How does it feel to support a president who is complicit in the murder of US troops?

[LV426]

OMG.
the PDB is written in report form but the CONTENTS are determined by the criteria I gave you
Actionable for sure goes in -but it's written by the CIA w/input by the NSA /FBI and other IC as needed.

I dont think the DNI actually writes it - i'm not 100% sure but I think that is done by the CIA?

so THE WRITER uses the CRITERIA I JUST GAVE YOU to DETERMINE WHAT GOES IN OR NOT

So you just made shit up. Again. Ad hoc. And now you're moving the bar again.

 

[anatta]

So you just made shit up. Again. Ad hoc. And now you're moving the bar again.

HA HA HA ^ hapless / hapless and just plain dumb

 

[LV426]

Yes, you are all mixed up.

You said there were three different classifications in a PDB, that you obviously just made up on the spot.

Then when shown an actual PDB that doesn't have anything you said they have, you shift the goalposts.

Pathetic.

So you are arguing that a PDB is full of actionable intelligence, except when it's not, but that determination is made by the President, not the Intelligence Community that produced the PDB.

 

[LV426]

HA HA HA ^ hapless / hapless and just plain dumb

No, you just made shit up.

First you said there were three different classifications.

THEN you said that "so THE WRITER uses the CRITERIA I JUST GAVE YOU to DETERMINE WHAT GOES IN OR NOT".

So the writer is putting in Intelligence that isn't credible? Oh right, you said it is credible, but not actionable. But how could it not be actionable? You haven't articulated that.

 

[Bourbon]

Donald Trump could SCREW Forum Trump Supporters Mother’s in the Middle of 5th Avenue, and not loose their Vote.

 

[LV426]

HA HA HA ^ hapless / hapless and just plain dumb

Here's what you did on this thread:

You first said the Russian bounties intel was a hoax.

Then you said that it wasn't credible, despite being in a PDB.

But then you said that a PDB only contains credible information, thus contradicting your second goalpost shift.

So clearly it's not a hoax if it appeared in 2 PDB's from 2 different times.

So explain to me how something can rise to the level of POTUS, but not be actionable intelligence? Isn't the whole point of the PDB to prod the President into action based on what the PDB articulates?

Like, say, two different instances of reports of Russian bounties?

If it's a hoax, why was it in the PDB twice?

Clearly, Trump is ignoring the intelligence because he'd have to confront Putin, and he's scared of Putin.

 

[anatta]

No, you just made shit up.

First you said there were three different classifications.

THEN you said that "so THE WRITER uses the CRITERIA I JUST GAVE YOU to DETERMINE WHAT GOES IN OR NOT".

So the writer is putting in Intelligence that isn't credible? Oh right, you said it is credible, but not actionable. But how could it not be actionable? You haven't articulated that.

do I really need to explain the difference between actionable and credible AGAIN?

The classifications are INTELLIGENCE CLASSIFICATIONS , and the writer uses that criteria as a GUIDE
It's not a hard and fast thing -like I said and FYI might not be more then raw,
( because of the exigent nature of the subject) but needs to be seen by POTUS

There is also answers to a POTUS questions that has been researched "getting back to POTUS"

But in general credible (like the Russian bounties) but un-verified sourcing that is of POTUS interests makes it in
WHICH IS NOT ACTIONABLE

Actionable is is highly verified to the criteria extent i just gave you

 

[bhaktajan]

Keep your monkey mind straight

 

[anatta]

Here's what you did on this thread:

You first said the Russian bounties intel was a hoax.

Then you said that it wasn't credible, despite being in a PDB.

But then you said that a PDB only contains credible information, thus contradicting your second goalpost shift.

So clearly it's not a hoax if it appeared in 2 PDB's from 2 different times.

So explain to me how something can rise to the level of POTUS, but not be actionable intelligence? Isn't the whole point of the PDB to prod the President into action based on what the PDB articulates?

Like, say, two different instances of reports of Russian bounties?

If it's a hoax, why was it in the PDB twice?

Clearly, Trump is ignoring the intelligence because he'd have to confront Putin, and he's scared of Putin.

It's a hoax. That is my assessment, based on the fact there is nothing verified beyond various raw intel
To my knowledge it's not even in a formal (report) form

But based on how terrible that would be for Putin, and the constant steam of Russian hoaxes percolating up from the IC/NSC - I call it a "hoax"
There has been nothing reported to dissuade my conclusion

 

[bhaktajan]

Don't get your inscrutables in a knot

Here's what you did on this thread:

You first said the Russian bounties intel was a hoax.

Then you said that it wasn't credible, despite being in a PDB.

But then you said that a PDB only contains credible information, thus contradicting your second goalpost shift.

So clearly it's not a hoax if it appeared in 2 PDB's from 2 different times.

So explain to me how something can rise to the level of POTUS, but not be actionable intelligence? Isn't the whole point of the PDB to prod the President into action based on what the PDB articulates?

Like, say, two different instances of reports of Russian bounties?

If it's a hoax, why was it in the PDB twice?

Clearly, Trump is ignoring the intelligence because he'd have to confront Putin, and he's scared of Putin.

 

[LV426]

do I really need to explain the difference between actionable and credible AGAIN?

