The CIA Reportedly Pulled Its Top Spy from Russia Because Trump Can't Keep His Mouth Shut
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Not even a year into Donald Trump's presidency , the CIA took the extraordinary step of removing one of its most valuable assets inside the Russian government. According to CNN , multiple Trump administration officials with direct knowledge of the situation claimed that the agency made the decision out of concern that Trump or members of his administration would wind up exposing the spy, inadvertently or otherwise. The CIA's move reportedly came after a May 2017 meeting in the Oval Office, when Trump shared highly classified information about ISIS, supplied by Israel, with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.
Per CNN:
The disclosure to the Russians by the President, though not about the Russian spy specifically, prompted intelligence officials to renew earlier discussions about the potential risk of exposure, according to the source directly involved in the matter. At the time, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo told other senior Trump administration officials that too much information was coming out regarding the covert source, known as an asset. An extraction, or "exfiltration" as such an operation is referred to by intelligence officials, is an extraordinary remedy when US intelligence believes an asset is in immediate danger.
When asked for comment, CIA director of public affairs Brittany Bramell told the network, "CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false. Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence—which he has access to each and every day—drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate." A White House representative said, "CNN's reporting is not only incorrect, it has the potential to put lives in danger," while a spokesperson for Mike Pompeo, who was in charge of the CIA at the time, declined to comment.
But Trump's "handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence" has been a problem in the past. While the Department of Defense rarely discloses the locations of submarines, in a 2017 phone call with Rodrigo Duterte, Trump told the president of the Philippines that the U.S. had two nuclear subs stationed near North Korea. Trump has also gone to great lengths to keep his private discussions with Russian president Vladimir Putin completely secret, hiding details of the talks from his own administration's officials and even going so far as to confiscate his interpreter's notes. And on August 30 of this year, he tweeted what appeared to be a high-definition image of an Iranian launch site, saying, "The United States of America was not involved in the catastrophic accident during final launch preparations for the Safir [Space Launch Vehicle] Launch at Semnan Launch Site One in Iran. I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One." Security experts warned that the image was almost certainly from a classified drone or satellite, according to NPR , and one expert explained the tweet showed "some pretty amazing capabilities that the public simply wasn't privy to before this."
Trump's administration as a whole has struggled with classified information: After the 2017 bombing at Manchester Arena in the United Kingdom, the British government shared sensitive information about the attack with key allies, the U.S. among them. Someone in the Trump administration very quickly leaked that information to the media, a move that so angered then-prime minister Theresa May she reportedly confronted Trump about it at a NATO summit. And Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign manager Paul Manafort were both indicted for working as agents for foreign governments.
Despite all this, Trump is still campaigning against Hillary Clinton's use of a private server and handling classified emails, even though she isn't running in 2020. At an August rally in New Hampshire , he brought up her emails yet again, and the crowd began chanting, "lock her up."
Tags
Who is online
75 visitors
It's one damn thing after another.
no,
it's twenty damn things after every other ten
.
and Muva, it is TrUE.
Was just watching then reading about it.
Try a few different sources, it would do wonders for you
Not surprised in the least, I figured out some time ago that ANYTHING trump knows, Putin knows.
especially about Trumpps kinky fetishes
Also, Putin didn't want to tip his hand that he knew but now that it's out, the ex-spy better be careful of getting "gift" perfume bottles that contain nerve gas.
Another false claim!
Debunked, yet featured here on NT!
Not debunked yet.
Did the CIA issue that statement after a visit from Wilbur Ross? Debunking under Trump is much more difficult than previous administrations, the amount of times he has lied, and the amount of times he has ordered his officials to lie make denials like this not believable anymore.
Gina Cheri Haspel is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
CIA nominee supervised detainee torture at Thailand black site,
Drafted cable to destroy videotape evidence,
Helped feed repeated lies about effectiveness of torture to CIA superiors, Congress, two Presidents
The CIA wasn't alone, the New York Times agrees. Suddenly you don't believe either?
But I assume you'll all join hands and vote this lie up.
