He didn't say that the Russia bounties is a hoax. He says that "we've been working for several months on options for the President". I don't think they do that on gossip.

Yes, he said the reporting that the president was briefed was a hoax.

Again, more than gossip.

If you don’t like the word use another one. Rumors? Whispers? Tales?

Yes, he said the reporting that the president was briefed was a hoax. — NOS4A2

You said "[Russian bounties] wasn’t raised to [Trump's] attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it."

But the intelligence on Russian bounties isn't gossip. It's credible enough that the administration spent months preparing options and briefed allies.

I, for one, don't believe that intelligence credible enough to spend months preparing options and briefing allies wouldn't be reported to the President, and so I don't believe the claims that Trump wasn't briefed. I believe that they're lying because the truth would make Trump look bad.

You said "[Russian bounties] wasn’t raised to [Trump's] attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it."

But the intelligence on Russian bounties isn't gossip. It's credible enough that the administration spent months preparing options and briefed allies.

You use the euphemism “intelligence”; I use the word gossip.

It wasn’t credible enough to brief the president or Vice President or the gang of eight. None of it matter anyways, because the leaks have ruined any chance at verification, putting everyone involved at risk.

It wasn’t credible enough to brief the president or Vice President or the gang of eight. — NOS4A2

It was credible enough to spend months preparing options and to brief allies and to worry that general.

You use the euphemism “intelligence”; I use the word gossip. — NOS4A2

I'm not using any euphemism. I'm using the exact word that O'Brien and McKenzie used.

It was credible enough to spend months preparing options and to brief allies and to worry that general.

It wasn’t credible enough to do anything, according to McKenzie.

“I found it very worrisome, I just didn't find that there was a causative link there," Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with a small number of reporters.

‘The intel (intelligence) case wasn't proved to me -- it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law -- and you know that's often true in battlefield intelligence,” said McKenzie.

“You see a lot of indicators, many of them are troubling many of them you act on. But, but in this case there just there wasn't enough there I sent the intelligence guys back to continue to dig on it, and I believe they're continuing to dig right now, but I just didn't see enough there to tell me that the circuit was closed in that regard.”

He added that force protection levels in Afghanistan are always high “whether the Russians are paying the Taliban or not." McKenzie said the insurgent group has always focused its attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan, though that has ceased under the current U.S. peace agreement with the Taliban.

“Over the past several years, the Taliban have done their level best to carry out operations against us, so nothing is practically changed on the ground in terms of force protection, because we have a very high force protection standard now, and that force protection standard's going to continue into the future,” said McKenzie.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-general-doubts-russian-bounty-program-killed-us/story?id=71653874

It wasn’t credible enough to do anything, according to McKenzie. — NOS4A2

It wasn't credible enough for him to do anything, but was proved enough to worry him, and was credible enough that the Trump administration did something about it; according to O'Brien they have spent months preparing options, briefed the Pentagon, and briefed allies.

It wasn't credible enough for him to do anything, but was proved enough to worry him, and was credible enough that the Trump administration did something about it; according to O'Brien they have spent months preparing options, briefed the Pentagon, and briefed allies.

Then what is the problem again?

Then what is the problem again? — NOS4A2

That, contrary to your claim, it isn't just gossip.

I wonder why you’d quibble about my use of the word “gossip” while leaving the media’s hysteria, which perhaps ruined all avenues of finding the truth of the matter, untouched.

I wonder why you’d quibble about my use of the word “gossip” while leaving the media’s hysteria, which perhaps ruined all avenues of finding the truth of the matter, untouched. — NOS4A2

Because the media aren't posting comments on here, whereas you are.

But less flippantly, I went over that here. Journalists were told by sources they deemed credible that Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers and that Trump was briefed on this. It's their job to report this. Their sources were evidently somewhat credible as there really was intelligence that Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers – intelligence that warranted months of preparation and briefing allies.

So I ask again, what do you want from them? To only report on things which are public or which have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Feels like we are on the raft with Aguirre — Maw

Great film. Terrible political philsophy.
Might watch that tonight, you've put me in the mood.

Because the media aren't posting comments on here, whereas you are.

