So About This Russian Bounty Thing

[Catseye3]

I'm all squinty-eyed about this. Apparently there is much confusion and a dearth of details, but Congress is all a-quiver about it and who knew what when, and doing their righteous-outrage number and wanting answers now.

Why now?

Possibly the spook agencies and/or Trump knew about it "earlier this year" and if they did know they didn't take any action. But maybe they didn't. Or maybe the spooks did and elected not to tell Trump.

Both Houses are stamping their feet over this, so maybe it isn't a pre-election attack on Trump. Maybe it's a folks-back-home issue, than which hardly anything ruffles Congress' feathers more.

NPR lays out the whole thing here: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884611485/congress-unites-to-demand-answers-from-trump-on-russian-bounties-in-afghanistan

In light of this who's-on-first confusion, Pelosi did something dumb, IMO. She wrote,"The administration's disturbing silence and inaction endanger the lives of our troops and our coalition partners.". Maybe confirm what happened before you get all thunderous, Nancy. And maybe do less fecking around with scarves and pay more attention to the important stuff like, yes, the welfare of our troops in the field, hm?

But with absolutely everything that is going on now, this is a weird time to be initiating this, isn't it? So what's really going on? Why am I getting the feeling that we're, once again, being told to watch the birdie so we don't see what the left hand is doing?

[xenon]

Story continues to develop

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/politics/russian-bounty-trump.html

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

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.

But that stance clashed with the disclosure by two officials that the intelligence was included months ago in Mr. Trump’s President’s Daily Brief document — a compilation of the government’s latest secrets and best insights about foreign policy and national security that is prepared for him to read. One of the officials said the item appeared in Mr. Trump’s brief in late February; the other cited Feb. 27, specifically..

Moreover, a description of the intelligence assessment that the Russian unit had carried out the bounties plot was also seen as serious and solid enough to disseminate more broadly across the intelligence community in a May 4 article in the C.I.A.’s World Intelligence Review, a classified compendium commonly referred to as The Wire, two officials said.

A National Security Council spokesman declined to comment on any connection between the Marines’ deaths and the suspected Russian plot. The White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, did not answer when pressed by reporters on Monday whether the intelligence was included in the written President’s Daily Brief, and the National Security Council spokesman pointed to her comments when asked later about the February written briefing.

Thanks for reading The Times.
Subscribe to The Times
Late Monday, John Ratcliffe, the recently confirmed director of national intelligence, issued a statement warning that leaks about the matter were a crime.

“We are still investigating the alleged intelligence referenced in recent media reporting, and we will brief the president and congressional leaders at the appropriate time,” he said. “This is the analytic process working the way it should. Unfortunately, unauthorized disclosures now jeopardize our ability to ever find out the full story with respect to these allegations.””

[Larry]

You shouldn't put any stock in what the new york Times says. They're the ones who leaked this nonsense in the first place, and there's no proof yet that any of it is even true.

[Jolly]

AFAIK, there is no hard intelligence this actually happened.

We've got bigger things to worry about.

[Catseye3]

@Jolly said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

We've got bigger things to worry about.

My point exactly.

[Loki]

The Pentagon says there is no corroborating evidence. So now the NYT has the opportunity to expose the Pentagon has party to Trump’s lies or move on to the next titillating allegation.

Any money on which it will be?

[jon-nyc]

Is the pentagon claiming there’s no ‘corroborating evidence’ that Trump was briefed? Or nothing to corroborate the intelligence reports of Russia paying bounties?

I would assume the latter, in which case it seems entirely unrelated to whether Trump is lying or not about being briefed.

[Jolly]

Believe everything in the NYT to your intellectual peril.

[George K]

NatSec advisor O'Brien explicitly states that Trump had not been briefed on this:

[Catseye3]

@Loki This is a matter of global politics. Complex, between countries with a very long and difficult relationship.

You really think it's a matter of one newspaper telling lies? Thee and me will likely not be told the true bill, and we shouldn't be.

And why the Pentagon, anyway? The only reason I can think of is that they are the messenger for the spooks, who do not interact with the public. Also as it should be.

There is also reason to believe that the intelligence community doesn't trust Trump and would withhold intel from him for reasons of security. If that is so, then the Pentagon can put out all the memos it wants; they may or may not be true, and you can believe whatever floats your boat.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K I get the whitehouse says the President wasn’t briefed. Loki was implying the pentagon says the same thing, but I think he’s just wrong about what the pentagon was asserting.

[Mik]

Just one more beat of the drum. Stuff like this makes me want to vote for him.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

@George-K I get the whitehouse says the President wasn’t briefed. Loki was implying the pentagon says the same thing, but I think he’s just wrong about what the pentagon was asserting.

Here's the DoD statement which says there's no corroborating evidence to support the allegations. Presumably they're talking about the "bounty" allegations:

[jon-nyc]

Exactly what I thought, George. Hence my post to Loki.

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

Is the pentagon claiming there’s no ‘corroborating evidence’ that Trump was briefed? Or nothing to corroborate the intelligence reports of Russia paying bounties?

I would assume the latter, in which case it seems entirely unrelated to whether Trump is lying or not about being briefed.

Okay I was conflating two issues but the quality of the intelligence matters and the NYT printed it and Pentagon said not so.

So I want to see a show down between the NYTand Pentagon but I expect the NYT will duck it. Prove me wrong.

[jon-nyc]

I haven’t read the NYT piece but I still think you’re conflating to totally independent questions.

Let X = Intelligence reports
Let Y = corroborating evidence of X.

NYT (and now AP): ‘Trump was briefed on X’

Pentagon: ‘we have no Y’

How are the NYT and the Pentagon at odds?

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

I haven’t read the NYT piece but I still think you’re conflating to totally independent questions.

Let X = Intelligence reports
Let Y = corroborating evidence of X.

NYT (and now AP): ‘Trump was briefed on X’

Pentagon: ‘we have no Y’

How are the NYT and the Pentagon at odds?

Jesus. What is most important? If the NYT doesn’t have good info on a bounty everything else is bullshit. Got it?

[Renauda]

@Jolly said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

AFAIK, there is no hard intelligence this actually happened.

We've got bigger things to worry about.

Bingo!

[jon-nyc]

@Loki said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

I haven’t read the NYT piece but I still think you’re conflating to totally independent questions.

Let X = Intelligence reports
Let Y = corroborating evidence of X.

NYT (and now AP): ‘Trump was briefed on X’

Pentagon: ‘we have no Y’

How are the NYT and the Pentagon at odds?

Jesus. What is most important? If the NYT doesn’t have good info on a bounty everything else is bullshit. Got it?

Your PDS was preventing you from thinking clearly. Don’t take it out on me for pointing it out.

Its still the case that the pentagon announcement has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Trump is lying about being briefed.

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

@Loki said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

@jon-nyc said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:

I haven’t read the NYT piece but I still think you’re conflating to totally independent questions.

Let X = Intelligence reports
Let Y = corroborating evidence of X.

NYT (and now AP): ‘Trump was briefed on X’

Pentagon: ‘we have no Y’

How are the NYT and the Pentagon at odds?

Jesus. What is most important? If the NYT doesn’t have good info on a bounty everything else is bullshit. Got it?

Your PDS was preventing you from thinking clearly. Don’t take it out on me for pointing it out.

Its still the case that the pentagon announcement has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Trump is lying about being briefed.

How could he be briefed in a meaningful way on non corroborated evidence? Mr President we heard a rumor and we can’t validate it. That’s a briefing? Haha