Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

When Hatred Clouds Judgment

 

Washington DC is currently wrapped in the grips of yet another Trump misstep. This time President Donald Trump is said to have divulged classified information during a visit paid to the White House by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov. The information is said to be from a source with inside knowledge of ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) plans to use laptops as bombs, and the alleged divulging of information is brought to you by the Washington Post. But the piece itself is full of contradiction and the BBC seems to dispel any claims in the piece that Trump gave up any kind of a ghost.

First, the Washington Post opens the piece by stating President Trump disclosed information that “jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State” (Emphasis added.) The Washington Post claims that this source had intimate knowledge of an ISIL plot to use laptops as bombs. “Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.” But keep in mind, Trump is alleged to have divulged “a critical source” not “details of a … terrorist threat.”

However, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster denied that Trump divulged any such information. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.” McMaster is refuting the claims made in the opening paragraph of the Washington Post article that explicitly claims Trump discussed information that “jeopardized a critical source of intelligence.” In the world of intelligence, sources and methods refers to how intelligence is collected. This could mean that that the intelligence was collected via HUMINT or SIGINT—or any other “INT” that collects information—and it also refers to how the different INTs collected the information—personal meeting, dead drop, satellite coverage, etc.

Back to the Washington Post piece. Further in the story, the Post denies that Trump was accused of divulging “sources and methods” by sleight of hand. First, they attribute denials to White House officials, and then they claim that the White House officials refuted the wrong claim. “In their statements, White House officials emphasized that Trump had not discussed specific intelligence sources and methods, rather than addressing whether he had disclosed information drawn from sensitive sources.” You see what the Washington Post did there? Let’s recap.

First, the Washington Post leads with Trump “jeopardizing a critical source of intelligence.” Then, when that claim is denied by the White House, the Washington Post says that the denials are in reference to something not alleged.

This line of thinking was picked up on by your typical Never Trump “Conservative” outlets. Jim Geraghty snarkily puts the timeline together while making fun of anyone who might look at this story with a skeptical eye. He begins with downplaying any claims that this story is “fake news” by saying that it is too elaborate, involving cooperation from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Reuters, CNN, and Buzzfeed. Never mind the fact that every one of these publications were anti-Trump before the election and that Buzzfeed propagated a fake story involving a fabricated intelligence dossier late last year. Let’s take a look at some facts that might shed some light on what actually happened.

Going back to what was divulged—the terrorist laptop scheme—this information has been public since at least early March. On March 21, the New York Times ran a story titled “Devices Banned on Flights From 10 Countries Over ISIS Fears.” In this story, the Times leads with this sentence, “Intelligence showing that the Islamic State is developing a bomb hidden in portable electronics spurred the United States and Britain…to bar passengers from airports in a total of 10 Muslim-majority countries from carrying laptop computers…aboard direct inbound flights, two senior American counterterrorism officials said.” Now take a good look at that sentence. What stands out? First, the information is coming from intelligence involving ISIL. Second, the information is attributed to “senior American counterterrorism officials.” So who is divulging intelligence? Again this is March 21.

Now let’s tie this all together. The Washington Post says that Trump told the Russians about a source. The White House denies that the source was discussed, and the Washington Post says Trump was not accused of discussing a source, rather he is accused of discussing information. Well what information is that? The Washington Post says that it is information related to ISIL plots to use laptops in terrorist attacks. Okay, but that information has already been made public by “senior American counterterrorism officials” through the New York Times. If this is not another “fake news” piece against Trump, then I do not know how else you would characterize it.

One thing is certain, those trying to make a bigger story out of this than there is are blinded by hate. They are so full of hatred for the fact that Donald J. Trump is President that there is an automatic inclination to agree with any outrageous accusation made against him by the Leftist media.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 43 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Member

    “blinded by hate” Says it all. What is news anymore?

    • #1
    • May 16, 2017 at 11:22 am
    • 15 likes
  2. Reagan

    Hate. Hysteria. Bald-faced lying.

