Russia bounty on US troops

[golfballs]

Since this statement by O'Brien was released, multiple additional reports have come out which say that the intelligence was included as part of a daily briefing. So, obviously, someone is lying. There are leaker(s) in the state department. That is for sure.

Right just like the ones who every Friday were quoted in the weekly NYT COLLUSION article

 

[BowlBrother85]

Right just like the ones who every Friday were quoted in the weekly NYT COLLUSION article

Like the ones who were quoted as saying that Trump had asked the President of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens during a phone call last July? Yes.

 

[NCFisher]

Whether or not it actually happened, could be another issue, but that is not what these reports concern. The three relevant questions are: (1) Have U.S. officials collected intelligence that Russian operatives were offering bounties to members of the Taliban to kill members of coalition forces? And if so, (2) was this intelligence passed on to the President? (3) And if not, why?

I think the first question is whether not bringing unverified intel to the president is standard. The administration says it is, and that intel has reported to him today that it is unsubstantiated, and therefore did not report it to him.

House Armed Services Committee member Michael Waltz who also served in the Bush admin states " I served in the Bush White House for Vice President Cheney. Before something gets to the president’s desk, there will be a policy process. You have to make sure that something is vetted and verified. Often, intelligence agencies don’t fully agree or want to check themselves, and that’s just proper due diligence on behalf of the president’s national security staff.”

He added, “I think it’s absolutely appropriate that these things are run to ground and you present the president with options beforehand, not just kind of throw this on his desk and then…tell him, we’ll get back to you.” GOP Rep. Waltz: Russia Bounty Story Needs to Be Dug into, 'Smacks of Partisan Talking Points,' Media Reporting 'Really Ignorant'

If that's the case, the other questions are moot.

 

[NCFisher]

Why would you think it's just rumors? Russia has been supplying the Taliban with weapons for years; but no way in hell they're giving them money, right?
Is Russia arming the Afghan Taliban?

We know that (bold). As Intel reported to the Trump admin today, the only thing that is known is that it is not verified, it is unsubstantiated, and that is why they didn't report it to the executive security team.

Good grief; how many Russia memes can be populated before the left begins to exercise even a modicum of caution? It's irresponsible, and corrupt.

 

[NCFisher]

yes, that's what it was.

Until it is substantiated, it is only that. See reply to BB85.

Now, resume hysterics.

 

[golfballs]

Like the ones who were quoted as saying that Trump had asked the President of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens during a phone call last July? Yes.

You mean the call the president released the transcript of. Yeah

 

[BowlBrother85]

I think the first question is whether not bringing unverified intel to the president is standard. The administration says it is, and that intel has reported to him today that it is unsubstantiated, and therefore did not report it to him.

House Armed Services Committee member Michael Waltz who also served in the Bush admin states " I served in the Bush White House for Vice President Cheney. Before something gets to the president’s desk, there will be a policy process. You have to make sure that something is vetted and verified. Often, intelligence agencies don’t fully agree or want to check themselves, and that’s just proper due diligence on behalf of the president’s national security staff.”

He added, “I think it’s absolutely appropriate that these things are run to ground and you present the president with options beforehand, not just kind of throw this on his desk and then…tell him, we’ll get back to you.” GOP Rep. Waltz: Russia Bounty Story Needs to Be Dug into, 'Smacks of Partisan Talking Points,' Media Reporting 'Really Ignorant'

If that's the case, the other questions are moot.

Except that these reports now say that this intelligence was included as part of a President's Daily Briefing.

 

[lawgator1]

Until it is substantiated, it is only that. See reply to BB85.

Now, resume hysterics.

If Trump is lying and he WAS briefed on this, and given options but chose none, would you agree that he must resign or be forced out immediately ?

I mean, if he knew the Russians were putting bounties on our soldiers' heads and did nothing....

 

[NCFisher]

Except that these reports now say that this intelligence was included as part of a President's Daily Briefing.

Never have I seen so many false reports from anonymous sources which have led to so many false constructs, including massive FBI and intel investigations with a cornucopia of politically motivated leaks and a bogus impeachment. Yet the cud-chewing bovine that is House majority leader wonders aloud "what does Russia have on Trump?" WTF.

