Analyzing the Trump/Russia Intelligence Story







So, let's have a little analytical look at the story.





Let's go further. Later in the story, it's reported:


Okay, remember the emphasized part, and let's move to the next paragraph:


So, now what we know is that these anonymous sources were so alarmed about what Trump told the Russians that they immediately got in touch with Washington Post reporters and ... revealed the same information to them?

Okay, so now I'm getting a little bit suspicious.

So, can we put this all together in a way that makes sense? Imagine if the conversation went something like this:

TRUMP: We think the laptop restrictions are very important. We have very good, really great, trustworthy intelligence that ISIS is preparing an attack like this.

Okay, that is going to be pretty sensitive.

LIVROV: We don't buy it.

TRUMP: We have good sources within the city of [let's say Bagdad].

LIVROV: No kidding? How'd you get those?

TRUMP: We have great intelligence. I'm telling you it's yoooge how great it is.

Of course, I don't know this is what really happened, and God knows I can see Trump slipping on something like this -- although, frankly, while the president by definition has clearance to see anything, he doesn't have any obvious "need to know" for the details.

On the other hand, this looks like one of those classic WaPo snipe hunts: someone anonymously, breathlessly, tells a story to a reporter; the reporter runs with it solely on the basis of these anonymous and potentially untrustworthy sources. The reporter gets responses from the usual suspects. Then it's denied by multiple sources on the record.

So I'm not saying it's certainly nothing. I'm just saying, given the press's record for the last six months, it would probably pay not to buy the story too readily.