Report: Trump Gave Classified Information to Russians During White House Visit | Hacker News Reader

Report: Trump Gave Classified Information to Russians During White House Visit

npr.org

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.

Sorry but HN really isn't the best place to discuss it.

There are plenty of interesting startup and IT news stories that don't make it to the front page because of political posts.

You need to expect that massive stories like this one make the front page. The community wants to discuss them. Even if you successfully bury this one, another will come shortly. It's inevitable and unavoidable.

> The community wants to discuss them

Some want to discuss them, but that's not necessarily "the community".

There's robust disagreement, of course, about what belongs here, but I think the HN community has a pretty healthy sense of the site's core values: intellectual curiosity and civil, substantive discussion. I think that's why most people come here. If anything makes HN different, that's it, and we'd be fools to squander it.

The site can't be dedicated both to that and also to the "intensely but shallowly interesting" news of the moment, to use pg's old phrase. Without checks and balances, the latter would soon burn up the former. The users flagging these stories seem to me to be doing so because they understand that.

That–with all due respect–completely misses the point of the post you're replying to. Which is: there are instances where people aren't 'entrepreneurs' or 'tech people' but 'citizens'.

Yes, of course. And that's far more important, and has been every day since HN has existed.

The question is whether HN should remain what it was founded to be, a site dedicated to the gratification of intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). If you answer yes, then it's necessary to prevent other things from flooding it, even when—especially when—they're more important.

Breaking News: Asteroid coming to hit the Earth "Sorry, HN really is not the place to discuss this"

I understand your sentiment and yes, the posts like this should be allowed for people to discuss.But more often than not, this whole thread will get polarised with supporters and critics arguing with little material details to support their arguments.

HN allowed these posts some time back and guess looking at the comments convinced them to stop doing it.

No, the principles haven't changed at all. For example I'm not sure a word of https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html has been edited since 2009.

What has changed is the intensity of the political climate.

> 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 and 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.

I really look forward to seeing HN's take, and typical HN-like, in-depth discussions of some of these topics. HN users have an impressive breadth, depth, and diversity, and are insightful and generally courteous and respectful, and as much as you seem to eschew and squelch these topics, HN is really where they seem to get their best treatment. While I generally appreciate your beneficial policing and moderation, I think it's at it's best when it's promoting high caliber discussions, rather than the censoring. I understand moving "off-topic" posts off the first page at an accelerated rate, but maybe you could give them a few hours more daylight before burying them? All this notwithstanding, thanks for all you do.

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.)

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.

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.

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."

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Yes, it's possible they were all punked. However, these are all very experienced news organizations with a hundred-odd Pulitzer Prizes each. I trust them to do their homework and check with independent sources. Additionally, it's very interesting to see that McMaster's denial does not refute the core point of the news pieces -- he says that Trump did not disclose sources and methods. Nobody is alleging that he did -- the allegation is that he disclosed intel that is so specific that it could only have come from one source.

To add, the story in the NYTimes is getting a lot more specific: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-...

Lots of details as to specifically what Trump shared that was troublesome, and how McMaster's denial didn't address the issue.

Now that Trump has admitted he shared the info (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/trump-confirms-s...), do you retract these comments?

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

> the fact that this is a 3rd hand article (NPR quoting a Washington Post article quoting their sources)

The 2nd hand source was posted to HN, but quickly flag killed. The 1st hand source is not a media figure, nor are they in interested in writing a tell-all Medium article.

> whether he did or did not do what they are accusing him of, the fact that this is a 3rd hand article

See, now even the President has admitted it! You can't get any more first hand than that!

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.

Yes the President decides on classification. The issue here is that the intelligence came from a third party who never authorised the US to share it with anyone else especially not the Russians.

Why is Russia an issue here ? Because they are there not just to fight ISIS but also to support the Syrian government who the US and most of the world absolutely do not support. And so Trump just helped Russia prop up the Syrians.

This was information coming from an ally who didn't give authorization to transmit that information to Russians.

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.

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.

Indeed, instead of reading anything I wrote one should probably read what the experts think: https://lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washingto...

Is Russia an adversary to the USA in the war on isis?

If you read the story, you'd find that this is included. It also goes into detail why the disclosure was unwise even if not illegal.

Even though the current administration may have lowered expectations substantially, I am sure people will still have faint memories of times when presidents could be criticised for actions that were simply "very very wrong", even if those actions didn't amount to crimes.

> I'm not surprised that the president would discuss classified operations with foreign dignitaries relevant to US interests.

I am surprised that the president would be so cavalier about releasing classified information without due consideration, given how much of his campaign was complaining about his opponent playing fast & loose with classified info.

a. The intel was provided to the USA in confidence by a third party. If the story is true, then POTUS just burned that third party.

b. Apparently this is intel that we haven't shared with any of our close allies. Russia ... is not our close ally

c. The WaPo article paints the picture that Trump went off-script and simply shared the intel to boast about how he gets the best briefings, wonderful briefings.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

I was just kidding. No, I don't feel bad for him at all.

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.

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.

Do you really think you will succeed in keeping a story this huge off the front page?

As each one is buried, someone else will come along thinking "hey, this isn't here yet!" and start a new one.

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.

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) 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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

> Are Russian trolls running rampant on YC? [...] There must be an army of trolls

Please. This kind of discourse degradation is what we specifically ask people not to drag in here. If the rest of the internet is on fire, that's an opportunity for the HN community to stick to its values. That includes not accusing others of astroturfing or shillage or "Russian troll"-age just because you hold a different view than they do.

It's not hard to see why users would flag this story: "if they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic". If you think the story obviously belongs here, kindly (re)-read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com