meeting. If a former intelligence agent comments about a meeting they obviously didn't attend about classified information, what would that lead you to believe?


I get it, you are predisposed to believe the worst about Trump and will never give him the benefit of the doubt, so maybe I am wasting my time?
Click to expand...

Maybe?
 
I Love America said:
You are missing a key point. The Washington Post used them as PRIMARY sources as in they spoke as if they knew what happened in the meeting. If a former intelligence agent comments about a meeting they obviously didn't attend about classified information, what would that lead you to believe?


I get it, you are predisposed to believe the worst about Trump and will never give him the benefit of the doubt, so maybe I am wasting my time?
Click to expand...

Where are you getting the bolded?

You're making a connection that no one has offered.
 
Thing1 said:
Where are you getting the bolded?

You're making a connection that no one has offered.
Click to expand...


I am getting it from the Washington Post article. Did you not read it? I mean it has had the left hyperventilating for 24 hours, so I presumed you read it. Was I incorrect? I mean it is the very first sentence, so I am not sure how you could have missed it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

So how did former U.S. officials know he did it? Former means not current, which means they would not have been there correct?
 
I Love America said:
I am getting it from the Washington Post article. Did you not read it? I mean it has had the left hyperventilating for 24 hours, so I presumed you read it. Was I incorrect?


President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

So how did former U.S. officials know he did it? Former means not current, which means they would not have been there correct?
Click to expand...

No.

Yes.
 
"The story that came out as reported is false"

I have seen nothing to contradict my OP.

dumbass liberals thinking I am ashamed of this thread when I am still right? lol.
 
I Love America said:
I am getting it from the Washington Post article. Did you not read it? I mean it has had the left hyperventilating for 24 hours, so I presumed you read it. Was I incorrect? I mean it is the very first sentence, so I am not sure how you could have missed it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

So how did former U.S. officials know he did it? Former means not current, which means they would not have been there correct?
Click to expand...

You saw that they also wrote "current" in the article...right?
 
{O said:
"The story that came out as reported is false"

I have seen nothing to contradict my OP.

dumbass liberals thinking I am ashamed of this thread when I am still right? lol.
Click to expand...

Just embarrassing at this point. McMasters worded that VERY carefully.

And you really need to catch up on what's being reported today. Your "fake news" thing is a fail.
 
Thing1 said:
You saw that they also wrote "current" in the article...right?
Click to expand...


let's not forget AND FORMER

That is what is disturbing to me. You are so worried about Trump giving out information you are ignoring that elephant in the room. Of the people who gave out information, who is the only one allowed by law?

Come on precious. Come strong or don't come at all.
 
Thing1 said:
Just embarrassing at this point. McMasters worded that VERY carefully.

And you really need to catch up on what's being reported today. Your "fake news" thing is a fail.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything relevant. You are suggesting I made an OP as if I denied a conversation even happened. Which I never did. I posted that WApost was fake news which it was and continues to be.
 
I Love America said:
let's not forget AND FORMER

That is what is disturbing to me. You are so worried about Trump giving out information you are ignoring that elephant in the room. Of the people who gave out information, who is the only one allowed by law?

Come on precious. Come strong or don't come at all.
Click to expand...

"and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State."

That makes sense to me - they got the reporting for what happened in the meeting from current officials, and looked to some former officials for background on what that kind of disclosure can mean for our intel sources.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

Again - even that shouldn't be leaked. And I will note that if one of these individuals ever runs for President.
 
{O said:
I haven't seen anything relevant. You are suggesting I made an OP as if I denied a conversation even happened. Which I never did. I posted that WApost was fake news which it was and continues to be.
Click to expand...

Wowzers. Okey dokey.

Stick to celebrating your big reveal about Thing1 & that big vocab word.
 
It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

This has been known for a few weeks. Why are liberals making a big deal out of this?
 
Yaya said:
It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

This has been known for a few weeks. Why are liberals making a big deal out of this?
Click to expand...

THE DETAILS are the issue, he discussed the details about the city the info came from and the specific details of the threat such that the Russians will now (already have likely) figure out our CI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top