It's easy to pull out the inconsistencies, isn't it? I predict this false story will not be taken down. The haters love it too much! They don't care if it's a lie.
Do not believe anything put out by any of Trump's officials. New York Times? Sure, but that just puts it at "he said she said", we'll just have to wait and see who has more evidence NYT or CNN.
Why are you trying so hard to fabricate your own lies about this
According to CNN , multiple Trump administration officials with direct knowledge of the situation claimed that the agency made the decision out of concern that Trump or members of his administration would wind up exposing the spy, inadvertently or otherwise. The CIA's move reportedly came after a May 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.
Already proven to be fake news.
Where has it be proven, in your dreams?
Somehow you missed the part where the Obama admin was leaking the existence of this spy to discredit the election of Trump.
Actually, no, they didn't miss that part. If it doesn't say Trump, you don't misalign about it.
The CIA's move reportedly came after a May 2017 meeting in the Oval Office, when Trump shared highly classified information about ISIS, supplied by Israel, with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.
but , but, they said Obama leaked it...
yea after Trump was in office for almost half a year .
Are you RIGHTIES going to DENY Trump leaked Israeli intelligence to Russia and the WHOLE WORLD ?
Bottom line here. Trump is untrustworthy. He is also totally ignorant of procedure and history. He may also be compromised.
C'mon, he IS COMPROMISED
OF COURSE HE IS COMPROMISED, before he even became 'president'.
I see another "Lawrence O'Donnell" in the making here.
How has this not been taken down?
As yet just another in the long line of "I Hate Trump" articles, it is perfectly acceptable. The TRUTH doesn't actually matter.
We await one of you guys posting truth. It is a rare occasion.
Besides the usual "I Hate Trump"screechings, is there any truth you can actually recognize?
LOL!
Here you go. Some truth from the New York Times.
C.I.A. Informant Extracted From Russia Had Sent Secrets to U.S. for Decades
As to the assertion that Trump was somehow to blame,
So they first wanted to do it in 2016. When they finally made the move in 2017, it wasn't in response to anything Trump related. It was because of the press threatening to expose this source.
It is plausible , because, TRUMP REVEALED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO RUSSIANS in the oval office.
Unless you know for sure that CNN or its source are lying, and I have no idea how you could, you just have to live with the story.
You can argue that the real reason was xyz , or Hillarys emails did it, or whatever.
Plausible? What an incredibly low standard you hold CNN to. Is it because they hate Trump as much as you? Do you hold other journalists to this plausibility standard? What about when they report on something you don't like to hear?
In any event, I think you are stretching the definition of even the "plausible" standard to a degree not seen since the invention of Silly Putty.
First, the CIA was already prepared to make the move in 2016. It is NOT plausible that that decision nor the sentiment behind it could be related to Trump's handling of classified intelligence because he did not have access to classified intelligence at that time.
Second, the only reason that it's plausible in 2017 is because it's plausible that anyone with access to classified intelligence could potentially mishandle it. What is known is that the CIA felt that the media had - or was close to having - actual access to classified information and further, that they were going to release that information.
So, the only way your plausibility standard could ever possibly mesh with reality is if the media was getting its information from Trump himself and there is zero evidence to support that.
I have a new policy. I dont pay any attention to die hard Trumpsters who make non believable excuses for his preposterous behavior every day. Enough is enough. .
My policy is to LMFAO at the "I Hate Trump"-sters spewing nonsense 24/7!
One of us has a good hand to play..... and then there is you..
Why not simply admit the TRUTH--that you DO pay attention to the pro-Trump crowd, which is why you seed the endless stream of "I Hate Trump" crud day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day?
A lot of right wingers constantly want to know "the resistance" wont give Trump a chance.
Because we have watched him in the nightly news and online for the past 4 years, since late June 2015. Thats over 1500 days of Trump. At least 1450 too many.
I dont hate Trump, but it has always been completely easy to see he is unfit for office.
Do you actually expect people to accept someone who is completely unfit for office? You were told in 2016 that he would never be accepted. We didnt lie to you, did we?
I think you mean "I don't pay any attention to facts"
I have some shortcomings, but not understanding facts is not one of them.
