• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Got Written Briefing in February on Possible Russian Bounties, Officials Say

W_Heisenberg

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
21,574
Reaction score
19,527
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trump Got Written Briefing in February on Possible Russian Bounties, Officials Say - The New York Times

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. American officials provided a written briefing in late February to President Trump laying out their conclusion that a Russian military intelligence unit offered and paid bounties to Taliban-linked militants to kill U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan, two officials familiar with the matter said.

The investigation into the suspected Russian covert operation to incentivize such killings has focused in part on an April 2019 car bombing that killed three Marines as one such potential attack, according to multiple officials familiar with the matter. The new information emerged as the White House tried on Monday to play down the intelligence assessment that Russia sought to encourage and reward killings — including reiterating a claim that Mr. Trump was never briefed about the matter and portraying the conclusion as disputed and dubious.

The WH apparently lied, so the leakers leaked more, and now the NYT comes back with even more specifics after WH lied, and they’re even more serious:

1: "American officials provided a written briefing in late February to President Trump laying out their conclusion that a Russian military intelligence unit offered and paid bounties..."

2: "One of the officials said the item appeared in Mr. Trump’s brief in late February; the other cited Feb. 27, specifically."

3: The intelligence assessment "was also seen as serious and solid enough to disseminate more broadly across the intelligence community in a May 4 article in the CIA’s World Intelligence Review", known as The Wire.

--

The Associated Press also adds to the story:

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 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.

Wow. The WH knew since early 2019?

This is serious, serious stuff.
 
From Biden at town hall...

The truly shocking revelation that if the Times report is true, and I emphasize that again, is that President Trump, the commander in chief of American troops serving in a dangerous theater of war, has known about this for months, according to the Times, and done worse than nothing,” Biden said during a virtual townhall event Saturday, as reported by The Associated Press.

“Not only has he failed to sanction and impose any kind of consequences on Russia for this egregious violation of international law, Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin,” said Biden. Trump’s actions after allegedly being briefed, said Biden, is a “betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation — to protect and equip our troops when we send them into harm’s way.”
 
What?? The White House lied?? OMG! I'm so shocked... I may swoon...

Or not.

Of course the White House lied. The only shocking headline would be if the WH was actually caught telling the truth.
 
Trump Got Written Briefing in February on Possible Russian Bounties, Officials Say - The New York Times



The WH apparently lied, so the leakers leaked more, and now the NYT comes back with even more specifics after WH lied, and they’re even more serious:

1: "American officials provided a written briefing in late February to President Trump laying out their conclusion that a Russian military intelligence unit offered and paid bounties..."

2: "One of the officials said the item appeared in Mr. Trump’s brief in late February; the other cited Feb. 27, specifically."

3: The intelligence assessment "was also seen as serious and solid enough to disseminate more broadly across the intelligence community in a May 4 article in the CIA’s World Intelligence Review", known as The Wire.

--

The Associated Press also adds to the story:

AP sources: White House aware of Russian bounties in 2019



Wow. The WH knew since early 2019?

This is serious, serious stuff.

Not really. Although I expect it to be played up for all it's worth.

The presumptions (of course) are that this story is true, and not another "disinformation fabrication" revealed at the 11th hour.

That since it (might have) appeared in a briefing document back in what, 2019? That it was actually briefed.

That we are to trust Mr. Bolton, who got kicked to the curb and has recently written a "tell-all" book as a valid "confirming" source.

That we are to accept that while Trump allegedly knew and did nothing about this back in 2019, yet it took the "leakers" a year to decide to come forward.

I smell either another fake document "created" by our loyal intelligence agencies, much like Steele's Dossier... or a land-mine placed in the file, but never actually briefed so as to be used as another "insurance policy" when the time was right.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Trump could very well have been briefed. :coffeepap:
 
Not really.

The presumptions (of course) are that this story is true, and not another "disinformation fabrication" revealed at the 11th hour.

That since it (might have) appeared in a briefing document back in what, 2019? That it was actually briefed.

That we are to trust Mr. Bolton, who got kicked to the curb and has recently written a "tell-all" book as a valid "confirming" source.

That we are to accept that while Trump allegedly knew and did nothing about this back in 2019, yet it took the "leakers" a year to decide to come forward.

I smell either another fake document "created" by our loyal intelligence agencies, much like Steeles' Dossier... or a land-mine placed in the file, but never actually briefed so as to be used as another "insurance policy" when the time was right.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Trump could very well have been briefed. :coffeepap:

Short: He doesn't think the Russians did it, and that intelligence agencies didn't brief Trump at all.



