So About This Russian Bounty Thing

[Larry]

You shouldn't put any stock in what the new york Times says. They're the ones who leaked this nonsense in the first place, and there's no proof yet that any of it is even true.

[Jolly]

AFAIK, there is no hard intelligence this actually happened.

We've got bigger things to worry about.

[Catseye3]

@Jolly said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

We've got bigger things to worry about.

My point exactly.

[Loki]

The Pentagon says there is no corroborating evidence. So now the NYT has the opportunity to expose the Pentagon has party to Trump’s lies or move on to the next titillating allegation.

Any money on which it will be?

[jon-nyc]

Is the pentagon claiming there’s no ‘corroborating evidence’ that Trump was briefed? Or nothing to corroborate the intelligence reports of Russia paying bounties?

I would assume the latter, in which case it seems entirely unrelated to whether Trump is lying or not about being briefed.

[Jolly]

Believe everything in the NYT to your intellectual peril.

[George K]

NatSec advisor O'Brien explicitly states that Trump had not been briefed on this:

[Catseye3]

@Loki This is a matter of global politics. Complex, between countries with a very long and difficult relationship.

You really think it's a matter of one newspaper telling lies? Thee and me will likely not be told the true bill, and we shouldn't be.

And why the Pentagon, anyway? The only reason I can think of is that they are the messenger for the spooks, who do not interact with the public. Also as it should be.

There is also reason to believe that the intelligence community doesn't trust Trump and would withhold intel from him for reasons of security. If that is so, then the Pentagon can put out all the memos it wants; they may or may not be true, and you can believe whatever floats your boat.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K I get the whitehouse says the President wasn’t briefed. Loki was implying the pentagon says the same thing, but I think he’s just wrong about what the pentagon was asserting.

[Mik]

Just one more beat of the drum. Stuff like this makes me want to vote for him.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

@George-K I get the whitehouse says the President wasn’t briefed. Loki was implying the pentagon says the same thing, but I think he’s just wrong about what the pentagon was asserting.

Here's the DoD statement which says there's no corroborating evidence to support the allegations. Presumably they're talking about the "bounty" allegations:

[jon-nyc]

Exactly what I thought, George. Hence my post to Loki.

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

Is the pentagon claiming there’s no ‘corroborating evidence’ that Trump was briefed? Or nothing to corroborate the intelligence reports of Russia paying bounties?

I would assume the latter, in which case it seems entirely unrelated to whether Trump is lying or not about being briefed.

Okay I was conflating two issues but the quality of the intelligence matters and the NYT printed it and Pentagon said not so.

So I want to see a show down between the NYTand Pentagon but I expect the NYT will duck it. Prove me wrong.

[jon-nyc]

I haven’t read the NYT piece but I still think you’re conflating to totally independent questions.

Let X = Intelligence reports
Let Y = corroborating evidence of X.

NYT (and now AP): ‘Trump was briefed on X’

Pentagon: ‘we have no Y’

How are the NYT and the Pentagon at odds?

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

I haven’t read the NYT piece but I still think you’re conflating to totally independent questions.

Let X = Intelligence reports
Let Y = corroborating evidence of X.

NYT (and now AP): ‘Trump was briefed on X’

Pentagon: ‘we have no Y’

How are the NYT and the Pentagon at odds?

Jesus. What is most important? If the NYT doesn’t have good info on a bounty everything else is bullshit. Got it?

[Renauda]

@Jolly said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

AFAIK, there is no hard intelligence this actually happened.

We've got bigger things to worry about.

Bingo!

[jon-nyc]

@Loki said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

I haven’t read the NYT piece but I still think you’re conflating to totally independent questions.

Let X = Intelligence reports
Let Y = corroborating evidence of X.

NYT (and now AP): ‘Trump was briefed on X’

Pentagon: ‘we have no Y’

How are the NYT and the Pentagon at odds?

Jesus. What is most important? If the NYT doesn’t have good info on a bounty everything else is bullshit. Got it?

Your PDS was preventing you from thinking clearly. Don’t take it out on me for pointing it out.

Its still the case that the pentagon announcement has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Trump is lying about being briefed.

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

@Loki said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

I haven’t read the NYT piece but I still think you’re conflating to totally independent questions.

Let X = Intelligence reports
Let Y = corroborating evidence of X.

NYT (and now AP): ‘Trump was briefed on X’

Pentagon: ‘we have no Y’

How are the NYT and the Pentagon at odds?

Jesus. What is most important? If the NYT doesn’t have good info on a bounty everything else is bullshit. Got it?

Your PDS was preventing you from thinking clearly. Don’t take it out on me for pointing it out.

Its still the case that the pentagon announcement has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Trump is lying about being briefed.

How could he be briefed in a meaningful way on non corroborated evidence? Mr President we heard a rumor and we can’t validate it. That’s a briefing? Haha

[Loki]

Was Trump briefed this morning on the doctor in Houston that said patients were 10 times worse off than wave 1? I mean 10x mustn’t they be dead before they make it to the hospital?

Jesus does he get briefed on every rumor?

[jon-nyc]

I don't think its standard practice for intelligence agencies to vet their briefings through the pentagon, and wait until the pentagon corroborates it or not before reporting. I'd bet a decent sum that isn't the case.

Even if you take the Pentagon completely out of it, your point still strikes me as incorrect:

What is most important? If the NYT doesn’t have good info on a bounty everything else is bullshit.

Even if intelligence turns out not to be true, we still have a valid interest in knowing what the presidents response was when confronted with it by an intelligence service that found it sufficiently credible to report it to him.

Allow me to present a cartoonish example just to make the point:

John Brennan: "Mr President, we have reason to believe Al Qaeda hid a suitcase nuclear weapon under the streets of Dallas"

Obama: "Dallas? Meh. Hey Jack, is Marine One here yet? I want to get a golf game in before it gets too hot"

next day

John Brennan: "Sir, good news, it turns out we were wrong about the nuclear weapon."

Surely we would and should judge Obama negatively even though the next days news meant his inattention had no price.