Did Admin Officials FIND Trump’s White House Leakers?
Last week, the Washington Post and the New York Times quoted multiple anonymous sources that accused President Trump of sharing classified information with Russia.
The information Trump passed to Russian representatives who visited the White House last week was only known to a handful of people who attended the meeting.
So, while the most of the mainstream media jumped on board the Impeach Trump train, those in charge sought out the “anonymous” sources.
Because sharing information about high-level presidential meetings with the press not only compromises America’s national security but constitutes treason. And is punishable by law.
New reports now speculate that those White House leakers have been identified. But the reports, like the initial leaks, were sourced anonymously.
Trending: Another Media Giant Bows to Leftism
So, we proceed with caution. Here’s what we do know.
The Washington post raised another false flag against Trump last week. Using multiple unnamed sources simply described as “current and former U.S. officials,” the liberal rag alleged:
“President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, … jeopardize[ing] a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.”
As with all the rest, this one was designed to distract and disrupt Trump’s political agenda from moving forward.
But it didn’t work.
Trump’s National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster firmly discredited WAPO for disseminating a “false” report.
“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations 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.”
But that wasn’t good enough for the New York Times, who the next day claimed:
“In a series of early-morning posts on Twitter, [President Trump] said he had the ‘absolute right’ to give ‘facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety’ to Russia’s foreign minister and ambassador.”
The liberal media didn’t seem to care that “officials” in that high-level meeting leaked classified information to the press. All they wanted was an anti-Trump “breaking” news non-story.
Which begs the following question.
Who were these “U.S. Officials” and why did they Commit Treason?
Behind the scenes, authorities strive to identify the leakers.
As Breitbart noted:
“Trey Yingst, chief White House correspondent for the One America News Network, three staffers have been identified. … Yingst claims President Trump will fire “multiple people” on his return to Washington from his landmark foreign tour through the Middle East.”
From what we know of Trump’s penchant for delegation, if three treasonous White House staffers had truly been identified, Trump’s management team would have given them the boot and filed criminal charges already. They would not need to wait for our president to return from overseas.
That’s why I question the validity of this report.
Meanwhile, former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove speculated on Fox Business that career bureaucrats are to blame.
“Our biggest current leaker is [James] Comey, who is obviously going back to his notes, internal memoranda and through friends leaking them to the press.”
Rove also pointed out that at least nine white house staffers leaked information, according to the WP story.
However, because Trump doesn’t telegraph his moves to the enemy (foreign or domestic), all we have to go on right now is speculation.
But, ongoing leaks do pose a fundamental threat to American safety, and presidential confidence in the security of closed-door meetings.
Because, as Allen West opined:
“The President of the United States cannot effectively lead the country if people within his inner circle are actively working to sabotage him. It is critical these leaks be found and removed from positions of government.”
Of that, there is no doubt. The leakers will be found. And when they are, we’ll NAME them, right here.