
Report: Trump Gave Classified Information to Russians During White House Visit - alexkavon
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/15/528511980/report-trump-gave-classified-information-to-russians-during-white-house-visit
======
existencebox
I'm going to stick my neck out to voice against the constant flagging of
political news as it comes out.

To preempt the common "HN is not about politics", perhaps not, but politics of
late have become such that they DO impact HN even if they aren't fundamentally
technical. A comment on another thread said something along the lines of,
"what do I care, HN is international?" I would argue precedents set here have
international implications, and given YC's bearing as a US company,
indiscretions of our leaders on this level seem like something we should
certainly keep an ear to the ground to.

If our community is silent on things that so set the tone for how our country
is run and perceived for _everyone_, I question what leg we'll have to stand
on when we speak up to things only relevant to us. Being tech-centric does not
excuse a lack of participation in trying to make the world a better place.

~~~
dang
> _but politics of late have become such_

The problem with that argument is that you can—and people do—make it about
every urgent story, of which there are more than enough to crowd out
everything else.

HN is a certain kind of site and not another. It's organized around clear
principles:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html).
If we ditch those principles because of the political intensity of the moment
(or the year, or years), HN becomes something else entirely. Our job as a
community (and ours as moderators) is not to let that happen.

 _The worst thing to post or upvote is something that 's intensely but
shallowly interesting: gossip about famous people, [...], partisan political
articles, etc. If you let that sort of thing onto a news site, it will push
aside the deeply interesting stuff, which tends to be quieter._

~~~
existencebox
And this, I think, is where our perceptions differ: I do not categorize the
above as "shallowly interesting"

I see the current political climate as something we will look back and read
textbooks about. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm just another "doomsaying kid these
days", but it seems unrealistically utopian to suggest that tech can exist in
isolation of the politics around it.

Your own rules, "unless evidence of some new phenomena", I would CERTAINLY
categorize many of the current administrations choices under that bracket, and
that's why I often find myself disagreeing with some of these flags. (SOME,
not all, for sure, but this article in particular was "something new" from my
perceptions over the last 30 odd years)

I can only speak for myself on this last bit, but as a member of the
community, I'm far more OK with an occasional focus on these outliers than
some of the other changes I've seen to HN over the last 5~ years.

(to give a concrete example, off topic jokes/flamewars/ad hominems/"hive mind"
responses seem much more prevelent, and THAT I think presents far greater risk
to "shifting principles" than being aware of politics that truly do affect our
tech community. You seem to acknowlege this in a post below, "intensity of
politics", my argument would be that this is a symptom, where the cause is
that the root politics are shifting as well, and this underlying trend is what
I want to focus on. I'd be all for quelling the "intensity" to look at things
analytically, if such a thing is possible.)

~~~
dang
Sure it will be written about that way in the future. That doesn't make the
mud wrestling of the moment good for intellectually curious discussion.

Nobody here thinks silly things like "tech can exist in isolation". If you
think of this issue in those terms you're likely to miss the important things
about HN. This place is an experiment in escaping the life cycle of internet
forums. One way for that to fail is for the experimenters to lose focus and
forget what they were trying for.

~~~
existencebox
While your points are sound, and I can't argue on that basis, I would hold up
another "noble experiment" which, for being too forceful in its idealism, lost
the ability to change with the times when such changes were necessary to
maintain power and relevance. (Yes I realize I'm making a HUGE jump here by
bringing prohibition into the discussion, it's a rather handwavy/subjective
argument, and as such I can't really expect a change from it, but it's still
one that weighs on my mind) Simply put, I worry about the pitfalls of
idealistic purity and isolation.

Your statement of "can't give the community capacities it doesn't have" is
fair, if disappointing. Perhaps I'd take a slightly more optimistic spin, that
even during the "week politics experiment" I _did_ see corners of good
discussion even if the net did devolve, and I might have a more holistic view
of trying to encourage those discussions for key issues, but that's not my
role at this point.

I mostly argue this for that I would be _embarrassed_ for the tech community
if we were not both informed and active within the political climate that so
spawns all this trouble. I understand this may not be HNs place, and perhaps
my desperation comes from not knowing what another place would be. We escape
from normal media to come here; but do we run the risk of creating our own
bubble, removing ourselves from being active participants opposing even the
most egregious shifts of principle?

At this point I'm just waxing philosophical. I don't expect you to change your
policies, and I'm frankly content/thankful that you even took the time to
justify yourself rationally.

------
hendersoon
My personal feeling is that Trump himself didn't collude with foreign
adversaries, although several of his disreputable campaign team of ne'er do
wells certainly did. I don't believe he deliberately discussed classified
intel with the Russians, either.

He isn't treasonous-- he's incompetent.

Hanlon's Razor puts it well. "Never attribute to malice that which is
adequately explained by stupidity."

~~~
moomin
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

~~~
mattm
At the presidential level (of any organization) it should be inexcusable no
matter what the reason.

