DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump revealed classified info to Russians in White House Meeting!

Trump sharing highly classified information with Russia shows his extreme hubris

Hubris and rank amateurism are killing President Trump when it comes to his Russia problem. And that’s the most charitable explanation.

First, Trump made the very questionable decision to meet with top Russian officials a day after making the very questionable decision to fire the man leading the FBI's Russia investigation, James B. Comey. And now The Washington Post is reporting that, in that very same meeting, Trump shared highly classified information about the Islamic State with the Russians.

This is information that current and former U.S. officials say could jeopardize a valuable source of intelligence in the fight against ISIS and give an adversarial Russia a strategic advantage in Syria, where its goals are different from ours. If there is something worse Trump could have done in that meeting, I'm not sure what it would be.

The details of what exactly Trump discussed with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on Wednesday are sketchy, and The Washington Post is withholding some of them for national security reasons. But according to the officials, Trump relayed information from an intelligence-sharing arrangement that is so sensitive that some details aren't even shared with U.S. allies or broadly within the U.S. government. Trump cited the specifics of an ISIS plot and, most problematically, named the city in the Islamic State's territory where the U.S.' partner detected the threat.

Needless to say, sharing information with the Russian government that isn’t even being shared with allies is a big blunder. Trump has broad authority to declassify information, so he was probably within his rights to talk about it. But this is something that can credibly be described as Trump doing damage to the fight against the Islamic State with his loose lips.

The officials The Post spoke with are clearly exasperated. Here’s a sampling of their reactions:

“Trump seems to be very reckless, and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security.” — a former senior U.S. official close to current administration officials
“Russia could identify our sources or techniques.” — a senior U.S. official
“I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.” — a former intelligence official who worked on Russia-related issues
“He seems to get in the room or on the phone and just goes with it — and that has big downsides. Does he understand what’s classified and what’s not? That’s what worries me.” — a former U.S. official
Given how unusual a politician Trump is and how shocked most of us were that he was elected president, we’re always in a constant search for alternate explanations for the off-kilter things he does. Maybe the tweets work! Maybe his offensive comments were calculated! Maybe he's just trying to distract us! Maybe he’s really a secret political genius, despite his 36 percent approval rating!

But the Comey firing last week, its badly bungled aftermath and now Trump’s disclosure of highly classified information to Russia in the Oval Office paint a pretty clear picture. This is a president who shoots from the hip. Sometimes he shoots from the hip and hits the target, but it's also causing him major, major problems now that he’s President Trump and not Candidate Trump. It's one thing to say something offensive during the New Hampshire primary; it's quite another to jeopardize tools for fighting terrorism because you speak before you think.

Conspiracy theorists who are fond of the claims in that dossier will believe that this is Trump deliberately feeding valuable information to his buddies in Russia as payback for their help in the 2016 election. But sharing it out in the open during a meeting with other national security officials in the room would seem to be a very curious move. As The Post report notes, Trump's flub was quickly recognized and the damage control began almost immediately.

On a much more basic level, this appears to be Trump being careless and completely unaware of how the things he’s saying may create problems — both perception problems for himself, and real-world problems for the fight against terrorism. He lets his hubris get the better of him and starts bragging about the power and information at his fingertips — just like he did at Mar-a-Lago back in February. “I get great intel,” Trump reportedly told the Russians on Wednesday. “I have people brief me on great intel every day.”

Trump badly miscalculated the public reaction to his firing of Comey and bungled the explanations; then he went ahead with the Russia meeting anyway; then he did something in that Russia meeting that is only going to feed the narratives that he's (a) in the tank for Moscow and/or (b) totally in over his head as president in ways that are dangerous.

It's a series of tightly packed-together errors that can only be accomplished with an extraordinary amount of ego and a lack of a better angel.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...lem-much-worse/

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

[Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment in Moscow]

“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

The revelation comes as the president faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as attempted obstruction of justice.

One day after dismissing Comey, Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a key figure in earlier Russia controversies — into the Oval Office. It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.

“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.”

The CIA declined to comment, and the NSA did not respond to requests for comment.

But officials expressed concern about Trump’s handling of sensitive information as well as his grasp of the potential consequences. Exposure of an intelligence stream that has provided critical insight into the Islamic State, they said, could hinder the United States’ and its allies’ ability to detect future threats.

“It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”

In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.

Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.

The Washington 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.

“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.

The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow would be keenly interested in identifying that source and perhaps disrupting it.

[Declassified report says Putin ‘ordered’ effort to undermine faith in U.S. election and help Trump]

Russia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support President Bashar al-Assad.

“Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said.

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.”

At a more fundamental level, the information wasn’t the United States’ to provide to others. Under the rules of espionage, governments — and even individual agencies — are given significant control over whether and how the information they gather is disseminated, even after it has been shared. Violating that practice undercuts trust considered essential to sharing secrets.

The officials declined to identify the ally but said it has previously voiced frustration with Washington’s inability to safeguard sensitive information related to Iraq and Syria.

“If that partner learned we’d given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first, that is a blow to that relationship,” the U.S. official said.

Trump also described measures that the United States has taken or is contemplating to counter the threat, including military operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as other steps to tighten security, officials said.

The officials would not discuss details of those measures, but the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed that it is considering banning laptops and other large electronic devices from carry-on bags on flights between Europe and the United States. The United States and Britain imposed a similar ban in March affecting travelers passing through airports in 10 Muslim-majority countries.

Trump cast the countermeasures in wistful terms. “Can you believe the world we live in today?” he said, according to one official. “Isn’t it crazy?”

Lavrov and Kislyak were also accompanied by aides.

A Russian photographer took photos of part of the session that were released by the Russian state-owned Tass news agency. No U.S. news organization was allowed to attend any part of the meeting.

[Presence of Russian photographer in Oval Office raises alarms]

Senior White House officials appeared to recognize quickly that Trump had overstepped and moved to contain the potential fallout.

Thomas P. Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, placed calls to the directors of the CIA and the NSA, the services most directly involved in the intelligence-sharing arrangement with the partner.

One of Bossert’s subordinates also called for the problematic portion of Trump’s discussion to be stricken from internal memos and for the full transcript to be limited to a small circle of recipients, efforts to prevent sensitive details from being disseminated further or leaked.

Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials, most notably in his contentious introductory conversation with the Australian prime minister earlier this year. He has also faced criticism for seemingly lax attention to security at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners.

U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders, but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points — and often ignores those.

“He seems to get in the room or on the phone and just goes with it, and that has big downsides,” the second former official said. “Does he understand what’s classified and what’s not? That’s what worries me.”

Lavrov’s reaction to the Trump disclosures was muted, officials said, calling for the United States to work more closely with Moscow on fighting terrorism.

Kislyak has figured prominently in damaging stories about the Trump administration’s ties to Russia. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign just 24 days into the job over his contacts with Kislyak and his misleading statements about them. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from matters related to the FBI’s Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had met and spoke with Kislyak, despite denying any contact with Russian officials during his confirmation hearing.

“I’m sure Kislyak was able to fire off a good cable back to the Kremlin with all the details” he gleaned from Trump, said the former U.S. official who handled intelligence on Russia.

The White House readout of the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak made no mention of the discussion of a terrorist threat.

“Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria,” the summary said. The president also “raised Ukraine” and “emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia.”

Julie Tate and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...laborative_1_na

I will be waiting to hear 40 defend this. Trump is such a fool.

Administration denies this, of course... FAKE NEWS.

hmm..where's everyone at?

I don't know? Maybe because it is a long read about nothing?

what makes this "nothing"?

What makes it nothing? The simple fact that the headline says "Trump revealed classified info.....", yet none of the classified info is shown.

If he revealed it, and the "press" can comment on it, certainly they can tell us what was revealed, no?

Until they can reveal what they claim was classified, they ought to shut up. If they COULD reveal what trump said/told was classified, it would be all over the news.

So, so far, this is yet another bogus attack.

If and when you let me know what "classified" info Trump gave the Russians, let me know, and I may very well change my opinion.

Until then, let me end with this: I have heard Hillary Clinton pimps out her daughter, chelsea.

See how easy it is to attack with no substance?

Refute me. Show me that hillary hasn't.

I didn't read it. A few paragraphs in it seemed like the usual BS.



Here is the problem. I don't care what you think, and you don't care what I think, so there you have it. We only care about what we think.


Note, I spread equal balme.

It's the way things work. We have boiled it down to the point of it is "us" and "them" .

Only one way for this to work out. Us or them, one is going to win. History points to this over and over

sorry but that doesn't make any sense.

by your own logic, you must think the Russian allegation is "nothing" since Comey announced an investigation, but didn't reveal the classified information.

If i have classified information, and i tell someone, that doesn't mean i have to reveal to YOU what that classified information is.

also, IF this is about intelligence on the islamic state, it's very odd why he would share this with russians before our own allies.

but trump allowed a russian media photographer into the oval before our own american press, so.....

Nuff said?

Wow - no one knows what was discussed. Yet you darn sure get a biased report.

