General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: NSC evaluating veracity of the Russian Bounty Plot...(MSNBC)
I was led to believe it was "fake news", so.......???
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)ending in what the genius Dear Leader will later say he knew all along...
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)I wonder why not ...
CincyDem
(6,364 posts)RockRaven
(14,974 posts)We'll see how many of them have honor and how many don't...
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)C_U_L8R
(45,003 posts)This would be funny if it weren't such a cliché of corruption
matt819
(10,749 posts)By virtue of being in the PDB, this intelligence has been vetted. The long and short of it is the many, many people would have seen this report, including, once it made its way to the White House, select members of the National Security Council, or at least the National Security Adviser, who was Robert O'Brien. It should be pretty easy to ascertain who actually saw the PDB, and so if this is a long, drawn-out process, you know they're starting to cover it up. Unfortunately for them, lots and lots of people are already in the loop:
If a report makes it into the PDB. . .
. . . it has made its way through one heck of a gauntlet.
In the case of humint, as this appears to be, you have the person who collected the intelligence. Does the intel officer's source have access to this sort of information? Has he reported on this kind of stuff before? Is he a new source? Does he have an established record? Could he be making shit up? Hell, is the intel officer making shit up?
The source is assigned a level of credibility based on access to the information and overall reporting record over time.
The intel report then goes to analysts, initially in the field, who will assess the information based on a variety of factors, including reporting from other sources. Kind of like journalist reporting. One source is okay-ish. Two sources are better.
In conjunction with the management of the unit that collected and initially analyzed the information, that report is then sent to the headquarters of that unit - whatever intelligence agency collected it.
Then there is coordination among different intelligence agencies, along the lines of "have you seen this" or "have you seen anything else like this" or "is this for real, or what" or something along those lines.
Then (tired yet?), it goes the senior management of the various agencies involved, and they all agree that it is credible. Or not.
And, finally, it goes to the folks who put together the PDB, where it undergoes further evaluation, questioning, etc.
In short, stuff that makes it into the PDB is not a hoax, it's not fabricated, it's not politically motivated. (The response to that intel by policy makers could very well be politically motivated, but that's another issue.)
So, Treason45, STFU.
underpants
(182,837 posts)Thanks.
chriscan64
(1,789 posts)We are only in stage one, "It didn't happen" Followed by "It didn't happen, but even if it did it's not that bad". And finally, "It did happen, but like we said in stage two, it's not that bad"