Paul: Anyone Who Leaked Trump Intel Report to Press Should Be Jailed


#1

“Anyone who leaked it [to the public] should be prosecuted,” Paul said, “If an intelligence agency head talked to the media, they should go to jail; if it was [someone in the] Obama administration, they should go to jail.”

                                          [insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/11/rand-paul-leaked-trump-fbi-intel-dossier-go-jail-blackmail](http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/11/rand-paul-leaked-trump-fbi-intel-dossier-go-jail-blackmail)

#2

All indications are that the dossier published by Buzzfeed was not even leaked by any US intelligence agency. It supposedly came from a former British agent who is now working for a private intelligence company, if that’s what Paul is talking about.


#3

There’s speculation that Trump released it himself as a distraction. I’m not saying that he did but people are talking!

It would be in line with his character though. He has leaked personal info about himself, sometimes posing as someone else.


#4

From what I have read he marketed it to a ton of news agencies.

However, someone leaked the fact that it was included in the materials to be used in a classified briefing. That is illegal.


#5

Some people assume that it was John McCain.


#6

Some assume it was Harry Reid, who had it early as well. Supposedly both turned it over to the FBI. So there’s no real certainty how it got to Buzzfeed. The only thing one can reasonably assume is that it was someone or an organization that hates Trump and didn’t care how they damaged him.

From the “report” itself, which I can no longer find online, it seems someone paid this former Brit intel guy a lot of money to go around (or claims he did) gathering rumors and innuendo from a number of places.

So whoever released it is not certainly the one who generated it. Somebody who hates Trump, has no ethical standards, but has a lot of money put this together.


#7

In related news, the British ex-spy who compiled the information has gone into hiding along with his family.


#8

More fake news, eh? I don’t known if this is true, or in fact I know it’s not true, by im gonna throw it out there anyway as truth! Strong credential here to qualify for a CNN job.


#9

I was joking. This isn’t a joke though:

Trump dossier: intelligence sources vouch for credibility of report’s author

Seems it’s not as debunked as some would hope.


#10

“Fake news” has existed for hundreds of years already. It was called slander and libel before that.


#11

Uh oh. I see that Steele, who created the “report” for some anti-Trump person or persons, was, with his partner, one of the principals of Orbis Business Intelligence, a company which more or less spies on commercial enterprises for its rivals.

I remember from some years back when people were debating the “millions killed by the U.S.” in Iraq allegations, the Brit publication “Lancet” was the widely quoted source. That information was widely used as anti-American propaganda by many. But if you read the “Lancet” article, you found the actual information source was Orbis. It was not possible to find out who hired Orbis to do its “survey” of the relatives of Iraqi victims, hospital folks, and so on. Nor was it possible to find any verification of the Orbis claim, or even the source of its numbers.

Iraqi and American sources, gave much lower estimates of the number of people killed, as did surveys of Iraqi hospitals and morgues. Nobody in those institutions claimed to have ever having spoken to anybody from Orbis or Lancet, either one.

So, where did Orbis get its information that it fed to Lancet? Nobody knows except Steele, his partner, and whoever hired him to come up with the numbers he gave to Lancet.

And so now we have the same guy, Steele, who comes up with a lot of sensational but entirely unverified information that’s so suspect that even Harry Reid wouldn’t use it during the election. That’s the same Harry Reid who outright lied about Romney’s tax return, but felt this Steele information so ridiculous that even a straight-up liar wouldn’t use it.

Seems like a crock to me.

I would say we’ll see in time. One can’t prove a negative, of course, except in a very few circumstances. One of them could be Trump’s attorney spokesman Cohen, whose passport does not show being out of the country at the time Steele claimed Cohen was in Prague canoodling with the Russkies.


#12

Yadayadayada.
Steele is not the only source

msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bbc-claims-a-second-source-backs-up-trump-dossier/ar-AAlM8Fe?li=BBnb7Kz


#13

No reason to respond derisively just because you hate Trump and I don’t.

In your article, one BBC reporter says he got information from an unnamed “intelligence officer” to the effect that there are other sources that support STeele’s story. So, so far, (let’s see) this is hearsay on hearsay on hearsay on hearsay. No wonder the BBC reporter said in the article:

“nobody should believe something just because an intelligence agent says it.”

I’m not clairvoyant, but I think I can predict that this stuff will never stop as long as Trump (and perhaps any Republican) is in office. The left does not accept defeat well.


#14

I don’t think there is any evidence that anything was leaked at all. The report has been floating around for months, and did not originate in the intelligence community. Why would anyone go to jail for “leaking” a commercially generated report that has been passed around for months?


#15

What was leaked was that the report (and maybe others) were discussed at a top secret meeting with Trump last Friday. That is illegal, you can’t talk about anything that was discussed at a classified meeting or that it even was discussed.

I would be surprised if anyone, Dem or Rep, belonging to the Senate Intelligence Committee would support this action.


#16

Yeah, that is not true. It would be illegal to give out classified information, but the fact that a briefing occurred is not generally classified. So it is not illegal to say that you were briefed. It is also not generally illegal to say what the topics of the brief were. It is possible that the mere existence of a brief would be classified, or that the topics covered would be classified for some reason. I have not heard that was the case here, and can’t think of a reason it would be. For example, Pence, Trump, Conway and others have all made various comments about the fact that they were briefed and given some information about the topics of the briefings, without revealing the classified information in the brief. I don’t think that was improper, and that is all that was reported - that the PEOTUS was briefed on the topic.


#17

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.