Wookies > Trekkies
 
Trump Got Written Briefing in February on Possible Russian Bounties, Officials Say - The New York Times



The WH apparently lied, so the leakers leaked more, and now the NYT comes back with even more specifics after WH lied, and they’re even more serious:

1: "American officials provided a written briefing in late February to President Trump laying out their conclusion that a Russian military intelligence unit offered and paid bounties..."

2: "One of the officials said the item appeared in Mr. Trump’s brief in late February; the other cited Feb. 27, specifically."

3: The intelligence assessment "was also seen as serious and solid enough to disseminate more broadly across the intelligence community in a May 4 article in the CIA’s World Intelligence Review", known as The Wire.

--

The Associated Press also adds to the story:

AP sources: White House aware of Russian bounties in 2019



Wow. The WH knew since early 2019?

This is serious, serious stuff.
NYT sources - Meh.
 
This whole matter can be easily settled. The written briefings for the range of dates involved can be given to a bipartisan group of US congressmen who have the necessary clearance to read such reports. They can then provide their findings to the American people.

Done, and done.

Sent from my old PC, using a cheap keyboard.

PS. As a side show, we might be treated to the White House filing suit against Congress to suppress the report in the interest of national security.
 
Last edited:
Not really. Although I expect it to be played up for all it's worth.

The presumptions (of course) are that this story is true, and not another "disinformation fabrication" revealed at the 11th hour.

That since it (might have) appeared in a briefing document back in what, 2019? That it was actually briefed.

That we are to trust Mr. Bolton, who got kicked to the curb and has recently written a "tell-all" book as a valid "confirming" source.

That we are to accept that while Trump allegedly knew and did nothing about this back in 2019, yet it took the "leakers" a year to decide to come forward.

I smell either another fake document "created" by our loyal intelligence agencies, much like Steele's Dossier... or a land-mine placed in the file, but never actually briefed so as to be used as another "insurance policy" when the time was right.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Trump could very well have been briefed. :coffeepap:

When all else fails resort to zany conspiracy theories. Nobody believes a lick of what you wrote here, not even yourself.

If Trump didn't know, that shows a level of incompetence that should concern every American. If Trump knew, that's even worse. One of these two scenarios is true.
 
Don't worry. Trump will admit it in a tweet soon and then you'll be forced to move to the next stage of Trumpism denial.
Yeah, hold your breath.
Does this even make sense to you? You guys constantly harp that Trump is Putin's bitch - dancing to whatever tune Vlad chooses. So why then what would Russia gain by contracting to kill American soldiers? Particularly, if or when it came out?
Looking at the deaths in Afghanistan the past few years kinda destroys Taliban's paid, profession killer meme.
 
Not really. Although I expect it to be played up for all it's worth.

The presumptions (of course) are that this story is true, and not another "disinformation fabrication" revealed at the 11th hour.

That since it (might have) appeared in a briefing document back in what, 2019? That it was actually briefed.

That we are to trust Mr. Bolton, who got kicked to the curb and has recently written a "tell-all" book as a valid "confirming" source.

That we are to accept that while Trump allegedly knew and did nothing about this back in 2019, yet it took the "leakers" a year to decide to come forward.

I smell either another fake document "created" by our loyal intelligence agencies, much like Steele's Dossier... or a land-mine placed in the file, but never actually briefed so as to be used as another "insurance policy" when the time was right.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Trump could very well have been briefed. :coffeepap:


If he was briefed via intel document, he was briefed, and that is damning.


If he was briefed via document, and didn't read his intel brief, that is equally as damning.


either way, it's dereliction that he did nothing about it.

The intel community did not create the Dossier, it as accepted as 'raw intel' with Steele's caveat that he didn't expect all of it to be true, it was presented as raw intel, only and noting that some of it's salient points, have been confirmed.
 
NYT sources - Meh.

All of the established news outlets are carrying the story, which they wouldn't, if there wasn't solid sourcing of the story.
 
Not really. Although I expect it to be played up for all it's worth. The presumptions (of course) are that this story is true, and not another "disinformation fabrication" revealed at the 11th hour. That since it (might have) appeared in a briefing document back in what, 2019? That it was actually briefed. That we are to trust Mr. Bolton, who got kicked to the curb and has recently written a "tell-all" book as a valid "confirming" source. That we are to accept that while Trump allegedly knew and did nothing about this back in 2019, yet it took the "leakers" a year to decide to come forward. I smell either another fake document "created" by our loyal intelligence agencies, much like Steele's Dossier... or a land-mine placed in the file, but never actually briefed so as to be used as another "insurance policy" when the time was right. Of course, this is just my opinion. Trump could very well have been briefed.


