When weasels speak---
Ms McEnany declares that they "continue to evaluate" the intelligence regarding Russian bounty payments for killing US soldiers. This, she claims, is necessary because there is "no consensus" as to "the underlying allegations".
"Underlying allegations"---what could this mean?
That Russia is paying insurgents to kill our soldiers and Trump has done nothing about it for months after being briefed about it are not "underlying" allegations; they are THE allegations. Underlying allegations would be those bits and pieces of information which, taken together, support THE allegations.
Intelligence is much more art than science. It rarely yields any information that would be termed "certain". Pieces of info are collected, evaluated and either discarded or "ranked" at one of several levels of reliability. Human intelligence from source "A" may be considered "highly reliable" ( known source who has provided accurate info in the past ) while the same report received from "B" may be "possibly accurate" ( new informant, no history, motivation unclear ).
If "A" and "B" provided essentally the same "underlying" info about the Russian bounties, those in the Intel community considering the allegation of "A" would find it likely or probably true while those evaluating the same allegation made by "B" would be unwilling to recommend accepting B's uncorroborated word.
And, so, "voila!" There is "no consensus as to the underlying allegation."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Hasn't aged well, has it?
