Quote (IceMage @ Jun 29 2020 11:48am)
Sure, that's how a lot of reporting is done, based on anonymous sourcing without documentation to back it up. Anyone who follows the news knows that, and they know it almost always results in completely accurate stories.
Trump's denying something that wasn't alleged, so either he's bad at words(obviously), or it's a non-denial. Ratcliffe simply denied that P/VP were briefed, which doesn't tell us whether the intel was accurate, whether the NSC had meetings on it, etc. It's unlikely that every American outlets is relying on the same sources, and obviously the British outlets aren't relying on American sources.
Trump is a pathological liar who doesn't face serious political or legal consequences for it. So it's bizarre to pretend that he won't tell easily disprovable lies, when he's done it many times before.
Ratcliffe denied that Trump was briefed, Trump denied he was briefed. Neither denied veracity of claims.
Then the next day, after intel community had some time, Trump claimed he had now been briefed- and that the intel community had told him it was a non-credible piece of intel, which is why it was disregarded.
That intel could easily have been foreign sourced, like MI6
You are once again for the umpteenth time saying that because orange man liar you can assume he's lying about something that would be easily disproven and utterly destroy his presidency if he was lying about it, when the alternative explanation is that a story in the media claiming to be leaked from anonymous intelligence sources could just be
wrong. This is not the first, second or third time we've been in this same situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MbimN4J268&feature=youtu.bewatch live when the press conference starts