DOD/Pentagon denies it as well and exposes the NYTimes as liars.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pentagon-says-no-corroborating-evidence-to-stand-up-nyt-report-on-russian-bounties

Lol even Fox has to point out that somebody is obviously lying:

Quote:

---

A White House official told Fox News on Monday that Trump has now been briefed on the issue. It's unclear exactly when this briefing took place, but the official says it took place sometime "after the NY Times reported on unverified intelligence."

The statement is at odds with the White House, which insisted that Trump has still not been briefed.

---

Speaking of lies, NATO officials say they were briefed on it, do you think that would have happened if it was still unverified as part of an ongoing investigation? Would we brief the UK (which we did) without briefing Trump if they were still just unverified allegations without merit?

HuMcK said:

---

Lol even Fox has to point out that somebody is obviously lying:

Quote:

---

A White House official told Fox News on Monday that Trump has now been briefed on the issue. It's unclear exactly when this briefing took place, but the official says it took place sometime "after the NY Times reported on unverified intelligence."

The statement is at odds with the White House, which insisted that Trump has still not been briefed.

---

Speaking of lies, NATO officials say they were briefed on it, do you think that would have happened if it was still unverified as part of an ongoing investigation? Would we brief the UK (which we did) without briefing Trump if they were still just unverified allegations without merit?

---

Clearly you don't know how intelligence briefings happen or how they get to POTUS or what they said about the conflicting reports. If some think it could have happened then maybe those intelligence groups shared it with NATO since someone also shares it with NYTimes. But many intelligence officials also didn't believe it which is why it didn't reach the level to have potus briefed. Amazing how some double down when already proven to not be true.

Typical libs trying to safe face getting into the weeds now.

He knew. He knows he knew, and he knows he fcked up. That's why he tweeted the "white power" smokescreen and keeps throwing out different versions of lies about it, to keep things confused and unfocused.

Btw, bet I can guess who the original source for this was now, and I also bet he has receipts.

I would hope most of you have the insight to catch on to the repeated accusations against President Trump and realize it's manufactured bs derived from the intelligence community, SDNY and media working in tandem.

Listen to Ric Grenell. Listen to our attorney general. They talk about our own government self sabotaging.

Trump-Russia Collusion - LIE.
Ukraine - LIE/Ciaramella.
Kavanaugh - LIE.

This story is one more lie added to a long list.

Lol and exactly what is your experience with PDBs that gives you authority to talk like that? And do you not care that even Fox had to call out that the White House obviously lying, again?? No matter how many times Trump insults your intelligence by lying to your face, you never have anything to say about it. That's impressive obedience.

"Proven not to be true". You cannot be serious. The word of Donald Trump is barely evidence, let alone proof. The AP says Trump was briefed by Bolton in late 2019, and in a written PDB earlier that year. The AP is not one of your conservative rags, they aren't in the business of making things up.

AP waited for all those Republicans yesterday to come out of their Republican-only intel briefing (which should be a scandal by itself that Repubs excluded Dems from a meeting so they could keep their lies consistent) and present their spin before nuking those obvious lies from orbit. Not my fault you choose to swallow obvious bad faith every time Trump asks you to.

Trump wants to get out of Afghanistan. Some top military brass and weapons manufacturers have a vested interest in a forever war.
The Trump years have seen the least amount of soldiers killed since Clinton. What's wrong with that?

I don't believe it.

The_barBEARian said:

---

This is the kind of **** that you send in the FBI and start tossing over tables and freezing bank accounts... NYT should not be able to get away with a lie like this!

---

May not be a lie, so let's keep the jackboots from tossing the place, m'kay?

News story says Trump was briefed but didn't find the Intel credible. Which is his way of saying it didn't fit his Putin is da bomb narrative.

trump put his own man in the SDNY, you realize? the problem is Trump's corruption is so pervasive even he could not go along with it. One of many staffers who thinks being close to power is worth it, gets in, and realizes what a dumpster fire he/she has joined.