------
ryanx435
whether he did or did not do what they are accusing him of, the fact that this
is a 3rd hand article (NPR quoting a Washington Post article quoting their
sources) whose source is so ambiguous that it has no meaning ("current and
former U.S. officials" is broad enough to include retired postmen and your
local tax collector) makes me worry for the future of our democracy.

~~~
hendersoon
The story was independently confirmed by The New York Times and Buzzfeed, each
citing two anonymous sources.

Moreover, the national security advisor's rather curt statement addressing the
matter did not actually deny what the Post reported-- read it carefully.

~~~
ryanx435
more anonymous sources, and not denying is not the same as confirming.

~~~
hendersoon
Deep Throat was an anonymous source. Anonymous sources are fine.

You don't think he would deny it, if it didn't happen? C'mon.

~~~
ryanx435
no, i don't think he would deny it and i don't think he would confirm it,
either.

have you heard of the glomar response?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response)

or lying by ommision? or being deliberately ambiguous?

there are many reason why he wouldn't deny it if it didn't happen. I can't
read his mind, and neither can you. assuming his intentions one way or the
other is a dangerous misstep.

as for anonymous sources, their credibility is directly tied to the
credibility of the source that reports their stories. what if they Washington
Post is making stuff up to sell papers? not saying they are, but they could
be.

~~~
URSpider94
If the WaPo was making this up, then the NYTimes and Reuters would not have
published independent confirmations. They are more than happy to hang each
other out to dry if they can't confirm a story, especially one this momentous.
That's the point of having multiple independent news outlets.

There are also few news sources more credible than the Washington Post.

~~~
ryanx435
lets take this a step further. how did NYTimes and Reuters confirm the story?
did they use the same anonymous source? did they use a different anonymous
source? How would they even know if its an independent confirmation if the
source is anonymous in the first place or merely 1 source giving the same
information to different news outlets to create the perception that the story
has been confirmed independently?

this is sockpuppeting 101: it happens every day on reddit and other internet
forums. what makes you think that its not possible when we're talking about
russia and the united states?

~~~
Analemma_
Now that Trump has admitted he shared the info ([https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2017/05/trump-confirms-s...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2017/05/trump-confirms-sharing-classified-intel-with-russias-foreign-
minister/)), do you retract these comments?

~~~
ryanx435
why would i retract comments that boil down to "question everything." i never
took a side in the entire argument.

------
c3534l
Isn't the president the one who has ultimate control over what's classified
and what's not? I'm not surprised that the president would discuss classified
operations with foreign dignitaries relevant to US interests.

~~~
munin
The system of designating information as confidential, secret, top secret and
so on is indeed established by an executive order (EO 12356) however, one
should actually read 12356 because it isn't as simple as "has ultimate
control." Even within the EO framework, some co-ordination with the NSC is
required.

Additionally, the law (Espionage Act etc) doesn't speak to classification and
names, very broadly:

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any
document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or
information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence
permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered
to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed
from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its
trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt
report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior
officer"

edit: I quoted the wrong statute.

~~~
hendersoon
I don't think anyone is arguing that he didn't have the right to release that
classified intel to our adversaries. The argument is rather that it was an
astonishingly poor decision.

~~~
munin
Indeed, instead of reading anything I wrote one should probably read what the
experts think: [https://lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-
washingto...](https://lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-
posts-game-changing-story)

------
6nf
Are we still at war with Russia or something? I don't understand why Russia is
being demonised in the media so much the last 6 months.

~~~
gonmf
I agree. I see no issue with one country informing another that terrorists may
be plotting an attack and how to prevent it. Today it feels like being told
that every thing to come out of Trump is wrong and every hacker or unpopular
opinion is Russian.

~~~
hendersoon
This was "codename" classified information, the highest level. When FDR died
and Truman was sworn in, he was informed about the Manhattan experiment-- the
vice-president was not looped in. That's how secret the information we're
talking about is.

Moreover, it's not about sharing info to stop terrorists, it's about burning
an intelligence asset inside ISIS, and possibly getting him or her killed. And
not even a US asset; one from one of our allies, reportedly Israel. This will
make our allies less likely to share intel in the future and make us all less
safe.

------
justifier
speaking on hypotheticals

let's say that through investigation there is found to be conclusive evidence
that there was treasonous collusion between the current administration and
foreign entities

everyone is talking about impeachment but would there also be another
'emergency', or expedited, general election?

it would seem to me that if trump were to be removed then the entire cabinet
and all of its subsequent decisions would need to be removed as well

pence, gorsuch, any bills and executive orders

these would in effect be policy and decisions made under treasonous intent and
by an administration being led on by foreign entities so should be treated as
such

~~~
siegel
Sadly, that's not how it would work. Everything he's done would be legally
valid. And the order of presidential succession would decide the next
president.

~~~
justifier
if this is the case this would seem counter productive to 'insuring domestic
tranquility'

if i was looking to defraud a nation state that functioned in this way i would
put in power an individual whose ethics would allow for any motion i willed to
be enabled and whose demeanor would insure the individuals eventual ousting

in this way the nation state would assume the problem had been addressed by
the removal of the individual all the while my desires would still be in
effect

it is like intentionally failing to pay your contractors knowing full well
that any lawsuit would be either impractical to pursue or any settlement would
be a fraction of what was originally bid

~~~
mnm1
I'm sure that's what Putin was thinking.

