Trump Administration Accused Of Leaking British Intelligence On Manchester Investigation

Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_(HM_Government).svgMi5_crest_and_logotype.svgThis week President Donald Trump again made headlines in denying that he ever mentioned Israel in his giving highly sensitive intelligence to the Russians.  (The problem is that no one suggested that he had and the later statement appeared to reaffirm to the world that Israel was the source of the human intelligence from a spy inside ISIS.  News accounts suggested that Israel might have been the source but no one suggested that Trump said it was Israel to the Russians).  Now the Trump Administration is accused of leaking British intelligence to U.S. media in the aftermath of the massacre in Manchester.  The British were reportedly irate and made a formal complaint over the violation of core protocols and protections for intelligence sharing.  This is a very serious complaint and further undermines the core relationships that we rely on in the sharing of national security information. It should result in an immediate congressional investigation to determine what happened.

The media reported on the details of the massacre in the United States before the media of the United Kingdom were informed of the nature of the attack and other details.  Regardless of whether the U.S. officials deemed the information worthy of protection, it was information shared by an ally under strict protections. For example, releasing the name of the terrorist could be a huge breach when you are trying to round up witnesses and suspects.  Even though the culprits know the name, they may not be sure that he has been identified.  The British for example believe that the bomb maker is still at large.

The British Home Secretary Amber Rudd has objected to the breach and demanded assurances that it “should not happen again.”  It is incredibly embarrassing for the American intelligence community and the country as a whole.  The loss of professionalism in the handling of shared intelligence is a threat to our national security efforts.  It is extremely rare to have a close ally file such an objection over our violation of security agreements and leaking of such information.  It is not enough to claim that “it was really not all that sensitive.”  These intelligence sharing agreements are the heart of our collective national security system.  It is based on the understanding that the receiving country does not make such unilateral decisions in the release of information.  If you are serious about fighting terrorism, you need to be serious about these agreements.

123 thoughts on “Trump Administration Accused Of Leaking British Intelligence On Manchester Investigation

  1. I read all the comments just now. Jeso.
    Yeah. I don’t like Hillary. I am over it though. I think we need to give Trump more room to move.
    The media has gone to hell in the handbasket.
    The “leak” here is a bit odd. Who leaked what to whom? When? Why?

    Build a wall. Otherwise I won’t want to go to any concert, ball game, or Ringling Brothers Circus. Oh, they quit. I will just stay home and sulk. Probably get a new rifle.

  2. By all means, tell your audience what to think because no way would they be able to decide the important news stories of the day. Imagine CNN running unbiased new stories; would they lose their audience and/or cause people to be concerned with the “wrong” thing?

    “Can we now stop talking about Anthony Weiner? Like, forever?” Cillizza begged in the headline of the piece.

    • There’s no gift there. Brennan couldn’t draw a conclusion that there’s enough evidence to indict. He’s a conduit of evidence, not the processor of it. That’s Justice’s arena.

      The bigger issue for me is actually allowing Brennan a voice before Congress after he flat-out lied to Congress while CIA chief. The guy should be serving jail time.

      • Brennan couldn’t draw a conclusion that there’s enough evidence to indict. He’s a conduit of evidence, not the processor of it. That’s Justice’s arena.

        Would that assessment be the same for James Comey and the FBI? The point being the FBI investigates and then provides the evidence to the AG for possible indictments?

        • I don’t know what the protocol is. I can only relate what a local police department routinely does vis-a-vis referring alleged crimes. LEOs at the scene make an evaluation of facts as of a violation of law and refer it to the prosecutor who decide to charge or on rare occasions present the case to the grand jury. It’s normally up to the prosecutor to ultimately charge or reject the case

          If the FBI’s protocol is essentially the same, I think Comey could say something like he didn’t think any reasonable prosecutor would present, for example, the allegations against Hillary Clinton to the grand jury, especially having been the US Attorney in Manhattan. As Tre Gowdy said in one of the the committee hearings, the argument that a statute rarely is used is exactly how such statutes are rendered toothless.

