-
Came across a weird claim in @mtaibbi's take on @ggreenwald. The NYT walked back nothing about our reporting that the CIA assessed that Russia offered $ to incentivize killings of US troops, it was in Trump's briefing & the WH developed response options but authorized no action.
-
When the WH defended its failure to do even a diplomatic warning (which Pompeo and DOD later did) by lying that the CIA's analysis was too iffy to tell Trump, we reported that it was actually in his Feb. 27 written briefing & reported broadly to the intelligence community May 4.
-
We went on to dig out details of the direct (detainee interrogations) & corroborative ($ transfers/seizures, travel data) evidence & the absence of sigint & explained that the CIA had medium confidence in its assessment based on this while the sigint-focused NSA wasn't as sure.
-
Very senior DOD officials have chosen to interpret the issue extremely narrowly - is there conclusive "proof" that any *specific* attack resulted in a payment - that allows them to say they don't know & move on w/out getting crosswise w/ Trump or seeming not to care about troops.
-
And that's where things still stand. The NYT's reporting on the existence of the CIA's assessment and the White House's weird handling of it was and is accurate. The newspaper hasn't distanced itself from anything.
-
Adding this so the chain is complete: @charlie_savage/1322276370890870784