No, McMaster said no sources, methods, or military operations were discussed. The allegation is that Trump let slip the location where we got intel on ISIS and their plans to weaponize laptops. McMaster's statement is carefully worded and did not specifically deny the allegation.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Take note of the points given by H.R. McMaster, (national security "adviser"), who was AT the meeting AND participated IN the meeting.
1) A TOPIC discussed - (concerns ABOUT terrorism) .... shocking! (not)
2) A TOPIC discussed - a REVIEW of "common threats" from terrorist organization "including" threats to aviation .... shocking secret revelations, after 911! (not)
3) A TOPIC "NOT" discussed - "INTELLIGENCE sources or methods".
4) A TOPIC "NOT" discussed - "MILITARY operations NOT disclosed to the public".
5) A TOPIC "NOT" discussed - "subsequent newspaper articles".
6) A TOPIC mentioned by the cited article - "terror threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft" - shocking news laptops can be rigged to cause harm - (not news, not secret)
6) A TOPIC mentioned by the cited article - "Most alarmingly,
officials said,
Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat." (now we get to the nitty gritty - THE CITY - (not laptop capabilities as you zoned in on to cite your view).
7) THE CITY - in the Islamic State's territory - (What SECRET Islamic State? What SECRET CITY? Who are the UNNAMED "officials" that MADE THESE CLAIMS? And were these UNNAMED "officials" AT the meeting? (oops, it doesn't say.)
8) THE UNNAMED OFFICIALS ( are OFFICIALS OF WHAT? ) Office food services? Office janitorial services? Offering beverages to Trumps guests? Cleaning up after Trumps guests? Because ACTUAL OFFICIALS, have a sworn duty to keep their big fat mouths shut IF THEY HEAR ANYTHING that is GOVERNMENT SECRETS.
9) So the Post's article goes on to say (about the "supposed" "officials" speaking)....oh, oh, the CITY, the CITY where a plot is being hatched...
"
The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities."
10) Seriously? The "supposed" "officials", supposedly GAVE Newspaper "reporters", SENSITIVE SECRET INTEL, and then warned them to "not tell anyone".... LOL
11) And then we find reported -
“Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive, and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said
a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.
12) Wait a minute - How did a FORMER senior US "official" get in on the knowledge (when it was already claimed by the big mouth to the reporters, to not be discussed) of WHAT was discussed in Trump's meeting? Is he the UNNAMMED "official" who was at the meeting? An "unofficial" former "official" ? He and Others? Who is He, and Who are the others discussing SECRET information, while blabbing the info and telling others not to discuss it. LOL
13) Newspaper article "ie specifically Washington Post appears AFTER Trumps meeting.
14) A subsequent statement from McMaster in regard to the Washington Post article.
15) McMaster's statement saying the Washington Post story is "FALSE".
White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about terrorism.
“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”
McMaster reiterated his statement in a subsequent appearance at the White House on Monday and described the Washington Post story as “false,” but did not take any questions.
The allegation is that Trump let slip the location where we got intel on ISIS and their plans to weaponize laptops. McMaster's statement is carefully worded and did not specifically deny the allegation.
Weaponry concerns has to do with MILITARY and INTELLIGENCE gathering ... ie CIA
WHOM the US receives intel FROM has to do with INTELLIGENCE gathering from "allies/partners" etc.
McMaster's subsequently stated the allegations in the article of the Washington Post was FALSE.
Now; continue...
16) “
Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said. (huh....COULD IDENTIFY.....LOL....
17) "A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”
Do you not read and separate the FACTS from SPECULATION?
The whole story is loaded with accusations from "UNNAMMED" sources.
The "story" claims NEWSPAPER "reporters" were GIVEN "sensitive secret information".
The "story" claims Trump gave "sensitive secret information" TO the Russians.
The "story" claims Trump DID NOT GIVE the identity of our sources or techniques (ie the SENSITIVE INFORMATION)....but rather "gave them clues", that the Russians "could figure it out".
LOL - shocking revelation! The Russians and the US meet to discuss terrorism. Certain FACTS are NOT revealed, but the Russians could make "guesses".
LOL - shocking revelation! The Islamic State, a big secret to the Russians, the US and the American People....which Islamic State and which City the US needs to be TOLD to keep their eye on.
LOL - shocking revelation - "anti-Trump government officials" claim Trump gives secret SENSITIVE information to Russia (but not really) .....while "anti-Trump government officials " DO GIVE "SENSITIVE secret information to NEWSPAPER reporters.
The STORY is a circle jerk, and you fall for the CLAIMS made, AS IF they were FACTUAL, without
further paying attention to their claims, out of their own mouths, were "speculative".
And righteousdude2 is correct - The whole lot of the FORMER staff needs to be relieved of their duty, as unworthy servants who JEOPARDIZE the security efforts of the US!