Grenell and Barr and partisan hacks. Barr is the presidents attorney, not the people's. Grenell is a fox news talking head and was so disliked in Germany, as our AMBASSADOR there, that hardly anyone would talk to him. He came in to bat cleanup for Trump.

quash said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

This is the kind of **** that you send in the FBI and start tossing over tables and freezing bank accounts... NYT should not be able to get away with a lie like this!

---

May not be a lie, so let's keep the jackboots from tossing the place, m'kay?

News story says Trump was briefed but didn't find the Intel credible. Which is his way of saying it didn't fit his Putin is da bomb narrative.

---

Or that part of the IC didn't find it credible

It was still in the PDB that he didn't read.

HuMcK when you cite the NYT as a credible source you expose your ignorance. You're obviously (hopefully, for your sake) unaware that the NYT buried the Jewish Holocaust in the early 1940s, if not earlier.

This entertainment outlet has been ignoring and distorting facts for decades. Google this assertion and you'll find plenty of examples of distortions, lies and misstatements by the NYT, again for decades.

The last source you want to cite as authoritative or accurate is the NYT, Huk. If you're an attorney, or, for that matter, if you're a person of basic reasoning capability, the NYT is the last source you would cite as accurate. History is not on the NYT's side. If you were so naive or foolish to present the NYT as a credible source of information in a courtroom, you and your client would be absolutely massacred by any half-witted attorney. The fact that you continue to cite the NYT as a reliable source of information is truly staggering. Do yourself a favor, H. If you're attempting to make a compelling, or even rational, argument...don't cite the NYT.

bear2be2...with you being a Muslim, I find it curious this is one of the select few threads you haven't chimed in on. What's your take on all this?

ScruffyD said:

---

oh the irony when he just drops out of the race altogether, leaving some of these folks holding the bag to continue defending him.

---

And if he doesn't, will you acknowledge your foolishness? Or will you embrace open hypocrisy? For that matter, talk is cheap but you seem strangely confident. I'll gladly take your money. $100? $1,000? Not sure I can take advantage of your naivete in good conscience beyond that amount. What amount, informed one?

Edit: assuming we are talking about Trump dropping out to save face, which I believe you have asserted in another thread, please put your money where your mouth is. We can set up an escrow account, make the agreed deposits (I'll even pay the escrow fees up to $100, which is more than generous) and I promise you I'll feel guilty "all the way to the bank" when I collect. While I despise taking advantage of people, in your case, I'll gladly make an exception. If you show a little humility after I take your money, I may (ok, likely will) give you your money back in hopes that you will have learned something. If no humility and you actually back your empty word with money deposited, I'm writing checks for my benefit on election day.

HuMcK said:

---

Lol and exactly what is your experience with PDBs that gives you authority to talk like that?

---

Holy smokes, H! Tom Clancy was writing about the massive amount of "information" and "reports" that our intelligence services receive and have to sift through on a daily basis in the early 90's if not the 80's, and he wasn't even a part of the intelligence community. The fact that our intelligence agencies receive massive amounts of information, a fact which rises to the level of "Common Knowledge", and, when true, as in this instance, is rare at best, is apparently lost on you and is simply staggering. You really need to start considering sources other than the NYT and Washington Post. If you seek to have any credibility (versus just stirring things up), for mercy's sake don't cite these 2 entertainment venues as authoritative and don't believe everything they publish.

HuMcK said:

---

Lol even Fox has to point out that somebody is obviously lying:

Quote:

---

A White House official told Fox News on Monday that Trump has now been briefed on the issue. It's unclear exactly when this briefing took place, but the official says it took place sometime "after the NY Times reported on unverified intelligence."

The statement is at odds with the White House, which insisted that Trump has still not been briefed.

---

Speaking of lies, NATO officials say they were briefed on it, do you think that would have happened if it was still unverified as part of an ongoing investigation? Would we brief the UK (which we did) without briefing Trump if they were still just unverified allegations without merit?

---

There's some significant "timing" questions in your quote, H, and you should acknowledge that if you truly desire to make a credible point.

When was Trump briefed by the intelligence community? Tweets by NYT and WaPo "reporters" hardly count. I assume even you understand that.

