The Washington Post Classified Information Story

May 16, 2017

I don’t mind the political media exhausting themselves every day, making up fake news and running madly after every whiff of anti-Trump scandal like a pack of hyperactive Chihuahuas trying to chase down every car in a Walmart parking lot simultaneously. But it’s nearly as exhausting for the rest of us, just having to watch them.

For instance, after a solid week of yapping about James Comey’s long-overdue firing that they were all in favor of until Trump did it (sort of like how they admit his terrorist nation travel ban would be Constitutional, if any other President had issued it), the Washington Post set off yet another round of frenzied barking with a story claiming that Trump revealed classified information in a meeting about joint anti-ISIS strategy with top Russian officials. It had barely hit the news before dozens of Democrats were rushing to the cameras to demand an investigation and to call it “disturbing” and “reckless” (I’ll say this for them: they can’t govern worth a darn, but they have an amazingly efficient buzzword focus-group testing system.)


Commentary continues below advertisement


They were right about one thing: if it’s true that Trump inadvertently revealed classified data that might identify our intelligence sources to Russia, that would be a serious problem. I can say that with some credibility, because I also said that when Hillary Clinton did that very thing via her unsecure email server, back when all these people who are calling for Trump’s impeachment were brushing that off as nothing and trying to make Hillary President.

But this story set off “smell test” alarms from the get-go, in ways that even the writer noted. For instance, WaPo admitted that even if it were true, it likely wouldn’t be illegal because as President, Trump has the power to declassify information. Also, the story was based on unnamed “current and former officials.” Consider: we’re talking about an ultra-secure meeting of top leaders of two super powers to discuss classified anti-terrorist strategies inside the White House. How many “former officials” were likely to have been in that room?


Commentary continues below advertisement


We do know exactly which “current officials” were in the room: National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. All three had to take time out of their busy schedules to state to the press in no uncertain terms that the story was false, it did not happen, and that no intelligence sources or methods were discussed that weren’t already part of the public record.

Was that clear enough to end the controversy? If you believe that, then you’ve never had to try to calm down a pack of Chihuahuas.

PLEASE LEAVE ME A COMMENT BELOW.  I READ THEM!

Comments 1-5 of 220

  • Daryl Crowder

    05/21/2017 01:02 AM

    I know how frustrating it can be to hear a yepping chihuahua suddenly bark at nothing of significance, causing you to jump out of your skin because of the sudden reaction. I have one of these little dogs which at times can be frustrating because he won't shut up, just like the liberal Democrats which like to bark at the nothing's in life.

  • Jerry Brown

    05/20/2017 03:21 AM

    You are absolutely right. Why aren't we investing resources to track down the known crimes like the hemorrhaging leakers that are committing felonies left and right instead of a special counsel to investigate a case with absolutely no evidence that it ever took place? We appoint a special counsel to investigate this but not Hillary Clinton's unsecured email server with classified documents on it and the destruction of evidence, which there was evidence to prove it really happened? Why can anyone do anything about it?

  • Dan Jones

    05/19/2017 04:02 PM

    What is the old saying....Change the things you can don't worry about those you can't. Only positive actions will overcome this non-sense from the left. Get things done that matter to the general public, Tax reform, correct immigration infractions, increase quality jobs, improve our schooling systems, reduce serious crime and finally set some ambitious long term goals ( I'm thinking "Man on the moon" type things). All of these efforts should be measured in a logical manner so they can be scored monthly as to their progress. Establish a Goal setting mind set. A long term goal I've been thinking about is National Water Control. Why can't we move water around like the old Roman Empire?

  • Dona Barnes

    05/19/2017 10:50 AM

    Keep up the great, honest reporting, Governor Huckabee! We need accurate, unslanted news, and more people to report it.

  • Michael Schmelzer

    05/19/2017 07:54 AM

    Liberals are hypocrites. They do something illegal, then get off somehow, and later down the road twist something a Conservative or a Republican does to make it look as bad or worse than what they or their associates have done in the past. Hillary is GUILTY of having an unsecure private server (NOT a private email) in her home with (hundreds perhaps thousands) top secret materials on it. Yet Trump is guilty of leaking information to whom exactly? Officials in a private meeting, where terrorism was discussed. You know who's really guilty of leaking this information? The media, because if they hadn't said a word, only those in the meeting would know what was discussed. Now the world knows what was discussed because they claimed Trump leaked it.