------
siegel
At this point, I hope for his sake that the Russians are blackmailing or
paying him. Because if he is sostupid to have done something like this at this
point without some huge personal incentive, I almost have to feel bad for him.

Almost...

~~~
Analemma_
Why feel bad for him? Nobody cares-- or more specifically, nobody who matters
(the Republican Congress, or his voting base) cares-- they'll keep supporting
him no matter what, and he knows it.

~~~
hendersoon
At this point, I'm not sure what it would take for the GOP to break ranks with
Trump before they pass that tax bill.

I don't believe there's /anything/ he could do so terrible that they would
walk away from him.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
Not necessarily. I think they'd be perfectly happy if Trump stepped down and
Pence became president. He would be much more effective at pushing through the
GOP agenda.

~~~
siegel
My concern is that when the RNC was hacked, then Russians kept the material to
blackmail the Republicans and so the Republicans will never act.

------
hendersoon
Why was this story buried and hidden? Are Russian trolls running rampant on
YC?

If anyone is still around to see this, please consider clicking "vouch" at the
top of the page.

Edit: This story was briefly unhidden, and now hidden again. There must be an
army of trolls trying to bury it. Which is completely bizarre, as it's on the
front page of every news site in the entire world.

~~~
jsnell
Something that's on the front page of every news site in the world is exactly
the kind of thing that doesn't need to be on HN.

~~~
throwaway8800
I'm not particularly fond of political discussion on HN, but this particularly
political environment is so insane that it ought to be discussed in more and
more places. And I am keen on hearing the perspective of HN readers in
particular on what this President and government is doing. It's a unique
perspective, particularly when the discourse occurs in a community setting,
and it ought not to be suppressed in order to preserve romantic ideas about
what HN is "supposed" to be.

The guidelines have always stated that we should discuss whatever hackers find
interesting. A subset (at least) find these topics interesting and worth
discussion on occasion.

~~~
dang
The political intensity has been greater for at least 6 months now, but that's
a matter of degree. There's nothing qualitatively new about this issue.

The principle here has been in place since HN's founding (see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html))
and after ten years of practice I think it's fair to say it's not 'romantic'.
The site is what it is because we stick to that principle. It would have
decayed years ago if we hadn't, and we shouldn't let that happen now.

~~~
throwaway8800
Seems an understatement to simply describe the current political climate as an
increase in "intensity". I think a mentally ill President on the verge of
impeachment and a country on the verge of constitutional crisis _is
qualitatively different_ than anything that has been happening since the
beginning of HN.

I don't think political discussion needs to be a frequent occurrence, but this
outright immediate shutdown of anything ever related to politics when other
links that are a lot less important (or not "deeply interesting", as the
welcome page notes) dominate the front page as a matter of routine. Links
which are often only tangentially related to hacking (at best), seems really
odd.

~~~
dang
"Outright immediate shutdown of anything ever related to politics" is not at
all an accurate description of HN, nor is your "dominate the front page". If
you know of a fine supply of deeply interesting stories out there, by all
means please submit them.

"Links which are often only tangentially related to hacking" are not only not
off-topic here, they're so on-topic as to be celebrated at the very beginning
of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

Your phrasing rather suggests that you want the very sort of flamewars and
partisan battles that we're specifically excluding. If so, HN may not be the
website you're looking for. Not all internet forums need to be the same, and I
don't see why this one shouldn't preserve its mandate.

~~~
throwaway8800
I do not find your language or "phrasing" to be particularly warm, but I don't
think it precludes us having a productive discussion on the matter. Your
statement of me "wanting flamewars" is inappropriate if not just
disappointing?

Re: shutdown of anything ever related to politics: I do not recall any
political posts, specifically posts related to POTUS, in the last 12 months
not being steadfastly flagged and summarily disappearing from the front page.
This includes threads where the discussion (up to the point it is no longer on
the front page) is entirely reasonable and non-combative, aside from the off-
topic comments contained within it about how the "political posts do not
belong on HN". On the other hand, people can get into a flamewar about the
Apple campus and those posts stay.

There is clearly a dogma that exists about "political posts" those ten years
of practice and it's clear we disagree. But that's OK. I'll have to, and can,
live with not knowing the political opinions and insights on those matters
from HN members.

