Owned by reality once again.

As far as I know there's been no official on the record disputing that the information was in the PDB on Feb. 27th. British officials and NATO officials have been briefed on it. So now the cult is falling back on debating the confidence the IC has in this intelligence. Randoms on an internet forum pretending they have the expertise to analyze intelligence better than the CIA... lol. A perfect "Death of Expertise" moment.

Go back to the beer Lardo

As I said before, the quote is murky and therefore meaningless. Be specific DOD, because there were various claims in the original article. And just because DOD weren't the ones to find corroboration doesn't mean it's nonexistent. We have something called the CIA and NSA.



Deep state can't be trusted unless they put out statements I agree with.

- cult

This post was edited by IceMage on Jul 4 2020 08:43am

Huh its like you guys posted in reverse order 14 minutes apart

How many Russian conspiracy theory holes we have to go down? We don't outsource our intelligence gathering to the New York Times, the CIA's experts don't agree with the NYT. There's plenty of reason for them to be skeptical and treat this as unconfirmed and not credible, but the NYT just skipped over all that and decided to run with it. And the "proof" they claimed to find is really the opposite, reason to disbelieve the conspiracy. Covert Russian agents who leave overt paper trails, sure thing

The pentagon is the hub where all the alphabet IC agencies & military congregate. The Chief spokesperson saying there is no evidence of this is them disputing this information.

Post official declarations/admissions of this intelligence by someone named that's part of the CIA/NSA or whatever other agency or shut up because you're literally that random on the internet right now.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jul 4 2020 08:47am

I find the quote murky and meaningless.

If the intelligence is bunk, why was it in the PDB on Feb. 27? Why were British officials aware of it? Why was NATO informed? If it was shared with those people, the intelligence had to at least have a fair amount of credibility and confidence in the IC.

I don't find your uninformed speculation convincing at all. GRU doesn't always display the best tradecraft, and ultimately we're just receiving sentence-long summaries of the intelligence that American experts are analyzing.

I'd prefer if stories like this didn't devolve into the typical cult vs the world arguments. According to reporting Trump's intel briefers avoid bringing up Russia because he mysteriously has a hard-on for the country and Putin, so it's possible O'Brien decided not to brief him on it for that reason. We have a toddler who can't read his PDB so it's possible he never saw it. But instead of getting angry at his people for the screw up, he goes straight into incompetent divider mode, and calls the reporting completely fake. I can't trust most of his people, because he hires hacks without any integrity, so hopefully Congress investigates and gets the real story.

My fear is that the cult won't accept the evidence though. You guys hate Democrats more than Russians paying to kill American troops, so whatever they find, it won't matter to you or any other Trumpsters here. You'll snap right into denial mode, and pretend the incident never happened.




I'm not sure that's true. That sounds more like the ODNI. Obviously the military would work with the intelligence agencies, but the denial is murky and could just be an admission that DOD weren't the ones who found corroborating evidence.

The lack of declarations is telling though. We can't even get an official to deny that the intelligence was in Trump's Feb. 27th briefing. That seems like an easy thing to do. Why won't they? Try pretending that Trump isn't a religious figure and think it over.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jul 4 2020 09:21am

The whole thing is pretty stupid. These militia groups have always wanted US soldiers dead. Even in the case where Russia was doing this (which it doesn't sound true), it's not like we're just going to start attacking Russian soldiers and start a war over it.

At best, we'd send an angry letter. (And probably continue funding our own select militia groups to attack enemies of our choice which is likely already occurring)


This post was edited by GLYC123 on Jul 4 2020 09:32am

Words dont work against their mob.

Weve been fighting the wrong battle for decades.

...

Dude they are denying the intel that the Russians were doing this, why would they need to deny that Trump was briefed on something they've already said they have no evidence of?

The denial is not murky. It uses very direct, basic English. What Goom highlighted in that quote is extremely clear to understand.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jul 4 2020 09:53am