3 ms·
The sources I'm familiar with (mostly the FT) claim otherwise. See for example: https://www.ft.com/content/0c42dc7c-b927-477a-90b7-a202bbe4bc50 https://www.ft.
by disgruntledphd2 6y ago
The sources I'm familiar with (mostly the FT) claim otherwise.
See for example: https://www.ft.com/content/0c42dc7c-b927-477a-90b7-a202bbe4bc50 https://www.ft.com/content/0c42dc7c-b927-477a-90b7-a202bbe4b...
Or also this: https://www.ft.com/content/61988d2d-4c95-4a35-8273-d6980af04114 https://www.ft.com/content/61988d2d-4c95-4a35-8273-d6980af04...
- ThomPete 6y agoThat article is mostly an opinion piece not really about the nuts and bolts of US intelligence concerns. I love FT and I subscribe to the paper but I see more anti-trump sentiment than an actual argument there.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoLike, when a President who disagrees publicly with his own intelligence agencies claims that something is the result of intelligence, I am very sceptical. I'm very sceptical of US intelligence justifications in general (and have been since 2003) but even more so under the current administration. "I love FT and I subscribe to the paper but I see more anti-trump sentiment than an actual argument there. " I really don't see any anti-Trump sentiment there, can you clarify what you mean?