Russia offered bounty to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers and Trump knew

[Edge-]

No, they really haven't. They have tried, but the military has remained stubbornly apolitical to this point.

Yes, I know they're not current active duty military. But neither are the families of those killed. These are gold star families.



Much like the Khan's, and I don't recall too much pearl clutching about their involvement. Quite the contrary I remember them being lauded as heroes.

This isn't about decency or rules, this is about unleashing something powerful enough to destroy us all. You are absolutely free to smash Trump for it. You both can, and should. But don't drag the actual military into the fight, you really don't want them in the fight, because the fear is that they will win.

Again, not the actual military. The families of those in the military, if they choose to accept the invitation.

[Thekri]

Again, not the actual military. The families of those in the military, if they choose to accept the invitation.

That is acceptable. Not tasteful, but acceptable. I thought you were advocating dragging actual Soldiers before congress to testify on this. I wouldn't do it, I wouldn't recommend it, i wouldn't endorse it, but it isn't a significant threat to our democracy. Same thing with veterans expressing political opinions, I am a veteran that does that, that is fine. It needs to be separated from your actual service, which is why the top example is repulsive, but not illegal.

The Khans are entirely justified, but I don't think it was appropriate to invite them in the first place. They were put in that position to make a political spectacle, and while they clearly chose to accept, and that is fine, I dislike that sort of tragedy exploitation. Again, not a threat to democracy, just distasteful.

[Edge-]

That is acceptable. Not tasteful, but acceptable. I thought you were advocating dragging actual Soldiers before congress to testify on this. I wouldn't do it, I wouldn't recommend it, i wouldn't endorse it, but it isn't a significant threat to our democracy. Same thing with veterans expressing political opinions, I am a veteran that does that, that is fine. It needs to be separated from your actual service, which is why the top example is repulsive, but not illegal.

The Khans are entirely justified, but I don't think it was appropriate to invite them in the first place. They were put in that position to make a political spectacle, and while they clearly chose to accept, and that is fine, I dislike that sort of tragedy exploitation. Again, not a threat to democracy, just distasteful.

Oh hell no, I wouldn't ever demand soldiers do that. If they choose to, cool. But my post was about offering the families of soldiers killed the opportunity to testify in front of the House for purely emotional and political reasons. They can tell whatever committee to stuff it and that's fine, and I don't feel morally clean in advocating for this, but I'm done with that garbage.

I'll absolutely take "distasteful", I can live with that and it's a totally fair assessment.

[Noxx79]

https://twitter.com/jakesherman/stat...607370241?s=21

Apparently there is a meeting at the WH about this. For republicans only.
They’ve got to get their lies in order of course.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/jakesherman/stat...607370241?s=21

Apparently there is a meeting at the WH about this. For republicans only.
They’ve got to get their lies in order of course.

"Shit, let's get our story straight because we've currently got a half dozen of them."

Too bad Amash isn't invited, because he'd totally dish on the gossip.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russ...-denies-2020-6

And apparently NATO was told about this, with two sources confirming they were informed at least a week ago (not much time). So if Trump wasn't told that still seems like a monumental failure on the part of the people his administration.

[zorkuus]

https://twitter.com/jakesherman/stat...607370241?s=21

Apparently there is a meeting at the WH about this. For republicans only.
They’ve got to get their lies in order of course.

Whatever their BS story will be, it will only convince the already converted.
I could come up with better facesaving campaigns for these idiots and I don't even agree with them.

[Thekri]

Whatever their BS story will be, it will only convince the already converted.
I could come up with better facesaving campaigns for these idiots and I don't even agree with them.

Well the last GOP President rather famously said some stuff about "Terrorists and those who harbor them", but it is a bit hard to take the moral high ground after you invite the Taliban to Camp David. Seriously, how do you criticize Russia with a straight face after you have been kissing the Taliban's ass for three years? Trump has given them far more than bounty money for killing American Soldiers. He has given them political and international legitimacy. He spoken to them as President and invited them to this country. He has undermined the Afghan government and given them a path to power.

Russia promised them money, Trump actually gave them everything they ever wanted, even while they killed Americans. The GOP were "Very concerned" when Trump did all those things and then fell in line. They were "Very concerned" when we abandoned the Kurds to slaughter (That is still ongoing by the way, even if it out of the headlines) then they fell in line. Russia attacked our Soldiers in Syria more directly than this, and Trump still lobbied to remove their sanctions and reinstate them in the G5. He has worked to undermine our military in Eastern Europe, he corrupted and humiliated Ukraine, he has gutted Kosovo.

The GOP are fine with being Putin's bitch. There is no story that will shake them. This is normal, they don't need to explain anything. Putin kills Americans, and Trump insults the widows. System working as intended.

[Edge-]

Well the last GOP President rather famously said some stuff about "Terrorists and those who harbor them", but it is a bit hard to take the moral high ground after you invite the Taliban to Camp David.

This is one of the many, many things I am going to enjoy reminding Republicans about down the road.

[Breccia]

So if Trump wasn't told that still seems like a monumental failure on the part of the people his administration.

Or, and I find this increasingly likely, Trump was told and he's lying.