          It’s up to the prosecutor, not Comey, to reject it or present it to the grand jury. As it was, Comey testified the statute required intentional conduct, not gross negligence, which may be one reason why the cop, not the prosecutor, testified. Even he admitted Clinton was extremely careless, which is gross negligence by another name.

          This partly explains why it was such a joke for Loretta Lynch to tactically pawn off that duty to Comey in his capacity as a lawman. It was her job as the top prosecutor to say Justice wouldn’t present the case to the grand jury because they couldn’t prove intent. That probably would have been malpractice for Lynch to say, however, because the statute only required gross negligence as its mens rea, for at least one of the counts.

          .

          • Thanks Steve.

            The testimony marked Mr. Brennan’s first public appearance since the president took office, and the Obama-era spy chief repeatedly emphasized that “Russia brazenly interfered” in last year’s election with a strategy to influence Trump campaign officials “wittingly or unwittingly.

            Is wittingly or unwittingly another way of saying, intentional or unintentional? Taking it a step further, does it even matter if someone in the Trump campaign had intent to collude with the Russians? What would the crime be, giving the Russians information about corruption at the DNC and with Clinton herself? This reminds me of a joke I read today:

            Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump go into a bakery.

            As soon as they enter the bakery, Hillary steals three pastries and puts them in her pocket. She says to Donald, “See how clever I am? The owner didn’t see anything and I don’t even need to lie.” I will definitely win the election.

            The Donald says to Hillary, “That’s the typical dishonesty you have displayed throughout your entire life, trickery and deceit. I am going to show you an honest way to get the same result.”

            Donald goes to the owner of the bakery and says, “Give me a pastry and I will show you a magic trick.” Intrigued, the owner accepts and gives him a pastry. Trump swallows it and asks for another one. The owner gives him another one. Then Donald asks for a third pastry and eats that, too.

            The owner is starting to wonder where the magic trick is and asks, “What did you do with the pastries?” Trump replies, “Look in Hillary’s pocket”

            • “Taking it a step further, does it even matter if someone in the Trump campaign had intent to collude with the Russians? What would the crime be, giving the Russians information about corruption at the DNC and with Clinton herself?” Of course it matters. Because the Secretary of State got away with a crime by using a personal server and the DNC gets away with what doesn’t even rise to the level of a crime, you think that requires leniency for the President if he actually encouraged Flynn or others to deal with Russian officials? Why else would he want the investigation of Flynn stopped?

              I liked the joke, but I’m reminded of the fraud suit in the US District Court not two miles from me, in which students of Trump University claimed Trump put their pastries in his own pocket. He then slammed the judge as an unworthy Latino, after which he agreed to pay $350,000,000.00 in damages to settle that class action. Like DeNiro said, he’s a punk.

              • “I liked the joke, but I’m reminded of the fraud suit in the US District Court not two miles from me, in which students of Trump University claimed Trump put their pastries in his own pocket. He then slammed the judge as an unworthy Latino, after which he agreed to pay $350,000,000.00 in damages to settle that class action. Like DeNiro said, he’s a punk.”
                *******************************************
                Like so much of what Steve Groen says, it’s subject to revision, clarification, and retraction. The actual figure approved by the court for the class was $25 Million but lawyer Steve never lets facts get in the way of a good legal yarn.

                Trump never said U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel as an “unworthy Latino,” as Groen claims. Rather, “Trump also brought up Curiel’s belonging to a Latino lawyers’ association in saying that Curiel had ‘an absolute conflict.’” (US News, 4/20/2017). A position that was debatable but not made up of whole cloth.

                I bet Steve’s a blast in court talking about mermaids and unicorns and such. And maybe he’s babbling about another Donald Trump, another Latino judge and another college fraud suit in a Southern District of California courtroom not two miles from him, but if not, here’s the truth on the real Trump University settlement in the article here:

                http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-university-settlement-approved-gonzalo-curiel-236756

                DeNiro’s a good actor but as far as his assessment of Trump as a punk-in-chief, we have to remember that DeNiro never met Steve Groen.

