Page 8 - Special Access Program Information News Today

Well. >> hannity: you know, when you think of comey going up to extreme carelessness versus gross negligence, we know that she mishandled this, she destroyed special access program information, both of those things are felonies. so now based on sarahs new information, where does this go, especially if that smoking gun exists? >> jay: even the address of the issue before loretta lynch said this about the matter to him, this is serious. i think that look, a new round of investigations should take ...

Well. >> hannity: you know, when you think of comey going up to extreme carelessness versus gross negligence, we know that she mishandled this, she destroyed special access program information, both of those things are felonies. so now based on sarahs new information, where does this go, especially if that smoking gun exists? >> jay: even the address of the issue before loretta lynch said this about the matter to him, this is serious. i think that look, a new round of investigations should take ...

Scandal since lord knows one. this is the biggest nothing burger ever. it was a mistake. i said it was a mistake. i know you had "the new york times" here yesterday, they covered it like it was pearl harbor. the russians -- in my opinion -- based on the intel and counter intel, they could not have known how to weaponize that information unless they had been guided. guided by americans and people who had polling and data information. i never said i was a perfect candidate. i certainly never said ...

Special access program information because she had a computer server that she should have not had at a mom and pop a shop bathroom closet. there is no evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and the russians. she has been pushing other bizarre conspiracy theories for year. she blamed all of her husbands problems on the right-wing conspiracy. joining us now, laura ingraham. lets first start -- i want to ask a legal question. i had a couple of friends or mind that are lawyers. if you have...

"washington post" story driving an agenda against this president and using information to push that agenda against him, or is it founded in facts that create a real issue that intelligence issues feel it must be spoken about to some extent in order to make sure that this doesnt happen going forward? >> there is a real issue. if the intelligence compromised one of our partners sources and methods, simply by giving away the location of where this information came from, and what the nature of the i...

That intelligence that was shared by the president, as well as the electronic intercepts, or picking up phone calls or emails or text message messages, because that is the bread and butter for the nsa. neither of those agencies were discussed, and just a follow on what john was saying, the "post" that says this was code worded information. this would be special access program information. we talked a lot about that with viewers at home last year during the clinton email investigation. special ac...

Tacit green light to go ahead and do this. in terms of agendas, if you read that article, it says that a current and former u.s. officials, at any time we have seen former u.s. officials quoted, they are not any time, but many times, when we see former u.s. officials quoted in stories that are critical of the trump administration, as they tend to be people who were in the past administration, who dont think of this president has the seriousness to deal with information that they believe needs to...

Information that was really owned by the united states and for the president to share this information had come from one of our partners based on the reporting in the region and also based on the reporting, it was highly sensitive information that came from an espionage operation. based on my decade of covering this area, that is code for a human source or human spying. those were among the most delicate and likely to be compromised, martha. >> martha: thank you very much. we will go back to cat...

Out on reflecting back to russia, it has a perception of being another, oh, my goodness, what is going on at the white house" sort of thing. but the national security guys are coming out, and he did not say that they did not discuss classified information, he said the story as reported is false. he said at no time or any intelligent sources or methods were discussed, nor military operations that were disclosed that were not already known publicly. the president did share some information. the fa...

This piece to paint him as bumbling with this information, chris. >> the way it reads, again, i dont know, the way it reads is that because the administration notified or was obliged to notify the senate intelligence that this was a piece of raw steak that was thrown out right in front of senators who were already gunning for the president, who look at him and his handling of the russian investigation and other things, and they hear that and that immediately results in the leak, the allegation, ...