Russia bounty on US troops

[NCFisher]

What fun is being a smart-ass if you're always worried about looking like a dumbass?

Well, you got me there!

 

[BowlBrother85]

Why are criminal leaks of classified information so widely accepted by the Trump haters?

Why won’t the left / never-Trump crowd publicly denounce criminal leaks?

3-1/2 years of these types of conveniently negative leaks drives mistrust and doubt of the credibility of the information.

We would have never learned about this without the leaks. There is enough evidence to warrant an investigation into whether or not Russia paid bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers, but the Trump Administration wasn't going to do anything about it. This intelligence is over a year old. The leakers probably got tired of waiting for Trump to act.... this intel was included in a written presidential daily brief. So, there have already been lies told... but why? Why doesn't Trump want to investigate this?

 

[NCFisher]

This intelligence is over a year old. There is nothing to indicate that the Trump Administration even wanted these intelligence reports verified. To the contrary, they were perfectly content to just let the reports sit there and fester. Hence, the reason there were leaks. Judging by today's tweet storm, Trump has long since made up his mind that there is nothing to it. He has even resorted to employing his old stand-by term of "hoax" to describe this intelligence. Trump simply doesn't want to believe it... much less ever do anything about it. But why is Trump so deferential to Putin and Russia? Trump is clearly more concerned with the source of the leaks, than he is concerned with whether or not this intelligence is accurate. And just to be clear - "unverified" does not mean "untrue". How can you describe something which hasn't been verified, as either accurate or inaccurate? Trump shouldn't be using words like "hoax". Such language demonstrates that there is now an agenda in place to discredit these reports, when Trump's only objective should be to arrive at the truth - whatever that may be.

...and the financial data appears strong. At the very least, circumstantial evidence does exist, which indicates that Russia paid the Taliban an awful lot of money. We just need to find out why? What was Russia looking for in return?

The "hoax" is treating it as factual; that Russia is paying bounties, that Trump knew, and did nothing. Like 'Russian collusion', it's not true, political smear without regard for the damage it does to national security, law enforcement, or justice system - hoax. Unverified means non-actionable; no punitive response based upon intel rumor. There's nothing to discredit; it's either verified or not.

Russia is a geopolitical enemy, like China, Iran, NK. We know they've been provisioning Taliban for a while.

You're awfully verbose today...

 

[NCFisher]

We would have never learned about this without the leaks. There is enough evidence to warrant an investigation into whether or not Russia paid bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers, but the Trump Administration wasn't going to do anything about it. This intelligence is over a year old. The leakers probably got tired of waiting for Trump to act.... this intel was included in a written presidential daily brief. So, there have already been lies told... but why? Why doesn't Trump want to investigate this?

It's CLASSIFIED. There's nothing to indicate there is no investigation; in fact, officials have stated the leak now damages the ability to verify it, which indicates it is being investigated. Classified info is not there to be recklessly disseminated so VN has something to discuss. There are real-world ramifications to leaks, such as world leaders having reservations about having candid conversations among themselves, such as having sources drying up or being whacked, or the very existence of an investigative trail being revealed.

Wow! that this has to be explained.

 

[Sandman 423]

Should the amount that the Russians are paying matter? I mean, if they are paying like 1,000 rubles that's what, 14 U.S dollars.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The "hoax" is treating it as factual; that Russia is paying bounties, that Trump knew, and did nothing. Like 'Russian collusion', it's not true, political smear without regard for the damage it does to national security, law enforcement, or justice system - hoax. Unverified means non-actionable; no punitive response based upon intel rumor. There's nothing to discredit; it's either verified or not.

Russia is a geopolitical enemy, like China, Iran, NK. We know they've been provisioning Taliban for a while.

You're awfully verbose today...

But there is evidence which should be investigated. Per The New York Times reports: American officials intercepted electronic data showing large financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia's military intelligence agency to a Taliban-linked account, evidence that supported their conclusion that Russia covertly offered bounties for killing U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan, according to three officials who were privy to the intelligence (again, this is per The New York Times).

Also, per The New York Times, the three officials said that investigators had also identified by name numerous Afghans in a network linked to the suspected Russian operation, including a man believed to have served as an intermediary for distributing some of the funds, and who is now believed to be in Russia.

It doesn't appear as though the Trump Administration even cared whether any of this was true or not. There is nothing to indicate, that after a year, anything has been investigated.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It's CLASSIFIED. There's nothing to indicate there is no investigation; in fact, officials have stated the leak now damages the ability to verify it, which indicates it is being investigated. Classified info is not there to be recklessly disseminated so VN has something to discuss. There are real-world ramifications to leaks, such as world leaders having reservations about having candid conversations among themselves, such as having sources drying up or being whacked, or the very existence of an investigative trail being revealed.

Wow! that this has to be explained.

Trump is calling it a hoax! It's not being investigated.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Should the amount that the Russians are paying matter? I mean, if they are paying like 1,000 rubles that's what, 14 U.S dollars.

