Btw, Lawfareblog.com is shocked that someone in the CIA or elsewhere would burn its sources by revealing this top secret information: "I understand their motivation—the aberrance of Donald Trump is so great that they have no faith in his ability or willingness to process intelligence analysis faithfully. I share their concern—in spades. But violating norms of behavior and the criminal law is not the way to ameliorate the problem. And make no mistake—this disclosure of classified information to the Post reporters is almost certainly a crime by whoever leaked it."
The leak supports your contention in my mind. The U.S. has a well established policy of warning targets they're in danger. We even have formal procedures and a numbered government form for the warnings. Media speculation about the executive branch's role mostly disappeared after the first couple of days, but only an order from someone of sufficient authority would keep the standard warning procedure, which does not require instruction from the top, from being carried out. And Trump was not informed only if he held his hands over his ears and babbled loud noise to block out the information during his morning briefing and any other time someone brought it up.
Mr. Khashoggi was a permanent U.S. resident and Washington Post journalist. Of course he should, could and under any other administration would have been warned and returned safely to the U.S.
WaPo says bipartisan congressional support for arms sales to Sawdi Arabia has plummeted and resistance continues to grow. "The defense industry’s typically aggressive lobby has gone quiet..."
"In the House, lawmakers are signing on to several proposals that would curtail Saudi deals, including one offered by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) that would mandate updates on the investigation into Khashoggi’s death before any new military sales to Saudi Arabia could be considered."
= new reply since forum marked as read
