Quote: @greediron said:
So Schiff knew about this in Feb, did not brief the intelligence committee, nor alert Trump, but Trump is the treasonous one?
Hypocrisy will come back to bite hard.
You guys really have no shame. So now Schiff is the fall guy. Help me understand again....
1. How would Schiff have known? From a tip, or his own intel committee, a leak or from a whistle blower? I am very curious.
2. So now Schiff is supposed to brief the Intel committee. Is that where we are now?
3. Schiff is supposed to alert the president too? The president who has numerous departments to "keep an eye on the country", clearly defined process and staff. The same president who is briefed weekly on world affairs and impending threats to the USA. The same president who has access to all classified info without any questions. The same president who was briefed and ignored the brief.
Yeah let's blame Schiff.
Again, comparing things that are not comparable. The mere fact that you think this stuff is frightening.
The hypocrisy is on you. You who is attempting to pardon the president and blame someone else. The buck stops with the president. The President of the US was briefed and he ignored the briefing. How hard is that to comprehend? Are we that far removed from reality and commonsense? I thought "alternative facts" were just a joke but here we are.
That's how poor of a Commander-in-Chief Trump is, he's dependent on "shifty" Schiff to make these calls. Why has Trump blocked all the subpoenas and requests for information from Schiff's committee, I am sure he's more than willing to help. But there may be a clue, in just how many folk have left this administration and cabinet, as to why this happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tr...signations
What we need is a Benghazi like inquiry to get to the bottom of this.
Quote: @savannahskol said:
Well this thread didn't age well....for some of you.
U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops
LMAO, king of the horseshit links
The Daily Beast is an American news publication focused on politics, media and pop culture, founded in 2008. It has been characterized as a "high-end tabloid" by Noah Shachtman, the site's editor-in-chief since 2018.
I am not sure what is the issue here. The original post I made to open this thread and my subsequent replies never mentioned that it was 100% or conclusive. I was and I am still challenging whether Trump knew or not. That was the core of the thread because people in Trump admin and Trump himself gave conflicting statements as I illustrated above.
My post was about if Trump knew or did not know. Look at the timeline I posted above there are links that state that that it was not 100% certain and needed to be reviewed.
So the latest news confirms exactly that.
As to the issue if it was 100% certain or not yes based on reports on documents unclassified by the Biden administration we now know it was not certain.
So there are two points:
- As the thread starter I never stated it was certain. All my posts were whether Trump knew or not. That is still valid
- We have learned that the bounty allegation were not very credible so people who said it was were wrong.
The recent reports actually makes one wonder why the Trump administration could not get this right? Why the conflicting stories and statements from people in the administration? Why the confusion about what Trump was briefed on and wasn't? Lastly, it did not take the Biden administration much to clear this up. So it just makes one wonder.
Quote: @mblack said:
I am not sure what is the issue here.
The recent reports actually makes one wonder why the Trump administration could not get this right? Why the conflicting stories and statements from people in the administration? Why the confusion about what Trump was briefed on and wasn't? Lastly, it did not take the Biden administration much to clear this up. So it just makes one wonder.
Not sure 'the issue'?This topic Sure had some knickers in a twist, as some responses in this thread show.
This was an obvious anti-Trump NYT's hit-piece in the middle of an election campaign.
"Low to moderate confidence” is intel-speak for “uncorroborated rumor.” It was basically just something an interrogator heard from a detainee who may have heard it second- or third-hand or may just have been making it up: link
Quote:US intelligence had “low to moderate confidence” in the reporting on bounties because “it’s based in part on detainee reporting and because of the difficult operating environment in Afghanistan”, a senior administration official told reporters. “There is an assessment that Russian intelligence officers did seek to encourage Taliban attacks against US and coalition personnel, including through financial incentives and compensation,” the official added. “But because of the low to moderate confidence element of this, our focus is on sending a clear message to Russia about the steps the United States would take in response to such behavior if it were to continue.”
