Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BREAKING: NSC evaluating veracity of the Russian Bounty Plot...(MSNBC) (Original Post) brooklynite Jun 2020 OP
LOL, that will be a short evaluation.... Thomas Hurt Jun 2020 #1
Appointed by rump, they will lie. Eliot Rosewater Jun 2020 #2
So, they didn't do that months ago, when Trump was told about it? mr_lebowski Jun 2020 #3
Ahh...guess they finally figured out a way to blame it on BHO and/or HRC. n/t CincyDem Jun 2020 #4
Translation: they've been ordered to discredit their own intelligence to cover Trump's ass. RockRaven Jun 2020 #5
Bring out the sharpie. DetlefK Jun 2020 #8
Hardly independent, impartial and definitely not trustworthy. C_U_L8R Jun 2020 #6
I posted on another thread earlier today matt819 Jun 2020 #7
Excellent post underpants Jun 2020 #10
It's early days in this scandal, folks. chriscan64 Jun 2020 #9

Thomas Hurt

(13,903 posts)
1. LOL, that will be a short evaluation....
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 04:24 PM
Jun 2020

ending in what the genius Dear Leader will later say he knew all along...

RockRaven

(14,782 posts)
5. Translation: they've been ordered to discredit their own intelligence to cover Trump's ass.
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 04:35 PM
Jun 2020

We'll see how many of them have honor and how many don't...

C_U_L8R

(44,889 posts)
6. Hardly independent, impartial and definitely not trustworthy.
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 04:48 PM
Jun 2020

This would be funny if it weren't such a cliché of corruption

matt819

(10,749 posts)
7. I posted on another thread earlier today
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 05:08 PM
Jun 2020

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.

chriscan64

(1,789 posts)
9. It's early days in this scandal, folks.
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 05:24 PM
Jun 2020

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"

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING: NSC evaluating ...