- - - Updated - - -

McEnemy was asked point-blank how Trump would know the threat wasn't credible if he was never briefed on it.

"Well obviously she said Trump was told about it after the story leaked. I mean, that's the most obvious answer and you yourself mentioned it yesterday."

No, actually, she refused to answer and instead attacked the NYTimes for reporting the story.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/polit...ing/index.html

The intelligence that assessed there was an effort by a Russian military intelligence unit to pay the Taliban to kill US soldiers was included in one of President Donald Trump's daily briefings on intelligence matters sometime in the spring, according to a US official with direct knowledge of the latest information.

That assessment, the source said, was backed up by "several pieces of information" that supported the view that there was an effort by the Russian intelligence unit -- the GRU -- to pay bounties to kill US soldiers, including interrogation of Taliban detainees and electronic eavesdropping. The source said there was some other information that did not corroborate this view but said, nonetheless, '"This was a big deal. When it's about US troops you go after it 100%, with everything you got."

Trump is not known to fully or regularly read the President's Daily Brief, something that is well-known within the White House.

The information was serious enough the National Security Council staff held a meeting during the spring to discuss "possible response options," including sanctions, if the intelligence developed to the point it was deemed ready to take to the President for any possible action, the official said.

Another report confirming that Trump was briefed about this and there was awareness within the administration, but nobody actually did anything about it.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.axios.com/trump-russia-d...a9b7786ee.html

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut claims to have seen the intelligence. I guess it may have been shared with Senate Foreign Relations committee, which he sites on.

[Zaydin]

Well, both the CIA and DNI have put out a statement about Bountygate. They are busy whining about how leaks are awful, mostly, which kind of undercuts Trumps claim that 'intel didn't find this credible'. Also undercuts the right-wingers who were calling this all just another 'Russher hoax'.

After all, a hoax can't be a risk to national security if it gets leaked since it's fake.

[Breccia]

a hoax can't be a risk to national security if it gets leaked since it's fake.

See also: Bolton's book.

- - - Updated - - -

DNI have put out a statement about Bountygate.

Unfortunately, the unauthorized disclosures now jeopardize our ability to find out the full story with respect to these allegations

While I get that leaks about Russia hiring Taliban terrorist assassins to kill American servicemen would make finding Russia hiring Taliban terrorist assassins to kill American servicemen harder, because they'd stop, leaks would have zero effect on whether or not Trump was told.

The DNI needs to go back through the briefings (or other documents) given to Trump and find out whether Trump was told, or not. Failure to do so will be taken as proof Trump was told, and invited Russia to G7 anyhow.

[Zaydin]

There's been another development and it just makes things even worse for Trump: He was reportedly given a written briefing about Russias bounty program in FEBRUARY and still did nothing about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Annd we're off to the races: The AP is reporting that Trump knew about the bounties in early 2019 when John Bolton briefed him on the subject.

If Trump has known about the bounties for over a year and didn't do a thing about it, well... what are the odds of the GOP circling the wagons around him?

[cubby]

There's been another development and it just makes things even worse for Trump: He was reportedly given a written briefing about Russias bounty program in FEBRUARY and still did nothing about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Annd we're off to the races: The AP is reporting that Trump knew about the bounties in early 2019 when John Bolton verbally briefed him on the subject.

If Trump has known about the bounties for over a year and didn't do a thing about it, well... what are the odds of the GOP circling the wagons around him?

That should stir the pot. We'll see if the Grifters of Politics (GOP) finds their backbone [finally] on this issue or if TRE45ON just gets a pass on everything now.

[Breccia]

what are the odds of the GOP circling the wagons around him?

They're going to just wring their hands until we have actual public proof Trump knew. Now that these reports are coming out, they will likely try to hold back any attempt to find the truth -- they can't win without Trump and they can't back a Russian traitor.

[Masark]

what are the odds of the GOP circling the wagons around him?

One will get you one and a quarter farthing.

[Yadryonych]

To think of it, the idea of some third party needing to offer a bounty to local militants for killing invading force is questionable. Does it imply taliban is totally fine with americans there and is only doing Russia a favor by targeting them?

[Breccia]

Does it imply taliban is totally fine with americans there and is only doing Russia a favor by targeting them?

Perish the thought (in a fire, if possible).

The Taliban are terrorists and we've been fighting them for a lot of years. However, funny story, Trump tried to negotiate with them -- giving them big favors and benefits they hadn't earned, because they're terrorists. Russia simply made a practical counter-offer -- cash.

It is in Russia's best interest to expand what Putin thinks is his empire, and where he can't, to expand his sphere of influence. If he can do that with the spare change under his sofa, why wouldn't he?

[Yadryonych]

If he can do that with the spare change under his sofa, why wouldn't he?

Perhaps, but why would taliban do it? US seeks way to withdraw, it's not the best idea to kick a tough guy on his butt when he's just lost interest in beating you and is about to leave

[Elegiac]

Perhaps, but why would taliban do it? US seeks way to withdraw, it's not the best idea to kick a tough guy on his butt when he's just lost interest in beating you and is about to leave

Moving the goalposts from “Putin wouldn’t do this” to “well he would but the Taliban wouldn’t go through with it anyway” already, huh?