Trump “Leaks” to Russia
Just More “Fake News” — Actually, Trump is Fulfilling His Campaign Promises
Contributor: Adam White
As the establishment hyperventilates itself into a tizzy about President Trump’s meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak last week, it’s worth pausing and asking a few key questions:
- What happened during the meeting?
President Trump met with Russian officials last week, the day after he fired FBI Director Comey, and is alleged to have “leaked” highly classified material to the Russians on military issues.
The story that broke the supposed scandal, by the Washington Post, titled “Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador,” starts out by saying that “current and former U.S. officials . . . said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.”
Once again, the Post is relying on anonymous sources. And they don’t mention that the President has near unilateral authority to declassify information.
The discussion seems to have centered around an ISIS plot, perhaps relating to laptops and planes, that was detected in a certain city.
Although, it is hard to say how discussing that with Russia would ultimately hurt the United States or its allies.
What if President Trump said, for the sake of argument, “ISIS is trying to blow up planes in Europe. Our people discovered that in Raqqa.”
Would Russia work with ISIS to carry out the attack?
Would Russia, and then Iran, a Russian ally, know the identity of some double agent in an ISIS stronghold, merely because an ISIS plot and a particular city were discussed?
The answers seem to be “no,” and the media reports don’t explain in detail any realistic negative ramifications along with their Chicken Little response.
While there isn’t reporting on exactly what was said, Secretary of State Tillerson, who was also present at the meeting with the Russians, said that they “did not discuss sources, methods or military operations.”
2. What was the media response?
The usual suspects were reporting as if Trump gave our nuclear launch codes to Russia.
*This is a good time to remember that Hillary Clinton signed off on the transfer of 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia. Uranium is used for, you know, nuclear weapons.
Media outlets, attempting to sabotage the President, were happy to focus on outlandish potential negative ramifications.
Maybe the U.S. has “betrayed” crucial relationships with our allies, per MSNBC:
Perhaps the President can’t be trusted with classified information anymore, per CNN:
Maybe everyone at the White House is now demoralized, per the New York Times:
Perhaps Trump could have cost lives, possibly, maybe, per CNN and Nancy Pelosi:
Maybe Donald Trump didn’t realize he was discussing an important topic, per Anderson Cooper and John Dean:
The world is ending, per Chuck Schumer:
“If the reporting is accurate, in one fell swoop, the president could have unsettled our allies, emboldened our adversaries, endangered our military and intelligence officers the world over, and exposed our nation to greater risk.”
3. What really happened and what was the real response?
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster gave two statements that the story was, you guessed it, “Fake News.” His statement from Monday:
A brief statement for the record. There is nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed. The president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of the state, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Going on the record should outweigh the anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn’t happen. Thanks, everybody. (bolding for emphasis)
On Tuesday, McMaster said “What I’m saying is really the premise of that (Washington Post) article was false, that in any way the president had a conversation that was inappropriate or resulted in any kind of lapse in national security.” (bolding for emphasis)
What do you expect from a publication that literally changed its masthead to the apocalyptic “DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS” when its establishment candidate lost the presidential election to Donald Trump? That they’d just give up?
Israel, reportedly the country that provided the “classified information” that President Trump divulged to the Russian diplomats, released a statement from its ambassador to the United States:
So, maybe our crucial relationship with Israel wasn’t “betrayed,” per Rachel Maddow.
Additionally, and most importantly, President Trump has been saying since the campaign that he wants to work with Russia to defeat ISIS.
This hearkens back to the United States working with Russia to save the world from Nazism during World War II. That’s what Russia and the United States can do when they work together — literally save. the. world.
This is one of the issues Trump supporters saw as common sense — let’s work with Russia to defeat a common enemy — radical Islamic terrorism.
President Trump is following through on his campaign promise to work with Russia to obliterate ISIS; he is not “leaking.” If we want to know who is really “leaking,” we should just ask the Washington Post and New York Times.
Just like the Democrats created the pretext that Russia was to blame for the election, they are now creating the pretext for impeachment by alleging Trump leaked classified information when he was just fulfilling his campaign promise. They will not stop.
This is just more fake news.