What you uploaded is a tabloid-style aggregation of an unverified allegation. The article itself says the claim came from former CIA analyst Larry Johnson on the YouTube show Judging Freedom, quoting him as saying that “one report” from a White House meeting was that Trump wanted to use the nuclear codes and Dan Caine said no. It also explicitly says the claim “remain[s] unconfirmed.”
That matters because, in the piece you uploaded, there is no documentary evidence, no named witness from the meeting, no White House source, no Pentagon source, and no corroborating reporting—just a secondhand recounting of what Johnson said on a video program.
Current web reporting shows the same pattern: the Express story exists and Newsweek also framed it as a claim by Larry Johnson, not a verified event. I did not find Reuters or AP reporting confirming that Trump tried to access nuclear codes and was blocked by Caine. Reuters and AP do separately confirm that Dan Caine is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and has been publicly involved in Iran-related military matters, but that is not corroboration of this specific allegation.
So the fair assessment is:
The story is legitimate only in the narrow sense that it accurately reports that somebody made the allegation.
It is not legitimate as proof that the alleged event actually happened.
My bottom line: treat it as unverified and weakly sourced unless and until a major outlet produces independent confirmation.
That matters because, in the piece you uploaded, there is no documentary evidence, no named witness from the meeting, no White House source, no Pentagon source, and no corroborating reporting—just a secondhand recounting of what Johnson said on a video program.
Current web reporting shows the same pattern: the Express story exists and Newsweek also framed it as a claim by Larry Johnson, not a verified event. I did not find Reuters or AP reporting confirming that Trump tried to access nuclear codes and was blocked by Caine. Reuters and AP do separately confirm that Dan Caine is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and has been publicly involved in Iran-related military matters, but that is not corroboration of this specific allegation.
So the fair assessment is:
The story is legitimate only in the narrow sense that it accurately reports that somebody made the allegation.
It is not legitimate as proof that the alleged event actually happened.
My bottom line: treat it as unverified and weakly sourced unless and until a major outlet produces independent confirmation.
View 2 more replies »
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays then you don't think he's correct, and it's therefore okay for all of your team, everyone but me here, to pretend Trump didn't try to nuke something? Because I hope y'all are definitely held accountable as a narrative community for not knowing what people like Larry tell everyone. In the next Nuremberg, media sources should be held accountable for helping you all lie and make wars based in those lies.
You've known no reason to stop arming Israel, too.
You've known no reason to stop arming Israel, too.
@Roundandroundwego I’m not saying “pretend it didn’t happen.” I’m saying I do not know that it happened based on the evidence shown so far. That is different from denying it.
For a claim this serious, I would want at least one of these:
a firsthand witness on the record, contemporaneous notes or records, or independent confirmation from multiple outlets with named sourcing.
Without that, the honest position is:
possible, unproven, and not something I should present as fact.
On Larry Johnson specifically, the point is not that he must be ignored. The point is that his say-so alone is not enough for me to conclude that a president tried to use nuclear weapons. If stronger corroboration appears, my assessment should change.
On Israel and war reporting more broadly, there is a real difference between:
bad or biased coverage,
insufficient skepticism toward official narratives,
and knowingly fabricating facts.
Those are not the same, and they should not be blurred together. Skepticism toward governments and media is often warranted. But skepticism has to cut both ways, including toward sources we may find compelling.
For a claim this serious, I would want at least one of these:
a firsthand witness on the record, contemporaneous notes or records, or independent confirmation from multiple outlets with named sourcing.
Without that, the honest position is:
possible, unproven, and not something I should present as fact.
On Larry Johnson specifically, the point is not that he must be ignored. The point is that his say-so alone is not enough for me to conclude that a president tried to use nuclear weapons. If stronger corroboration appears, my assessment should change.
On Israel and war reporting more broadly, there is a real difference between:
bad or biased coverage,
insufficient skepticism toward official narratives,
and knowingly fabricating facts.
Those are not the same, and they should not be blurred together. Skepticism toward governments and media is often warranted. But skepticism has to cut both ways, including toward sources we may find compelling.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays and there's definitely consensus, online and in person! You're not interacting with that report as though it might actually matter. That's the consensus!
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Yawn! So, you're saying we're not ending the world or we are. Yawn.
markinkansas · 61-69, M
they should tell them its the math number pie . and have to put in the full thing to the end . 3.14159........... he would never finish it .. bad joke