{"id":72701,"date":"2017-05-16T11:06:27","date_gmt":"2017-05-16T15:06:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=72701"},"modified":"2017-05-16T11:08:30","modified_gmt":"2017-05-16T15:08:30","slug":"some-bloggers-fail-to-see-the-deeper-plot-afoot-by-deep-state","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=72701","title":{"rendered":"Some bloggers fail to see the deeper plot afoot by Deep State<\/i>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Classified Bombshell Hyperventilation<\/h1>\n

Mish Talk<\/p>\n

Some people I would normally expect not to lose their minds following anti-Trump hype did lose their minds. Of course, the standard nutcases one might expect would lose their minds did so as well.<\/p>\n

The result is has been a steady stream of nonsense all day regarding Trump\u2019s alleged disclosure of highly classified information to Russia.<\/p>\n

It took a collaboration of six (Jack Goldsmith, Susan Hennessey, Quinta Jurecic, Matthew Kahn, Benjamin Wittes, Elishe Julian) to come up with Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on the Washington Post\u2019s Game-Changing Story<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The article starts out \u2026<\/p>\n

The Washington Post this afternoon published a stunning story<\/a> reporting that President Trump disclosed highly-classified information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during their visit to the Oval Office last week.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

After firing off rounds of innuendo from BuzzFeed, the New York Time, the Washington Post, and Reuters, the authors admit \u201cthe President did not \u2018leak\u2019 classified information in violation of law. He is allowed to do what he did<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a very long-winded synopsis, the article discusses six points.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. First, this is not a question of \u201cleaking classified information\u201d or breaking a criminal law.<\/li>\n
  2. Second, this is not a garden variety breach, and outrage over it is not partisan hypocrisy about protecting classified information.<\/li>\n
  3. Third, it is important to understand the nature of sources and methods information in order to fully understand the gravity of the breach.<\/li>\n
  4. Fourth, it really matters why Trump disclosed this information to Russian visitors.<\/li>\n
  5. Fifth, this may well be a violation of the President\u2019s oath of office.<\/li>\n
  6. Sixth, it matters hugely, at least from an atmospheric point of view, that the people in the room were Russian and one of them was Sergey Kislyak of all people.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Conjecture and Hype<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Point number 1 is correct. So is point number 4. \u00a0The rest is conjecture and hype.<\/p>\n

    In regards to point number four, Trump may very well have decided it was in the US\u2019s best interest to cooperate with Russia. If so, I would agree wholeheartedly.<\/p>\n

    In points 2-6 the authors spew out hype about what Top Secret means and whether the president violated\u00a0his oath of office.<\/p>\n

    Top Secret<\/strong><\/p>\n

    I like this tidbit: \u201cIn general, a Top Secret classification is applied to information the unauthorized disclosure of which could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

    Does anyone believe that? I don\u2019t. Stuff is kept\u00a0top secret for years to cover up lies, false flag events, support for corrupt\u00a0regimes, illegal operations, and in general \u201ccover my ass\u201d kind of stuff that would be embarrassing but would constitute\u00a0no real threat\u00a0to national security.<\/p>\n

    Double Standard<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The New York Times joins the BS parade with its take\u00a0Trump Revealed Highly Classified Intelligence to Russia, in Break With Ally, Officials Say<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    The revelation also opens Mr. Trump to criticism of a double standard. The president made Hillary Clinton\u2019s mishandling of classified information through her private email server central to his campaign, leading chants of \u201clock her up\u201d at rallies. But there was never any indication that Mrs. Clinton exposed sensitive information from an ally or gave it to an adversary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    There is no \u201cdouble standard\u201d. The president gets to decide what is classified and what isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

    Does the NY Times presume everyone gets to decide for themselves?<\/p>\n

    What Did Trump Disclose?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The answer is \u201cinformation about an Islamic State plot\u201d of some sort.<\/p>\n

    Good grief. After all the above hyperventilation, I have a simple question: Why shouldn\u2019t we disclose to Russia pertinent facts regarding Islamic state plots?<\/p>\n

    Do we want to keep this information to ourselves as happened on numerous occasions in Europe? As happened more recently with the NSA developing and using loopholes in Microsoft code?<\/p>\n

    If the US has information on an alleged plot by ISIS we absolutely should disclose that fact to other governments unless we believe they may be involved or compromised.<\/p>\n

    Off the Deep End<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Nancy Pelosi asks \u2018What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n

    In another\u00a0clickbait article\u00a0Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz hypes\u00a0\u2018This is the most serious charge ever made against a sitting president\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n

    When you write bullsheet like that, expect to be mocked, not taken serious, at least by any rational person.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Let the impeachment proceedings begin.<\/p>\n

    — Caroline Baum (@cabaum1) May 15, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n