Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 12:37:55 AM

Many months ago, we saw that national security experts had some concerns about giving Donald Trump sensitive security information..  but he's now had his first one briefing on national security issues now.

Afterward the CIA briefing,  he thinks he saw 'from their body language' of the briefers what they felt about Obama policies, specifically that they felt their policy recommendations had been ignored by the President.       You know, somehow I just don't see that happening in the real world anyway, but..........  

"Discussing what happened during a classified briefing was among the many faux pas Trump has committed during his candidacy. Michael Morell, a CIA veteran who served as acting director under Obama,called Trump’s comments unprecedented and “highly inappropriate.”

“This is the first time that I can remember a candidate for president doing a readout from an intelligence briefing, and it’s the first time a candidate has politicized their intelligence briefing,” Morell said. “Both of those are highly inappropriate and crossed a long standing red line respected by both parties.”

Trump said recently the US Military Officer Corps have been reduced to rubble, its no stretch to think that the fellow appointed by the CIA to be the official brief for both candidates.....just got anxious and let slip their feelings about Obama...  right?  Wrong. 

Elect a guy who makes things up like that?   No way.

Name:	Buteye -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 3:09:18 AM (updated 9/13/2016 3:22:31 AM)

It's a known fact that anything you say about Trump is going to be negative. It is possible that since Morell served under Obama that his comments could have been somewhat biased. In your mind, Trump made the story up, but you can't speak for him and say that he didn't observe what he said he saw. You haven't said much about what you observed about Hillary's fall, but I'm sure we each have our opinion as to what we saw. You can't put yourself in someone elses position and counter what they said by saying they just made it up. Also, have you followed every candidate for President's intelligence briefing with such intense scruitiny that you would remember all the details of the briefings? To use your words, somehow I just don't see that happening in the real world,

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Copper-krap*
Date:	9/13/2016 7:38:47 AM (updated 9/13/2016 9:08:47 AM)

Be advised that as soon as you said Morell works for o-BAMMIE, the intelligent people know that the person is tainted, not believable, and  useless.  Yes, the military leadership is rubble.  The fearless leader fired practically all generals who did not submit to his party line of krap.  As I have mentioned, your copy and paste of liberal dimokrap party talking points is very telling.......just krap.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 7:48:35 AM

"I never sent or received any classified email.....

I remember landing under sniper fire.....

It was because of the video...

I was named after Sir Hillary...

We were dead broke...

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Elect someone that makes up crap like that?  God I hope not!

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 9:47:13 AM

I'm just saying that it was extremely unlikely that a highly trained CIA briefer would display his political opinions, and that Trump imagined what he saw, then exaggerated it so he could make his statement.

To me, that is just a logical thing to conclude.   Trump is prone to exaggeration, this is an example of something he says that just cannot be true....

It should be troubling to know that this presidential candidate reached  such an outlandish conclusion following his first national security briefing.   That's evidence he's not being the least bit analytical, cautious and objective about what he hears....    

What this guy sees is based on what he wants reality to be, not what it is.  That's OK if you are a real estate agent or a TV star, but not if you have the responsibilities of POTUS.

You guys are over-looking serious flaws in Trump.   Maybe we should be watching his body-language more closely..........

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 10:11:46 AM

The Officer's Corp has in fact been reduced to rubble.  When they reduced the force, under Obama, they gutted the Captains and Majors most of whom had served in battle.  So now who will they promote into leadership positions for the next war?

I think it is entirely possible that the briefer may have shown his feelings.  After all, briefers are human beings.  And the Clintons are no friend to the military.  When Bill Clinton made his first trip to the Pentagon, the Military had to be given a direct order to be on the Mall enterance to meet him, because of the few number who were willing to go out there.  On the whole, the military leans right and I doubt they will change for another Clinton.  They may not love Trump, but they will never love Clinton.

