... well, no, not exactly.
When you're not briefed fully on subjects as potentially serious as the one in question seems to be, you don't open your mouth. Like, full stop, you shut the hell up until you're entirely sure you're in the clear because both the immediate consequences and possible knock-on ones can very easily be measured in lives in both the short and long term. You don't exactly get a by when it comes to information of this sort, particularly when you're disclosing to an adversarial foreign politician, for running your mouth because you didn't have full detail beforehand.
Though with a bit of thought, I'm not entirely sure if you're calling for the giving of doubt, here. What you're mentioning may actually be worse than most current framing of the issue, some sort of doubling down anti-doubt thing. "They can't have murdered Mr. Green, they were busy with committing a rape/homicide two houses over!" Can't quite figure out if a person that doesn't read important shit before talking about it is actually better than one that does and indulges in potentially murderous information disclosure anyway. Like, at least with the latter you have some degree of assurance the person understands the magnitude of an issue even if they don't particularly give a shit about it...