When did the Whitehouse make the statement that you allege was made? You, once again, make significant accusations. Can you at least have the decency to provide any source for your "at odds" assertion that addresses the timing question upon which your base assertion is grounded? You certainly wouldn't cite yourself in a legal brief, and if you can not reliably provide support for your timing issue, then your criticism collapses. Pretty basic and should be easy for you since you are so certain.

It seams that reports of him being briefed on this issue all refer to the daily briefing notebook he receives. I believe the White House is stating that the President was not personally briefed on the issue.

I obviously have no idea what the facts are. But if something is mentioned in a paragragh on page 47 in a notebook you get every day, I am not sure that rises to the level of personally being briefed. That would be like a teacher telling a student: "I never thought this was important enough to mention. But it was in a footnote on page 297 so you should have known it for the test."

If the disclosure is greater that that and there was a discussion about it, that would be a different story. But I have not heard evidence of someone saying "I personally talked to the President" about this."

I think there are plenty of things to criticize the President about. I don't know that this should be one of them. I think the focus should be whether or not the underlying report itself is true...i.e. did Russia do this, and if so what should be our response to Russia.

BaylorTaxman said:

---

It seams that reports of him being briefed on this issue all refer to the daily briefing notebook he receives. I believe the White House is stating that the President was not personally briefed on the issue.

I obviously have no idea what the facts are. But if something is mentioned in a paragragh on page 47 in a notebook you get every day, I am not sure that rises to the level of personally being briefed. That would be like a teacher telling a student: "I never thought this was important enough to mention. But it was in a footnote on page 297 so you should have known it for the test."

If the disclosure is greater that that and there was a discussion about it, that would be a different story. But I have not heard evidence of someone saying "I personally talked to the President" about this."

I think there are plenty of things to criticize the President about. I don't know that this should be one of them. I think the focus should be whether or not the underlying report itself is true...i.e. did Russia do this, and if so what should be our response to Russia.

---

John Bolton says he personally discussed it with Trump, and that it was briefed to him separately before and after that. The original story is that he was briefed and presented with a list of reciprocal actions, but declined to take any, which is directly at odds with this weak ass "maybe it was in a PDB that was too long for Trump to read" spin.

That particular quote is from Fox News. Similar reporting has come out of the AP and WSJ too, but I guess anything bad for Trump that gets reported is all fake news though, right? It's all just a big conspiracy to use Trump's incompetence against him by...reporting his actions?

What a remarkably simple doctrine to live by: anything bad for Trump is just biased fake news. Trump can lie to your face all day long and get caught red handed (which he did in this case and many others), and you'll still defend him with some random crap about the NYTimes and the holocaust in the 40s...

US officials discovered Russia's payments to the Taliban to target US troops, but Trump's White House didn't tell House Republicans in a briefing

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-officials-discovered-russian-payments-taliban-to-kill-us-troops-2020-6

End the forever wars.

robby44 said:

---

US officials discovered Russia's payments to the Taliban to target US troops, but Trump's White House didn't tell House Republicans in a briefing

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-officials-discovered-russian-payments-taliban-to-kill-us-troops-2020-6

---

Okay, I was in the camp that this story originally was pretty far-fetched but that article is pretty damning.

It is incredibly so, and we are at the tip of the iceberg. This WH is also using some wordsmithing...they are saying he was never briefed...and I imagine to them, they are talking about an oral briefing since he cannot or will not read. I guarantee you it was in a written briefing that he never paid attention to - and they are hanging their defense on that.

Anyway, more will continue to come out and everyone that drapes themselves in the American flag will not care. It is fake news, we are all out to get this great man, deep state...etc.

You can tell what Trump is scared of doing damage to him by noting what reporting he calls a hoax: his Russian campaign contacts, his corruption with Ukrainian defense aid, COVID, and now this Russian bounty story. All turned our to be supported by solid evidence, which if course he knew was the case to begin with, so he needs his flock of sheep followers to ingest the "hoax" narrative early. It's laughably crude and unsophisticated, but so are his base voters, so it works good enough on them.