The Washington Post Classified Information Story

May 16, 2017

I don’t mind the political media exhausting themselves every day, making up fake news and running madly after every whiff of anti-Trump scandal like a pack of hyperactive Chihuahuas trying to chase down every car in a Walmart parking lot simultaneously. But it’s nearly as exhausting for the rest of us, just having to watch them.

For instance, after a solid week of yapping about James Comey’s long-overdue firing that they were all in favor of until Trump did it (sort of like how they admit his terrorist nation travel ban would be Constitutional, if any other President had issued it), the Washington Post set off yet another round of frenzied barking with a story claiming that Trump revealed classified information in a meeting about joint anti-ISIS strategy with top Russian officials. It had barely hit the news before dozens of Democrats were rushing to the cameras to demand an investigation and to call it “disturbing” and “reckless” (I’ll say this for them: they can’t govern worth a darn, but they have an amazingly efficient buzzword focus-group testing system.)


Commentary continues below advertisement


They were right about one thing: if it’s true that Trump inadvertently revealed classified data that might identify our intelligence sources to Russia, that would be a serious problem. I can say that with some credibility, because I also said that when Hillary Clinton did that very thing via her unsecure email server, back when all these people who are calling for Trump’s impeachment were brushing that off as nothing and trying to make Hillary President.

But this story set off “smell test” alarms from the get-go, in ways that even the writer noted. For instance, WaPo admitted that even if it were true, it likely wouldn’t be illegal because as President, Trump has the power to declassify information. Also, the story was based on unnamed “current and former officials.” Consider: we’re talking about an ultra-secure meeting of top leaders of two super powers to discuss classified anti-terrorist strategies inside the White House. How many “former officials” were likely to have been in that room?


Commentary continues below advertisement


We do know exactly which “current officials” were in the room: National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. All three had to take time out of their busy schedules to state to the press in no uncertain terms that the story was false, it did not happen, and that no intelligence sources or methods were discussed that weren’t already part of the public record.

Was that clear enough to end the controversy? If you believe that, then you’ve never had to try to calm down a pack of Chihuahuas.

PLEASE LEAVE ME A COMMENT BELOW.  I READ THEM!

Comments 1-5 of 220

  • Daryl Crowder

    05/21/2017 01:02 AM

    I know how frustrating it can be to hear a yepping chihuahua suddenly bark at nothing of significance, causing you to jump out of your skin because of the sudden reaction. I have one of these little dogs which at times can be frustrating because he won't shut up, just like the liberal Democrats which like to bark at the nothing's in life.

  • Jerry Brown

    05/20/2017 03:21 AM

    You are absolutely right. Why aren't we investing resources to track down the known crimes like the hemorrhaging leakers that are committing felonies left and right instead of a special counsel to investigate a case with absolutely no evidence that it ever took place? We appoint a special counsel to investigate this but not Hillary Clinton's unsecured email server with classified documents on it and the destruction of evidence, which there was evidence to prove it really happened? Why can anyone do anything about it?

  • Dan Jones

    05/19/2017 04:02 PM

    What is the old saying....Change the things you can don't worry about those you can't. Only positive actions will overcome this non-sense from the left. Get things done that matter to the general public, Tax reform, correct immigration infractions, increase quality jobs, improve our schooling systems, reduce serious crime and finally set some ambitious long term goals ( I'm thinking "Man on the moon" type things). All of these efforts should be measured in a logical manner so they can be scored monthly as to their progress. Establish a Goal setting mind set. A long term goal I've been thinking about is National Water Control. Why can't we move water around like the old Roman Empire?

  • Dona Barnes

    05/19/2017 10:50 AM

    Keep up the great, honest reporting, Governor Huckabee! We need accurate, unslanted news, and more people to report it.

  • Michael Schmelzer

    05/19/2017 07:54 AM

    Liberals are hypocrites. They do something illegal, then get off somehow, and later down the road twist something a Conservative or a Republican does to make it look as bad or worse than what they or their associates have done in the past. Hillary is GUILTY of having an unsecure private server (NOT a private email) in her home with (hundreds perhaps thousands) top secret materials on it. Yet Trump is guilty of leaking information to whom exactly? Officials in a private meeting, where terrorism was discussed. You know who's really guilty of leaking this information? The media, because if they hadn't said a word, only those in the meeting would know what was discussed. Now the world knows what was discussed because they claimed Trump leaked it.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...