The Washington Post announced that the President “revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week.” He is not “alleged” to have revealed this information. He indisputably revealed this information. The Post learned this from “current and former U.S. officials.” Who were these “current and former U.S. officials?” They “spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.” They were concerned about the sensitivity of the subject. Apparently they were not concerned about going to jail for leaking classified information. There were only 3 U.S. officials aside from the President, attending this meeting: National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and Senior Adviser for Policy, Dina Powell.
Dana Powell claimed, “This story is false. The President only discussed the common threats that both countries faced.” H.R. McMaster said, “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.” Secretary of State Tillerson stated, "During that exchange, the nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods or military operations." But why rely on these officials when there are so many anonymous sources?
It is understandable that Democrats would accept the Post’s claim. Senator Mark Warner tweeted, “If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community. Risking sources methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians.” However, Republicans should be more skeptical considering the record of the establishment media. Senators McCain and Graham both agree with the Post’s claim that Trump revealed classified information but assert that the President did not break the law. House speaker Paul Ryan’s spokesman Doug Andres remarked, “We have no way to know what was said, but protecting our nation’s secrets is paramount. The speaker hopes for a full explanation of the facts from the administration.” Perhaps Ryan could demand an explanation of the facts from the Post.
This is all part of the left’s desperate attempt to find evidence of impeachable “treason” by President Trump. It began with the Steele dossier, a document described as a “garbage document” by Bob Woodward. Even the cover of the document reveals its bogus origin. No experienced intelligence officer would classify sensitive sources as “Confidential.” Yet the media, many politicians and many leaders in the intelligence community are risking what little credibility they have left on this “garbage.”
Senator Chuck Schumer warned the President, “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.” The intel community can be a powerful adversary. However, it also has a problem with credibility. John Brennan denied that the C.I.A. had illegally hacked into the computers of Senate staff members conducting an investigation into the agency’s detention and torture programs. In 2011, when he was President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, he claimed that American drone strikes had not killed any civilians. In both cases Brennan was shown to be incorrect. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, has admitted lying to the Senate on the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of data. James Comey may also be found to have perjured himself. It took the FBI years to analyse 33,000 emails but only days to analyse 650,000.
Thousands of people are investigating this administration hoping to be the next Woodward and Bernstein. They will grasp at any straw. They have reported on “Scoopgate” where the President got two scoops of ice cream while others received only one. Does this scandal compare with the 2011 incident where the Obama administration gave the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent? The U.K.’s Daily Telegraph reported, “The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called ‘special relationship’, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.”