That is not what The New York Times is reporting, fwiw.

 

[Sandman 423]

That is not what The New York Times is reporting, fwiw.

This article doesn't say how much, but it does say it has been going on for over a decade. How is this just now an issue?
oops, It doesn't say that^^^^^^^^It says it might be revenge for us killing some russian mercenary's in 2018

 

[BowlBrother85]

The "hoax" is treating it as factual; that Russia is paying bounties, that Trump knew, and did nothing. Like 'Russian collusion', it's not true, political smear without regard for the damage it does to national security, law enforcement, or justice system - hoax. Unverified means non-actionable; no punitive response based upon intel rumor. There's nothing to discredit; it's either verified or not.

Russia is a geopolitical enemy, like China, Iran, NK. We know they've been provisioning Taliban for a while.

You're awfully verbose today...

Also, these intercepts bolstered the findings gleaned from the interrogations of Taliban detainees, helping reduce an earlier disagreement among intelligence analysts and agencies over the reliability of the detainees. These disclosures further undercut White House officials' claims that the intelligence was too uncertain to brief President Trump. In fact, this information was provided to President Trump in his written daily brief in late February, two officials who were privy to this intelligence told The New York Times.

Granted, it is circumstantial at this time, but there is substantial evidence that this intelligence regarding the payments of bounties by Russian military officials to the Taliban to kill American and coalition troops, is accurate... and yet, here is Trump... calling it a "hoax".

 

[NCFisher]

But there is evidence which should be investigated. Per The New York Times reports: American officials intercepted electronic data showing large financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia's military intelligence agency to a Taliban-linked account, evidence that supported their conclusion that Russia covertly offered bounties for killing U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan, according to three officials who were privy to the intelligence (again, this is per The New York Times).

Also, per The New York Times, the three officials said that investigators had also identified by name numerous Afghans in a network linked to the suspected Russian operation, including a man believed to have served as an intermediary for distributing some of the funds, and who is now believed to be in Russia.

It doesn't appear as though the Trump Administration even cared whether any of this was true or not. There is nothing to indicate, that after a year, anything has been investigated.

Except officials speaking about how this hampers the investigation?

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement Monday night it's a "crime" to leak sensitive information, after Democratic and Republican lawmakers demanded answers over reports that intel alleged Russian operatives placed bounties on U.S. troops.

Details: "We are still investigating the alleged interference referenced in media reporting and we will brief the President and Congressional leaders at the appropriate time," Ratcliffe said. "Unfortunately, the unauthorized disclosures now jeopardize our ability to find out the full story with respect to these allegations."

• CIA Director Gina Haspel said in a statement Monday evening "initial tactical reports often require additional collection and validation" and preliminary details are in general shared in the national security community and with U.S. allies. "Leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect assess, and ascribe culpability," she said. https://www.axios.com/russia-bounty-intel-claim-investigation-ratcliffe-5aa86ab5-0dd5-454a-9021-e809250f22bc.html

It's not logical to think such a thing was not being investigated. That's the problem with assuming the worst and leaping to conclusion.

 

[Sandman 423]

Also, these intercepts bolstered the findings gleaned from the interrogations of Taliban detainees, helping reduce an earlier disagreement among intelligence analysts and agencies over the reliability of the detainees. These disclosures further undercut White House officials' claims that the intelligence was too uncertain to brief President Trump. In fact, this information was provided to President Trump in his written daily brief in late February, two officials who were privy to this intelligence told The New York Times.

If it turns out to be not true and people lose their life over it, should we try the two "anonymous" officials for treason?

 

[NCFisher]

Trump is calling it a hoax! It's not being investigated.

Simply inaccurate; I replied to this just above.

 

[NCFisher]

If it turns out to be not true and people lose their life over it, should we try the two "anonymous" officials for treason?

At minimum they should be prosecuted for damaging security by disseminating classified info.

 

[hUTch2002]

I just enjoy pointing out how exasperated Trumpers get when the Republicans' own looney methods are used against him. I guess it's not lunacy when Republicans do it. I'll call the Clinton impeachment whatever I want.

I didn’t even see you responded. Darn. You just love putting words in other people’s mouths and making assumptions. I find it humorous how you try to bait someone into the response you want and then you move on when you don’t get the response you expect. And yes you can call the Clinton impeachment what you like. That doesn’t make it accurate.

 

[NCFisher]

Also, these intercepts bolstered the findings gleaned from the interrogations of Taliban detainees, helping reduce an earlier disagreement among intelligence analysts and agencies over the reliability of the detainees. These disclosures further undercut White House officials' claims that the intelligence was too uncertain to brief President Trump. In fact, this information was provided to President Trump in his written daily brief in late February, two officials who were privy to this intelligence told The New York Times.

Granted, it is circumstantial at this time, but there is substantial evidence that this intelligence regarding the payments of bounties by Russian military officials to the Taliban to kill American and coalition troops, is accurate... and yet, here is Trump... calling it a "hoax".

