Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on the Washington Post’s Game-Changing Story(lawfareblog.com)
lawfareblog.com
Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on the Washington Post’s Game-Changing Story
https://www.lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story
17 comments
Well it's more splashy than the the release of the story that Seth Rich was in contact with wikileaks, that the family has hired an independent investigator, and that the investigator is getting strange pushback from the FBI and the DC police... That's for sure.
Anddddd there goes any ally willing to share intelligence with us.
The claim is that Trump discussed information about a potential ISIS terror threat with russian diplomats (Russia is fighting ISIS and supporting Assad in the Syria conflict).
Then, some anonymous source which apparently either wiretapped the meeting or was present at the meeting, leaked the same information to numerous news agencies, complaining that Trump shared the information with the Russian diplomats.
Consider that sharing targeted anti-terrorism information with partners against a common enemy is doubtless something that presidents have done many times in the past. Also consider, that, if the source of the story was really concerned about the safety and secrecy of whatever intelligence assets were involved, he/she completely blew this up by leaking the information to multiple newsrooms where doubtless the details have now been seen by many, and possibly could make their way to ISIS itself.
There was one person who committed a crime at this meeting, and it was not Trump. It was the person who leaked the "highly classified" information to the world, doubtlessly endangering the safety of whatever intelligence asset is involved.
Then, some anonymous source which apparently either wiretapped the meeting or was present at the meeting, leaked the same information to numerous news agencies, complaining that Trump shared the information with the Russian diplomats.
Consider that sharing targeted anti-terrorism information with partners against a common enemy is doubtless something that presidents have done many times in the past. Also consider, that, if the source of the story was really concerned about the safety and secrecy of whatever intelligence assets were involved, he/she completely blew this up by leaking the information to multiple newsrooms where doubtless the details have now been seen by many, and possibly could make their way to ISIS itself.
There was one person who committed a crime at this meeting, and it was not Trump. It was the person who leaked the "highly classified" information to the world, doubtlessly endangering the safety of whatever intelligence asset is involved.
I don't understand what the problem is with discussing ISIS with Russia either. Aren't they supposed to be an ally when it comes to dealing with ISIS? Do we really think Russia will do something nefarious with this little titbit of information? I don't get it at all.
So if there were rumors floating around that you were cheating on your wife with a coworker, would you then turn around and go out to dinner with said coworker, just the two of you? Or would you maybe stay away and let things cool down - regardless of whether you were guilty or not?
At some point common sense needs to enter the equation. And yes, we are the leaders of the free world, and it looks absolutely HORRENDOUS when the president of the United States is colluding with Russia even towards a common goal. How about - if you want our intel you get the hell out of Ukraine? He's getting worked over and doesn't even see it coming, and that's terrifying.
At some point common sense needs to enter the equation. And yes, we are the leaders of the free world, and it looks absolutely HORRENDOUS when the president of the United States is colluding with Russia even towards a common goal. How about - if you want our intel you get the hell out of Ukraine? He's getting worked over and doesn't even see it coming, and that's terrifying.
I think it has to do with trust.
> There was one person who committed a crime at this meeting, and it was not Trump.
It's bigger than that.
Do you think pulling him aside and telling him "knock it off Donnie! That's not the right thing to do and you know it!" will really make him learn his lesson? If you do, remember you're talking about the guy who had his Twitter privileges revoked by his staff.
It's bigger than that.
Do you think pulling him aside and telling him "knock it off Donnie! That's not the right thing to do and you know it!" will really make him learn his lesson? If you do, remember you're talking about the guy who had his Twitter privileges revoked by his staff.
So, regardless of whether it is illegal for a US president to discuss specific classified ISIS terror threats with another country, do you agree with me that the person who leaked the ISIS terror threats to the press doubtless committed a crime detrimental to US national security under US code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37, Section 798 [1] (regardles of his/her intentions)?
(Notice that the law as quoted below encodes that it is the president who ultimately chooses who is authorized to share classifed information).
Quote: "The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States."