    All makes sense when you accept Michael Savages take that:

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    • #2
    • May 16, 2017 at 11:38 am
    • 12 likes
  3. Member
    Robert McReynolds Post author

    Trink (View Comment):
    Hate. Hysteria. Bald-faced lying.

    All makes sense when you accept Michael Savages take that:

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Or you could just read the Leftist media’s own reports back to them like I did.

    • #3
    • May 16, 2017 at 11:44 am
    • 17 likes
  4. Member

    What we’re witnessing is as perfect an example of confirmation bias as I’ve seen.

    Thanks for doing yeoman’s work on this Robert. Nice to have all the info in once place as opposed to scattered across dozens of comments.

    • #4
    • May 16, 2017 at 11:47 am
    • 25 likes
  5. Member

    Is the truth or falseness of these scandals of the day at all relevant to news outlets I wonder?

    People seem to click, comment or watch regardless.

    MSNBC scored its highest-rated quarter in the network’s 20-plus-year history at the beginning of 2017, according to Nielsen Research, while CNN registered its most-watched first quarter since 2003.

    The press is being rewarded mightily for these tales regardless of whether they be fact or fiction.

    • #5
    • May 16, 2017 at 11:52 am
    • 9 likes
  6. Member

    Looks like Trump had Israek’s permission to share anyway, or at least correctly surmised they wouldn’t mind. I just heard they were the unnamed ‘ally”.

    Great post! But I’m scared–if even here on Ricochet we saw so much hatred…are we still ok in US at large?

    But ,of course, it was this way in the campaign, too, and oh, yeah: we don!!

    • #6
    • May 16, 2017 at 12:10 pm
    • 12 likes
  7. Member

    …Won!

    • #7
    • May 16, 2017 at 12:13 pm
    • 5 likes
  8. Member

    Thanks, Robert.

    • #8
    • May 16, 2017 at 2:22 pm
    • 7 likes
  9. Member

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    Looks like Trump had Israek’s permission to share anyway, or at least correctly surmised they wouldn’t mind. I just heard they were the unnamed ‘ally”.

    Great post! But I’m scared–if even here on Ricochet we saw so much hatred…are we still ok in US at large?

    But ,of course, it was this way in the campaign, too, and oh, yeah: we don!!

    After reading Susan’s post, I am wondering the same thing. The reasons I read Ricochet are becoming vanishingly small.

    Thanks, Robert, for this post….one of the people I learn something from and as a bonus enjoy reading, too.

    • #9
    • May 16, 2017 at 2:53 pm
    • 23 likes
  10. Member

    KatRose (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    Looks like Trump had Israek’s permission to share anyway, or at least correctly surmised they wouldn’t mind. I just heard they were the unnamed ‘ally”.

    Great post! But I’m scared–if even here on Ricochet we saw so much hatred…are we still ok in US at large?

    But ,of course, it was this way in the campaign, too, and oh, yeah: we won!!

    After reading Susan’s post, I am wondering the same thing. The reasons I read Ricochet are becoming vanishingly small.

    Thanks, Robert, for this post….one of the people I learn something from and as a bonus enjoy reading, too.

    I had to unfollow that post due to my blood pressure haha. Take a gander at who gave it “Likes.” No further comment necessary.

    • #10
    • May 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
    • 7 likes
  11. Member

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    …Won!

    You can edit it haha

    • #11
    • May 16, 2017 at 2:56 pm
    • 2 likes
  12. Member

    I have a minor quibble. Sometimes divulging the information is divulging the source.

    • #12
    • May 16, 2017 at 2:57 pm
    • 2 likes
  13. Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    …Won!

    You can edit it haha

    Whenever I try, it ends up printing twice.

    RA, I didn’t look at who liked… Till now. It was mos’ly “us” wasn’t it? is that what you mean?

    • #13
    • May 16, 2017 at 3:19 pm
    • 2 likes
  14. Member

    “One thing is certain, those trying to make a bigger story out of this than there is are blinded by hate. They are so full of hatred for the fact that Donald J. Trump is President that there is an automatic inclination to agree with any outrageous accusation made against him by the Leftist media.”

    The hatred is indeed a sight to behold. And it really is starting to ooze out of people I never thought I would see react that way.