                • Rally in Bentonville, Ark., Feb. 27, 2016

                  Donald Trump: “We have a very hostile judge because, to be honest with you, the judge should’ve thrown the case out on summary judgement. But because it was me and because there’s a hostility toward me by the judge, tremendous hostility, beyond belief. I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine. He is Hispanic, which is fine. And we haven’t asked for recusal, which we may do. But we have a judge who is very hostile. Should’ve been thrown out. Wasn’t thrown out.”

                  Interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, February 28, 2016

                  Donald Trump: “I think the judge has been extremely hostile to me. I think it has to do with perhaps the fact that I’m very, very strong on the border. Very, very strong on the border. And he has been extremely hostile to me. This is a case that in our opinion should have been won a long time ago. It’s a case that we should have won on summary judgment….we have a very hostile judge. Now, he is Hispanic, I believe. He is a very hostile judge to me. I said it loud and clear.”

                  You’ll notice that any comments about the Judge’s membership in the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association only come well after the initial comments focused exclusively on Judge Curiel’s ethnicity.

                  It sounds from the Political article that Judge Curiel actually protected Trump by not letting members of the class out so they could force Trump into a protracted trial.

                  So we have then candidate Trump unambiguously stating that because of his (Trump’s) proposals on border enforcement, an American born federal judge couldn’t possibly rule accurately on his case – clearly basing his claim on the judge’s ethnicity.

                  But let’s not lose sight of the reason there was a case before this federal judge. Donald J Trump ran a for-profit “education” scam that was dramatically worse than the norm in the “for profit education” sector. In a market known for scamming students and providing low-quality education, I don’t know of another that was so bad that it had to pay back 80% to 90% of the fees charged. Rather than defend the “school” in court, the man behind it lashed out at the judge based on his ethnic background and settled.

      • “The bigger issue for me is actually allowing Brennan a voice before Congress after he flat-out lied to Congress while CIA chief. The guy should be serving jail time.”

        I strongly agree with that opinion!

        I’ve got to step away now, but as a successfully builder & land developer, on a far, far smaller scale then Trump, & hanging around multi-millionaire developers for decades I think I understand Trump’s words, actions better then most. We think differently then most people. I think thats why we succeed where most other fail or fail short.

        That said I think were about to see the Trump counter to all this BS Treason by Dems/Rino Trump haters in gov.

        • BTW:

          developers: About 40% are Liars, Azzholes, Cheats & Crooks, about 60% are some of the greatest ,most honorable people you’d every meet. The latter was where my mentors came from.

          I’m still open minded on Trump, I think he’s the latter, we’ll see.

  3. Fighting the Politicized, Evidence-Free ‘Collusion with Russia’ Narrative

    Brennan’s story can be summed up as follows: The Russians are insidious, and they plot to manipulate Americans into helping them, wittingly or unwittingly. The Russians interfered with the American election by orchestrating the publication of unflattering information (mainly, Democrat e-mails), hoping either that Donald Trump would win, or that the likely winner, Hillary Clinton, would be badly damaged. While carrying out this plan, Russian operatives reached out to some people who were connected to the Trump campaign. Brennan supposes that the Russians must have attempted to “suborn” those people because . . . well . . . um . . . that’s “what the Russians try to do.” But he can’t say whether they actually did.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447915/trump-russia-collusion-john-brennan-testimony-how-fight-politicized-narrative?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202017-05-24&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

  4. “Chief Constable Ian Hopkins confirmed that it was clear that Abedi had been part of a network of collaborators and Home Secretary Amber Rudd said he had been known to security services.”

    Maybe Amber Rudd is just using a little Trump hate to cover her own agencies failure to take out this killer.

  5. Wake me when safety and security for US citizens is measurably worse than under Jesus Peacenik Obama (to Libya: “If you enjoy the ISIS hell hole me and HRC gave you, you can keep it”) and his predecessor/fellow uncharged felon G. Bush.