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
(Notice that the law as quoted below encodes that it is the president who ultimately chooses who is authorized to share classifed information).
Quote: "The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States."
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
> So, regardless of whether it is illegal for a US president to discuss specific classified ISIS terror threats with another country, do you agree with me that the person who leaked the ISIS terror threats to the press doubtless committed a crime detrimental to US national security under US code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37, Section 798
No, because public accountability of elected officials is essential, rather than prejudicial, to the safety and interests of the United States.
No, because public accountability of elected officials is essential, rather than prejudicial, to the safety and interests of the United States.
So basically no information should be secret and the public should always know exactly what Intel is being shared with allied countries during a time of war?
> regardless of whether it is illegal for a US president to discuss specific classified ISIS terror threats with another country
at this point I'm convinced laws are made up. I don't think it's illegal for a President to do so, though. Just really bad. Bad.
> do you agree with me that the person who leaked the ISIS terror threats to the press doubtless committed a crime detrimental to US national security under US code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37, Section 798
I do fully agree with you. But let's not forget that any fair Judge will look at intent for the crime as well.
Not that we know the leaker's intent or anything.
at this point I'm convinced laws are made up. I don't think it's illegal for a President to do so, though. Just really bad. Bad.
> do you agree with me that the person who leaked the ISIS terror threats to the press doubtless committed a crime detrimental to US national security under US code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37, Section 798
I do fully agree with you. But let's not forget that any fair Judge will look at intent for the crime as well.
Not that we know the leaker's intent or anything.
It's called whistle blower. Let me guess, Nixon wasn't the one in the wrong for Watergate, it was the people who caught him...
It is perfectly possible to tell the press that a leak happened without divulging the nature of the leak.
but that is not what happened. from the original washington post article:
"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." [1]
That means that the Post, and presumably other media outlets, have access to a bunch of details about the intelligence source. It is very possible that through this leak these details could escape the media outlets and get into ISIS allied hands, and that therefore the intelligence source could be terminated.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump...
"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." [1]
That means that the Post, and presumably other media outlets, have access to a bunch of details about the intelligence source. It is very possible that through this leak these details could escape the media outlets and get into ISIS allied hands, and that therefore the intelligence source could be terminated.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump...
The whole point of the article is that, while a President divulging sensitive information to an adversary nation is not criminal -- the President is the ultimate legal authority on what information is classified and what isn't, so he can legally declassify pretty much anything at any time if he wants to -- it is still highly consequential, in that (1) divulging intel provided by an ally damages our relationships with all allies, and (2) could be interpreted as a violation of his oath of office, and violating that oath was one of the charges levied by Congress against all three presidents who were seriously targeted for impeachment (Johnson, Nixon and Clinton).
Just because something's not illegal doesn't mean it isn't a Really Big Deal.
Just because something's not illegal doesn't mean it isn't a Really Big Deal.
In response to: "could be interpreted as a violation of his oath of office"
The oath of office of the president of the united states is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." [1]
There is nothing in this oath about the president not having the ability to make a judgement call over what national security information to share with an ally in a given conflict. Nor does the constitution say anything on the matter.
Whenever we get into "could be interpreted territory" with no basis in the letter of the document we are getting in to the territory where we let our prejudices decide our verdict. This unfortunately seems to be the trend across American political discussion today.
Whether this was a good call or bad call by the president, neither you nor I are really in a position to say, as we both know that we are getting an incomplete and politically motivated leak without full context of the discussions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden... [2] http://constitutionus.com
The oath of office of the president of the united states is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." [1]
There is nothing in this oath about the president not having the ability to make a judgement call over what national security information to share with an ally in a given conflict. Nor does the constitution say anything on the matter.
Whenever we get into "could be interpreted territory" with no basis in the letter of the document we are getting in to the territory where we let our prejudices decide our verdict. This unfortunately seems to be the trend across American political discussion today.
Whether this was a good call or bad call by the president, neither you nor I are really in a position to say, as we both know that we are getting an incomplete and politically motivated leak without full context of the discussions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden... [2] http://constitutionus.com