    • #14
    • May 16, 2017 at 4:00 pm
    • 16 likes
  15. Member

    Rick Wilson was on a podcast I was listening to today. He’s so vitriolic I had to quit listening. He hates Trump. I guess he needed a job and Trump wouldn’t hire him.

    • #15
    • May 16, 2017 at 4:17 pm
    • 10 likes
  16. Thatcher

    There simply is no satiating leftist or NeverTrump hate.

    • #16
    • May 16, 2017 at 4:42 pm
    • 17 likes
  17. Thatcher

    I remember when these kinds of unsourced stories used to play right into the hands of the Leftist agitators. Now the fake stories play right into the hands of the NeverTrump agitators.

    I wish people could understand that WaPo and CNN no longer care about sourcing stories – even single sources. If it is anti-Trump, they run with it, and they really don’t care as long as their Democrat Party masters win in the mid-terms. It is truly sad to see them completely destroy their credibility for political wins.

    • #17
    • May 16, 2017 at 5:21 pm
    • 13 likes
  18. Member

    One thing about this confuses me: did Trump mention the ISIS-held city where the intel came from? For example, from NYT:

    General McMaster said the president did not expose the source because he was not told where it came from.

    but later (quoting or paraphrasing McMaster):

    The president did not give away secrets by discussing the city the information came from, as reported, because it would have been obvious. “It was nothing that you would not know from open source reporting in terms of a source of concern.

    Isn’t this contradictory? Did Trump know the city? Did he discuss the city? Or did he not even know where the source came from?

    • #18
    • May 16, 2017 at 5:49 pm
    • Like
  19. Inactive
    • #19
    • May 16, 2017 at 5:55 pm
    • Like
  20. Member

    Hypatia (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    …Won!

    You can edit it haha

    Whenever I try, it ends up printing twice.

    RA, I didn’t look at who liked… Till now. It was mos’ly “us” wasn’t it? is that what you mean?

    At the time, it was Jamie, VirusCop (a liberal), and a few others. Now it has twelve likes and will be on the main feed if it isn’t already. I mean come on.

    • #20
    • May 16, 2017 at 6:02 pm
    • 4 likes
  21. Member

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):
    I remember when these kinds of unsourced stories used to play right into the hands of the Leftist agitators. Now the fake stories play right into the hands of the NeverTrump agitators.

    I wish people could understand that WaPo and CNN no longer care about sourcing stories – even single sources. If it is anti-Trump, they run with it, and they really don’t care as long as their Democrat Party masters win in the mid-terms. It is truly sad to see them completely destroy their credibility for political wins.

    Business wins as well, that angle should not be ignored. In polling media credibility gets worse and worse, so to a general audience they are a failure but they are gaining a hard core of true believers which is increasing viewership and subscriptions from where they were.

    The New York Times added a record number of digital subscribers last quarter, exciting investors who pushed the stock to an 11 percent gain in morning trading.

    The Times added 308,000 digital subscribers in the first quarter — its best quarter since it began offering digital-only subscriptions in 2011.

    It’s the old Yellow Journalism model. These outlets may lose all serious credibility but this certainly isn’t putting them out of business.

    • #21
    • May 16, 2017 at 6:32 pm
    • 12 likes
  22. Member
    Robert McReynolds Post author

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):
    One thing about this confuses me: did Trump mention the ISIS-held city where the intel came from? For example, from NYT:

    General McMaster said the president did not expose the source because he was not told where it came from.

    but later (quoting or paraphrasing McMaster):

    The president did not give away secrets by discussing the city the information came from, as reported, because it would have been obvious. “It was nothing that you would not know from open source reporting in terms of a source of concern.

    Isn’t this contradictory? Did Trump know the city? Did he discuss the city? Or did he not even know where the source came from?

    Send me the link or links and I will take a look.