No matter how much crap you post about Trump, you are wasting your breath.  We'll all seen the Clinton show before.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief
Date:	9/13/2016 11:45:44 AM (updated 9/13/2016 12:02:36 PM)

It is not whether a poster is biased one way or the other or whether a public comment (and Morell is not the only past security related official to express such concern) about a candidate's words come from a biased source or even whether a candidate is telling the truth or "making up" what he sensed or interpreted in a security briefing.  The point is ANY candidate that says ANYTHING about a security briefing other than to acknowledge having had one, is crossing a line he or she has almost certainly been instructed not to cross!! What would the Trumpistas have said in 2008 if Obama had made a similar comment about what he sensed about the spook's attitude toward W?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Hound
Date:	9/13/2016 11:57:50 AM

i agree that it is possible, though unlikely, that a briefer might intentionally or unintentionally let his personal feelings show.  The point is, Trump would be expected to keep that perception private!...it was a SECURITY briefing after all!  Do you not agree?  If not, I am afraid you really have been hijacked!

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Arch-krap*
Date:	9/13/2016 12:07:41 PM

For a liberal dimokrap to say anything about security or classified documents, briefings, etc. is really funny.  The hypocracy you and your ilk exhibit is ridiculous.  o-BAMMIE has surrounded himself with liberal yes men whose sole purpose is to say "yas, sur, yas sur", and these spineless idiots specialize is kissin' up at o-BAMMIE's briefing.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief indeed
Date:	9/13/2016 1:28:05 PM

Why are you holding Trump to a higher standard than Hillary?  All he did was provide his interpretation of body language.  She handled thousands of classified emails on an unsecured server.  And don't EVEN try to tell me she didn't know what she was doing.  If she didn't she isn't qualified to be POTUS.  If she did she disqualified herself from being POTUS.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief indeed
Date:	9/13/2016 1:39:32 PM (updated 9/13/2016 1:47:55 PM)

I'm not.  She has had absolutely NO comment on her security briefing. Neither you nor I can make a comparison between him and her as far as emails and email security because we have no idea what he would have done in the same position (I do have my suspicions considering Trumps loose lips sink ships attitude about everything).  I have no idea whether to what extent she knew about the security or insecurity of a server but I do not think for one instant she was intentionally trying to pass secret info to the nation's enemies.  Do you?  If you think she was then you have no choice...vote for her opponent and demand that she immediately be arrested and charged with espionage!

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief indeed
Date:	9/13/2016 1:41:01 PM

Did I say she was intentionally passing classified information to our enemies?

Name:	Buteye -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 4:02:18 PM

I'm sure you have been keeping a close watch on Hillary's body language. If not, you better put that on your list of things to do. Also, I assume it's no big deal with you that people without a security clearance had access to classified informantion on her nonsecure servers. Further, what is your take on Huma Abedin's warnings to colleagues that Hillary was "often confused" and needed hand-holding about calls with foreign leaders?

Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	Archy
Date:	9/13/2016 4:42:55 PM

Easy there my friend....believe you just got hoisted on your own petard......lol

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 5:05:00 PM

OK, I hear you.  The officer corps has been reduced to an intellectual rubble by Obama, so Trump is correct to say that that he knows more than the Generals.   Trump demeans POW's and says John McCain failed in his service to the country by letting himself be captured.   Trump also disrespects a Gold Star family because of their religion.  And blithely says he will order military servicemen to violate their honor by torturing prisoners & killing innocents on purpose if he wants to.   

Now we are supposed to believe that one of the top CIA analysts tasked with briefing the candidates was so inept he couldn't keep a simple poker face?   Come on! 

It has to be occuring to someone out there that a liberal trying to convince you guys that the military deserves more respect and confidence than that is really ironic.......

All I'm saying is that you have to accept a lot of contradictions in order to be a Trump supporter.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Hodja
Date:	9/13/2016 7:58:27 PM

Bingo!! You nailed it.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 8:10:09 PM

And you must be willing to believe all of Clinton's bull  and to ignore everything that she has done to harm national security in order to support her.  I'm really tired of your holier than thou attitude, as though voting for Clinton makes you a more moral and intelligent individual. 

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 8:18:12 PM

Well said.  I agree.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 8:49:25 PM

I used to enjoy copper's posts but of late he has proven to by blinded by ideology.  Nothing but excuses for Clinton and turning any post into a broadside attack on Trump.  I guess he is unable to see that it is Clinton, Obama, and their like who have driven a significant portion of the populace toward the only viable alternative to get out of the mess the liberal "intelligentsia" have created.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 8:51:58 PM

Well said.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 9:02:43 PM

Whoa! you guys don't tolerate dissent well!  