The admin also reported today that intel reported (today) that they did not bring it to him because it is not credible. So, when anonymous source #317 comes out from behind the curtain or the claim is substantiated, THEN I'll consider it perhaps - just maybe - not another of dozens of false memes.

 

[NCFisher]

If Trump is lying and he WAS briefed on this, and given options but chose none, would you agree that he must resign or be forced out immediately ?

I mean, if he knew the Russians were putting bounties on our soldiers' heads and did nothing....

It is *unsubstantiated*; not credible. That is what Intel officials told Trump today as the reason they did not bring it to him.

If he was given actionable (substantiated) intel and sloughed it off, he won't need to resign; he won't be re-elected.

 

[titansvolsfaninga]

The same people who for years squawked about Russia collusion and of course were completely wrong are now totally in to this

Just say you don't care. I am wondering though....why the furor over the flag and the troops when CK protested? The POS in the White House literally doesn't care if a foreign country puts bounties on the heads of our troops,and you're like ....

 

[NCFisher]

Just say you don't care. I am wondering though....why the furor over the flag and the troops when CK protested? The POS in the White House literally doesn't care if a foreign country puts bounties on the heads of our troops,and you're like ....

What part of unsubstantiated or unverified is not registering with you?

 

[carlos86]

Like I said Bolton is "Anonymous"

 

[BowlBrother85]

Never have I seen so many false reports from anonymous sources which have led to so many false constructs, including massive FBI and intel investigations with a cornucopia of politically motivated leaks and a bogus impeachment. Yet the cud-chewing bovine that is House majority leader wonders aloud "what does Russia have on Trump?" WTF.

The admin also reported today that intel reported (today) that they did not bring it to him because it is not credible. So, when anonymous source #317 comes out from behind the curtain or the claim is substantiated, THEN I'll consider it perhaps - just maybe - not another of dozens of false memes.

And now we have this from NBC News:

The Trump administration told Republican members of Congress on Monday that intelligence about potential Russian bounties may have been included at some some point in the President's Daily Brief but not conveyed to President Donald Trump in a "formal threat briefing" because it wasn't yet "actionable," the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas) said.

********************

It appears that this intelligence was included in one of Trump's Daily Briefings, but since he is too busy tweeting and watching Fox News to be bothered with silly little things like intelligence briefings.... he didn't read it. Like I said in an earlier post, it will be the "slacker excuse". Trump will deny that he read it, and because that is consistent with how we know he conducts business, it is plausible, but that doesn't mean that he isn't incredibly unprofessional and lazy.

 

[NCFisher]

And now we have this from NBC News:

The Trump administration told Republican members of Congress on Monday that intelligence about potential Russian bounties may have been included at some some point in the President's Daily Brief but not conveyed to President Donald Trump in a "formal threat briefing" because it wasn't yet "actionable," the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas) said.

********************

It appears that this intelligence was included in one of Trump's Daily Briefings, but since he is too busy tweeting and watching Fox News to be bothered with silly little things like intelligence briefings.... he didn't read it. Like I said in an earlier post, it will be the "slacker excuse". Trump will deny that he read it, and because that is consistent with how we know he conducts business, it is plausible, but that doesn't mean that he isn't incredibly unprofessional and lazy.

I've already made the point that it was not actionable intelligence. What would you have him do with something that has no factual basis to act upon? That's what threat briefings are for.

It's your fault you swallow these memes whole cloth, not mine.

 

[Weezer]

There is another possibility.... Trump was made aware of the intelligence concerning the Russian bounties and he is the one who is lying.

You're so intent on "Trump bad" that you ignored the crux of the question I was asking Carlos. It wasn't about if Trump received the briefing. It was about how the gang of 8 should have been briefed with the same intel as mandated under law.

 

[evillawyer]

Like I said Bolton is "Anonymous"

I think you're right.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I've already made the point that it was not actionable intelligence. What would you have him do with something that has no factual basis to act upon? That's what threat briefings are for.

It's your fault you swallow these memes whole cloth, not mine.