I smell a Trumpist who tells any lie in defense or support of Trump that someone else can think up for him, after dressing it up so that it sounds the way he thinks a clever argument does.

I smell the guy who claimed that photographs and videos of police slashing tires were not evidence of police slashing tires.






And what does a guy who claimed that photographs and videos of police slashing tires were not evidence of police slashing tires think he has to say to anyone about what counts as evidence here?

Nothing. Same-old, same-old.

:coffeepap:
 
All of the established news outlets are carrying the story, which they wouldn't, if there wasn't solid sourcing of the story.
Are you serious? The established news outlets? you mean the LW Propaganda Ministry? Wanna buy a bridge?
 
Yeah, hold your breath.
Does this even make sense to you? You guys constantly harp that Trump is Putin's bitch - dancing to whatever tune Vlad chooses. So why then what would Russia gain by contracting to kill American soldiers? Particularly, if or when it came out?
Looking at the deaths in Afghanistan the past few years kinda destroys Taliban's paid, profession killer meme.

It's not about policy in Afghanistan. Even though the Russians have an interest there too. It's about Russia/Putin seeing all interactions with the US as being zero sum. Anything good for the US is bad for Russia. Russia has been doing things all over the world to push back American influence. Be it the annexation of Crimea and Ukraine war, supporting the opposition in Libya, to supporting Assad in Syria. The US knows that Russia has been providing limited support to the Taliban for years. But paying bounties to kill American soldiers represents a serious escalation. One that has to be answered as the risks of not answering are too great.
 
If he was briefed via intel document, he was briefed, and that is damning.


If he was briefed via document, and didn't read his intel brief, that is equally as damning.


either way, it's dereliction that he did nothing about it.

The intel community did not create the Dossier, it as accepted as 'raw intel' with Steele's caveat that he didn't expect all of it to be true, it was presented as raw intel, only and noting that some of it's salient points, have been confirmed.


And don't leave out that not one thing has been proven false in the Steele dossier...
 
It's not about policy in Afghanistan. Even though the Russians have an interest there too. It's about Russia/Putin seeing all interactions with the US as being zero sum. Anything good for the US is bad for Russia. Russia has been doing things all over the world to push back American influence. Be it the annexation of Crimea and Ukraine war, supporting the opposition in Libya, to supporting Assad in Syria. The US knows that Russia has been providing limited support to the Taliban for years. But paying bounties to kill American soldiers represents a serious escalation. One that has to be answered as the risks of not answering are too great.
Very creative. You have a further in fiction writing. IF Russia had Trump in their back pocket how could they be in a zero-sum state with us?
 
Very creative. You have a further in fiction writing. IF Russia had Trump in their back pocket how could they be in a zero-sum state with us?

That's just the inverse of anything good for the US being bad for Russia. So it would follow that anything bad for us, is good for them. That would be just another feather Putin's cap.
 
There's no doubt Trump got the briefings.

The only two possibilities are that he heard or read them or he didn't hear or read them. Both are equally likely. So in the first case he's lying and in the second he's telling the truth but it's dereliction of duty.

But there's no doubt Trump got the briefings.
 
I'm trying to remember if Republicans regarded "not getting the briefing" an acceptable excuse for Hillary Clinton and Benghazi.

Anyone remember?
 
I'm trying to remember if Republicans regarded "not getting the briefing" an acceptable excuse for Hillary Clinton and Benghazi.

Anyone remember?

I’m trying to remember who had the names of the four Benghazi victims seared into their mind yet hasnt enquired once about the names of the dead in Afghanistan at all.
 
Is it the least bit important that intelligence be vetted before it's acted on? Is there any reason that the intelligence services that gathered this tidbit should investigate its veracity before handing it off to the CiC? What if, hypothetically speaking, some Democrat operative handed this information over with the intent that it would be used to coax Trump into taking a drastic action against Russians and then another drop would be made for the purpose of showing that the original drop was a fake and that Trump acted on bad information because he's a maniac?

This story has "plant" written all over it. There would be no upside whatsoever for Russia to do this kind of thing. It is possible that some Russians running opium out of Afghanistan pulled a stunt like this but that would be a substantially different thing than "Russia did it".
 
There's no doubt Trump got the briefings.

The only two possibilities are that he heard or read them or he didn't hear or read them. Both are equally likely. So in the first case he's lying and in the second he's telling the truth but it's dereliction of duty.

But there's no doubt Trump got the briefings.

Yes, either way, he should be in trouble. It is doubtful to me that Trumpublicans will hold him accountable, however.
 
Back
Top Bottom