It was given to both of them.Huh? I thought it was supposed to be an Obama briefing. Not a Trump briefing.
Who's the retard here? Looks like Trump wasn't briefed on this after all....you just fell for some more incredibly shoddy yellow journalism from CNN. lol
Donald Trump Wasn’t Told About Unverified Russia Memo, Official Says
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/t...jects-dossier-alleged-russia-dealings-n705586
While multiple officials say the summary was included in the material prepared for the briefers, the senior official told NBC News that the briefing was oral and no actual documents were left with the Trump team in New York. During the briefing, the president-elect was not briefed on the contents of the summary .
"Intel and law enforcement officials agree that none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period," the senior official said.
According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."
The briefers also had available to them unvetted "disinformation" about the Clinton Foundation, although that was not orally shared with Trump.
So, to contrast that with the non-anonymous statement from Clapper ... the best case (for Trump) is that he just didn't read the material. And that Clapper indicated the info was included as raw, yet unverified, HUMINT that was being worked. Hmmm ... which one to believe ....
Putting aside on the record vs anonymous sources of course.
Huh? I thought it was supposed to be an Obama briefing. Not a Trump briefing.
He wasn't given the material to read...he was given an oral briefing and this particular issue was not discussed. Although it was within the briefing material as an example of disinformation, a copy of the briefing material was not left with Trump. Bottom line....CNN fucked up in reporting Trump was actually briefed on this issue...CNN just assumed he was based on their source(s) indicating the info was within the briefing materials. This is what irresponsible and inept yellow journalism looks like.So, to contrast that with the non-anonymous statement from Clapper ... the best case (for Trump) is that he just didn't read the material. And that Clapper indicated the info was included as raw, yet unverified, HUMINT that was being worked. Hmmm ... which one to believe ....
Putting aside on the record vs anonymous sources of course.
It's now clear that you didn't understand the context of his comment which you quoted and used to call him a "retard". I've looked at a few more of your posts and now have a fairly good idea of what you're all about.Considering you thought I was arguing a point and not making fun of what LegendKiller wrote, the only retard here is yourself for extrapolating so much out of a sarcastic comment (feel free to look up my comment history for more)
Clapper is now confirming, in the open, that the info was in fact briefed to Trump :
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/james-clapper-donald-trump/index.html
For you non-readers :
Clapper said he told Trump that intelligence agencies made no judgement about the reliability of the allegations.
Clapper said in his statement that the synopsis was included in the briefing because "part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security."
It has not been established whether the agencies raised the material from the two-page synopsis directly with Trump at their recent meeting.
Looks like CNN finally "sorta" manned up regarding the point I was making...framing their mistake as "new information" instead of a retraction. You're a hoot and have the worst case of butthurt I've ever seen!There seems to be some disagreement between various sources, yes. Is anyone even the slightest bit shocked that DSF picked the one that told him what he wanted to hear and ignored all the others?
He wasn't given the material to read...he was given an oral briefing and this particular issue was not discussed. Although it was within the briefing material as an example of disinformation, a copy of the briefing material was not left with Trump. Bottom line....CNN fucked up in reporting Trump was actually briefed on this issue...CNN just assumed he was based on their source(s) indicating the info was within the briefing materials. This is what irresponsible and inept yellow journalism looks like.
This is getting hilarious. CNN edited their January 10 article today to say "CNN has confirmed that the synopsis was included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs." but forgot to edit the headline "Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him". The Editor's Note says the story was updated to include "new information"...yep, new information that their initial report was bogus...lol. You can't make this shit up.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html
Ask CNN...as if you can trust their ever-evolving narrative. Is it really that hard for you to understand what happened and why CNN had to edit their story in a lame attempt to cover their ass? Seriously?So which is it?? Was Trump given the documents or not? Does a briefer need to read every line of the documentation to the audience for it to count? If it was in the material, verbal or written, it was apparently considered "presented". Not that hard to understand. Unless you're trying to pretzel every piece of info to account for adjusted goal posts.
And the "disinformation" bit seems to be at odds with Clapper's description of further information that is still being investigated. Again, raw intel versus vetted information.
Again, Clapper has confirmed it was presented. Either he's lying or Trump is. Or, Trump can't read.
Is it really that hard for you to understand what happened and why CNN had to edit their story? Seriously?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/t...jects-dossier-alleged-russia-dealings-n705586
And Clapper's statement is in no way at odds with anything.
Exactly what am I insinuating...that the disinformation is being vetted per standard practice? Perhaps the more appropriate question here is...what are you insinuating?So, that's not an answer.
And to think that Clapper's statement isn't at odd with what you're insinuating means you think that 2pg add on isn't being looked into? Is that correct?
So which is it?? Was Trump given the documents or not? Does a briefer need to read every line of the documentation to the audience for it to count? If it was in the material, verbal or written, it was apparently considered "presented". Not that hard to understand. Unless you're trying to pretzel every piece of info to account for adjusted goal posts.
And the "disinformation" bit seems to be at odds with Clapper's description of further information that is still being investigated. Again, raw intel versus vetted information.
Again, Clapper has confirmed it was presented. Either he's lying or Trump is. Or, Trump can't read.
Clapper didn't say what you think he said. Read my response to your initial claim above.
So, that's not an answer.
And to think that Clapper's statement isn't at odd with what you're insinuating means you think that 2pg add on isn't being looked into? Is that correct?
Exactly what am I insinuating...that the disinformation is being vetted per standard practice? Perhaps the more appropriate question here is...what are you insinuating?
Of course the 2 pg addendum is being looked into. Just what are you trying to say here?The bolded, again.
Instead of throwing out insults and adding nothing to the discussion...why don't you post something reasonably intelligent?lol, watching DSF's head spin is classic, especially when the news doesn't say what he wants it to.
Instead of throwing out insults and adding nothing to the discussion...why don't you post something reasonably intelligent?
You have a point? Then make a case for it.
I'm not disputing that part, that was clarified yesterday.
The claims of Russian kompromat on Mr Trump were "credible", the CIA believed. That is why - according to the New York Times and Washington Post - these claims ended up on President Barack Obama's desk last week, a briefing document also given to Congressional leaders and to Mr Trump himself.
The briefing was presented orally, the subject wasn't discussed, and the briefing materials weren't given to Trump...so just how does this translate into the information somehow being "presented" to him?The original CNN article's new edit doesn't change the meaning of the word "present" or "discuss", something apparently beyond your skills in diction. It quite straight forwardly clarifies how information was presented to Trump and certainly the nature of the intel itself can't now be claimed as "bogus" based on everything we know publicly, that's just wishful DSF thinking and you couldn't specifically delineate otherwise if your life depended on it. But go right ahead and try.