But less flippantly, I went over that here. Journalists were told by sources they deemed credible that Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers and that Trump was briefed on this. It's their job to report this. Their sources were evidently somewhat credible as there really was intelligence that Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers – intelligence that warranted months of preparation and briefing allies.

So I ask again, what do you want from them? To only report on things which are public or which have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

I know that if I was given highly classified, highly dubious information, the publication of which could ruin fact-finding missions and put intelligence sources lives at risk, I wouldn’t publish it, especially if it was for the purpose of making the president look bad.

There is no fact that Trump doesn’t read intelligence reports. It is fake news because the story is, according to the administration, false. — NOS4A2

And if the administration says so, it must be true. ROFL! It's pretty ludicrous to think Schiff's staff would have been given the information, but that it would have been omitted from the report Trump receives.

Trump commutes Stone's sentence. There is no right side to Trump. He is rotten all the way through.

Great film. Terrible political philsophy.
Might watch that tonight, you've put me in the mood. — Kenosha Kid

Love the film, but I don't find that it expresses or advocates any real political theme.

and he does that right before the end of his first term because...?

So, pretty good news when you understand the subtext. :party:

A few hours before the commutation:

https://twitter.com/howardfineman/status/1281681337351626752

Just had a long talk with #RogerStone. He says he doesn’t want a pardon (which implies guilt) but a commutation, and says he thinks #Trump will give it to him. “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.”

(Twitter embed isn't working for some reason).

How Trump can even pretend that this isn't a corrupt attempt to protect himself is beyond me. And how his supporters can even pretend to not know this is also beyond me.

There's no benefit of the doubt here. It's corruption, through and through.

That depends on how pessimistic you want to be. "Help me win by breaking the law, and I'll bail you out" is another possible subtext.

I considered that but then thought it would've been better to keep that carrot until after the election in that case.

Not sure I understand that. It seems more effective to do it in advance as a motivation to break the law if necessary.

One hopes. My hope is that starting immediately in January the millstones of justice will start to grind. Odysseus's standards for housecleaning seem to my mind appropriate. The US has a major task of recovery and self-repair. Part of that is having an extremely clear and complete public record of all matters Trump and Trump's administration. That is, intense, comprehensive, thorough investigation. And let those who committed no crimes receive public acknowledgement. Those who merely lied, our disgust and contempt, and those who committed crimes - and my intuition is that they're much worse than we may suppose - be tried and on conviction harshly punished.

And let every major library in the US receive copies of the complete record, so that naysayers can be directed to the record. In terms of his betrayals, Trump is nearly unique. No one I can think of - beyond the psychotic murderers of history - has been as utterly, completely, and uselessly vicious as Trump. And, ultimately, as stupid.

Stone’s sentence commuted. And the outrage is glorious.

He probably doesn’t have a choice. Gotta stand by your partners in crime or they’ll take you down with them.

Stone’s sentence commuted. And the outrage is glorious. — NOS4A2

Why? Do you like it when criminals are spared punishment for their crimes?

I’ve explained my views on Stone before. I think the investigation and prosecution were political and unjust.

I’ve explained my views on Stone before. I think the investigation and prosecution were political and unjust. — NOS4A2

Stone was charged with, and found guilty of, lying to Congress and witness tampering. Even if the investigation was inappropriate, that does not excuse Stone's illegal acts.

It's hard to believe that Stone wasn't hiding something, and that's why he lied. We'll never know what it was because he got away with it. No one, other than a friend of the President, could get away with such behavior. Trump does not respect the rule of law.

I have a prediction. If Trump is defeated in November, then sometime before Biden takes office, Trump will pardon everyone, including himself, preemptively, claiming this will put an end to the "witch hunt" once and for all.

Typically US presidents make these political pardon's on the last day of office. Bill Clinton pardoned Susan McDougal from the Whitewater controversy on the last hours of his presidency. But I think Trump has a lot of people to pardon, so better start now.

He started yesterday.

Few months to go before the elections. And not so much time to the next inauguration of the new president. So now wonder.

People in the Trump administration likely are thinking how to make their quick buck before January 20th 2021.