I expect the President of the United States to read his Daily Briefings concerning foreign intelligence, and with this revelation, it is clear that Trump doesn't (or he did read the briefing concerning this intelligence and he is lying. I'm sure you would rather just think of him as lazy and unprofessional). Sending 100 tweets per day and watching Fox News should not be more important to him than his briefings... but apparently, they are.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You're so intent on "Trump bad" that you ignored the crux of the question I was asking Carlos. It wasn't about if Trump received the briefing. It was about how the gang of 8 should have been briefed with the same intel as mandated under law.

Excellent point. There are several questions here that should be addressed.

 

[DynaLo]

Mr. President, we have unsubstantiated and unverified intel that Russia is paying the Taliban bounties on killing US troops. We’re following up and looking further into this matter for verification. We’ll immediately notify you of our findings.

Based on what’s been stated that’s pretty much the gist of what could have been in any briefing to any President.

 

[perico]

I've already made the point that it was not actionable intelligence. What would you have him do with something that has no factual basis to act upon? That's what threat briefings are for.

It's your fault you swallow these memes whole cloth, not mine.

I don’t know whether he knew about it or not. Problem is what it says about his judgment. Why is he so hellbent on not criticizing Putin? Even if he had not known about it, where’s the bluster and chest pounding “real man” who fears none. Where are the warnings and threats that he effortlessly hurls at our historical allies? He has not said one negative thing about Putin or Erdogon in 3+ years. Russia has never been an ally, except for the few years Yeltsin was in power. Bush tried to improve relations with Putin, and it failed. Obama didn’t put much effort into it.

Trump has criticized just about every single politician in the world at some point or another... but he kisses Putin’s @$$. Hell before Trump, anyone trying to cozy up to a former KGB agent who views the Soviet collapse as the greatest tragedy of the 20th century you’d have been chased out of the GOP by pitchforks. Maybe my memory is failing, but didn’t Fox News spend a week bashing Obama for not taking the threat of Russia seriously after Romney said they were one of our biggest adversaries during one of their debates?

I’m actually trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in this case and hoping that it’s not the case because it’s so hard to fathom troops lives at risk and the POTUS not doing anything about it or opening an investigation to get to the bottom of it.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Mr. President, we have unsubstantiated and unverified intel that Russia is paying the Taliban bounties on killing US troops. We’re following up and looking further into this matter for verification. We’ll immediately notify you of our findings.

Based on what’s been stated that’s pretty much the gist of what could have been in any briefing to any President.

I doubt that is the gist of what it said, but since Trump didn't bother to read the briefing... it really doesn't matter what it said.

 

[NCFisher]

I expect the President of the United States to read his Daily Briefings concerning foreign intelligence, and with this revelation, it is clear that Trump doesn't (or he did read the briefing concerning this intelligence and he is lying. I'm sure you would rather just think of him as lazy and unprofessional). Sending 100 tweets per day and watching Fox News should not be more important to him than his briefings... but apparently, they are.

Then the cockleburr under you saddle has been there for almost 12 years now, right? The burdens you carry....

President Obama is criticizing President-elect Donald Trump for failing to attend what The Post calls “the most exclusive, and arguably most important, daily meeting in Washington” — the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) — warning his successor that without the daily intelligence brief, “you are flying blind.”

This coming from the same person who skipped more than half of his daily intelligence briefings in his first term. As I reported in this space in 2012, during his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his daily meeting to discuss the PDB just 536 times — an attendance record of 43.8 percent. In 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance dropped even lower, to just over 38 percent of the time.

Not only did Obama commit the same malpractice, Obama used the same excuses as Trump to justify it. For example, Trump’s advisers have argued that he gets briefed by many sources and meets regularly with his national security team, including retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn. That is precisely the same line of argument the Obama White House used in 2012, when then-National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told me in an email “this focus on just the PDB and not the countless other NSC meetings the President has each week really misses the point. For example, the President had a briefing with the Principals Committee to review 9/11 threats and mitigation efforts on September 10th. Seems like a relevant data point for your piece.”