Simply wrong; again, he is terming the politicization of UNVERIFIED intel rumor as fact of Russian bounties, and thus that he did nothing about it, as hoax. Period.

I no longer care what anonymous officials are reported to say. The unelected TDS bureaucrats, House Dems, and media have been so resolutely wrong in the last four years, they've burned the plausibility bridge. They've created a social division in the nation that dwarfs that of the 60-70s.

 

[BowlBrother85]

If it turns out to be not true and people lose their life over it, should we try the two "anonymous" officials for treason?

The White House is lying on two counts:

1) There was sufficient evidence to brief the President on.

... and

2) He was briefed.

 

[0nelilreb]

The "hoax" is treating it as factual; that Russia is paying bounties, that Trump knew, and did nothing. Like 'Russian collusion', it's not true, political smear without regard for the damage it does to national security, law enforcement, or justice system - hoax. Unverified means non-actionable; no punitive response based upon intel rumor. There's nothing to discredit; it's either verified or not.

Russia is a geopolitical enemy, like China, Iran, NK. We know they've been provisioning Taliban for a while.

You're awfully verbose today...

 

[BowlBrother85]

Simply wrong; again, he is terming the politicization of UNVERIFIED intel rumor as fact of Russian bounties, and thus that he did nothing about it, as hoax. Period.

I no longer care what anonymous officials are reported to say. The unelected TDS bureaucrats, House Dems, and media have been so resolutely wrong in the last four years, they've burned the plausibility bridge. They've created a social division in the nation that dwarfs that of the 60-70s.

You are choosing to generously interpret it that way, but that is not what Trump said. He simply called it a hoax.

 

[NCFisher]

The White House is lying on two counts:

1) There was sufficient evidence to brief the President on.

... and

2) He was briefed.

1.) It was in a PDB and did not rise to the level of threat briefing. I daresay no president pores over every detail of PDBs. From my prior link of how Obama, Bush, etc all differed in how they receive information, Trump would hardly be alone in that respect.

2) See 1.)

 

[37L1]

Maybe, like his predecessor, he had to hear it first in the news?

 

[37L1]

Simply wrong; again, he is terming the politicization of UNVERIFIED intel rumor as fact of Russian bounties, and thus that he did nothing about it, as hoax. Period.

I no longer care what anonymous officials are reported to say. The unelected TDS bureaucrats, House Dems, and media have been so resolutely wrong in the last four years, they've burned the plausibility bridge. They've created a social division in the nation that dwarfs that of the 60-70s.

Until we get something resembling the SLA and the Weather Underground and they start bombing banks and police stations, I disagree that we reached that level yet. But we aren't all that far from it either.

 

[BowlBrother85]

1.) It was in a PDB and did not rise to the level of threat briefing. I daresay no president pores over every detail of PDBs. From my prior link of how Obama, Bush, etc all differed in how they receive information, Trump would hardly be alone in that respect.

2) See 1.)

There was sufficient enough corroborating evidence which surfaced in these intercepts of financial data to merit a threat briefing... and it simply doesn't pass muster that Trump didn't know about it. This wasn't some insignificant detail in just any other presidential daily brief. This was an adversary paying bounties to a terrorist network to kill our troops. There is no good way for the White House to spin this story after a year. Even if you want to believe that Trump wasn't aware of this intelligence (and I don't) - he should have been aware. And what has been done about this in the last year? Not much, it seems... except that Trump has continued to lobby for Russia to be allowed back into the G 7.

 

[NCFisher]

Until we get something resembling the SLA and the Weather Underground and they start bombing banks and police stations, I disagree that we reached that level yet. But we aren't all that far from it either.

It's not an unfair point, but what separates Marxists/anarchists waging large scale damage across the nation, accompanying assault and homicide, cops being forced out of precincts and burned out while mayors and governors allow it, excuse or encourage it? An entire area of a city taken hostage for six weeks by anarchists? There wasn't widespread outcry for abolishing police and government officials sanctioning tearing down historical monuments. Nor a majority of Democrats finding socialism a tasty alternative.

I think this is different, the political-ideological divide deeper in plurality, and will worsen regardless of whom is elected.

 

[37L1]

It's not an unfair point, but what separates Marxists/anarchists waging large scale damage across the nation, accompanying assault and homicide, cops being forced out of precincts and burned out while mayors and governors allow it, excuse or encourage it? An entire area of a city taken hostage for six weeks by anarchists? There wasn't widespread outcry for abolishing police and government officials sanctioning tearing down historical monuments. Nor a majority of Democrats finding socialism a tasty alternative.

I think this is different, the political-ideological divide deeper in plurality, and will worsen regardless of whom is elected.

The major difference as I see it, is that the people in positions that have the power and responsibility to maintain order are sympathetic to the factions that are being disruptive and do little or nothing to curtail this behavior, which, in turn, leads to even more and bolder actions by those radical groups. That is, until they march on that person's house, who is responsible for the maintenance of order in her city.

It's all fun and games, until it's your ox that is being gored.