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

[Tom 1]

Theoretically, it's always possible that evidence could come in, but right now, they have nothing. That's as firm a statement as you can get. I'm sure that if there was any truth to these reports, something would have come in by now, and no, anonymous, unverified claims don't count.

What do you call an allegation made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever?

A fabrication.

What do you call it if any damages result due to such an allegation?

Defamation.

What do you call it what such an allegation is made under oath?

Perjury.

I don't think "lie" is too strong a word here, especially since it routinely gets thrown at the President for far less.



So I introduced you to Chief Pentagon Spokesman Jonathan Hoffman...



He's probably telling the truth. This would explain why he hasn't been briefed on these claims; there's no evidence that they're true. Usually you want to make sure of that before you brief the President.

Thankfully people who actually have to do the investigating of, well, anything don't share your outlook. If they did, the world would have ground to a halt before it even got started. This is how pretty much everything works, from political investigations to the first person to make an omelette. Everything we know is based on starting with some small scraps of information or experience and then building on that until you have a clearer picture. These desperate attempts to close everything down the the narrowest possible definitions are very much like Clinton's desperate attempts to get around having to admit to having sex with an intern. What did he say? It depends what your definition of the word 'is' is? Or somesuch. At some point a person has to draw a line and realise they are just making themselves look foolish.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Your complete and utter trust in the Pentagon's honesty is an inspiration to us all.

At least the Pentagon's statement has somebody willing to put his name behind it.

Is that right? So the President is only briefed on serious allegations of this sort after they have been thoroughly investigated? How do you know this is the practice? Both Obama and Bush we’re briefed on alleged plots by foreign governments before there was explicit proof...

Were they briefed before there was any evidence whatsoever?

I'd say if you have a good source then it's more than an allegation. Witnesses are evidence.

Not if they are anonymous. The accused has the right to confront his accusers. Now, the press has always been biased, but pre-Trump there were general standards that journalists would follow to at least maintain a pretense of objectivity, such as the use of neutral language in their articles. Another generally accepted rule was that anonymous sources were to be used sparingly, and when they were used, they would be on the record, with as much detail as possible. Then maybe they could bolster an already substantial amount of existing evidence. Blind cheap shots, however, were simply not printed.

The NYT reports are nothing but anonymous sources, and simply compounding them does nothing to support their story. There is no way of knowing if the NYT is quoting them accurately, and if they are, whether they are credible. The NYT could be making the story up out of whole cloth and we would have no way of knowing the difference. At best, they are uncritically repeating claims making no effort to confirm them - which would satisfy the "malicious intent" element in the event of a libel suit. But none on that matters now. Journalists for the major liepapers have become commissars for the deep state. Their mission is political - to incite public opinion against the President, against Russia, and against the pullout from Afghanistan, whatever it takes.

 

[TexFire316]

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...

And I won't even say "Itoldyaso"

 

[Sparagmos]

Were they briefed before there was any evidence whatsoever?

You didn’t answer my question, so I’m guessing you don’t know the usual practice.

 

[lasthero]

Not if they are anonymous. The accused has the right to confront his accusers

 

[Hank77]

Not if they are anonymous.

When Woodward was first making contact with Deep Throat he didn't know who he was.

Putting that aside, CNN didn't say they were anonymous, did they? I think they just said that a source told them...sources told them...
I have a source at the clinic who told me how many coVid-19 cases ...I know who my source is but you don't.

 

[Tom 1]

At least the Pentagon's statement has somebody willing to put his name behind it.

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.

 

[Allandavid]

Whats the difference?

Hoax or not, Trump people are voting for him this fall.

Yep, he could shoot that proverbial person in 5th Avenue, drop the gun and rape a 5 year old, and then punch an 88 year old grandmother in the face...all on video, while screaming “White Power!” at the top of his lungs...

They’d still vote for him, as long as he continued to appoint Kavanaugh/Gorsuch models of judges and went through the charade of being anti-abortion...

 

[Hank77]

Yep, he could shoot that proverbial person in 5th Avenue, drop the gun and rape a 5 year old, and then punch an 88 year old grandmother in the face...all on video, while screaming “White Power!” at the top of his lungs...

They’d still vote for him, as long as he continued to appoint Kavanaugh/Gorsuch models of judges and went through the charade of being anti-abortion...

It's much more than that. I've watched his supporters being interviewed at his rallies.
You wouldn't believe some of these people.

 

[TLK Valentine]

At least the Pentagon's statement has somebody willing to put his name behind it.

But of course... how else would Donald know who's on his side?

 

[cow451]

Would that you could show the same degree of skepticism toward the NYT, at least when they have nothing but anonymous sources to offer as evidence.

I haven't read the NYT. I looked at several sources including Defense One, which covers multiple angles. But nice try.

 

[cow451]

Comrade, the Motherland's honor must be defended!

Why always the Motherland? Why not the Fatherland? The Fatherland gets no respect.

 

[cow451]

Wait! He was just joking when he denied it!

He does not "kid", but he does "joke". Got it.

 

[cow451]

It's much more than that. I've watched his supporters being interviewed at his rallies.
You wouldn't believe some of these people.

I have acquaintances who are some of these people. The fact Force Shield is powerful.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would that you could show the same degree of skepticism toward the NYT, at least when they have nothing but anonymous sources to offer as evidence.

I don't see you posting your name...

 

[whatbogsends]

The Pentagon's intelligence officials have access to more information than you and I ever will, and they flatly say these claims are baseless. Case closed.

Just like you accepted intelligence agencies conclusions that Russia interfered in our elections, right? I mean, you always take our intelligence officials at their word as definitive proof, correct?

 

[durangodawood]

Why always the Motherland? Why not the Fatherland? The Fatherland gets no respect.

I blame Homer Simpson.

 

[cow451]

I blame Homer Simpson.

Homer did have issues....

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

They’d still vote for him, as long as he continued to appoint Kavanaugh/Gorsuch models of judges and went through the charade of being anti-abortion...

And yet we just saw the power of stare decisis.

 

[cow451]

And yet we just saw the power of stare decisis.

Not to mention looking at past rulings......