Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.

[Whateverman]

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

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

The so-called president is a liar and has no credibility, on the record or off. 0/1

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

Funny, that doesn't actually say that the veracity remains unverified. 0/2

Rep. Adam Kinzinger: ""

Neither does that. 0/3

Rep. Chris Stewart: ""

You got one. 1/3

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany: ""

Every white house press secretary in the history of the position has been nothing more than a mouthpiece for the president, but we've already heard from the orange messiah, so this doesn't count. 1/4.

---

Here's the more-accurate version of your claim: 20% of the named sources speaking on the record, credible and otherwise, say that the veracity remains undetermined.


---

It should be noted that any president or military commander who waited until all information was 100% verified and infallible before acting would have been in dereliction of their duties.

[DivineOb]

The Taliban bag man has been ID'd

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/w...e=articleShare



You'd think Trump/Pence/Pompeo would get the PDB from February 27th over to Schiff and ask him to certify that no mention of the bounties appears therein. Or declassify a sufficiently redacted version. Why *wouldn't* you do that if it would clear your name and embarrass your enemies?

[Mountain Man]

Did you already post....

Funny how every source speaking on the record contradicts the "sources say" fake news.

[Mountain Man]

The so-called president is a liar and has no credibility, on the record or off. 0/1


Funny, that doesn't actually say that the veracity remains unverified. 0/2


Neither does that. 0/3


You got one. 1/3


Every white house press secretary in the history of the position has been nothing more than a mouthpiece for the president, but we've already heard from the orange messiah, so this doesn't count. 1/4.

---

Here's the more-accurate version of your claim: 20% of the named sources speaking on the record, credible and otherwise, say that the veracity remains undetermined.


---

It should be noted that any president or military commander who waited until all information was 100% verified and infallible before acting would have been in dereliction of their duties.

Man, is your reading comprehension really that bad?

Trump says it's unverified. Grenell refers to it as "partial information", meaning it's unverified. Kinzinger mentioned "conflicts" in the information and that it's not "cut and dry", meaning it's not verified. You conceded Stewart. Your insisting that an official statement from the White House press secretary "doesn't count" is stupid. And now Cow Poke had posted more sources speaking on the record saying the intel is unverified.

So... yeah...

[Mountain Man]

The Taliban bag man has been ID'd

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/w...e=articleShare



You'd think Trump/Pence/Pompeo would get the PDB from February 27th over to Schiff and ask him to certify that no mention of the bounties appears therein. Or declassify a sufficiently redacted version. Why *wouldn't* you do that if it would clear your name and embarrass your enemies?

"All spoke on condition of anonymity..."

I can't believe you keep falling for this!

[DivineOb]

"All spoke on condition of anonymity..."

I can't believe you keep falling for this!

What did your god say? Trump on the up-and-up? Why doesn't Trump clear his name since it would be trivial to do? Is he too busy getting outraised in Q2 by Biden?

[Whateverman]

Man, is your reading comprehension really that bad?

Trump says it's unverified.

Trump says a lot of things. 0/1

Grenell refers to it as "partial information", meaning it's unverified.

False. 0/2.

Kinzinger mentioned "conflicts" in the information and that it's not "cut and dry", meaning it's not verified.

False. 0/3

You conceded Stewart.

Correct. 1/3

Your insisting that an official statement from the White House press secretary "doesn't count" is stupid.

The white house press secretary simply speaks for the so-called president, so you can't list both as different officials.

1/4

20%

[Mountain Man]

Trump says a lot of things. 0/1


False. 0/2.


False. 0/3


Correct. 1/3


The white house press secretary simply speaks for the so-called president, so you can't list both as different officials.

1/4

20%

Your post reminds me of the old joke about the guy who writes in the margin of his speech notes, "Weak point; yell louder."

[Cow Poke]

Maybe the NEXT "scandal"?

[Mountain Man]

Maybe the NEXT "scandal"?

Did you hear that Trump takes two scoops of ice cream while only giving his journalist guests one scoop?

[Cow Poke]

So now, Nutty Nancy is bemoaning the 'fact' that this SHOULD have come to the President's attention, because it involved the deaths of young soldiers....

Sounds like a tacit admission that Trump was NOT briefed.

Another one bites the dust.

[Mountain Man]

So now, Nutty Nancy is bemoaning the 'fact' that this SHOULD have come to the President's attention, because it involved the deaths of young soldiers....

Sounds like a tacit admission that Trump was NOT briefed.

Another one bites the dust.

As pointed out earlier, this exact same information would have been available to her and Shifty Adam Schiff, and yet they didn't know about it, either, so I'm not exactly sure who they're trying to point the finger at.

[Cow Poke]

As pointed out earlier, this exact same information would have been available to her and Shifty Adam Schiff, and yet they didn't know about it, either, so I'm not exactly sure who they're trying to point the finger at.

OrangeManBad, whatever it takes.

[DivineOb]

This has nothing to do with Orangemanbad. Even the most charitable interpretation of events says

1) The president ignored his PDB when the bounties were referenced
2) The president continues to ignore the bounties now that the intel is solid (it's still solid but it used to too).
3) We already have Republicans on record lying about this intel. Why might one lie about intel when the supposed truth (low quality intel which was not yet actionable) would have done wonders to dispel the scandal?

This is the same story -- if you can find a single detail which doesn't fit (and I have never hung my hat on Trump having had an explicit oral briefing about this) it dispels the entire scandal. Not true.

ETA: I mean, consider that Trump asked for Russia to be added back to the G7. You're saying he didn't double check that there was any intel which might argue against that move before making the request? At what point does "should have known" factor into the picture?

[DivineOb]

As pointed out earlier, this exact same information would have been available to her and Shifty Adam Schiff, and yet they didn't know about it, either, so I'm not exactly sure who they're trying to point the finger at.

Can you back up this statement that the intel would have already been available to them? What are these three briefings this week about if they already have all the info?