Meh, he’s a gun for hire and of course MI6 was where the WMD intel in Iraq came from in the first place and we all know how that turned out, right?
Exactly. US intelligence when corroborated by our allies is only right like 99% of the time. They were wrong this one time...
Actually, the Iraq WMD thing has turned into a very interesting story (once everyone stopped paying attention). US intelligence was asked for their best assessment of Iraqi programs, having been locked out of actual inspections for 4 years. So they gave their best assessment with all the facts and disclaimers (including disclaiming any link with Al Qaida and that they had no proof that Saddam actually possessed WMDs).
The intelligence services actual assessment has been released,
you can go read it, including draft notes. Page 13 is a summary of findings and confidences. They were highly confident that Iraq was continuing its WMD program and possessed materials to actually make WMDs, but they disclaim detecting any portions of weapons programs. They were moderately confident that Iraq did not have nuclear capabilities or the ability to make one. They had low confidence of when Saddam would use WMDs, could use them against the US homeland, or would share them with Al Qaida. They disclaimed actual proof of WMDs, the existence of the same was mostly by exclusion (we know they did have them, we have no proof they have destroyed them, when we ask for proof of destruction we were kicked out of the country).
The
RAND Corporation has a really interesting report on the issue, out of 300+ pages one should at least take away that disclaimers matter. If you ask an intelligence community for its best assessment, you will get it. But the disclaimers really matter. If you sell your case completely ignoring the disclaimers, you do so at your own risk.
Its still not clear to me what happened to the WMDs. Apparently Saddam actually did destroy them, but was willing to be invaded and ultimately hanged instead of letting UN inspectors verify it? Lots of lesson to be taken away: a strong president can lead a nation to war if they want, intelligence assessments are complex documents and details matter, and the ultimate assessment of the intelligence community, politicians, and public opinion can be wrong.
In the present matter, our intelligence service has no comment on the truth of the matter asserted. They briefed the President and President elect on foreign intelligence rumors, which is standard procedure. That's a far cry from these allegations being supported or verified by US intelligence. The a US Senator asked FBI director Comey if there was any truth to the matter and his response was simply that the FBI doesn't and never will comment on investigations (unless it involves Hillary Clinton).
And they shouldn't. If Trump hired a bunch of hookers in Moscow, I'd want our intelligence services to know about it as a possible source of blackmail - but it isn't a crime or a matter of national security so they should not discuss it with the public. Same for his business dealings in Russia, as long as they are not contrary to US law, US intelligence has no business making them public. Now, if Trump lies to Congress about it (a la Bill Clinton), then it becomes a criminal matter. If trump campaign coordinated with Russia, that could be an issue. But the tabloid stuff is just noise that comes with being in public office.
This was a project for hire - Russia wanted someone to dig up dirt on Trump so if they actually saw their horse win the race, they'd have blackmail material. It is reportedly a very common practice in Russia and I assume we contract for similar documents on foreign leaders. Presumably one would include damaging things that are true, things that *might* be true, and things that you have enough evidence to support the appearance of being true (even if they are false).
Finally...
Trump: Obama is a Kenyan! (proven false, repeats the claim anyway)
Trump: Vaccines cause autism! (thoroughly debunked, repeats the claim anyway)
Trump: Ted Cruz's father was the second gunman on the grassy knoll! (no basis in reality, repeats the claim anyway)
Trump supporters: ::crickets::
Actual news sources: A dossier has been leaked with unconfirmed allegations against Trump. (an event that actually happened)
Trump supporters: "FAKE NEWS, OMG!!! FAKE!!!!"
This is why we can't have nice things.