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 9:05:23 PM

Think we should call this the "blow up everything and let's see what happens" method saving the country from ruin?

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 9:07:39 PM

Surely you jest.  Your dissent is a broken record....same old lines time and time again.  Seems to me you don't tolerate the idea that we are driven to extremes by your extremely flawed candidate.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 9:22:31 PM

Copper, nobody is going to "blow up" anything.  Trump is too intelligent to do that.  

By the way, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with Trump that we don't tell our enemies what we will or won't do in advance.  One of Reagan's great strengths was that our enemies were never sure what he would do.  I would say ask Kaddafi but he cant answer any more.  If he were around he would say he misjudged how far Reagan would go and as a result got the chit bombed out of him and lost a wife in the process.  Saying we aren't going to put boots on the ground or we will leave by x date is militarily stucking fupid.  All it does is tell our enemies how long they have to wait to take their objective.  It is about time that when we choose to use military force we turn the war over to those most qualified to WIN.  And, by the way, they ain't north of the Potomac.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Trump's security briefing
Date:	9/13/2016 9:47:22 PM

So the limits of my dissent will be whenever you feel I am repeating myself?   No way.    I'm not jesting, intolerance of dissent has been a norm around here for a long time.    Voicing a different view has been a pretty abusive experience all in all......

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief indeed
Date:	9/13/2016 10:45:39 PM (updated 9/13/2016 10:50:21 PM)

No, but l reread the post and there is to me at least, unintentional perhaps, a hint toward such an implication in the way it was asked.  Now, if she was not intentionally handling classified info in an insecure way, would you not agree with Comey that it was careless but not criminal?

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief indeed
Date:	9/13/2016 11:37:51 PM

Hint....implication...way it was asked.  Weak, weak, weak.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	NO!
Date:	9/14/2016 6:18:58 AM

Careless handling of classified info IS CRIMINAL!  What part of that don't you understand? How many soldiers and and sailors are serving time right now for their careless actions. One sailor took a photograph in the wrong room,  it never left his phone,  but he is I  prison. You make me sick.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief indeed
Date:	9/14/2016 9:22:14 PM

So, it's no harm to national security if one is just "careless" with classified information.  If it was okay to be careless with it, why would they classify it to begin with?  

I find it interesting that the liberals on this board are too blind to see that the FBI Director make a politically expedient decision, knowing that there was no way the Obama WH was going to allow Justice to prosecute the woman that Obama wants to be the next President?  I guess you don't believe that someone from the WH called the Director of FBI and told him that if he chose to say HRC did a crimnal act with classified information, he was going to be hanging out there, because WH had already told Justice that she wasn't going to be prosecuted?  And that the FBI Director didn't choose to fall on his sword?  I love your naive thinking.  You probably believe in unicorns too.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief indeed
Date:	9/14/2016 10:44:29 PM

Shall I assume your post was meant for Archie? :-)

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief indeed
Date:	9/15/2016 8:29:02 PM

Good assumption! I'm sure you have seen up close and personal how Washington politics works.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief indeed
Date:	9/15/2016 9:26:54 PM (updated 9/15/2016 9:32:01 PM)

There is certainly a disconnect between the face Washington presents to the public and the way things really go down.  The worst are the snot nosed congressional staffers that come to the DoD thinking they have all the answers and grossly disrespect respectable servants of the public.

i would imagine you can ditto my last in spades.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Good grief indeed
Date:	9/16/2016 10:36:52 AM

Yep.  And let me say, that is why no one wants to leave the Hill.  The young don't want to leave there, because it is the only place where they can get their a$$ kissed for such little experience and knowledge.  And the sad news is that the Hill and the NSC is full of such people - well educated, but no dam(n) experience.  Their knowledge is often so theoretical, and has not yet been tested.  And they are snotty and they do expect that everyone will kiss their a$$es. 

And it is hard for people that have never worked there to be able to differenciate between how it is supposed to work and how it really works, and while falling on one's sword for what is right and true, is often sacrificed for political expediency.  In fact, it is called "living to fight another day".  People often think that Washington works from the top down, but all the real work is done from the bottom up. The place runs on white papers, info papers, and position papers and meeting with staffers.