In addition to being questioned, there are supposedly over 40 pages of presentation about contemporary national security threats. I have not taken the time to read, but other outlets besides CNN have come to the same conclusion, and I believe that they are saying, at least, that they and their experts have.It's possible that Coats and Haspell didn't mention the wall because their congressional interrogators didn't ask about it. Then CNN inferred that therefore, the intelligence chiefs disagree with the President about the wall. That inference by CNN could in fact be "taken out of context", and not what Coats and Haspell meant to say, and they might have mollified Trump accordingly.
I think it quite possible to correctly opine that the vast majority of Trump's public utterances are lies, by one count over 8,000 now. And there is no reason to conclude that, appearances aside, that the media don't collude in their own manner towards a common hidden agenda. Many 'circumstances' brought Trump to this point, including NBC and The Apprentice.Trump told the CNN reporter to call Coats & Haspell for more information. But did she do that? No, instead the CNN team took a few (out of context) snips from the testimony, and concluded on that basis that Trump must be lying. Now, I don't question for a moment that there are examples of Trump intentionally making false statements (aka lying), but this might not be a very good example. This might be just an example of some general confusion, aided perhaps by some obfuscation.
And that's another part of the tableau we're facing. I wouldn't trust anything Trump says; but then again, CNN also dishes out their share of horseshit, as Trump's base is well aware.
Yes. You need to invent a new analysis scheme, Venn Based Bayes.You need to have mutually exclusive propositions to apply a Bayesian test. Why can't the Trump phenomenon be both ex-narcisso and ex-machina ?
The tools to do so have been there for a considerable time, they have been used to some extent, but never with such a grandiose PR campaign, not to mention all the shenanigans.Yes, this is psychological priming at its best. And it wouldn't surprise me if it's some Democratic Party hack who finally declares the state of emergency, long after Trump's gone from office.
As far as I know, it is the first time(s) in the era of American superpowerdom at least. It is wrong to do this as a foreign power, such as Russia, can then claim that something else was agreed to. Even if this doesn't happen then our government employees need to have a record of what was said and agreed to, so that what gets implemented is in accord with what was stated in the meeting. There was no person, besides translators in attendance, and the American translator's notes were destroyed at Trump's request. One meeting only had a Russian translator, and Putin speaks English as well.What are you saying here? What's wrong with Trump having a private conversation with Putin? Is Trump the first US president that's ever had a private meeting with a foreign leader?
Trump is already in a compromised position relative to Russia, given his lying about the late pursuit of Trump Tower Moscow, for one. We found out from Russian media that Trump told the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, in the Oval Office, that he had fired Comey to take the pressure off of himself. Maybe you can ague that this action is evidence that the Russians are merely being honestly transparent, wasting leverage for no 'other' reason.