As Adam Rawnsley and Spencer Ackerman at The (left of center) Daily Beast conclude:
Quote:According to the officials on Thursday’s call, the reporting about the alleged “bounties” came from “detainee reporting” – raising the specter that someone told their U.S.-aligned Afghan jailers what they thought was necessary to get out of a cage. Specifically, the official cited “information and evidence of connections to criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government” as sources for the intelligence community’s assessment. Without additional corroboration, such reporting is notoriously unreliable…
There were reasons to doubt the story from the start. Not only did the initial stories emphasize its basis on detainee reporting, but the bounties represented a qualitative shift in recent Russian engagements with Afghan insurgents. Russian operatives have long been suspected of moving money to various Afghan militants: an out-of-favor former Taliban official told The Daily Beast on the record that Russia gave them cash for years. But the Russians had not been suspected of sponsoring attacks on U.S. forces outright – an escalation that risked confrontation with the U.S., and occurring long after it could have made a difference in the war.
None of this stopped Biden and the Democrats from putting everything they had behind this story at the time. They knew it was likely fake news, a hoax, a scam, whatever else you want to call it. But they didn’t care. They won, didn’t they?
Mblack, you ask some good questions, but miss the obvious one.
"Why would the NYT's lie to me?"
Quotes from the Dem pols at the time, under cover of the NYT's source story:
OBAMA: "When Russia puts bounties on the heads of our soldiers in Afghanistan, the commander-in-chief can’t be MIA: missing in action. Joe Biden would never call the men and women of our military suckers or losers." pic.twitter.com/JyYVtzpZeh
SCHIFF: "Bounties on U.S. troops. Election interference. Injuring our soldiers. Yet again, Trump is shamefully silent. Trump will never stand up to Russia and Vladimir Putin. And because Republicans refuse to stand up to Trump, They too put our democracy – and our troops – in danger."
SWALWELL: "Now I get why @realDonaldTrump won’t stand up to Putin for bounties on our troops. Does Trump act as a Russia agent? Yes. But, Trump also thinks any US troops killed by Russia bounties are “suckers” or “losers.” He hasn’t defended them. He never will.
Quote:Do you support: Our troops? *Because @realDonaldTrump hasn’t said shit about serious allegations Russia is paying bounties to kill them. Cut the childish tweets and do your job: protect those in uniform.
LIEU: "North Korea has not gotten rid of a single nuclear weapon & has increased nuclear fuel production; Russia put bounties on our troops & Iran is building a more advanced nuclear program.
Russia placing bounties on the lives of American troops cannot go unanswered by the US government.
The @WhiteHouse & @GOP are more concerned about who told the American people that Russia paid bounties to Taliban to kill US troops, than about actually responding to Russia. The fact that @realDonaldTrump still hasn’t condemned Vladimir Putin is treasonous behavior.
As we celebrate #4thofJuly2020, @realDonaldTrump still has not condemned Vladimir Putin for paying bounties to kill Americans. This is not just Trump acting bizarre, this is traitorous behavior. And any @GOP official who remains silent should be ashamed.
WARREN: “We need a president who won’t place Moscow’s interests above the safety of our troops.”
MURPHY: “Trump found out Russia paid bounties to Taliban fighters to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan…He decided to not ask them to stop. Chew on that for a sec.”
DURBIN: Trump has “let Putin get away with” putting “bounties on US troops in Afghanistan.”
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ savannahskol said:
Well this thread didn't age well....for some of you.
U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops
LMAO, king of the horseshit links
The Daily Beast is an American news publication focused on politics, media and pop culture, founded in 2008. It has been characterized as a "high-end tabloid" by Noah Shachtman, the site's editor-in-chief since 2018.
Yeah, and they're (DailyBeast) left. Still, TheDailyBeast is a major player, in politico-journalism.
![[Image: AllSidesMediaBiasChart-Version4.jpg]](https://www.allsides.com/sites/default/files/AllSidesMediaBiasChart-Version4.jpg)
|
