It's Official - The Report of Bounties On US Troops Is a Hoax

[TLK Valentine]

You'd think Congress would be told it was a hoax...
Trump Calls Bounty Report A 'Hoax' Despite Administration's Briefing Of Congress

Trump said Sunday that the intelligence community told him he wasn't briefed about these allegations because it did not find the reports credible.

Meanwhile, the Senate intelligence committee is scheduled to receive a briefing Wednesday afternoon. Some Congressional Democrats and Republicans had been briefed on the issue earlier this week by national security adviser Robert O'Brien and John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence.

But Donald says "hoax," so that is the only approved term.

 

[Zanting]

You'd think Congress would be told it was a hoax...
Trump Calls Bounty Report A 'Hoax' Despite Administration's Briefing Of Congress



But Donald says "hoax," so that is the only approved term.

Nope...he didn't even know about it until the New York Times tried to make it "real" news...big fail again. More lies, no evidence or substance as usual...they do that all the time...and never learn.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

One thing is for sure, if Kayleigh McEnany thinks President Trump is "the most informed person in the world", she is the most delusional.

 

[KCfromNC]

One thing is for sure, if Kayleigh McEnany thinks President Trump is "the most informed person in the world", she is the most delusional.

I'm also a bit skeptical of the claims that he reads.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm also a bit skeptical of the claims that he reads.

What probably happened is that the briefing was only written and he did not read it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nope...he didn't even know about it until the New York Times tried to make it "real" news...big fail again. More lies, no evidence or substance as usual...they do that all the time...and never learn.

Best case scenario: as usual, he's the last to know:

Britain Confirms Seeing US Intelligence On Russian Bounty Plan.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

You don’t recognise boilerplate when you see it? Over the last few years several government agencies have had to choose between issuing dubious statements and publicly disagreeing with whatever gibberish is coming out of the WH. If you want to be involved in discussing the real world, like it or not you have to deal with real things. You can’t just find some nonsense to hide behind every time your views are challenged and still expect to be seen as credible.

Here's the rub - the Pentagon's statement was not the White House position. The White House had neither confirmed nor denied that Russia had put bounties on US troops. The White House press secretary merely said that there was "no consensus" among US intelligence as to whether the reports were true. That's why this firm denial on part of the Pentagon, I think, settles the issue. There is no reason for the Pentagon to make such an unequivocal statement unless they were telling the truth. As far as anybody of us can tell, they are. None of the evidence cited to support this hatchet job against Russia would be admissible in any court of law. Anonymous testimony is not evidence. Hearsay testimony is not evidence.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Here's the rub - the Pentagon's statement was not the White House position. The White House had neither confirmed nor denied that Russia had put bounties on US troops. The White House press secretary merely said that there was "no consensus" among US intelligence as to whether the reports were true. That's why this firm denial on part of the Pentagon, I think, settles the issue. There is no reason for the Pentagon to make such an unequivocal statement unless they were telling the truth. As far as anybody of us can tell, they are. None of the evidence cited to support this hatchet job against Russia would be admissible in any court of law. Anonymous testimony is not evidence. Hearsay testimony is not evidence.

There wasn’t a firm denial from the Pentagon though. They said there was “no evidence” but they also said they are “continuing to evaluate.” The statement wasn’t unequivocal that there is nothing to this. Just that there is nothing so far. If it was already put to rest they wouldn’t have said they are “continuing to evaluate.”

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Best case scenario: as usual, he's the last to know:

Britain Confirms Seeing US Intelligence On Russian Bounty Plan.

Note that Secretary Wallace didn't even claim to have "seen" the intelligence report, let alone make any comment as to its credibility. All he said was that he was aware of its existence.

There wasn’t a firm denial from the Pentagon though. They said there was “no evidence” but they also said they are “continuing to evaluate.” The statement wasn’t unequivocal that there is nothing to this. Just that there is nothing so far. If it was already put to rest they wouldn’t have said they are “continuing to evaluate.”

Ok, would you agree that since there is nothing so far, the President should not take any action at this time?

 

[wing2000]

The White House press secretary merely said that there was "no consensus" among US intelligence as to whether the reports were true.

I'll accept that US intelligence was still attempting to corroborate the information with other sources. However, the information was credible enough that the Pentagon took unspecified steps to safeguard their troops in the field (according to a GOP congressman who was briefed at the White House earlier this week).

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Ok, would you agree that since there is nothing so far, the President should not take any action at this time?

The following statement I wrote Monday still applies to now as to what Trump should do.

“I have received intelligence that Russia has been placing bounties on the heads of our brave servicemen and women fighting overseas. The intelligence says these bounties have been cashed in by the Taliban. I am ordering a thorough investigation of this and if these actions prove to be true, Russia will face harsh sanctions for this.”

That statement right there would be the least Trump could do right now. Why hasn’t he done it? This news broke Friday and still nothing.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Surprise, surprise, the lying press lies...

Guess I shouldn't be surprised.
And some people still watch those channels?
Amazing!
Step out of the dark box and switch to Fox.
M

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'd say if you have a good source then it's more than an allegation. Witnesses are evidence. If that weren't true then many prosecutors would lose at trials.

I'm not saying it's true but I'm not so foolish to claim that they are lying either seeing I don't know who their sources are or if they can be trusted.
Remember two journalists with one source brought down a President and 48 others.

No they didn't.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Note that Secretary Wallace didn't even claim to have "seen" the intelligence report, let alone make any comment as to its credibility. All he said was that he was aware of its existence.

...which rules out a "hoax."

Plus, Secretary Wallace has a name, which means you just lost two excuses.

 

[lasthero]

Guess I shouldn't be surprised.
And some people still watch those channels?
Amazing!
Step out of the dark box and switch to Fox.
M

And while you’re at it, step out of the frying pan into the fire.

 

[childeye 2]

Pentagon Denies NYT Claim of Russian Bounty on US Soldiers in Afghanistan

The US Department of Defence (DoD) Has officially denied a New York Times (NYT) report that Russian intelligence offered bounty to the Taliban for killing US and coalition soldiers in Afghanistan.
Chief Pentagon Spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement Monday, "The Department of Defense continues to evaluate intelligence that Russian GRU operatives were engaged in malign activity against United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan. To date, DOD has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations found in open-source reports. Regardless, we always take the safety and security of our forces in Afghanistan — and around the world — most seriously and therefore continuously adopt measures to prevent harm from potential threats."

Surprise, surprise, the lying press lies...

The title of your thread is untrue and therefore disinformation. The term hoax means an intended deception.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Step out of the dark box and switch to Fox.

Good grief if that is your preferred source what do you think of this?
Former George W. Bush officials form new group to back Biden

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The title of your thread is untrue and therefore disinformation. The term hoax means an intended deception.

When an allegation like this is made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, I am justified in assuming an intended deception.

 

[childeye 2]

When an allegation like this is made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, I am justified in assuming an intended deception.

Respectfully, negative prejudice is not justifiable if love your neighbor as yourself is to be followed. Negative prejudice therefore must end in hypocrisy making the unsubstantiated claim of a hoax, a hoax. Suffice it to say that it's better to assume there was some sort of evidence and investigate the incident, since a positive prejudice is not hypocritical.

 

[TLK Valentine]

When an allegation like this is made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, I am justified in assuming an intended deception.

I'm sure you can justify yourself doing absolutely anything... even ignoring the evidence that is presented.

Fortunately, what you can or cannot justify to yourself carries no weight.