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?
-
@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.
-
@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
-
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.
-
It’s really important for us to get to the bottom of the info and if it is credible and verifiable. Hopefully the NYT is sharing it’s sources and helping out. So far the Pentagon has come up with nothing.
So what is the quality of what the NYT has? Let’s see it. Sunshine and all that.
-
@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
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.
Sure the NYT will prove your case. Let’s see it. They started it, let’s see the next card. Or let’s deflect. You are a good spokesman for changing the question.
-
@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
Bullshit Loki. Your thinking was muddled. Full stop.
You even admitted it, and then oddly continued with the same error.
Let me make this easy for you. If there is credible and verifiable evidence that russia paid a bounty on American deaths and Trump didn’t do anything about it he should be impeached immediately. Full stop. I don’t even care if he lied.
So get your evidence for me.
-
Former national security advisor John Bolton reportedly told administration officials that he personally briefed President Donald Trump on the alleged bounties Russia paid to Taliban-backed fighters to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the Associated Press reported Monday evening.
The new information suggests senior White House officials were aware of the alleged bounties a year earlier than previously reported by the AP, the New York Times, and other outlets. Trump, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, and current national security advisor Robert O’Brien have all denied the reports.
McEnany said that though low level intelligence officials were monitoring the information, the intelligence community had yet to form a consensus on the information’s veracity and therefore had not yet specifically briefed the president on their findings.
“While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA director, NSA, national security adviser and the chief of staff can all confirm that neither the president nor the vice president were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence,” she told reporters at Monday’s press briefing. “There is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations, and, in effect, they are dissenting opinions from some in the intelligence community with regards to the veracity of what’s being reported, and the veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated.”
-
The president gets a one page threat assessment every morning. Sometimes they read it, sometimes they skim it and sometimes they get an aide to go through it for them.
As for the NYT story...Unless they name their source, I no longer pay attention yo rumor printed as fact.
-
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.
-
-
@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.