No one was allowed in the room except the Russians and a photographer, yet the washington post know what was discussed? Come on man. You're smarter than that.

If no one was allowed in other than the russky's, how did the washington post get the scoop?

it's not "nuff said". lmao

so are you going on the record and saying that when reporters get a scoop, it's automatically false?

man bro, you're going through a lot to defend the russians. kinda weird.

When you start caring about Hillary selling uranium to the Russians, I'll start pretending to care about this imaginary made up crap.

I'm not defending anyone.

The article said no on other then the russians were allowed in, yet the washington post claims they know what was discussed?

Fill me in on that one. No one was allowed in, but somehow the post knows what went on?

And I will say, I hope your back is okay, because you are twisting and turning any little thing you can into "Trump sucks". or "Trump is a liar", or, eh, I won't go there.

you and arch constantly whining about Hillary is laughable, so let's put this nonsense to bed once in for all:

Russian to Judgment
Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. See Example(s)





RATING
FALSE
ORIGIN
In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities.

May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an exposé of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart.

A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.

During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, Schweizer claims in Clinton Cash, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million. Among those who followed him in citing the transaction as an example of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City:

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Trump’s campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton “gave American uranium rights to the Russians”:


An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, “So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?”

clinton-uranium
The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
The timing of most of the donations does not match

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.

Foundation admits disclosure mistakes

One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:

It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.

Such awkward collisions between Bill’s fundraising activities and Hillary’s public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a possible future U.S. president, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more.

At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it’s crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it — however little that may be.

_______________

that's all there is to it.

so from here on out, anybody whining about this crap on the board is lying and spreading misinformation.

now, actually talk about the topic OCD posted, Eve, or kick rocks.

i don't have to twist anything. Trump does enough of that to the point you're defending his blatant lies all the time.

lol you're so brainwashed it's sad. Trump pulled a number on your gullible ass and all you can do is act like a guy with Stockholm syndrome.

it's to be expected from you, but it sucks that we got 60 million other people that clearly can get sold a bottle of snake oil.

60 million Arch's? man i might need to convert to a religion, cause that's a nightmare scenario.

Dude, wake up. I'm not defending Trump, per se. I'm defending him from b.s. claims about him.

The post even said "no one but the russians were allowed in", but it also goes on to tell us what the meeting was about.

So, which is it? No one else was allowed in? Or, the post was allowed in? How the heck does the post know what was discussed if they weren't allowed into the meeting?

And if they were allowed in, why did they say they weren't?

Talk facts.

So if i go into a meeting that you aren't allowed in, are you going on record and saying you'll have zero way of finding out what went down after the meeting happened?

Arch do you possess the ability to problem solve?

honestly i've met my threshold discussing anything with you today, cause all i'm hearing is:

It makes sense, but like I said, you don't want to hear what I am saying. At least I am still listening to you and not saying you that you don't make sense.


You make sense. I just don't think you know what you are talking about.

It's probably good you're done discussing this, because you don't have a clue what you are discussing. You come from a biased point of view.

Let me summarize for you: The washington post wasn't allowed in the meeting, yet the washington post tells us what went on in the meeting. ???

Uh, say what?

To Swish:

I was going to write a response, but I just dont care.

Whatever this thread is about is overshadowed by you and OCD squealing like spit pigs.

It just makes me roll my eyes and click out of the thread.

So if you wonder why nobody wants to have a convo with you anymore, thats why. The pig squealing sound.

thats fine you can think whatever you want. i think you and Arch are clueless.

see? everybody is happy.

but all you do is squeal about others squealing. you're literally part of the problem just like everyone else.

the holier than thou nonsense around here is ridiculous

Not really, I dont make threads squealing about Trump.

Now go back to wondering why nobody posts in your threads anymore. Then record your squeally self.

Trust me bud, I'm not clueless. I'm open to facts. I'm not open to b.s. If the crap hits the fan for trump, I'll be all over it.

If b.s. is all people have to go on, I'll be all over that.

what are you talking about? why would i care? and this isn't my thread.

LOL

A word about Snopes:


Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.
Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!" But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.
102210_1614_somuchforsn1
David and Barbara Mikkelson pictured above; are from San Fernando Valley of California. They started their website 'Snopes' about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But over the past couple of years people started asking questions when 'Snopes' was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.
In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inacuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.
But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the "final factual word" on the issue.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.
So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.
Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do.


http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html

So, snopes got snoped?

accuracyinpolitics.blogspot?

the hell is that?

seriously, give it up already

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...ary-clinton-ga/

At a campaign rally in Waukesha, Wis., Donald Trump made a number of attacks on Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, including one involving Russia.

