Russia offered bounties to kill american troops. (3 Viewers)

[The moose]

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says (Published 2020)

The Trump administration has been deliberating for months about what to do about a stunning intelligence assessment.

www.nytimes.com

An amazing read.

Trump was told about this in March. Then tries to get Russia back into the g8.

The timing is just plain horrible.

 

[MT15]

this is getting worse for him.

 

[Optimus Prime]

For what it’s worth
================

Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence........

AP sources: White House aware of Russian bounties in 2019

Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligen

apnews.com

 

[MT15]

Hmmm, seems someone’s WH source lied to her. Not that she ever questions anything they tell her.

 

[barbar]

There's a tweet for this.

If he didn't know he should have....to take a queue from Roger Goodell...lol.

 

[Richard]

FWIW, the American soldiers were killed April 7/8 by the Taliban. Trump has what is described as a "flurry of phone calls" with Putin on April 9, 10 and 12. Would love to know what those calls were about.

 

[MT15]

Isn’t that also when he disinvited the Taliban to Camp David?

He just cannot do his job, he thinks Putin and Xi, and Kim are his buddies. He cannot match wits with any world leaders. He doesn’t have a full deck. He’s dangerous, from a foreign policy standpoint.

 

[Richard]

Isn’t that also when he disinvited the Taliban to Camp David?

He just cannot do his job, he thinks Putin and Xi, and Kim are his buddies. He cannot match wits with any world leaders. He doesn’t have a full deck. He’s dangerous, from a foreign policy standpoint.

The Camp David fiasco was last September.

While I have always questioned Trump's standing as a businessman and his ability to understand basic domestic policy, it was his lack of foreign policy knowledge, his lack of tactfulness and his inability to project consequences that has given me the greatest concern. This was reinforced by his aversion to reading his intelligence briefing materials and general distain for anything requiring more than surface knowledge. I agree that anyone with his traits would be dangerous as commander in chief, but I feel it is even more true with Trump due to his disconnect with facts he doesn't like. Throw in that he is disinterested in anything that isn't Trump-centric and that is a recipe for disaster in someone with his responsibilities.

 

[efil4]

Speaking of Obama, he was right when he called out Romney for saying Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. I wonder why that changed all of a sudden in 2016.

4 years.

And untold number of intelligence briefs that you arent privy to.

I understand, as each layer of the onion gets pulled back, it gets harder to defend. But i suspect that slowly, the realization that Trump was indeed briefed, that the Administration knew of the alleged bounties, and made ZERO effort to do anything about them, is starting to settle with many.

There are many things i think Trump supporters would dig their heels in for. This isnt one of them.

 

[efil4]

New York Times is reporting that a written report was given to trump. He knew about it and he refused to do anything about it and American troops were killed. In turn, trump has lobbied for Putin. Trump is a traitor and should suffer a traitor's fate.

Trump Got Written Briefing in February on Possible Russian Bounties, Officials Say (Published 2020)

The investigation into Russia’s suspected operation is said to focus in part on the killings of three Marines in a truck bombing last year, officials said.

www.nytimes.com

Bernstien is also reporting this among a bevy of other items today.

But im sure he will get the "fake news" label and be derided as some hack journalist.

 

[barbar]

The Camp David fiasco was last September.

While I have always questioned Trump's standing as a businessman and his ability to understand basic domestic policy, it was his lack of foreign policy knowledge, his lack of tactfulness and his inability to project consequences that has given me the greatest concern. This was reinforced by his aversion to reading his intelligence briefing materials and general distain for anything requiring more than surface knowledge. I agree that anyone with his traits would be dangerous as commander in chief, but I feel it is even more true with Trump due to his disconnect with facts he doesn't like. Throw in that he is disinterested in anything that isn't Trump-centric and that is a recipe for disaster in someone with his responsibilities.

We are witnessing that disaster currently and for the last few months.

 

[samiam5211]

Trump’s reaction to the information is more important than whether or not the information ends up being true.

 

[Saintamaniac]

The fact that our political institutions have been and continue to be at the mercy of "unnamed intelligence sources" and whatnot is a scary thing. The fact that we have already gone to war because of it makes it weirder that so many continue to buy into it.

