We got him?
1 Like
unfortunately, a blanket denial despite clear evidence is enough for 40% of people
2 Likes
https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1277785379404492800?s=19
Not only was it written in the daily briefing but widely circulated by May
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1277795862425612288?s=19
Edit: Well maybe a tad before
1 Like
In which the defense of the president by his own prominent supporter is that he has the attention span of a gnat and doesn’t read the PDB.
Four more years!
Reasons you must re-elect Donald J. Trump:
- He can drink water with one hand.
- He has the attention span of a gnat.
- He doesn’t read the President’s Daily Briefing.
6 Likes
Or the senate at least.
1 Like
Yeah, but they’re a different brand of deplorable, and a little less biased. So on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is an ideal news organization and 10 is, well, Fox News, Fox Business is like an 8. They attempt to be serious from time to time, and they’re not quite as in the tank for the GOP.
If not reading the PDB is impeachable, he needs to be impeached 1,255 times by my quick math.
2 Likes
Bolton told Trump but it’s not in his book? Bolton told Trump but he didn’t mention it in an interview? =>
A. Bolton didn’t think it was a big deal.
B. It was classified and Bolton decided eh, better not spill this.
Episode 94,873,090 of Can You Even IMAGINE If This Story Was About Obama?
3 Likes
Has to be B.
2 Likes
Trump had a very bad day 
One of the things I’ve said over and over again is that there is absolutely zero journalistic value in ever asking the WH Press Secretary questions. There is no possible way your viewers/readers can be informed by questions put to a pathologically dishonest spokesperson for an addle-brained Caligula. Anyone attending WH press conferences or asking Kayleigh questions is simply going through the motions and pretending to be a reporter. I’m putting all of these reporters on blast: you are stenographers for lying racist morons but being in the White House makes you feel important and who cares if your readers learn nothing. You should have all walked out years ago.
Which brings us to this curious moment of clarity where Fox News interviews Kayleigh McEnany and the two streams of lies cancel each other out giving us a rare moment of absolute truth:
“Why did the racist old President tweet the racism?”
“It’s because he stands with the racist old people.”
Great work everyone! But we still didn’t actually learn anything?
9 Likes
Lul this headline
Disagree with bolded. If done well it can be valuable. It’s not easy, but it’s not impossible. Would also required a bit of coordination between the reporters or in the absence of that just paying attention and thinking on their feet.
Instead of just robotically just regurgitating whatever question they had prepared, they need to listen to the stupid shit that Kayleigh just spewed before it’s their turn and hammer her on that.
Yeah, obviously, they’re not going to do this. But if they did, it could be extremely effective.
2 Likes
Nah, man. There’s no way to deliver a sick pwn that devastates the administration. They’ll just bounce from one lie to another shamelessly. Everything is Fake News.
At some point the press needs to have a nut-low level of faith in the intelligence of their viewers. As a starting point, just assume that literally everyone on the planet knows that Kayleigh McEnany is a lying liar who sits on a throne of lies.
As a thought experiment: let’s imagine you are running a news organization. Let’s say you want your readers/viewers to learn new things about the world. Let’s say you care about delivering real news to your subscribers. Do you send your ace reporters to ask Kayleigh McEnany questions? What the fuck do you hope to learn from that exercise?
The goal is not devastation. It’s just to chip away. Every bit helps.
2 Likes
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, son-in-law Jared Kushner and other senior advisers spoke with president, said several people familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details of private conversations.
Roughly three hours later, the president gave the go-ahead to delete his incendiary tweet — moved, in large part, by the public calls from Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the Senate’s only black Republican, to do just that, aides said.
LOL the sound off defense. So several people talked to Captain Orange, they obviously mentioned the white power yelling - and he still didn’t want to delete the tweet, only doing so 3 hours later. Ok, great defense guys. Even if he had the sound turned off, what’s the defense to not taking down the tweet immediately after one of his AIDS pointed it out?
Oh wait, I know this one. “Fuck you yes he heard, so what?”.
2 Likes
That AP story has some interesting details about the intelligence itself.
The 2019 stuff, that Bolton knew about:
The intelligence that surfaced in early 2019 indicated Russian operatives had become more aggressive in their desire to contract with the Taliban and members of the Haqqani Network, a militant group aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan and designated a foreign terrorist organization in 2012 during the Obama administration.
Officials said they did not consider the intelligence assessments in 2019 to be particularly urgent, given that Russian meddling in Afghanistan is not a new occurrence. The officials with knowledge of Bolton’s apparent briefing for Trump said it contained no “actionable intelligence,” meaning the intelligence community did not have enough information to form a strategic plan or response. However, the classified assessment of Russian bounties was the sole purpose of the meeting.
Then 2020:
Concerns about Russian bounties flared anew this year after members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000 in U.S. currency. The funds bolstered the suspicions of the American intelligence community that the Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and other linked associations.
The officials told the AP that career government officials developed potential options for the White House to respond to the Russian aggression in Afghanistan, which was first reported by The New York Times. However, the Trump administration has yet to authorize any action.
How they knew:
The intelligence in 2019 and 2020 surrounding Russian bounties was derived in part from debriefings of captured Taliban militants. Officials with knowledge of the matter told the AP that Taliban operatives from opposite ends of the country and from separate tribes offered similar accounts.
Pure speculation, but I’d guess the part about the money being specifically to kill Americans is what comes from the debriefings. There’s every chance ‘debriefing’ in this context means torture, which (if you’re a sane intelligence service) should give you pause. Then, while Russia having links to the Taliban has seemed decently established for a while, why they would pay them specifically to do what they were doing anyway (kill Americans) is more confusing—though, obviously, paying the Taliban to better perform general Taliban duties is effectively paying them to kill Americans and others. So that could explain why the intelligence was not considered actionable in 2019.
1 Like