General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTHIS guy is so dangerous. Our intelligence agencies go ignored. Because.....?
?itok=DQPKakClPompeo doubles down on US support for Saudi Arabia, says no direct evidence of Saudi leader's involvement in journalist's murder
In an exclusive interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the sidelines of the G20 summit, Pompeo again noted a lack of direct evidence linking bin Salman to Khashoggi's murder.
"I have read every piece of intelligence that's in the possession of the United States government," Pompeo said. "And when it is done, when you complete that analysis, there's no direct evidence linking him to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. That is a accurate statement, it is an important statement, and it is a statement that we are making publicly today."
When asked if the CIA has a high confidence of the de facto Saudi leader's involvement, Pompeo told CNN, "I can't comment on intelligence matters."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/01/politics/mike-pompeo-jamal-khashoggi-cnntv/index.html
bdamomma
(63,791 posts)how much is he getting paid off.
That's why Putin and the Crown Prince were giving each other high 5's. Sucks doesn't it our enemies are celebrating. They got us neutered.
dalton99a
(81,387 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)Bob Loblaw
(1,900 posts)No shit.
spanone
(135,781 posts)ADX
(1,622 posts)...but thankfully, he didn't serve long.
Solly Mack
(90,758 posts)Claims he can't comment on intelligence matters yet does just that in his statement about no direct link.
I like this part ...
Person A asks Person B: Did you sleep with Person Z? (with the meaning being the common vernacular of - Did the two of you have sex? )
Person B answers: I did not sleep with Person Z.
(An accurate statement because - Person B had sex with Person Z but they did not sleep together. They each went their separate ways after coitus)
Kajun Gal
(1,907 posts)dawg day
(7,947 posts)I wonder if it's already starting, the resistance in the intel agencies, like when they start leaking their reports.
JCMach1
(27,553 posts)good times
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)"Direct evidence" would be an intercept of MBS saying in as many words "torture and kill him", which of course he's not going to do over a cell phone.
spanone
(135,781 posts)...what is he basing his opinion on?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He's saying there's no "direct evidence" because intelligence almost never involves direct evidence, and is almost always based on a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. But even overwhelming circumstantial evidence, which it seems we have here, is not "direct".