Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYTimes: Pentagon keeping security intel from Trump because they fear he'd leak it to a foreign (Original Post) triron Jun 2019 OP
Cause its a secret they want to keep from Trump, he never reads more than three paragraphs. marble falls Jun 2019 #1
+1 reACTIONary Jun 2019 #19
Sad! jpak Jun 2019 #2
Well of course they're hiding stuff from Chump FakeNoose Jun 2019 #3
They should suspect that Trump tells Putin everything when they meet alone or talk on the phone. Lonestarblue Jun 2019 #14
Good idea. shockey80 Jun 2019 #4
Meanwhile, the republicans remain on their knees Achilleaze Jun 2019 #5
It's a relief to hear this. I have been fearing this since 2016. lindysalsagal Jun 2019 #6
' . . . they fear he'd leak it to a foreign adversary' - FEAR? empedocles Jun 2019 #7
yes, he would SELL IT. Grasswire2 Jun 2019 #8
Good grief. Madame Speaker, let's go mnhtnbb Jun 2019 #9
Another example why you can't believe what Seth Abramson writes. thesquanderer Jun 2019 #10
No. It's the damn NYTimes that understates the danger of Trump. triron Jun 2019 #13
He is quoting an article as evidence, and the quote does not support the assertion. thesquanderer Jun 2019 #20
Definitely NOT a conspiracy theorist.... reACTIONary Jun 2019 #23
Defiantly "in the know", and the word on the street is... reACTIONary Jun 2019 #21
+10 nt reACTIONary Jun 2019 #24
can we please give only him some false Intel so we can see who turns up with that information? TalenaGor Jun 2019 #11
Because it's important information to the American people tymorial Jun 2019 #12
With This Article, the Cat Is Out of the Bag panfluteman Jun 2019 #15
Shame on the Pentagon! procon Jun 2019 #16
We've also heard that the British are reluctant to share intelligence for the same reason Rhiannon12866 Jun 2019 #17
JFC... Blue Owl Jun 2019 #18
But we can't impeach him, right?! Luciferous Jun 2019 #22
That's what happens when an idiot occupies the office Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2019 #25
Why would they do that? Kid Berwyn Jun 2019 #26
K&R UTUSN Jun 2019 #27
More secrets for Jared to sell. keithbvadu2 Jun 2019 #28
Good call, though this is a sad day for our republic. n/t Laelth Jun 2019 #29

FakeNoose

(32,675 posts)
3. Well of course they're hiding stuff from Chump
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 04:56 PM
Jun 2019

Remember when Chump cancelled his daily briefings? That happened less than a week after his inauguration. Every President since Eisenhower has had daily briefing meetings until now. Chump doesn't want to be briefed on anything, and they don't want to do it anyway.

Can you blame the intel professionals? I can't blame them one bit.

Lonestarblue

(10,030 posts)
14. They should suspect that Trump tells Putin everything when they meet alone or talk on the phone.
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 06:28 PM
Jun 2019

If he knew US intelligence secrets, he would tell Putin everything. I wonder whether the CIA is also making sure that Trump gets very little real intelligence. I recall that while Trump does not read the daily briefings, Kushner does, which means that at least Israel and Saudi Arabia know everything in those briefings.

Achilleaze

(15,543 posts)
5. Meanwhile, the republicans remain on their knees
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 04:58 PM
Jun 2019

willing to do anything and everything to prop up their ignoble republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief and his profoundly dangerous trashing of US Security.

Super sucky treasonous to be a lameass republican submissive whimp turning your glutted ass toward truth, honor, and US democracy.

lindysalsagal

(20,712 posts)
6. It's a relief to hear this. I have been fearing this since 2016.
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 05:01 PM
Jun 2019

I believe we have real patriots running our country, but the orangatan isn't one of them.

empedocles

(15,751 posts)
7. ' . . . they fear he'd leak it to a foreign adversary' - FEAR?
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 05:06 PM
Jun 2019

Almost a certainty, that trump would leak to a foreign adversary - to personally benefit traitortrump!!!

Grasswire2

(13,571 posts)
8. yes, he would SELL IT.
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 05:09 PM
Jun 2019

Or trade it somehow to benefit himself.

I hope to God there's a faction in the Intel Community that is still running counter intelligence on that whole damn family.

thesquanderer

(11,990 posts)
10. Another example why you can't believe what Seth Abramson writes.
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 05:52 PM
Jun 2019

He fictionally sensationalizes things.