ScruffyD said:

---

It is incredibly so, and we are at the tip of the iceberg. This WH is also using some wordsmithing...they are saying he was never briefed...and I imagine to them, they are talking about an oral briefing since he cannot or will not read. I guarantee you it was in a written briefing that he never paid attention to - and they are hanging their defense on that.

Anyway, more will continue to come out and everyone that drapes themselves in the American flag will not care. It is fake news, we are all out to get this great man, deep state...etc.

---

I'm more in the middle on this one so far. If this was included in just one written daily briefing and the intelligence was/is conflicting, I don't see what the big deal is. And, I'm guessing that's the case, because if the intelligence was verified, it would have been in more than a written daily briefing. Of course, Trump isn't the most honest guy around . . . so he could be flat out lying. But, knowing a fair amount about Washington and the intelligence community, I'm guessing this is much ado about nothing - the political controversy, not the Russian bounty issues, which if true, should result in a serious response.

sombear said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

It is incredibly so, and we are at the tip of the iceberg. This WH is also using some wordsmithing...they are saying he was never briefed...and I imagine to them, they are talking about an oral briefing since he cannot or will not read. I guarantee you it was in a written briefing that he never paid attention to - and they are hanging their defense on that.

Anyway, more will continue to come out and everyone that drapes themselves in the American flag will not care. It is fake news, we are all out to get this great man, deep state...etc.

---

I'm more in the middle on this one so far. If this was included in just one written daily briefing and the intelligence was/is conflicting, I don't see what the big deal is. And, I'm guessing that's the case, because if the intelligence was verified, it would have been in more than a written daily briefing. Of course, Trump isn't the most honest guy around . . . so he could be flat out lying. But, knowing a fair amount about Washington and the intelligence community, I'm guessing this is much ado about nothing - the political controversy, not the Russian bounty issues, which if true, should result in a serious response.

---

I don't see how you can be "in the middle" based on that.

First, having a President who will not read is unacceptable. To operate the Executive branch one must ingest and act on an incredible amount of information. Information is more efficiently conveyed by the written word. When you have a President who spends his time tweeting, watching cable news and golfing rather than reading what his intelligence community has written, you have the wrong president.

Second, about 99.99% of intelligence reports have conflicting information or less than absolute certainty. That is the inherent nature of intelligence work. Ultimately, the president has to act or not act with a degree of risk that the intelligence was wrong.

If the story from the White House was "after reading the briefing, President Trump was concerned about the allegations but not convinced that allegations were correct. Given the multitude of factors involved, including relationships with Russia and Afghanistan, the President directed re-doubled efforts to verify the allegations and began to structure an appropriate response in the event the allegations were substantiated" all would be ok.

But hat sort of normal, professional response is impossible with this President. Don't ask me. Ask Rex Tillerson. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, John Bolton, Dan Coats or a myriad of other former senior Trump officials.

"In the middle" means you don't like the idea of Trump selling out to Russia but you are ok with basic incompetence.

sombear said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

It is incredibly so, and we are at the tip of the iceberg. This WH is also using some wordsmithing...they are saying he was never briefed...and I imagine to them, they are talking about an oral briefing since he cannot or will not read. I guarantee you it was in a written briefing that he never paid attention to - and they are hanging their defense on that.

Anyway, more will continue to come out and everyone that drapes themselves in the American flag will not care. It is fake news, we are all out to get this great man, deep state...etc.

---

I'm more in the middle on this one so far. If this was included in just one written daily briefing and the intelligence was/is conflicting, I don't see what the big deal is. And, I'm guessing that's the case, because if the intelligence was verified, it would have been in more than a written daily briefing. Of course, Trump isn't the most honest guy around . . . so he could be flat out lying. But, knowing a fair amount about Washington and the intelligence community, I'm guessing this is much ado about nothing - the political controversy, not the Russian bounty issues, which if true, should result in a serious response.

---

Speaking of that, it's been out there for a few days now, has the President had anything to say about it other than trying to obfuscate and call it a hoax?

Honestly the reporting is getting pretty specific now at this point, I don't think it's credible to still act like this was some unverified ghost rumor

spot on.

the intelligence was quite unclear about Bin Laden, but those at the time digested all the information and made a very hard decision to go in and get him.

that is what competence is about. one, be competent. two, have people around you who are same and listen to all of them, but know that the buck stops with you.

we dont have that currently, and we haven't since the day he took office.

