Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made the denial.

National security adviser H.R. McMaster made the same denial: "At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly."

These were both responses to a Washington Post news story, that President Trump spilled some classified information to Russia's foreign minister and ambassador in their Oval Office meeting last week.

The thing about these denials: They don't deny what the sources in the Post piece allege.

The unnamed intelligence sources in the story charge Trump with "describing details about an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft."

"I get great intel," Trump reportedly said before, in the Post's words, "discussing aspects of the threat that the United States only learned through the espionage capabilities of a key partner."

So when McMaster and Tillerson say Trump didn't discuss sources, methods or military operations, they're not denying the charge: that he revealed what we know about a terrorist threat. Nobody has denied that Trump revealed that knowledge.

"Most alarmingly" the Post cites officials as saying, "Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State's territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat." Again, this is not necessarily sources or methods, but it points in that direction.

Finally, the Post piece actually states that "he did not reveal the specific intelligence gathering method," but explains why what Trump did reportedly reveal would endanger U.S. interests.

In short, by revealing that we know about the threat, and that the threat was detected in a particular city, Trump is tipping our hand to ISIS, possibly, but also helping Russia and Syria get closer to identifying the intelligence sources of our intelligence partners.

Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's commentary editor, can be contacted at His column appears Tuesday nights on