Yesterday, on the same day- I had meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the FM of Ukraine, Pavlo Klimkin.#LetsMakePeace! pic.twitter.com/SPiIrJqI6G
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 11, 2017
The Left-Wing media weaponises fake news to attack Trump and the BBC is a willing ally.
The BBC reports a Washington Post ‘fake news’ story that Trump revealed secret intelligence to the Russians as real…never mind that the Post is radically opposed to Trump and is doing everything in its power to bring him down….and never mind the statements from those at the meeting, that this story is so much bunkum, that the BBC reports but subsequently completely ignores…
Trump ‘shared classified information with Russia’
President Donald Trump revealed highly classified information about so-called Islamic State (IS) to Russia’s foreign minister, officials have told US media.
The information came from a partner of the US which had not given the US permission to share it with Russia, says the Washington Post.
It happened when Mr Trump met Sergei Lavrov in the Oval Office last week, says the paper.
But a senior security official has said the report is not true.
“This story is false,” said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy, who was in the meeting. “The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced.”
Mr Trump’s National Security Advisor, Gen HR McMaster, also said the story was false.
So people who were present at the meeting say this story is completely false….in response the BBC reports that the Washington Post says…
The Washington Post, which broke the story, said the McMaster statement did not amount to a denial of their story.
Really? lotta lotta laughs.
The BBC is sure it happened despite the statements from those present…
What actually happened?
In a conversation with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, in the Oval Office, the president revealed details that could lead to the exposure of a source of information, officials told the Washington Post and the New York Times.
The discussion was about an IS plot and the intelligence disclosed came from a US ally, information considered too sensitive to share with other US allies, the papers report.
Others present realised the mistake and scrambled to “contain the damage” by informing the CIA and the National Security Agency, says the Post.
But did it ‘actually happen’? Those who were there say not…so why does the BBC claim it did happen? Because it’s yet more mud to fling at the enemy, mud which they hope will stick if they keep flinging enough…
The fallout from this story could be enormous and not just because there is a boundless trove of Republican quotes over the past year – directed at Mrs Clinton – about the utmost importance of protecting top-secret information.
There is the Russian connection, of course.
Then there is the question of whether US allies will be more reluctant to share sensitive intelligence information with the US, lest the president put sources at risk.
This will only stoke accusations by Trump critics that the president is undisciplined and inexperienced in the delicacies of foreign policy, where his shoot-from-the hip style presents an ongoing danger.
The Washington Post tells us that it knows of the details in the intel…
The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.
So its ‘source’ revealed this supposedly top secret intel to the Washington Post whilst spinning a tale that claims that Trump revealed it to the Russians? Oh and never mind that this ‘source’ is trying to undermine the President of the US whilst working for him…attacking US democracy and the electoral system….so Russian huh? And yet the Post is happy to collude in this treachery.
And what was the intel about? The Telegraph says it was about a laptop plot to bomb a aircraft….
During the meeting, Mr Trump went off-script and began describing details about an Isil threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft, the officials reportedly said.
But the BBC reports that this issue was openly discussed without compromising any intel…..
In a statement delivered outside the White House, Mr McMaster said: “The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organisations to include threats to aviation.
“At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”
So is this just more anti-Trump spin taking a real fact and re-inventing it as an alternate, anti-Trump, fact?
Consider that the US and UK recently announced they wanted to ban laptops from aircraft….kind of suggests they had intel of a plot and that the plot was about laptops. I could be wrong in that intepretation…lol. So you and I know, with no help from Trump, that there is probably an ISIS plot to bomb an aircraft. There must be a source for that intel. A source inside ISIS. [Sssshhhh…don’t tell the Russians]
The story of the ban was in the newspapers…and on the BBC…
US and UK ban cabin laptops on some inbound flights
And again just a few days ago…
US to discuss with EU possible laptop ban on flights
So is the BBC in collusion with the Russkies, is the BBC’s reckless loose-lips handing top secret intel to the Russians?
Or is there in fact no ‘secret’ to this and the threat was discussed by Trump with the Russians as Powell and McMaster state without revealing any sensitive information?
So why is the BBC claiming beyond doubt that it did happen based on a story from a famously anti-Trump paper?
Not as if the anti-Trump brigade aren’t prepared to perjure themselves…..
The Democrats should be ashamed. This is a disgrace!#DrainTheSwamp pic.twitter.com/UfbKEECm2V
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 11, 2017
The BBC is big on trustiness and transparenciness to go with their commitment to truthiness.
The next time one of the BBC’s arse clowns arrives on here to pontificate about the alternative media and its propensity for ‘fake news’ I shall direct them to this piece.
This entire non-story is fake from top to bottom, yet the BBC is treating it as if it were holy writ. Are there no depths to which this rancid corporation will not sink?
