Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.

[DivineOb]

So we're finally getting a claim that there will be a response if this story is corroborated.

Still no response from Trump personally and no details on what that response might look like.

Gang of 8 to be briefed tomorrow. Maybe we'll finally start to get answers.

[Whateverman]

Regardless of whether it was solid enough to warrant Trump's attention back in February it's clearly solid enough to warrant it today. Yet he continues to ignore it and even call it a 'hoax.' That is a career (and party) ending scandal.

It used to be, sure. I humbly suggest, though, that Trump's election (and the continuing support for him) is proof that the old standards have been discarded.

The fun will begin as soon as there's a Democrat in the white house, and he starts doing 1-2% of the things Trump's done. The criticism will be shrill and 100% dishonest.

[Mountain Man]

Regardless of whether it was solid enough to warrant Trump's attention back in February it's clearly solid enough to warrant it today.

Is it? Every named source speaking on the record, including our Commander in Chief, says that the veracity remains undetermined.

[EvoUK]

The fun will begin as soon as there's a Democrat in the white house, and he starts doing 1-2% of the things Trump's done. The criticism will be shrill and 100% dishonest.

Agreed. Somehow I don't think pointing out that they no longer have a leg to stand on after the last 4 years will be appreciated.

[DivineOb]

Is it? Every named source speaking on the record, including our Commander in Chief, says that the veracity remains undetermined.

Let's cut this short. The next time you pray please ask your god whether Trump is a worthy leader and let me know what you hear back. Let's see if you actually believe half of what you say on here. I'll bet my life that I'm right about him.

[Whateverman]

Regardless of whether it was solid enough to warrant Trump's attention back in February it's clearly solid enough to warrant it today.

Is it?

Yup. It was solid enough that we shared it with our former allies, the UK.

[Mountain Man]

Yup. It was solid enough that we shared it with our former allies, the UK.

Here's the part you left out:

"Every named source speaking on the record, including our Commander in Chief, says that the veracity remains undetermined."

[DivineOb]

It used to be, sure. I humbly suggest, though, that Trump's election (and the continuing support for him) is proof that the old standards have been discarded.

So, let me clarify.

Trump is already wounded and extremely weak. I believe this scandal will chip away at another fraction of his support at a time when his unpopularity 4 months out from the election is already a thing of legend (Note that the only two modern presidents in a similar position both handily lost re-election). I further believe that a significant fraction of the GOP is compromised beyond redemption (e.g. Miss Lindsey, Barr, Gym Jordan) and have no choice but to defend Trump until the bitter end. That will further weaken the GOP which is already teetering on a demographic precipice.

As I never tire of saying I'm a computer scientist not a political scientist so you probably shouldn't listen to me :).

[DivineOb]

Here's the part you left out:

"Every named source speaking on the record, including our Commander in Chief, says that the veracity remains undetermined."

"Undetermined" doing some herculean lifting in that sentence.

So how about praying to your god and letting me know if he things Trump is worthy of his position?

[Whateverman]

Here's the part you left out:

"Every named source speaking on the record, including our Commander in Chief, says that the veracity remains undetermined."

I left it out because your opinion on the subject is already known.

It's a fact that we've shared this "unverified" intelligence with a former ally, which suggests the intel is better than "unverified". As does the fact that Trump heard it back in February. It's also a fact that a competent president wants to know if there's unverified intel which presents a threat to American troops.

All of this implies that your handwaving-away of this news is purely self-serving.

[Mountain Man]

I left it out because your opinion on the subject is already known.

It's not my opinion. It's what named sources have said on the record:

President Trump: "Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible..."

Former Acting DNI Richard Grennel: "Leaks of partial information to reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous..."

Rep. Adam Kinzinger: "I also know what the intelligence was, I know what the conflicts were. Obviously, can’t say them here. And I can tell you, it’s a tough decision that you have to make at that point. Because it’s not just cut and dry."

Rep. Chris Stewart: "The truth is, is that we don’t know. Could Russia have done that? Absolutely. … Do we know they did that? We just don’t know yet."

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany: "There is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations and in fact there are dissenting opinions from some within the intelligence community with regards to the veracity of what’s being reported."

[Cow Poke]

It's not my opinion. It's what named sources have said on the record:

Ya know what's good about banging your head against the wall?

It feels SO good when you stop.

[Mountain Man]

Ya know what's good about banging your head against the wall?

It feels SO good when you stop.

"This is a thing!"
"It's not a thing."
"No, really, it's a thing!"
"No, it's not a thing."
"Yes it is!"
"No it's not."
"It's a thing! It's a thing!"
"It's not a thing."

etc.

[Cow Poke]

"This is a thing!"
"It's not a thing."
"No, really, it's a thing!"
"No, it's not a thing."
"Yes it is!"
"No it's not."
"It's a thing! It's a thing!"
"It's not a thing."

etc.

Did you already post....

National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien on Wednesday claimed that President Trump’s CIA briefer made the call not to share with him the intelligence referencing Russia allegedly offering bounties to Afghan militants for killing U.S. soldiers.

“The president was not briefed because, at the time of these allegations, they were uncorroborated,” O’Brien said, noting that the Pentagon also has said the intelligence was uncorroborated.

“The intelligence community doesn’t have a consensus,” O’Brien continued. “And as a result, the president’s career CIA briefer decided not to brief him because it was unverified intelligence.”

The CIA briefer O’Brien was referring to would have been Beth Sanner, who was the president’s primary intelligence briefer during the time in question when the Russia bounty intelligence emerged. Sanner was appointed as the deputy director of National Intelligence for Mission Integration last year. Sanner had been leading the president’s daily intelligence briefing since April 2017.

O’Brien defended Sanner as “an outstanding officer.”

[Ronson]

Here's the big problem with anonymous sources: No accountability. They can say anything they want and get away with it.

If these leakers were patriots they would gladly attach their names to their leaks. Like "I am doing this for my country." But no. They want to keep their jobs - that's the most important thing. So it makes one wonder what their true motives are.

Also, there is no way to know if NYT got the story straight in the first place. Suppose a leaker said "Trump wasn't happy" and NYT interpreted that as "Trump was furious." It's a big difference. Now suppose they did this several times throughout the article, to where the story starts looking like science fiction. Who would know? The leakers can't force a correction or a retraction because they must remain anonymous to protect their jobs. So whatever gets printed just hangs there. I mean, there aren't even any quotes from the leakers. At least with quotes you have a little more security you're getting the story without NYT interpretation. But no quotes. I wonder why?