So About This Russian Bounty Thing
-
@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
So the intelligence community briefed a congressman but not the president?
No one "briefed" Adam Schitt. He is constantly digging for anything he can twist into a pretzel to go after Trump with. There are traitors in government who try to help him do that. Just like the Russian conspiracy fraud, he knew there was nothing to it, but he waited for the traitors to build it into a big scandal. He is complicit in yet another act of sedition.
The intelligence community didn't do squat. They are on record saying it's not even true. Schitt is a traitor, and so is the anonymous person(s) who gave him this unproven rumor.
-
@George-K said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
So the intelligence community briefed a congressman but not the president?
That's what Hemingway is implying.
But, ever if they did brief both, why did Schiff not do anything?
If he had put any credence in the briefing and he thought Trump had also been briefed, he would have been on it like flies on Schiff.
The whole thing doesn't pass the sniff test.
-
Well, well, well....
Reports that a Russian military intelligence unit offered bounties on coalition soldiers in Afghanistan are based partially on old information that surfaced more than a decade ago, international intelligence sources said. The sources include both Western-based analysts and front line personnel on the ground in South Asia.
Many of the sources spoke to Just the News via encrypted communications, and insisted that their names not be revealed because their lives are at risk.
“The only thing new about this story is the date on the headline,” one South Asian contact said. “This is old information, going back to Obama days and before. Everyone who has been involved in Afghanistan heard this a long time ago.”
Reports of an alleged deal between the Taliban and Russia’s military intelligence directorate, the GRU, leaked last week, leading to public outrage on many fronts. President Donald Trump has said the claims likely are fabricated, and Democrats in particular have accused Trump of siding with Moscow to deny the truth.
No one definitively has determined, though, what the truth is in this situation.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Well, well, well....
Reports that a Russian military intelligence unit offered bounties on coalition soldiers in Afghanistan are based partially on old information that surfaced more than a decade ago, international intelligence sources said. The sources include both Western-based analysts and front line personnel on the ground in South Asia.
Many of the sources spoke to Just the News via encrypted communications, and insisted that their names not be revealed because their lives are at risk.
“The only thing new about this story is the date on the headline,” one South Asian contact said. “This is old information, going back to Obama days and before. Everyone who has been involved in Afghanistan heard this a long time ago.”
Reports of an alleged deal between the Taliban and Russia’s military intelligence directorate, the GRU, leaked last week, leading to public outrage on many fronts. President Donald Trump has said the claims likely are fabricated, and Democrats in particular have accused Trump of siding with Moscow to deny the truth.
No one definitively has determined, though, what the truth is in this situation.
-
Media Bias Fact Check rates Just the News thusly: "Overall, we rate Just the News moderately Right Biased based on story selection that mostly favors a conservative perspective. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a reasonable fact check record."
For more, go here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-the-news/
-
I agree that this story is not something that needs to be worried about.
-
I agree that this story is not something that needs to be worried about.
@taiwan_girl said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
I agree that this story is not something that needs to be worried about.
Oh we do. The NYT said it was worrisome and we need to validate this oft quoted source of news that has devolved to op/ed.
-
@taiwan_girl said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
I agree that this story is not something that needs to be worried about.
Oh we do. The NYT said it was worrisome and we need to validate this oft quoted source of news that has devolved to op/ed.
@Loki said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
@taiwan_girl said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
I agree that this story is not something that needs to be worried about.
Oh we do. The NYT said it was worrisome and we need to validate this oft quoted source of news that has devolved to op/ed.
Bad op-ed.
-
Well, well, well....
Reports that a Russian military intelligence unit offered bounties on coalition soldiers in Afghanistan are based partially on old information that surfaced more than a decade ago, international intelligence sources said. The sources include both Western-based analysts and front line personnel on the ground in South Asia.
Many of the sources spoke to Just the News via encrypted communications, and insisted that their names not be revealed because their lives are at risk.
“The only thing new about this story is the date on the headline,” one South Asian contact said. “This is old information, going back to Obama days and before. Everyone who has been involved in Afghanistan heard this a long time ago.”
Reports of an alleged deal between the Taliban and Russia’s military intelligence directorate, the GRU, leaked last week, leading to public outrage on many fronts. President Donald Trump has said the claims likely are fabricated, and Democrats in particular have accused Trump of siding with Moscow to deny the truth.
No one definitively has determined, though, what the truth is in this situation.
-
Media Bias Fact Check rates Just the News thusly: "Overall, we rate Just the News moderately Right Biased based on story selection that mostly favors a conservative perspective. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a reasonable fact check record."
For more, go here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-the-news/
@Catseye3 said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
Media Bias Fact Check rates Just the News thusly: "Overall, we rate Just the News moderately Right Biased based on story selection that mostly favors a conservative perspective. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a reasonable fact check record."
For more, go here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-the-news/
Here's the front page of today's New York Times. Tell me there's no bias in their reporting of what they consider "The News."
-
My comment from the Media Bias Check wasn't meant to be critical. Did you read it also said "High for factual reporting"?
@Catseye3 said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
My comment from the Media Bias Check wasn't meant to be critical. Did you read it also said "High for factual reporting"?
Of course I did. My point is that it mixes editorializing with "factual reporting." When words like "railing," "discordant,"and "divisive" appear in the so-called "news" section, on the front page, above the fold, it makes me wonder what other "factual reporting" The Times is doing.
-
-
Cats, your post was about how Just The News seems to be pretty factual, while George's is about how the NYT is not. They are complementary.
-
Remember this breathtaking news by NYT, where is it now???
No scorecard for track record I suppose.
-
AFAIK, there is no hard intelligence this actually happened.
We've got bigger things to worry about.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
"But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.
“The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior administration official said."
“This information puts a burden on the Russian government to explain its actions and take steps to address this disturbing pattern of behavior,” the official said, indicating that Biden is unprepared to walk the story back fully.
Significantly, the Biden team announced a raft of sanctions on Thursday. But those sanctions, targeting Russia’s sovereign debt market, are prompted only by Russia’s interference in the 2020 election and its alleged role in the SolarWinds cyber espionage. (In contrast, Biden administration officials said that their assessment attributing the breach of technology company SolarWinds to hackers from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service was “high confidence.”)
Putting on a tinfoil hat here, isn't it just possible that this type of disinformation was used to, ahem, affect an election?
Nah...