Headline: "they believe he'll leak"
Actual story: "concern over...the possibility that he might...discuss it"

Believing he will is very different from worrying about the possibility that he might.

SA routinely over-states things, he's a poor journalist, and I don't trust anything he says that isn't clearly sourced.

triron

(22,008 posts)
13. No. It's the damn NYTimes that understates the danger of Trump.
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 06:24 PM
Jun 2019

Seth knows what's going on. Either you don't know or refuse to acknowledge.
How many books have you written on Trump-Russia-Saudi Arabia-Israel, etc. collusion?
Have you read any of his?

thesquanderer

(11,990 posts)
20. He is quoting an article as evidence, and the quote does not support the assertion.
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 07:02 PM
Jun 2019

I've seen him do that kind of thing before. He is loose with facts and therefore unreliable as a journalist.

I forget the phrase he uses to describe himself, he used it in an interview (Colbert, maybe?), but basically (and this is NOT a knock) he has no special sources and does no investigative reporting... rather he culls through all the info that is public and puts the pieces together to assemble a cohesive narrative in ways he feels others may be missing. Paraphrasing, that's his own explanation of what he does, and it is a perfectly valid and potentially valuable way to assemble articles and books. But when you check those public sources he is relying on and see that they don't quite say exactly what he said they did, well, one loses faith in his work.

reACTIONary

(5,770 posts)
23. Definitely NOT a conspiracy theorist....
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 07:13 PM
Jun 2019

.....he's just recycling information you could find on any news site and adding sinister what-if hypotheticals.

Oh, wait... That IS a conspiracy theorist!


Writers at The New Republic, The Atlantic, and Deadspin have described Abramson as a conspiracy theorist, while Ben Mathis-Lilley of Slate argues that Abramson is "not making things up, per se; he's just recycling information you could find on any news site and adding sinister what-if hypotheticals



According to a review in the Herald, "Amassed theories and suggestive juxtapositions notwithstanding, we end up with something closer to the Scottish 'not proven' verdict with its unique mix of moral conviction of guilt and inability to conclusively prove the case."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Abramson

reACTIONary

(5,770 posts)
21. Defiantly "in the know", and the word on the street is...
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 07:07 PM
Jun 2019

....he isn't making things up.... Per se.

Writers at The New Republic, The Atlantic, and Deadspin have described Abramson as a conspiracy theorist, while Ben Mathis-Lilley of Slate argues that Abramson is "not making things up, per se; he's just recycling information you could find on any news site and adding sinister what-if hypotheticals



According to a review in the Herald, "Amassed theories and suggestive juxtapositions notwithstanding, we end up with something closer to the Scottish 'not proven' verdict with its unique mix of moral conviction of guilt and inability to conclusively prove the case."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Abramson

TalenaGor

(1,104 posts)
11. can we please give only him some false Intel so we can see who turns up with that information?
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 05:59 PM
Jun 2019

I mean we should be able to bust this guy with any stupid plot from any James Bond movie at this point....

tymorial

(3,433 posts)
12. Because it's important information to the American people
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 06:19 PM
Jun 2019

And they are well aware that Trump's reading comprehension isn't developed enough to read that far let alone capture his attention

panfluteman

(2,065 posts)
15. With This Article, the Cat Is Out of the Bag
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 06:28 PM
Jun 2019

And the Russians and other adversarial nations have some idea of what's going on with US election cybersecurity.

procon

(15,805 posts)
16. Shame on the Pentagon!
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 06:31 PM
Jun 2019

After a more thoughtful assimilation of this revealing information, this is an unconscionable dereliction of duty. To a man, those who knew and participated in enabling this risk to our country should resign in disgrace and be court marshalled.

The Pentagon had first hand information that the current president of the United States is unfit for office and they did nothing. They disavowed their oathes of office and let a madman loose on the world. Not one of them came forward to inform the public that Trump poses a grave risk to our country. No deputation was sent to Congress to brief the leaders on the imminent threat to national security from the Oval Office.

They stand silent and let Trump think they love him and endorse his actions because he is allowed to do whatever he wants without checks or even a question about his fitness to serve.

Rhiannon12866

(205,664 posts)
17. We've also heard that the British are reluctant to share intelligence for the same reason
Sat Jun 15, 2019, 06:42 PM
Jun 2019

Trump has no filter, no one knows what he'll blurt out...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NYTimes: Pentagon keeping...