What could Russia possibly gain from offering bounties?

BaylorBJM said:

---

robby44 said:

---

US officials discovered Russia's payments to the Taliban to target US troops, but Trump's White House didn't tell House Republicans in a briefing

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-officials-discovered-russian-payments-taliban-to-kill-us-troops-2020-6

---

Okay, I was in the camp that this story originally was pretty far-fetched but that article is pretty damning.

---

Actually, it's not. Read it again with an eye towards generalities, starting with the title of the article. For example, consider the first 2 words "US officials." That's an incredibly broad term which arguably describes everyone employed by federal government, the vast majority of whom have no direct contact with the President. Likewise, take note of general phrases such as "the Trump administration" which includes all of the executive branch. and "Trump Whitehouse" which includes a substantial number of people.

Also, keep in mind that there is intelligence value in not disclosing sources and methods. If the U.S. has hacked a Russian account or otherwise infiltrated Russia's terror system, then doesn't it kind of make sense that this information be kept secret? The current administration has leaks. Why shoot the intelligence community in the foot and possibly put foreign intelligence in danger by exposing the details?. Why give the enemy our playbook? Certain kinds of information are best kept secret.

Booray said:

---

sombear said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

It is incredibly so, and we are at the tip of the iceberg. This WH is also using some wordsmithing...they are saying he was never briefed...and I imagine to them, they are talking about an oral briefing since he cannot or will not read. I guarantee you it was in a written briefing that he never paid attention to - and they are hanging their defense on that.

Anyway, more will continue to come out and everyone that drapes themselves in the American flag will not care. It is fake news, we are all out to get this great man, deep state...etc.

---

I'm more in the middle on this one so far. If this was included in just one written daily briefing and the intelligence was/is conflicting, I don't see what the big deal is. And, I'm guessing that's the case, because if the intelligence was verified, it would have been in more than a written daily briefing. Of course, Trump isn't the most honest guy around . . . so he could be flat out lying. But, knowing a fair amount about Washington and the intelligence community, I'm guessing this is much ado about nothing - the political controversy, not the Russian bounty issues, which if true, should result in a serious response.

---

I don't see how you can be "in the middle" based on that.

First, having a President who will not read is unacceptable. To operate the Executive branch one must ingest and act on an incredible amount of information. Information is more efficiently conveyed by the written word. When you have a President who spends his time tweeting, watching cable news and golfing rather than reading what his intelligence community has written, you have the wrong president.

Second, about 99.99% of intelligence reports have conflicting information or less than absolute certainty. That is the inherent nature of intelligence work. Ultimately, the president has to act or not act with a degree of risk that the intelligence was wrong.

If the story from the White House was "after reading the briefing, President Trump was concerned about the allegations but not convinced that allegations were correct. Given the multitude of factors involved, including relationships with Russia and Afghanistan, the President directed re-doubled efforts to verify the allegations and began to structure an appropriate response in the event the allegations were substantiated" all would be ok.

But hat sort of normal, professional response is impossible with this President. Don't ask me. Ask Rex Tillerson. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, John Bolton, Dan Coats or a myriad of other former senior Trump officials.

"In the middle" means you don't like the idea of Trump selling out to Russia but you are ok with basic incompetence.

---

I agree with most if not all of what you're saying, Booray. Unfortunately, we've reportedly had this type of behavior in the Whitehouse for a number of administrations. Obama faced almost identical accusations during his terms, though Trump's use of social media is particularly heinous.

That said, why is this intelligence even out there? Why are we showing our cards to our adversaries? Isn't it feasible that Trump is downplaying this in a last ditch effort to protect sources and means?

GoldMind said:

---

What could Russia possibly gain from offering bounties?

---

Revenge. It's well documented that the US armed the Taliban during Russia's occupation of Afghanistan. I'd be surprised if there were no Russian military commanders who aren't still a little bitter about that.

Other motivators might include demoralizing our troops and dividing the US from the Afghan leadership.