    Squeeky’s post may be correct. Notice the lack of typos, too. JT’s typos don’t bother me at all…just noticing that JT has high average number of typos, and this post may have none, being consistent with dear Detective Squeeky’s diagnosis.

    Go get ’em, Squeeks!

  6. “But the New York Times has published photos it says were gathered by UK authorities at the scene of the attack, including the remnants of a backpack, nuts and screws, and a device identified as a “possible detonator”. BBC report

    I think it’s just some RESIST TRUMP UK, wanna get in on the gang bang, whiner.

    • Another good link. Thanks, Jill.

      Tyler’s close:

      “Of course, we suspect that none of this will be reported by any of the mainstream media outlets who will undoubtedly overlook these very distburbing facts in their ongoing efforts to track down the latest anonymously-sourced ‘bombshell’ report about how Trump once sat across from a Russian boy at lunch in the 2nd grade.”

    • I had posted a Federalist link to the same report this morning. Shhhh, don’t tell anyone though, it’s supposed to be a secret.

          • No problem. The good news is more than one person has the same concerns; the bad news is more people are concerned with far less significant threats to this republic. It would seem that the grease for tyranny is the ignorance and apathy of our citizens.

  7. First of all, why does anyone believe the UK or the US govts. care anything about terror attacks on civilians? Both countries fund terrorists and sell them weapons. A terrorist attack is just an excuse for upping police powers over the citizens of their nations.

    If they cared, they would stop making wars on multiple nations, quit funding and arming terrorists and use a law enforcement approach to deal with terror attacks instead of militarizing our respective nations. These govts. are completely cynical. They care nothing for human life. Leaking of intelligence is done for political purposes only.

    • “First of all, why does anyone believe the UK or the US govts. care anything about terror attacks on civilians?”

      Jill,

      IMO, the deaths are viewed as collateral damage and the cost of being/remaining “an empire”, to use Karl Rove’s words.

      “These govts. are completely cynical. They care nothing for human life. Leaking of intelligence is done for political purposes only.”

      True, true, and true.

  8. Donald Trump threatened the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences” for holding equipment that he says belongs to him in order to build a criminal case against a Pakistani staffer suspected of massive cybersecurity breaches involving funneling sensitive congressional data offsite.

    This is a shocking allegation and if true, that is clearly an attempt to coerce law enforcement and obstruct the pursuit of justice. He should be impeached!

    Oh wait, I must have mistakenly edited the quote. Here is the corrected quote:

    Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences” for holding equipment that she says belongs to her in order to build a criminal case against a Pakistani staffer suspected of massive cybersecurity breaches involving funneling sensitive congressional data offsite.

    There, fixed it. She’s innocent I tell you. This is a shocking abuse of law enforcement powers characteristic of this “tyrant in chief” and his administration! He should be impeached!

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/24/wasserman-schultz-threatened-police-chief-for-gathering-evidence-on-her-it-staffers-alleged-crimes/

    • Master Olly, your comments on this thread are keepers beyond. You have been on a roll that should go down in this blog’s history to be treasured in the RIL archives!
      Thanks for unleashing reason and substance to the nth degree while slaughtering the weak minded with great tact and fervor.
      Many thanks oh great Jedi Blog Master.
      Your most humble padawan, RPC

      • Not yet, Olly. There must be a few other left-wing actors that we haven’t heard from, yet.
        And their expertise and opinions are sooo valuable😄, we need to hear from the rest of entertainment industry before making a final decision on calling for Trump’s resignation.

  9. This is something I want to share. I do not like Trump or Clinton. I hate being propagandized. Here is a memo concerning left wing propaganda. If I find a similar right wing attempt to control free speech I will post that:

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/david-brock-memo-attack-trump/

    For my part, I don’t care about attacking Trump. I do care about the techniques which are exposed in this confidential memo, techniques for manipulating our citizens. That offends me a great deal and I would like to disseminate their methods as widely as possible.

      • Thanks anonymous.

        I am so freaking sick of all this crap! I hate that we are all being manipulated (or at least they are giving it all they got!). I have never seen things this bad before.