The classifications are INTELLIGENCE CLASSIFICATIONS , and the writer uses that criteria as a GUIDE
It's not a hard and fast thing -like I said and FYI might not be more then raw,
( because of the exigent nature of the subject) but needs to be seen by POTUS

There is also answers to a POTUS questions that has been researched "getting back to POTUS"

But in general credible (like the Russian bounties) but un-verified sourcing that is of POTUS interests makes it in
WHICH IS NOT ACTIONABLE

Actionable is is highly verified to the criteria extent i just gave you

All of this you just made up right now, didn't you?

 

[LV426]

do I really need to explain the difference between actionable and credible AGAIN?u

You can try, but I'm sure you'll just end up contradicting yourself.

he classifications are INTELLIGENCE CLASSIFICATIONS , and the writer uses that criteria as a GUIDE

No they're not. Never heard of "FYI" as an Intelligence Classification before.

You're just winging this, aren't you? You're making it up as you go, just like you did with that mail-in ballot.

 

[LV426]

But in general credible (like the Russian bounties) but un-verified sourcing that is of POTUS interests makes it in
WHICH IS NOT ACTIONABLE

There is no debate that it's actionable.

Everything in a PDB is actionable, that's why it's in the PDB.

The debate we are having is whether Trump thought it was serious enough, or cared enough, to act on it.

You're telling me that he didn't take it seriously, just like he didn't take coronavirus seriously.

Trump was told about these bounties at least twice, yet took no action either time.

How much do you want to bet he was briefed more than 2 times about this?

 

[LV426]

It's a hoax.

It's a hoax, but it's credible enough to appear in two PDBs from two different times.

This is cognitive dissonance.

 

[anatta]

All of this you just made up right now, didn't you?

I started studying the IC system when the Russian hoax broke back in 2016.
I learned about formal assessments/reports and raw intel ( a lot more that that but for this discussion is enoug)

I called the fact there was absolutely no Russian collusion /conspiracy from DAY 1

Shortly after I saw the Obama EO that allowed raw intel to be shared across IC platforms-
which gave us the unverified leaks in NYT and WAPO etc.

Then i called the Deep State ( which you'll be hearing more about from the Durham indictments)

So I know the terminology, and I know how it's used

 

[anatta]

It's a hoax, but it's credible enough to appear in two PDBs from two different times.

This is cognitive dissonance.

hoax is MY assessment, not what was used as criteria for PBD -and I'm always right on this
while you are consistently wrong

 

[LV426]

That is my assessment, based on the fact there is nothing verified beyond various raw inteln

How do you know that? Are you a party to PDBs? NO YOU SAY?

Well then that means you're bullshitting.

The PDB isn't raw intel at all, it's intel that the IC has vetted and found credible, which is why it raised to the level of POTUS.

You're saying that TWICE, the IC found it necessary to brief Trump of these bounties.

Trump chose to not act on the information, not because it wasn't credible (it had to be credible to end up in the PDB), but because he is afraid of Putin.

 

[LV426]

It's a hoax. That is my assessment, based on the fact there is nothing verified beyond various raw intel
To my knowledge it's not even in a formal (report) form

But based on how terrible that would be for Putin, and the constant steam of Russian hoaxes percolating up from the IC/NSC - I call it a "hoax"
There has been nothing reported to dissuade my conclusion

LMAO!

It's a hoax, except that it was credible enough to appear in at least two different PDBs from two different times.

Trump approaches PDBs the same way Bush the Dumber did.

 

[LV426]

I started studying the IC system when the Russian hoax broke back in 2016.

BULLSHIT.

What you're doing on this thread is the same thing you did on the mail-in ballot thread; you make shit up to lend yourself credibility you don't otherwise have.

There is no such classification as "FYI" in the IC. You made that up.

There is no such classification as "actionable" in the IC. You made that up too.

That's why you don't source anything here, like how I sourced to an actual PDB that completely undermined every single point you were trying to make.

Your argument is also cognitive dissonance:

Russian bounties are a hoax, but are credible enough to appear in two different PDBs, which only contain credible information that rises to the level of POTUS.

 

[LV426]

I started studying the IC system when the Russian hoax broke back in 2016.
I learned about formal assessments/reports and raw intel ( a lot more that that but for this discussion is enoug)
So I know the terminology, and I know how it's used

Oh man are you in for it now...

Everything you just said, and have said before, including this are all lies, and here's the FAS to prove it:

ACTIONABLE = high quality, multiple sourced or vetted with high enough confidence that POTUS is confident what he is hearing is verified to the level he can take action

Reality: https://fas.org/irp/eprint/ci-glossary.pdf Actionable Intelligence. Intelligence information that is directly useful to customers for immediate exploitation without having to go through the full intelligence production process.

Whoops! So you made up that definition.

CREDIBLE = appears to be true based on analytics or enough sources that this isn't just raw intel

Reality: Credible Information. Information disclosed or obtained by a criminal investigator that, considering its source and nature and all the circumstances, is believable enough that a trained criminal investigator can state the information is true.

So you're a little closer, but still off the mark.

FYI = urgent info for POTUS 'eyes" but not more then just raw intel ( not in report form )

Reality: "FYI" is not an Intelligence term.

So you lied. Again. All you know how to do is lie. Lying is your nature, it's your habit, it's who you are.