REPORT: Leakers Found Inside White House, Trump Will Be Firing

[Revmitchell]

Trey Yingst, chief White House correspondent for the One America News Network, is reporting Monday that three sources of the leaks liberally flowing from President Donald Trump’s White House have been found.

Follow
Trey Yingst

✔@TreyYingst
SCOOP: Three White House staffers have been identified for leaking classified info. POTUS will fire 'multiple people' when he returns to DC.

5:18 PM - 22 May 2017

• https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=866765139697074176
  
• 
  11,06511,065 Retweets
  
• 
  15,36215,362 likes

Twitter Ads info & Privacy




According to Yingst, three staffers have been identified and referred to the Office of Government Ethics for their role in leaking information from within the White House. Leaks to the mainstream press have constantly plagued the Trump administration in its early days, with opportunely time leaks undermining key administration efforts.

Yingst claims his source informed him President Trump will fire “multiple people” on his return to Washington from his landmark foreign tour through the Middle East. It was implied criminal prosecution may also be on the table for those responsible.

SCOOP INFO: I'm told the names of the leakers are being run by the Office of Government Ethics, which is why they aren't immediately fired

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) May 22, 2017



Disclosing classified information without authorization is a crime.


REPORT: Leakers Found Inside White House, Trump Will Be Firing - Breitbart

 

[Happy]

Not a revelation ~ "leakers"....ie those privy to secret and private information can not always be trusted.

 

[InTheLight]

Wait a minute. When hackers broke into the DNC servers and leaked info, that was called "transparency". When Trump has info leaked it's not transparency?

(Good for Trump on finding these people.)

 

[Reynolds]

Wait a minute. When hackers broke into the DNC servers and leaked info, that was called "transparency". When Trump has info leaked it's not transparency?

(Good for Trump on finding these people.)

It just proves the Democrats were too dumb to stop it. Looks like Trump must have figured it out. We will see in a few days. I put little credibility in anonymous sources.

 

[InTheLight]

It just proves the Democrats were too dumb to stop it. Looks like Trump must have figured it out. We will see in a few days. I put little credibility in anonymous sources.

Sometimes I wonder if some of these outrageous news stories were obvious ploys by the Trump team to flush out the leakers.

 

[Happy]

Wait a minute. When hackers broke into the DNC servers and leaked info, that was called "transparency". When Trump has info leaked it's not transparency?

No.

Transparency is the one "authorized" to reveal information, does so reveal information.

Hacking is called hacking, when a person "not authorized" to pry into private information, does so, and reveals the information; and such revealing is called "leaking".

Tapping is called tapping, when a "government authorizes themselves" to pry into private information, does so, and attempts to keep the information among themselves (ie the government).

Leaking information is also called leaking, WHEN government officials are privy to private information, and LACK "integrity" to keep their big fat yap shut.

Tapping an individuals "private information", BY the government, who "under the color of law" gives themselves such "authority", WHILE, according to the law, prohibit private citizens from the SAME "authority".... have essentially made themselves a modern day Pharisee; holding private citizens to a lawful law, while excepting themselves from the same standard, under "color of law.

Wikileaks has no obligation under US Federal Law to find, keep, reveal or keep secret any of their investigative measures.

 

[Happy]

Sometimes I wonder if some of these outrageous news stories were obvious ploys by the Trump team to flush out the leakers.

A ploy would be Trump being behind the "outrageous news stories"!

So, no, they were not Trump "ploys".

However being aware of how Liberal news agencies operate, and simply observing their actions, can be an advantage to Trump.

 

[Crabtownboy]

So, who are the leakers? Any names?

 

[Use of Time]

So, who are the leakers? Any names?

You won't find any.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Yingst claims his source informed him President Trump will fire “multiple people” on his return to Washington from his landmark foreign tour through the Middle East. It was implied criminal prosecution may also be on the table for those responsible.

Trump can't fire them from the Middle East? Why play the "wait until the President gets home" game if they really have evidence? Sounds like a bluff to me, especially since Trump would not fire Comey face-to-face.

But I hope it's true so that the leakers can come forward and tell their stories under oath and get things moving.

Disclosing classified information without authorization is a crime.

Yep. And whenever there are extenuating circumstances where someone leaks as a whistleblower because the normal channels to expose illegal actions have been corrupted (for instance, the Flynn situation), charges can be set aside.

 

[InTheLight]

No.

Transparency is the one "authorized" to reveal information, does so reveal information.

Hacking is called hacking, when a person "not authorized" to pry into private information, does so, and reveals the information; and such revealing is called "leaking".

Trump OK with Special Counsel ... BUT. will the left be OK with the findings?

 

[Happy]

Trump OK with Special Counsel ... BUT. will the left be OK with the findings?

Guess you will have to wait and see.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You won't find any.

LOL. We have an actual named source saying three individuals have been referred to the justice department. This ain't no [] Libbie Russian witch hunt.

 

[InTheLight]

Guess you will have to wait and see.

I'll have to wait and see if a Trumpie on BB thought Hillary's leaked emails was 'transparency'?

Someone didn't read the post at my link. Tut-tut.

 

[Happy]

I'll have to wait and see if a Trumpie on BB thought Hillary's leaked emails was 'transparency'?

Someone didn't read the post at my link. Tut-tut.

So?

Your post said....
Trump OK with Special Counsel ... BUT. will the left be OK with the findings? <---- question mark!
Recognized it right off! lol
https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...-with-the-findings.104833/page-5#post-2317595
I said, I guess you will have to wait and see.

 

[Happy]

I'll have to wait and see if a Trumpie on BB thought Hillary's leaked emails was 'transparency'?

Seriously, I have to ESPLAINITTOYA?

I was not commenting on the ARTICLE. I was commenting on the TITLE of the ARTICLE you posted, which has a QUESTION MARK.....

I do not presume you are clairvoyant.....thus I simply commented, guess you will have to wait and see.

 

[InTheLight]

Seriously, I have to ESPLAINITTOYA?

I was not commenting on the ARTICLE. I was commenting on the TITLE of the ARTICLE you posted, which has a QUESTION MARK.....

I do not presume you are clairvoyant.....thus I simply commented, guess you will have to wait and see.

I didn't put the title on the "article". It was not an article. It was a link to a post here on BB. The board's software created the link title. I had nothing to do with it. Do keep up.

 

[Reynolds]

So, who are the leakers? Any names?

The names of the leakers have not been leaked out yet.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The names of the leaders have not been leaked out yet.

ROFL

 

[Happy]

I didn't put the title on the "article". It was not an article. It was a link to a post here on BB. The board's software created the link title. I had nothing to do with it. Do keep up.

It was YOUR post. No, I do not have to "keep up" and investigate the source of what you are posting.