Donald Trump Rejects Intelligence Report on Travel Ban
Source: WSJ
The report, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, came from Homeland Securitys Office of Intelligence and Analysis. It said that its staff assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity. The White House on Friday dismissed it as politically motivated and poorly researched.
-snip-
The president asked for an intelligence assessment. This is not the intelligence assessment the president asked for, a senior administration official said. The official said intelligence is already available on the countries included in Mr. Trumps ban and just needs to be compiled.
The intelligence community is combining resources to put together a comprehensive report using all available sources which is driven by data and intelligence and not politics," said White House spokesman Michael Short.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security also took issue with the quality of the report, describing it as commentary based on public sources rather than an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing.
-snip-
Read more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-rejects-intelligence-report-on-travel-ban-1487987629
bucolic_frolic
(43,364 posts)if he already knows what he's looking for and disagrees with anything that
is contrary to his preconceived beliefs?
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)I don't know, America has not ever had a dictator before. We are supposed to be a democracy. The original democracy.
duhneece
(4,118 posts)OliverQ
(3,363 posts)He's trying to get the Intel agencies to create a report that can be used to pass muster with the courts, since they said the evidence of these 7 states posing a high risk has not been presented yet. So Trump is trying to create the evidence to bypass that argument.
CincyDem
(6,407 posts)I had a friend who worked in the analysis business. The greatest quote I ever heard relative to this topic...
"...we'll torture the data until it confesses what we want to hear".
That's exactly how they're treating intelligence data these days. Conclusion in hand and cherry picking data to support it.
underpants
(182,949 posts)dalton99a
(81,636 posts)Period.
Third Doctor
(1,574 posts)susanna
(5,231 posts)dchill
(38,562 posts)Waiter! Waiter!
Sebasdad22
(68 posts)Just askim.
Blue Idaho
(5,060 posts)Dick Cheney would be so proud.
Doodley
(9,151 posts)Skittles
(153,223 posts)and that means doing shit like this
Solly Mack
(90,792 posts)So, of course, it's a fake report.
A "real" report would back up every lie Trump has ever told.
GReedDiamond
(5,318 posts)...to generate Fake News to support their Fake Policies.
Who coulda seen that coming?
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,047 posts)Either he will have to wait until he is out of office or it will be an intelligence report from Jeff Sessions. Which is a bit of an oxymoron.
DeminPennswoods
(15,290 posts)Just reading the excerpt posted above as someone who did analyses for the federal gov't, it's a decent piece of work and credible.
Whoever wrote it used concrete facts in all people who were involved in some kind of known terrorist act in the US as identified in DoJ reports although over what timeframe isn't clear. (If it was me analyzing the date, I'd have gone back to the earliest known terrorist attack, maybe the 1993 WTC event.) Everything else flows from there and is just spreadsheet data. It looks like the author also gathered data on people inside the 7 countries who committed some kind of local vs external attacks although the source of that data isn't stated.
I'm going to guess that what Trump wants is to include attacks that might have been thwarted in addition to those that actually happened. Maybe he also wants to include individuals who are being monitored by the intelligence community as being on the radicalized spectrum, but who haven't carried out any attacks and who may/may not live in or travel to the US. I think using any other data like social media activity is unreliable because who really knows who is who on the internet.
However, the problem with trying to cook the books here is that this data is going to be used in a trial and is therefore subject to discovery. We now have the original conclusions out so any subsequent conclusions can be compared/contrasted/questioned by litigators and the court.
BumRushDaShow
(129,662 posts)Bayard
(22,181 posts)Is it because they won't let him build hotels there?