          • When your dear leader Trump models himself on Duterte what do you expect?

            Well for one thing, grubers that will actually believe and repeat your comment without supporting evidence.

            Nicely done!

    • Jill,

      Did you actually read the document? Of course, they are very up front that their goal is strengthening Democrats and countering Republicans, particularly Trump. But the means they propose falls pretty far short of “propaganda.” The document focuses on stuff like countering fake/false news stories and exposing the conduits through which that junk is spread. And encouraging enforcement of ethics standards.

      The “worst” part of it is the overtly biased/partisan approach of accentuating the positive for Democrats and accentuating the negative for Republicans. But that’s just good old partisan politics. There’s no confusion that Republican outlets, including the Free Beacon, do the same. It would be a stretch to call the Free Beacon “mere propaganda” simply because it has an editorial point of view and party alignment.

      Missing from the document is any call to falsify anything or intentionally lie beyond lies of omission.

      If all American politics, across the political spectrum, adhered to what that document calls for, we’d all be much better off and our democracy would be stronger. It’s far from ideal, but actually reading what they are calling for in the document clarifies that the techniques they are calling for (fact-based ethics enforcement, exposing the conduits for fake news) fall far short of objectionable “manipulating our citizens” or “propaganda.”

      It’s not particularly in-depth or challenging writing, so giving it a good read-through isn’t too tough.

  10. I wish leftists like Jon Turley were honest for a change, and before they write their BS trash, they preface their article with the disclosure: “I hate Trump and I wanted desperately for Clinton to become president.”

    At least this way, the reader knows EXACTLY where the writer is coming from and that the article is going to loaded with BS and trash.

    • Ralph, I begin with the expectation that the story is complete BS and then work my way through it for any evidence of truth and/or objectivity. I also expect ANYTHING being reported directly from the political class to be slanted. Imagine a legal blog without someone with their thumb on the scales; I doubt it would qualify for a Top 100 Blawg site.

    • FWIW, I don’t think JT wrote this article. I bet it is one of his students, writing under JT’s name. The wording does not read like JT’s typical stuff.

      I could be wrong, that is my opinion.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

        • Right! Here is how I see the two styles:

          JT: If true, I would find the allegations that Trump praised Duterte troubling, although I would remind everyone that there is no independent evidence of such a comment at this point, nor do we know the exact context of such an alleged conversation.

          JT’s Student Helper: Nobody at the White House denies that Trump heaped mega doses of praise upon his fellow bloodthirsty, murderous Fascist Dictator, Duterte!!!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

    • I did not like either Trump or Hillary Clinton as candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I deeply dislike labels. Liberal, leftist, and so on are just words without any real value in a commentary. Facts are the only element of any value. Go to Zeblan Trump and you will find facts about the Dubious Friends of Donald Trump.

      I am old and I have learnt that the people you select to deal with tells a lot about your own values. Also I have learnt that good manners are indispensable as a part of good communication skills.

      Practice to express your ideas without being rude. And remember that you can always learn something new when debating a subject. Good luck in educating yourself! You have a long way to go!

      • Ahhhh, so when someone critiques a leftist, they are “rude,” but when a leftist critiques someone who opposes leftism, why then they are expressing “good manners” and “good communications skills.” Thanks for your “thoughts”–if they may be elevated to that level. And leftism is indeed a perfect word to describe people who hold leftist values. You don’t like the label? Too bad. If the shoe fits, wear it.

        And when you say that you didn’t “like either Trump or Hillary Clinton,” I take that to mean that you supported Bernie Sanders and/or Jill Stein?

        Of course you did. That’s why you don’t like the word “leftist.” It fits perfectly.

      • Liberal, leftist, and so on are just words without any real value in a commentary.

        Graciela,
        Speaking of rude; nice try, but you do not get to tell me what I value in commentary. I have learned something new about you today, so thank you for that. Good luck in your continued education on good manners in communication. I know it’s a process, something I learned many years ago. You’re on the right path and you don’t have as far to go as many others I’ve communicated with. So you have that going for you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s