"Facts pertaining to terrorism and airline safety", in Trump's own words.
>And according to who?
People present at the meeting with the Russian ambassador in the White House. Sources in the US and Israeli intelligence communities who had to deal with the fallout.
No, this is how it is reported. The context is a hostile press, which he snubs in general. Trump did not answer the question.
Who asked Trump if he leaked classified information, in which interview? Anything specific? Or selective reporting?
> He was asked if he leaked classified information and responded by defending his right to do that
He was defending his right to [release] classified information? He does have that right, but:
"I have the absolute right to [share] facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety"
I can't see the mention of "classified" in that particular statement.
So to summarise; the press claimed Trump gave the Russians classified information - Trump nor McMaster has confirmed or denied this. The press heavily imply this means their original claims are right, but again, the burden is on the press to prove their original claim, by their original source; you don't just get that as a reward for making unverified claims. My original point is no one has gone on record to affirm it, it's just insinuation games.
No he didn't - I notice you totally ignored the questions and statements in my last post(s).
Trump did not answer to the allegations made. You quote the tweet yourself, and it does not address "classified" information, you're assuming that it is, and hence putting words in Trump's mouth. you don't know.
Trumps tweets aren't addressed to anyone, nor reference anything as response, so it is false that they were "directly in response". The tweets don't even mention the word 'classified'. If you believe otherwise - prove it.
I guess it's possible he's just mashing the keyboard randomly, but leaving that possibility aside, the tweets only make sense as response to the allegation that he shared classified information.
There are no names on the record for the Obama story either. Why would you expect there to be? Of course people are not going to go on the record talking about the content of private and highly sensitive meetings.
"McMaster says that 'at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed.' But The Post's reporting doesn't say that they were. Instead, the report states clearly only that Trump discussed an Islamic State plot and the city where the plot was detected by an intelligence-gathering partner. Officials worried that this information could lead to the discovery of the methods and sources involved, but it didn't say Trump discussed them."
> McMaster refused to reveal details of the conversation
You don't get rewarded with verified information for publishing fake news. The burden is on the journalist to verify their sources' information. And if they can't, to not publish.
The press manufacture loaded questions faster than the administration could answer them - but that's not their job. If you don't agree, then can you first tell everyone why they should listen to you considering you still haven't stopped beating you wife? [0]
[0] according to official sources close to foldr.
> Officials worried that..
Yet more insidious 'Officials'.
So, returning to my original point: who has gone on record to say what Trump said?
Presumably no one since anyone in a position to reveal such privileged information would be liable for doing so? So all "well he didn't deny it" double-speak and insinuation, from a press starved of information, and hence resorting to punitive speculation.
No-one is going to go on record regarding the contents of a private meeting between the US President and the Russian ambassador, and no-one has. It is pointless to keep asking this question.
It wouldn't be "verified" if people went on the record either. Going on the record isn't some kind of magical truth serum. People can lie on the record or off it.
No, but you could weigh the information against the source/context. You can lie off record much easier, since there is less likelihood of damage to reputation.
That's a tangent anyway, if there is no verification, the only value a statement has is the authority and sincerity of the person who says it: we have neither that, nor do we even know the context (we have just the words, or interpreted statement - it's easy to cherry-pick those).
I guess you think the WP shouldn't have reported Watergate either.
"Executive Editor Ben Bradlee later recalled that many people wondered “how the Post dared
ride over the constant denials of the president of the United States and the attorney
general” as well as top presidential aides. Bradlee replied that the Post knew its information
was correct. Leads from Deep Throat as well as other well-protected sources consistently
checked out. Tapes of Nixon’s conversations show that The Washington Post was right."
I guess you've run out of things to say given this cherry-picked tangent.
> Leads from Deep Throat as well as other well-protected sources consistently checked out
I admit, I don't know much about water-gate, or if the following DW[0] paragraph is true:
"An anonymous source was not enough during Watergate. Without a second source to confirm, The Washington Post would not publish anything, even if it came from the credible Deep Throat."
>Anonymity is only required when there is one source.
Not clear what you mean by this. The WP used multiple anonymous sources for many of its Watergate stories.
>If they are multiple independent, unbiased sources, that is different.
The current stories about Trump are based on multiple sources. What gives you the idea that they stem from a single source? After all, Trump’s administration is one of the leakiest in living memory.
Right, but your statement did not make any sense. There is no connection between the number of sources used and whether or not they are anonymous.
>but also there were two important conditions: independent and unbiased.
What makes you more confident that the Watergate sources were independent and unbiased? You are trusting the judgment of the journalists in both cases.
>I don't see evidence of [multiple sources]?
Are you kidding? There are, at the very least, people who were in the meeting, and people in the Israeli intelligence community, who clearly weren't.
"Facts pertaining to terrorism and airline safety", in Trump's own words.
>And according to who?
People present at the meeting with the Russian ambassador in the White House. Sources in the US and Israeli intelligence communities who had to deal with the fallout.