So Obama could rely on other national security briefings, but Trump cannot?

Trump’s critics have also mocked him for saying that he did not need to attend daily intelligence briefings because “I’m, like, a smart person.” As Obama put it this month, “It’s a big, complicated world. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.” But back in 2012, his NSC spokesman told me that Obama could forgo his daily intelligence meetings, and simply read written reports, because he was “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet.” (Translation: He’s, like, a smart person). Indeed, skipping the in person briefing was a point of pride for the Obama White House. “Unlike your former boss [George W. Bush],” Vietor wrote, Obama “has it delivered to his residence in the morning and not briefed to him.”

Obama was so smart, he did not need briefers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1fbed0-c5f4-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html
------------------------------------
Obama, like all presidents for the last 50 years, received a written intelligence report known as the Presidential Daily Brief. But, unlike Trump, he did not regularly hold an in-person briefing.

The conservative Government Accountability Institute estimates that Obama had an oral briefing with intelligence officials 42 percent of the time from January 2009 to September 2014. This percentage may be understated due to briefings not listed on the White House public schedule. Obama may have also discussed his daily brief in National Security Council or other meetings.

Trump meets personally with his CIA director nearly every day by contrast.

Reporting indicates that Trump’s daily briefings are dialogues between him and intelligence officials that often run past their scheduled time. “It’s a very oral, interactive discussion, as opposed to sitting there and reading from a text or a script,” Pompeo told WaPo.

Preferences for the daily briefing can also change. Trump, for instance, opted for fewer intelligence briefings during the presidential transition.

“I’m like a smart person,” he told Fox News in December 2016. “I don’t have to be told the same thing and the same words every single day for the next eight years. It could be eight years, but eight years. I don’t need that.”

Obama also re-evaluated his approach to the daily brief during his presidency.

“Over the years, you accumulate knowledge,” Obama said in a 2016 YouTube interview. “How I think about it today is different than the first day I walked into the Oval Office. Now, I’ve got enough of a baseline of knowledge … that I may not have to go into the briefing book as deeply as I did initially.” FACT CHECK: Was Obama Not Briefed By His CIA Director Daily?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the sky is falling, right?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Then the cockleburr under you saddle has been there for almost 12 years now, right? The burdens you carry....

President Obama is criticizing President-elect Donald Trump for failing to attend what The Post calls “the most exclusive, and arguably most important, daily meeting in Washington” — the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) — warning his successor that without the daily intelligence brief, “you are flying blind.”

This coming from the same person who skipped more than half of his daily intelligence briefings in his first term. As I reported in this space in 2012, during his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his daily meeting to discuss the PDB just 536 times — an attendance record of 43.8 percent. In 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance dropped even lower, to just over 38 percent of the time.

Not only did Obama commit the same malpractice, Obama used the same excuses as Trump to justify it. For example, Trump’s advisers have argued that he gets briefed by many sources and meets regularly with his national security team, including retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn. That is precisely the same line of argument the Obama White House used in 2012, when then-National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told me in an email “this focus on just the PDB and not the countless other NSC meetings the President has each week really misses the point. For example, the President had a briefing with the Principals Committee to review 9/11 threats and mitigation efforts on September 10th. Seems like a relevant data point for your piece.”

So Obama could rely on other national security briefings, but Trump cannot?

Trump’s critics have also mocked him for saying that he did not need to attend daily intelligence briefings because “I’m, like, a smart person.” As Obama put it this month, “It’s a big, complicated world. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.” But back in 2012, his NSC spokesman told me that Obama could forgo his daily intelligence meetings, and simply read written reports, because he was “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet.” (Translation: He’s, like, a smart person). Indeed, skipping the in person briefing was a point of pride for the Obama White House. “Unlike your former boss [George W. Bush],” Vietor wrote, Obama “has it delivered to his residence in the morning and not briefed to him.”

Obama was so smart, he did not need briefers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1fbed0-c5f4-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html
------------------------------------
Obama, like all presidents for the last 50 years, received a written intelligence report known as the Presidential Daily Brief. But, unlike Trump, he did not regularly hold an in-person briefing.