Are you arguing that essentially, the public is better off not knowing that the president of the United States had intelligence information that was so important that they shared it with an ally and put it in/on the W.I.R. and briefed the president of the United States as early as April of 2019?
Are you saying it's a bad thing that the public now knows that the president was too lazy to read the PDB that contained the information and subsequently, US soldiers were assassinated by people paid by Russia to assassinate US soldiers?
Are you arguing that it's better that we not be informed that the president sat on this information, was presented several response options and instead of issuing a response, lobbied for Putin and Russia to be allowed back into the G8?

I really don't care by what means the American public gets the information. The political institutions that you claim are at the mercy of "unnamed intelligence sources" and actually at the mercy of the people...especially since the people are now aware that the people elected to those political institutions (i.e. POTUS) and the people who enable him and refuse to hold him accountable (i.e. Republicans) had information that was provided to them and they chose to look the other way while AMERICAN SOLDIERS WERE ASSASSINATED by people paid to do so by Russians.

Unnamed sources are the reason the public found out about Watergate. Unnamed sources are the reason the public knows about Iran/Contra. When the government is forthright with the people, there is little need for or availability of "unnamed sources". And while I agree with part of your premise that there needs to be a level of trust that secrets will remain secrets, I contend that secrets about Americans being assassinated while the president knows about it and then turns and lobbies for the people who are paying to assassinate those soldiers do not deserve the benefit of remaining secret and that it is the duty of unnamed sources to make the public aware of what is being done or not done in their name. After all, those unnamed sources in the intelligence community are Americans first and foremost.

 

[insidejob]

So who's going to call the Military Times FAKE NEWS?

White House aware in 2019 of Russian bounties on American troops in Afghanistan, officials say

Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the...

www.militarytimes.com

Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence.

The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019.

The White House did not respond to questions about Trump or other officials’ awareness of Russia’s provocations in 2019. The White House has said Trump was not — and still has not been — briefed on the intelligence assessments because they have not been fully verified. However, it is rare for intelligence to be confirmed without a shadow of a doubt before it is presented to top officials.

Bolton declined to comment Monday when asked by the AP if he had briefed Trump about the matter in 2019. On Sunday, he suggested to NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Trump was claiming ignorance of Russia’s provocations to justify his administration’s lack of a response.

“He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it,” Bolton said.

 

[bdb13]

Man just lock Joe in his basement and keep hitting Trump with this stuff.. I'm pretty sure there can be a new something every couple of days up until the election. It's kind of like Trump's strategy from last time, just reversing it on him. Obviously it's a very easy to bait Trump into digging himself a deeper hole.

 

[SaintForLife]

What a surprise. There wasn't anything evidence to corroborate those claims of the Russians paying bounties.

 

[brandon]

There are many things i think Trump supporters would dig their heels in for. This isnt one of them.

I think you vastly underestimate Trump supporters.

Edit: See above.

 

[JimEverett]

Unnamed sources are the reason the public found out about Watergate.

No. Not really.
And it certainly was not unnamed intelligence sources.
Intelligence, by nature, is a large part deception. For that reason, raw intelligence can say almost anything. For that reason most intelligence should result in skepticism - even intelligence assessments. More so by the public at the large. We are seeing a politicization of intelligence unlike we have seen since unnamed intelligence sources brought us into the worst foreign policy decision since at least the Vietnam War, if not longer.

 

[Saintamaniac]

No. Not really.
And it certainly was not unnamed intelligence sources.

So you don't consider deep throat (who turned out to be the FBI's #2 man, Mark Felt) to be an unnamed source. And you don't consider the FBI to be part of the intelligence community? That's odd because I believe that they consider themselves part of the intelligence community.

We are seeing a politicization of intelligence unlike we have seen since unnamed intelligence sources brought us into the worst foreign policy decision since at least the Vietnam War, if not longer.

I certainly agree with this. Your man DJT has been hard at work since before taking office either attempting to discredit the entirety of the intelligence community and politicize it. Until trump took office, no other president had ever dared do anything like this.

But again, do you think the public is better off not knowing what has been reported or do you think the information should be kept from the public? My belief is that anytime our government is engaged in anything that the American people would object to, there is a need for the American people to know. I, for one, damn sure believe that Russians paying bounties to kill American soldiers and the president having been briefed about it and doing nothing for 1 year sure warrants the American public knowing about it.