Clinton "gave up 20 percent of America's uranium supply to Russia -- to Russia," Trump said Sept. 28, 2016, two days after their first debate. "You know what people do with uranium, don’t you? It’s called nuclear. Twenty percent. They could have never done it without her."

That's a more narrow, and less inflammatory, version of an attack that Trump made previously.

But it still has problems.

The uranium deal

Before we get too far ahead of ourselves -- the United States gave a fifth of its uranium to Russia? What?

Uranium is used to power commercial nuclear reactors that produce electricity and to produce isotopes used for medical, industrial and defense purposes around the world.

As for the transaction Trump alluded to, it involved the Russian nuclear agency and Uranium One, a Toronto-based company.

As PolitiFact National has reported, Russia’s nuclear energy agency, which also builds nuclear weapons, bought a controlling stake in Uranium One. The company has mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity.

So, to be clear, the 20 percent is capacity, not uranium that has been produced.

Given that Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, it was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium producer, our colleagues said.

As the New York Times has reported, the deal was made in separate transactions from 2009 to 2013. It made Russia’s atomic energy agency one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Russian President Vladimir Putin "closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain."

U.S. involvement

So, what was Clinton’s role?

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies.

At the time, the United States was seeking to "reset" its relationship with Russia and trying to get the Kremlin on board with its Iran nuclear deal.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation, the Times reported, because the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs.

Trump’s claims

Now, back to what Trump said.

Trump’s previous claim on the topic, made in June 2016, was that Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."

PolitiFact National rated it Mostly False -- mainly because there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.

As for Trump’s current claim, it’s overstated.

The State Department did approve the Uranium One deal, but it didn’t act unilaterally. It was one of nine U.S. government agencies, plus independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.

And as FactCheck.org noted in a related fact check, while any of the nine agencies could have objected to the deal, only President Barack Obama had the power to veto it.

Even then, the president can only prohibit such transactions only with "credible evidence" that the "foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security.’

Our rating

Trump says Clinton "gave up 20 percent of America's uranium supply to Russia."

The reference is to Russia’s nuclear power agency buying a controlling interest in a Toronto-based company. That company has mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity (not produced uranium).

Clinton was secretary of state at the time, but she didn’t have the power to approve or reject the deal. The State Department was only one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the deal, and only Obama had the power to veto it.

For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.

__________

lol. keep it coming.

lemme guess: politifact is ran by some bias guy who loves civil rights and eats kale.

too easy. yall stay lying yall asses off.

I only get my facts when it's cross checked by a white supremacist on an email list.

Y'all seen the news?

This report is legit. Republicans are blasting Trump.

The party of Reagan. Regan would've never allowed such treason inside the WH from Russians without punishment.

This is what happens when you elect a businessman to the highest office. Chaos.

Just call me bacon because as long as Trump is messing up I'm going to bring the story to the board. Now, if I post something that turns out to be 'false', not "Trump false, fake news" 'cause I don't like it but factually false then I will happily accept your temper(expressed opinion) Eve, Arch, Ballpeen. But currently, this story has wheels that look very real.

And for you who want to bring up HIllary in yet another what-about-ism, I have one for you; what if Obama had done these things? There would have been a lynch mob after him! Not just 'squealing', but actual cross burning white hooded noose in hand lynch mobs.

The problem is that your very flawed candidate has become even a more flawed President and it is now your mess to clean up. I know it sucks to see all your plans of corporate greed and grinding the poor under your boots go out the window GOP, but it's now about saving America and doing something about the idiot oompa loompa that you elected in the White House.

And yes Eve, I did not vote. I disliked all the options. I withheld my vote in protest, but never again... As much as I dislike Hillary, she would have been so much better than Trump that it's disgusting to even compare the two.

I'll be damned, that's the same stuff Clinton was selling when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Yes it was. Oh Trump makes me long for the days of Slick Willie... I was a Reagan Republican at the time and couldn't stand him.

I am more of a Theodore Roosevelt fan

Trump does not deny revealing classified info to the Russians..he is trying to defend doing so...tweet below...

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 31m31 minutes ago
More
As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining....

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump

Mr President...no doubt you can and do expose classified information..whether it is your right to do so, is debatable.

There is a cost for incompetence especially dealing with the US intell services...they simply stop trusting you with the most sensitive classified info...problem solved.

Trump's own tweets verify he did this after they said just last night that it didn't happen! Trump just can't help himself. The Republicans have to start speaking up now, he's like the crazy train and they need to get off that ride.