Quite possibly THE single most unbelievable thing ever printed, anywhere, anytime!
I don't give a damn what you "accept". Your personal acceptance isn't necessary or even noteworthy.
Whether YOU personally accept it or not, Trump IS your President, and the simple fact of the matter is you just can't STAND it!
LMFAO!
I didn't say you didn't understand facts. I wouldn't even bother offering them if I thought you couldn't understand them. I said you ignore them. You also engage in character attacks with that "die hard Trumpsters" stuff, but that's maybe a different topic.
If it was up to me, Trump supporters would be treated much more harshly on this site than they are. But the "rules" of Newstalkers do not allow the bitter truth to be told. I have had many many dozens of comments deleted for telling Trump supporters the truth.
John - when you start talking truth other than your rendition of it, many more folks might actually discuss with you instead of railing at you.
Try it, you might like it.
Especially when you the right says it. Just like your statement is nothing more than false chatter
I fear it will never happen in our life times John
Is that why? You don't think that maybe . . . just MAAAYYYYBE . . . it might have something to do with your delivery?
Because they do nothing but lie just like your comment
The people who voted for Trump and continue to support Trump are ENTIRELY to blame for what has happened (a pathological liar is the president of the United States). We are told that we can criticize Trump but not his supporters, as if they are innocent.
PRIOR to election day 2016 it was well known that Trump was a habitual liar, a crook ( defrauded Trump U students) , a conspiracy nut (head birther), a bully (see 2016 GOP debates), a misogynist (accused of sexual assault by multiple women , and his own words on Access Hollywood tape), a racist ( comments about Mexican judge, which Paul Ryan called a "textbook example" of racism) and a demagogue (multiple Trump "lock her up" rallies). All of that, and more was known prior to the 2016 election.
Yet Trumpsters voted for him anyway, knowing all that. They are the problem in America today, and have been for 3 or 4 years.
What happened? I get that you see Trump as this big liar. That's fine. But what has happened? When I look around, things seem pretty ok.
If you think Trump is acceptable as president of the United States, especially for four more years, I can't help you.
We have a war going on in this country, and if it has to be, so be it.
You're avoiding the point. What is it that has happened that you find so unacceptable? I'm not talking about the man. I'm talking about the country. Because for most people, that's what matters.
It is not a shooting war, it is a war of ideas and character over the direction of the country, but particularly over the idea of a dishonest moron being re-elected president of the United States. Do you want to unite the country? support someone other than Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee in 2020. Throw him under the bus.
Well, no! It couldn't be. Not when one side hates guns and sees no point in the 2nd Amendment, right? You just don't have the option of a shooting war.
First of all, Trump has NEVER had the majority of Americans behind him. You don't have "most people" in agreement with you in terms of trump. You can say you dont believe in polls, but you cannot find a shred of evidence that says Trump, or Trumpism, is popular with "most Americans". It is a non existent concept.
By all accounts Trump is shedding suburban and independent voters. His chance of winning a majority vote in 2020 are non existent. He has to hope that 45% (or less) gets it done.
The Republicans, if they really cared about this country, would replace him on the ticket.
Since most of my ideas agree with the beliefs of a majority of Americans , why would I do that?
Am I running for office? Im not going to write a position paper for you.
I'll give you one though . 76% of Americans , in other words an overwhelming majority, want to see the wealthy pay more in taxes.
Most Americans Support Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy ...
Feb 05, 2019 · Support for raising taxes is widespread, according to a new poll , which found that 76% of registered voters want the wealthiest Americans to pay more. …
72 percent of Americans consider climate change to be a moderate, serious, or imminent threat. A big reason for the growing concern is that many of the consequences of climate change have become impossible to ignore in recent years.
According to the poll from Business Insider's partner MSN, 87 % of Democrats and 52 % of Republicans support stricter laws on assault weapons. The nationwide average of 70 % is even higher than the 67 % that want to ban assault weapons and the 66 % that wanted tougher gun laws in general in a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
They always delete the ones they consider closest to the truth they are afraid will come out.