Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 15 2021 08:53pm)
I mean, we already knew that Manafort was passing information. Only insanely dishonest people like Bogie were arguing that Kilimnik wasn't associated with Russia.
True, but this piece of information basically confirms what reasonable people could infer earlier(Manafort -> Russian intelligence officer -> Russian intelligence).
Plus, I've got to gloat, because this is rock solid proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. At this point the anti-Russia investigation crowd has to say the deep state is lying about the evidence they have.
Quote (Santara @ Apr 15 2021 10:37pm)
This strikes me more as a media screw up than an intelligence community one.
And I think your post is a little misleading. Some information on it:
1. It's already been reported back in July, 2020 that the CIA had medium confidence in the assessment, and NSA had low confidence. Also, according to NBC and other sources, here is what medium and low confidence levels mean,:
Quote
In intelligence parlance, moderate confidence means the information is plausible and credibly sourced, but not quite corroborated enough to merit a higher rating.
Low confidence means the analysis was based on questionable or implausible information — or information too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid inferences. It can also reflect problems with the credibility of the sources.
2. I seem to recall weeks after the original story broke, a defense official spoke on the record disputing it, which reflected the Pentagon's low confidence in the intelligence.
3. The intelligence was based on multiple sources, including financial data on a GRU controlled bank account.
4. Part of the story was that it was in Trump's intelligence briefing, which I don't believe has ever been disputed on the record.
5. Pompeo said in Aug 2020 that he warned Russia. One would assume the intelligence had to have some credibility for America's top diplomat to warn Russia about it.
6. This all happened in the context of Donald Trump's presidency, where we couldn't trust what him or his administration said, especially in regards to Russia.
7. All that said, it was irresponsible of Biden, and others(particularly some in the media) to treat the story as gospel. But to take this recent report and claim that "it was fake news all along" is completely contradicting the facts. It actually doesn't give us any information that wasn't already reported.
Sources:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/remember-those-russian-bounties-dead-u-s-troops-biden-admin-n1264215https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-russia-pompeo/pompeo-says-he-warned-lavrov-against-offering-bounties-for-u-s-soldiers-idUSKCN2582S0https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1382722933576044559Quote (Black XistenZ @ Apr 15 2021 11:25pm)
The whole bountygate story was suuuuch a transparent hit piece during an election year... only gullible fools ever bought into it. (Oh wait...)
As I laid out above, the gullible ones here are those who think the bountygate story has been debunked, or even that this announcement gives us any new information.