    • #22
    • May 16, 2017 at 6:59 pm
    • 4 likes
  23. Member

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):
    One thing about this confuses me: did Trump mention the ISIS-held city where the intel came from? For example, from NYT:

    General McMaster said the president did not expose the source because he was not told where it came from.

    but later (quoting or paraphrasing McMaster):

    The president did not give away secrets by discussing the city the information came from, as reported, because it would have been obvious. “It was nothing that you would not know from open source reporting in terms of a source of concern.

    Isn’t this contradictory? Did Trump know the city? Did he discuss the city? Or did he not even know where the source came from?

    Send me the link or links and I will take a look.

    NYT and NBC

    • #23
    • May 16, 2017 at 7:33 pm
    • 1 like
  24. Member
    Robert McReynolds Post author

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):
    One thing about this confuses me: did Trump mention the ISIS-held city where the intel came from? For example, from NYT:

    General McMaster said the president did not expose the source because he was not told where it came from.

    but later (quoting or paraphrasing McMaster):

    The president did not give away secrets by discussing the city the information came from, as reported, because it would have been obvious. “It was nothing that you would not know from open source reporting in terms of a source of concern.

    Isn’t this contradictory? Did Trump know the city? Did he discuss the city? Or did he not even know where the source came from?

    Send me the link or links and I will take a look.

    NYT and NBC

    Okay on the NYT piece there is more slight of hand in the writing. Two paragraphs before the quote by McMaster the piece attributed “intelligence officials” with being worried that the way in which Trump discussed the information was enough to give up the source and method. Well maybe but maybe not. All we have to go on is the unnamed “intelligence officials.” “To effectively” is not the same as he knew and divulged. And that’s the Times’ language. This isn’t someone trying to explain away anything Trump did.

    The NBC piece pretty says the same thing.

    • #24
    • May 16, 2017 at 7:46 pm
    • 7 likes
  25. Thatcher

    Trump decides what is classified. End of story. Full stop.

    • #25
    • May 16, 2017 at 8:17 pm
    • 8 likes
  26. Member

    A giant nothingburger of a story but a few pickles, lettuce, a tomato all covered with hysterical sauce and it’s what’s on the menu for the drooling plebes. Even many educated drooling plebes it seems are wolfing down the nothingburger and swallowing amid wiping their tears.

    • #26
    • May 17, 2017 at 7:36 am
    • 12 likes
  27. Member

    Where are all the Trump haters on this post? We haven’t even turned the page on the comments yet??

    <crickets>

    • #27
    • May 17, 2017 at 8:05 am
    • 5 likes
  28. Member

    Thank you, @robertmcreynolds, for this post. I had almost given up on Ricochet after all the express animus and handwringing I was reading on other posts. November 9, 2016 was America’s “Dunkirk”. We thought we were lost but a miracle happened. Americans from villages and towns came out and did not give in to the megaplex Progressive Paradises of the coasts. But this is not the end, nor the beginning of the end, but only the end of the beginning. I do not adore Trump and I am not blind to his defects. But he is President and he needs to be given an opportunity to deliver on his promises. It is not time for his supporters to buckle in the face of Alinskyite pressure from the media, academia, the Democrat operatives (including the MSM), or wobblies in the Republican party.

    • #28
    • May 17, 2017 at 9:16 am
    • 11 likes
  29. Member

    Thank you Robert for a clear analysis of this story. It was very helpful. I hope that many read it and realize the MSM and many within our government on both sides are both contributors and pawns of the hate you describe. If we don’t get ahold of this as a country, no foreign power will do us in – we’ll do it ourselves.

    • #29
    • May 17, 2017 at 9:25 am
    • 4 likes
  30. Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    …Won!

    You can edit it haha

    Whenever I try, it ends up printing twice.

    RA, I didn’t look at who liked… Till now. It was mos’ly “us” wasn’t it? is that what you mean?

    At the time, it was Jamie, VirusCop (a liberal), and a few others. Now it has TWELVE LIKES and will be on the main feed if it isn’t already. I mean come on.

    And there it is on the main feed. Yet another anti-Trump screed. Shame on the Likers who put it there. I’m liking this place less and less by the day. The bright spot is that this great post is also there. Thanks, Robert.

    • #30
    • May 17, 2017 at 10:29 am
    • 11 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2