The conservative Government Accountability Institute estimates that Obama had an oral briefing with intelligence officials 42 percent of the time from January 2009 to September 2014. This percentage may be understated due to briefings not listed on the White House public schedule. Obama may have also discussed his daily brief in National Security Council or other meetings.

Trump meets personally with his CIA director nearly every day by contrast.

Reporting indicates that Trump’s daily briefings are dialogues between him and intelligence officials that often run past their scheduled time. “It’s a very oral, interactive discussion, as opposed to sitting there and reading from a text or a script,” Pompeo told WaPo.

Preferences for the daily briefing can also change. Trump, for instance, opted for fewer intelligence briefings during the presidential transition.

“I’m like a smart person,” he told Fox News in December 2016. “I don’t have to be told the same thing and the same words every single day for the next eight years. It could be eight years, but eight years. I don’t need that.”

Obama also re-evaluated his approach to the daily brief during his presidency.

“Over the years, you accumulate knowledge,” Obama said in a 2016 YouTube interview. “How I think about it today is different than the first day I walked into the Oval Office. Now, I’ve got enough of a baseline of knowledge … that I may not have to go into the briefing book as deeply as I did initially.” FACT CHECK: Was Obama Not Briefed By His CIA Director Daily?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the sky is falling, right?

"What-about-ism" is all you got on this one isn't it? The most likely scenario here is that Trump was briefed on the content of this intelligence concerning Russian bounties paid to the Taliban, and he is now lying about having been briefed, because he is trying to not only excuse his inaction, but also excuse why he continued to champion Russia's return to the G 7, in the wake of this intelligence.

Trump is pitifully weak when it comes to authoritarian rulers... especially so, in the case of Putin and Russia.

 

[NCFisher]

I don’t know whether he knew about it or not. Problem is what it says about his judgment. Why is he so hellbent on not criticizing Putin? Even if he had not known about it, where’s the bluster and chest pounding “real man” who fears none. Where are the warnings and threats that he effortlessly hurls at our historical allies? He has not said one negative thing about Putin or Erdogon in 3+ years. Russia has never been an ally, except for the few years Yeltsin was in power. Bush tried to improve relations with Putin, and it failed. Obama didn’t put much effort into it.

Trump has criticized just about every single politician in the world at some point or another... but he kisses Putin’s @$$. Hell before Trump, anyone trying to cozy up to a former KGB agent who views the Soviet collapse as the greatest tragedy of the 20th century you’d have been chased out of the GOP by pitchforks. Maybe my memory is failing, but didn’t Fox News spend a week bashing Obama for not taking the threat of Russia seriously after Romney said they were one of our biggest adversaries during one of their debates?

I’m actually trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in this case and hoping that it’s not the case because it’s so hard to fathom troops lives at risk and the POTUS not doing anything about it or opening an investigation to get to the bottom of it.

Knew about what? Unverified, non-actionable intel providing no basis to do anything with? That didn't even made to a threat assessment report? I quite imagine Trump doesn't concern himself with unicorns, either.

Trump was handed a decades low relationship with Russia. The last admin and Democrats, and Never Trumpers, have made it impossible to work with Russia even on things of mutual interest, such as Islamist fundies, as they did when warning us about the Tsarnaev brothers. Gee, who missed out on that?

Obama bent over, pulling the missle defense systems from Poland and CZR that were promised. He asked Putin to give him room so as to not impact his re-election bid in exchange. He blinked when Assad took a whiz on his pink line in the sand because Putin warned him off it. But, but...he really talked tough while Russia was meddling in U.S. elections right? Yeah, that "cut it out" comment chilled Putin to the bone, obviously. In fact, he again didn't want to piss off Putin for fear of some escalation in the meddling...WTH.

As an aside, the Russian meddling was insignificant, blown out of proportion by the left for purely political reasons, erupting into two baseless investigations for a manufactured conspiracy. The actual damage was done by Trump opponents using Russian propaganda.

Fact: since Reagan no president has taken a stronger stance in real, practical terms, than Trump. That he doesn't assuage your sensibilities by calling Putin a meanie is of no value or concern.