How do you effectively convey intelligence to the American president who chooses to believe the Russ

[evoeth]

According to McCabe's new book, Trump took Putin's word on North Korea's (lack) of missile capability of his own intelligence community *explicitly voicing concerns over Trump's faith in Putin on this issue*.

Interview question to McCabe:

Bertrand: That reminds me of a passage that jumped out at me in your book: “He thought North Korea did not have the capability to launch such missiles. He said he knew this because Vladimir Putin had told him so … the president said he believed Putin despite the PDB [Presidential Daily Briefing] briefer telling him that this was not consistent with any of the intelligence that the US possessed.” How do you explain that?

McCabe: It’s inexplicable. You have to put yourself in context. So I am in the director’s chair as acting director. My senior executive who had accompanied the briefer to that briefing, who sat in the room with the president and others, and heard the comments, comes back to the Hoover Building to tell me how the briefing went. And he sat at the conference table, and he just looked down at the table with his hands out in front of him. I was like, “How did it go?” And he just—he couldn’t find words to characterize it. We just sat back and said, “What do we do with this now?” How do you effectively convey intelligence to the American president who chooses to believe the Russians over his own intelligence services? And then tells them that to their faces?​

 

[zephcom]

According to McCabe's new book, Trump took Putin's word on North Korea's (lack) of missile capability of his own intelligence community *explicitly voicing concerns over Trump's faith in Putin on this issue*.

Interview question to McCabe:

Bertrand: That reminds me of a passage that jumped out at me in your book: “He thought North Korea did not have the capability to launch such missiles. He said he knew this because Vladimir Putin had told him so … the president said he believed Putin despite the PDB [Presidential Daily Briefing] briefer telling him that this was not consistent with any of the intelligence that the US possessed.” How do you explain that?

McCabe: It’s inexplicable. You have to put yourself in context. So I am in the director’s chair as acting director. My senior executive who had accompanied the briefer to that briefing, who sat in the room with the president and others, and heard the comments, comes back to the Hoover Building to tell me how the briefing went. And he sat at the conference table, and he just looked down at the table with his hands out in front of him. I was like, “How did it go?” And he just—he couldn’t find words to characterize it. We just sat back and said, “What do we do with this now?” How do you effectively convey intelligence to the American president who chooses to believe the Russians over his own intelligence services? And then tells them that to their faces?​

I think the more important thing to explain is why does the Republican leadership still work overtime to protect him from any consequence for his behavior.

 

[Sketcher]

He's managed to stay a step ahead of all the collective minds in the media. A complete idiot wouldn't be able to do that.

 

[archer75]

I think the more important thing to explain is why does the Republican leadership still work overtime to protect him from any consequence for his behavior.

I think it's because

a) they love looting the Treasury
b) Trump pretty much broke the shell of the Republican party, and once he's gone, the reorg could toss a lot of these people out on their ears.

 

[archer75]

He's managed to stay a step ahead of all the collective minds in the media. A complete idiot wouldn't be able to do that.

How is he a step ahead?

 

[cow451]

He's managed to stay a step ahead of all the collective minds in the media. A complete idiot wouldn't be able to do that.

OK, he’s not a “complete” idiot.

 

[Sketcher]

How is he a step ahead?

Wow! Avoiding scrutiny from the media; what a commendable quality?! Isn't our God-Emperor Trump amazing?

He's not avoiding scrutiny, but he knows how to work them, unlike President Bush. He's able to frustrate them and control the narrative in spite of all the crazy stuff he says, and perhaps because of it.

 

[wing2000]

How do you effectively convey intelligence to the American president who chooses to believe what he wants to believe?

[you don't]

 

[wing2000]

“When a president — any president — denigrates or ignores factual information presented by the intelligence community . . . he or she is sending a message to the intelligence community: ‘Don’t tell me things I don’t want to hear.’” Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

....Dan Coats will be the next "disloyal" official to go.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a14d7fec96a_story.html?utm_term=.7e7e474fb620

 

[jkjk]

According to McCabe's new book, Trump took Putin's word on North Korea's (lack) of missile capability of his own intelligence community *explicitly voicing concerns over Trump's faith in Putin on this issue*.

Interview question to McCabe:

Bertrand: That reminds me of a passage that jumped out at me in your book: “He thought North Korea did not have the capability to launch such missiles. He said he knew this because Vladimir Putin had told him so … the president said he believed Putin despite the PDB [Presidential Daily Briefing] briefer telling him that this was not consistent with any of the intelligence that the US possessed.” How do you explain that?

McCabe: It’s inexplicable. You have to put yourself in context. So I am in the director’s chair as acting director. My senior executive who had accompanied the briefer to that briefing, who sat in the room with the president and others, and heard the comments, comes back to the Hoover Building to tell me how the briefing went. And he sat at the conference table, and he just looked down at the table with his hands out in front of him. I was like, “How did it go?” And he just—he couldn’t find words to characterize it. We just sat back and said, “What do we do with this now?” How do you effectively convey intelligence to the American president who chooses to believe the Russians over his own intelligence services? And then tells them that to their faces?​

Clearly it is very concerning when you hear reports of the president distrusting and disregarding the advice of the intelligence community.

