So About This Russian Bounty Thing
-
I think it is made being a bigger deal than it should be.
There is so much information coming into the President, I do believe it is very possible that it was mentioned in a briefing, but as far as I have read, it was presented as "possible", not a "sure thing".
And who can say that "back room" talks there were between the US and Russia about this? The US told Russia that they were aware of it, consequences would happen if it were true/continued, etc.
I am guessing that there are rumors of threats to US people all the time. If it were such a big deal, the US has the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the CIA director, the National Intelligence director, etc. I would think they would have pushed this if President Trump was breifed on it and ignored it or missed it.
-
I can't believe that anyone actually thinks there's something here to accuse Trump of. TDS has metastasized and a few of you have lost your minds. Full stop.
Tens of thousands of bits of Intel get handled each and every day. Thousands of people comb through the stuff and check it out. A tiny % of that makes it to the next level. By the time it's all filtered, only a tiny fraction makes it into the daily report. Even then, there is so much of it that staffers have to choose which ones the president will be told of. This has been the way it works your entire life. Yet suddenly, because a newspaper that has been PROVEN to make shit up tells you to be outraged, you become a Pavlovian slobbering dog.
Jesus H. Christ, we are doomed to ignorance.
-
That’s one possibility. The other is his (non) reaction worried the intelligence community enough that they started leaking it.
-
@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
That’s one possibility. The other is his (non) reaction worried the intelligence community enough that they started leaking it.
It’s been out there for over a year. Put up the real evidence. I’ll be right there with you. Enough with innuendo.
-
@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
That’s one possibility. The other is his (non) reaction worried the intelligence community enough that they started leaking it.
That's utter bull shit and I refuse to believe you're not smart enough to know it.
-
@Loki said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
It’s been out there for over a year. Put up the real evidence. I’ll be right there with you. Enough with innuendo.
Do you think both NYT and AP are making this up out of whole cloth, and Bolton is lying through his teeth agreeing with them?
That was a question for Loki, not Larry.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
@Loki said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
It’s been out there for over a year. Put up the real evidence. I’ll be right there with you. Enough with innuendo.
Do you think both NYT and AP are making this up out of whole cloth, and Bolton is lying through his teeth agreeing with them?
That was a question for Loki, not Larry.
No. I think intelligence gathering is art and not science and there is no clear evidence Often. We’ve already seen the quality of uranium yellow cake evidence in Iraq and Soleimani posing an imminent threat both topics the NYT has covered at length.
Now suddenly the NYT found the smoking gun just like so many failed stories over the last four years that no one follows up on because of the next week’s innuendo. Let’s see it NYT or just admit it is one of many scenarios. Just show us your goods.
-
@Loki Intelligence gathering is anything but an art. Diagnosing what you've got and who to give it to is the art.
How you can make such a wide-sweeping statement as in your last paragraph above is amazing. No one follows up on? No one? How is it you know stories are not followed up on? Much less for a reason like "next week's innuendo"? What goods are you looking for, precisely?
-
@Catseye3 said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
@Loki Intelligence gathering is anything but an art. Diagnosing what you've got and who to give it to is the art.
How you can make such a wide-sweeping statement as in your last paragraph above is amazing. No one follows up on? No one? How is it you know stories are not followed up on? Much less for a reason like "next week's innuendo"? What goods are you looking for, precisely?
Actualoy, he's talking about a very familiar pattern...
-
@Catseye3 said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
@Loki Intelligence gathering is anything but an art. Diagnosing what you've got and who to give it to is the art.
How you can make such a wide-sweeping statement as in your last paragraph above is amazing. No one follows up on? No one? How is it you know stories are not followed up on? Much less for a reason like "next week's innuendo"? What goods are you looking for, precisely?
Verifiable and credible information. The Pentagon and NSA have both said they haven’t seen it. As far all the things that the media has said over the last four years that wasn’t true, I don’t know where to start. But how about mentally unfit, fascist and Russian agent for starters? 15 million immigrants to be deported, golden showers, Mueller investigation....
-
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@Mik said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
I think that is entirely possible, given the track record.
Given the track record, it is more probable that the NYT and the AP report the truth, Bolton tells the truth, that Trump didn’t pay attention as to not remember or is lying.
-
@Axtremus said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
@Mik said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
I think that is entirely possible, given the track record.
Given the track record, it is more probable that the NYT and the AP report the truth, Bolton tells the truth, that Trump didn’t pay attention as to not remember or is lying.
You can place your trust in the NYT if you wish. It's a fact that they have run with multiple stories in the last few years, that would not have stood scrutiny by a first year journalism student. It is also a fact that the paper is no longer as much concerned with unbiased reporting, as biased reporting. The paper not only reports what it feels is the news, but may go so far as to manufacture news. And it is also a fact that the staff of the paper has now determined its editorial page need not strive for any opinions that do not fit the staff's desired narrative.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
@Axtremus said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
@Mik said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
I think that is entirely possible, given the track record.
Given the track record, it is more probable that the NYT and the AP report the truth, Bolton tells the truth, that Trump didn’t pay attention as to not remember or is lying.
You can place your trust in the NYT if you wish. It's a fact that they have run with multiple stories in the last few years, that would not have stood scrutiny by a first year journalism student. It is also a fact that the paper is no longer as much concerned with unbiased reporting, as biased reporting. The paper not only reports what it feels is the news, but may go so far as to manufacture news. And it is also a fact that the staff of the paper has now determined its editorial page need not strive for any opinions that do not fit the staff's desired narrative.
Wherever feasible and where I have the interest, I try to look up the original sources and gather news on the same event from multiple publications, so placing trust in any one publication is just your red herring, not an issue at all.
If something ever comes down to either trusting the NYT or trusting whatever comes out of Trump’s mouth/twit/press secretary/communications director/spokesperson, the NYT is certainly the more trustworthy party, given the track record.