(Current BBC) ‘Top’ Stories
Moors Murderer Ian Brady dies
Relatives of some of Brady’s five child victims say his death does not end their “nightmare”.
1 hour ago
Trump ‘shared secret info with Russia’
32 minutes ago
Labour manifesto ‘radical and responsible’
“quotes”, ‘quotes’, more ‘quotes’ and a few missing bits, like BBC editorial, such as the Shadow Chancellor pulling an Abbott, though radically and responsibly one is sure.
Pulling an Abbott? He’s going to need a bigger hat!
No Mr Cooper, there maybe deeper depth’s on another planet but not this one, still not to worry, they will be cut down to size before June is finished,…………
This is mystic Manxie’s prediction, May and the Tories landslide election win will empower May to scrap the licence fee and cripple free to air BBC programming, which will cease within 12 months, Murdoch will take control by consent already given by May, and ”legalities” already anticipated, certainly before the serious Brexit negotiations get started, not many people will make anymore licence payments even if it is phased out.
Hopefully they will be ”forced” to drop the ‘British’ part of their moniker.
All that would be orgasmic, but after the ejaculation’s, we are out of business.
I predict the BBC will be on the road to financial anorexia before the end of TT week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39902108
Could Trump be guilty of obstruction of justice?
Could Katty Kay and the BBC be so up Obama’s fundament they have lost sight of any vestige of professional integrity or impartiality?
Not withstanding whether this latest bit of news about Trump is true or not; does nobody at the BBC see that Jon Sopel gets so excited when he thinks he has found a bit of anti-Trump propaganda, that he is obviously not able to analyse it properly? He wasn’t able to do the analysis that Alan has done in this posting – and Alan isn’t paid and I assume Sopel is very well paid. I find it disconcerting when a BBC reporter (supposedly unbiased) can report in this way.
He is disgrace to professional scribblerism D.
He is always on a low fact diet, thats why he looks so gaunt.
ps i am not a gauntist, i just dont like him, because frankly he is an A-hole.
Alas that make’s me an admitted A-hole-ist, in the pincer’s of PC.
Nice analysis Alan, good breakdown.
The irony, the same bBC which champions the likes of :
Corbyn:” We need to defuse tensions with Russia,Iran,ISIS,North Korea, Diane Abbots ex husband etc”
Assange
Chick with a dick aka Chelsea
Snowden
Wikileaks
the message from the bBC is that we should have no secrets, yet here they try to make capital out of a fake story where they claim Trump did as they demand everybody should be doing.
This is the real motivation behind the russia fake news narrative booster that took place last night i.e. trump’s administration found out that it was a democratic employee who passed the clinton and podesta mails on to wikileaks. Guess what? he got murdered. so this is what they are trying to distract all from. obviously the bbc does not even mention a word on this investigation report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/slain-dnc-staffer-had-contact-with-wikileaks-investigator-says.html
There’s earlier reports taking a different tack April 17th
\\ Jack Burkman, a Washington, D.C., lawyer and GOP operative told The ENQUIRER after more than half a year digging into the case. “Seth discovered the Russians hacked the DNC and he was killed to prevent him from going public with that information.”//
But the new line Fox is gaining traction thru a number of publishers eg DM
i don’t recall but surely the issue here is why the bbc never reports anything bad about the clinton party but it only needs unnamed sources to do headlines on donald trump
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39944520
The above is now a level of “journalism” that’s so low, it’s extraordinary. With a headline of; “Trump ‘asked FBI to halt Flynn inquiry'”, the artcle refers to a “US Media Report” for this quote (and not Trump), yet that actual report is never shown. I.e. this is a quote from an unnamed US Reporter / Source (presumably), and not James Comey.
It then quotes Trump as saying to Comey; “”I hope you can let this go,”” (about the Flynn investigation) – yet they cover their as*ses by saying, that Trump told Comey this, “reportedly”.
I think I understand now, what these cock*suckers are about now, that this “reporting” is allegations, about allegations!
Fukc the lot of them.
So much for the BBC’s reputation for double sourcing its stories (which has been a lie for years, in any case).
Maybe they got it from BIJ via Newsnight and had Diane Abbott and Vince Cable fact check it?
All good, because they can hire Nick Pollard when necessary to ‘investigate’, and then Lord Hall Hall and James Harding can suddenly forget any conversations they had…. and it alllllll goes away…..
The bBC and reporting fake news about DT
Hillary Clinton tries to avoid ‘Donald Trump’ hug
Follow the link in which to find out, that actually its nothing of the sort.In fact DY isn’t even there.
The bBC we lie by omission and if you complain we will tell your boss you are a racist and should be sacked.