That said, you have to take this with a grain of salt. Consider the source. McCabe certainly has a vested interest in portraying Trump as inept.

Second, Trump could have been saying what he did in order to test / light a fire under his intel advisors. He says a lot of things. Do we really believe he is a paragon of honesty and that he doesn't have ulterior motives for the things he says?

Finally, the intelligence community is far from perfect. They have gotten it wrong before--including because they let their biases cloud their judgement. The whole justification for the invasion of Iraq is one such example of that. Skepticism of intel reports is not always a bad thing.

 

[archer75]

Clearly it is very concerning when you hear reports of the president distrusting and disregarding the advice of the intelligence community.

That said, you have to take this with a grain of salt. Consider the source. McCabe certainly has a vested interest in portraying Trump as inept.

Second, Trump could have been saying what he did in order to test / light a fire under his intel advisors. He says a lot of things. Do we really believe he is a paragon of honesty and that he doesn't have ulterior motives for the things he says?

Finally, the intelligence community is far from perfect. They have gotten it wrong before--including because they let their biases cloud their judgement. The whole justification for the invasion of Iraq is one such example of that. Skepticism of intel reports is not always a bad thing.

So, why not skepticism of what Russia says?

 

[jkjk]

So, why not skepticism of what Russia says?

Again, how do you know Trump isn't skeptical of what Russia says? Because McCabe says he isn't? I'm not sure McCabe is your best source for what is really going on between the ears of #45

 

[variant]

I think the more important thing to explain is why does the Republican leadership still work overtime to protect him from any consequence for his behavior.

They are protecting themselves and their endless grab for more power.

 

[rambot]

Again, how do you know Trump isn't skeptical of what Russia says? Because McCabe says he isn't? I'm not sure McCabe is your best source for what is really going on between the ears of #45

That may be but unfortunately 45 himself isn't the best source riteit given his ease with lying.

 

[jkjk]

That may be but unfortunately 45 himself isn't the best source riteit given his ease with lying.

Then consider his actions instead of getting hung up on his words. What actions has he taken with regards to North Korean missile capabilities?

Trump has actually done quite a bit that shows he takes the North Korean threat seriously:

- His administration deployed THAAD to South Korea in 2017. While the agreement was worked out by the previous administration, Trump still gave the go-ahead.

- Under Trump, the DoD dusted off/updated Korea war plans and began military-wide preparations. For instance, in 2017, the Army changed corps and division level exercises to Korea scenarios.

- Trump pressured China to impose sanctions on North Korea, and up until the trade war, China largely acceded to those demands.

- Trump, for better or for worse, engaged in a twitter war with KJU. A lot of people characterize those tweets as unhinged, but it was actually a form of diplomacy to send the message that the US was not to be trifled with.

- Building off all of the above, Trump aggressively pursued peace talks with KJU. US administrations have been kicking the can down the road for half a century regarding North Korea. So why pursue peace talks now? Probably because North Korea finally has the capability to directly threaten the US with missiles.​

I'm not trying to take a position on the appropriateness or effectiveness of any of these actions. I'm merely pointing out that they seem to counter McCabe's assertion that Trump disregarded intel about the seriousness of North Korean missile threats.

 

[Kentonio]

- Trump, for better or for worse, engaged in a twitter war with KJU. A lot of people characterize those tweets as unhinged, but it was actually a form of diplomacy to send the message that the US was not to be trifled with.

Not to be trifled with because the President of the United States was acting like a angsty teenager via social media and is therefore so unpredictable and irrational that he's likely capable of almost anything. Yup, I'd definitely label that whole episode as unhinged.

 

[cow451]

So, why not skepticism of what Russia says?

Our Russian comrades would never mislead us. President Putin’s feelings are hurt at the mere suggestion.

 

[archer75]

Again, how do you know Trump isn't skeptical of what Russia says? Because McCabe says he isn't? I'm not sure McCabe is your best source for what is really going on between the ears of #45

I meant more "why is the average Trump supporter that I have seen talk about this has pure trust in Putin?"

 

[Speedwell]

I think the more important thing to explain is why does the Republican leadership still work overtime to protect him from any consequence for his behavior.

Because with his court appointments and the promise of more, he appears to a substantial fraction of his base to be realizing their dream: an end run of the First Amendment.
As long as that prospect remains viable, Trump's evangelical supporters will excuse, ignore or try to explain away anything else he does.

 

[whatbogsends]

He's not avoiding scrutiny, but he knows how to work them, unlike President Bush. He's able to frustrate them and control the narrative in spite of all the crazy stuff he says, and perhaps because of it.

In what way has Trump "worked the media" better than Bush? What consequences did Bush face as a result of the media that Bush is avoiding? Please elaborate on your claim so I can try to determine if there's any substance to it by which it can be evaluated.