Russian Bounty on US Soldiers...and Trump’s known for months...

Allandavid · Jul 3, 2020

“Former national security adviser John Bolton told colleagues that he personally briefed President Donald Trump about intelligence that Russia offered Afghan militants bounties to kill American troops, U.S. officials told the Associated Press.”

John Bolton briefed Trump on Russian bounties early last year: report

Allandavid · Jul 3, 2020

Donald Trump was given a written briefing months ago about intelligence suggesting Russia offered bounties for attacks on US forces in Afghanistan, multiple US media have reported on Monday night. The president said on Sunday he was not told of the allegations because the information was not “credible”.

'Russian bounties' intelligence was in Trump written daily briefing – reports

disciple Clint · Jul 3, 2020

Allandavid said:
“Former national security adviser John Bolton told colleagues that he personally briefed President Donald Trump about intelligence that Russia offered Afghan militants bounties to kill American troops, U.S. officials told the Associated Press.”

John Bolton briefed Trump on Russian bounties early last year: report

Do you have any facts or real evidence??
Boy what a work of journalistic baloney. Some someone, Not Bolton said that Bolton briefed Trump BUT Bolton says, Bolton declined to comment Monday when asked by the AP if he had briefed Trump about the matter in 2019. Someone said, 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, BUT this does not tell us who they are and more importantly they are not saying that Trump knew about it. And these officials who ever they are say that The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. BUT again this does not say that Trump knew anything about it or that it was mentioned in the verbal brief he is given. And then the article says "Trump is not known to fully or regularly read the President's Daily Brief, something that is well-known within the White House," CNN reported. "He is instead orally briefed two or three times a week by his intelligence officials. The White House maintains he was not briefed about this in the oral session." So this whole article is a big nothing burger written by a far left rag. John Bolton briefed Trump on Russian bounties early last year: report

Salon has a far left bias in its daily reviews of domestic politics and provocative cultural topics. The American Journalism Review described Salon's political views as provocative and liberal, while many readers have noticed a uniquely progressive, Northern California style in the website’s content. Accordingly, the AllSides Bias Rating™ for Salon is far left, a rating we have a medium confidence level in. A majority of nearly 3500 AllSides community members agreed with this rating, while 29 of those who disagreed gave Salon an average bias rating of 70. This score falls in the middle of the lean left bias, but it is not enough evidence to change Salon's rating. Salon Media Bias Rating

KCfromNC · Jul 3, 2020

prodromos said:
Matt Perez looks like a reliable source. I mean he mostly does reports on video games.

It is kinda sad when that still leaves him more credible on international political issues than White House representatives. Oh well, what are you gonna do?

KCfromNC · Jul 3, 2020

JustSomeBloke said:
The fact that the opposition attempted to impeach President Trump, rather than simply trying to oust him at the ballot box, speaks volumes about how little faith they have that voters will buy into their policies when November comes.

How does this excuse Donald for trying to work to further Russia's interests even after they offered bounties for killing our military?

TLK Valentine · Jul 3, 2020

disciple Clint said:
Do you have any facts or real evidence??

The testimony of a National Security Advisor that he briefed the president on a matter of national security seems an interesting enough fact.

disciple Clint · Jul 3, 2020

Allandavid said:
Donald Trump was given a written briefing months ago about intelligence suggesting Russia offered bounties for attacks on US forces in Afghanistan, multiple US media have reported on Monday night. The president said on Sunday he was not told of the allegations because the information was not “credible”.

'Russian bounties' intelligence was in Trump written daily briefing – reports

more baloney, no where in this article does it say that Trump knew about this, it clearly says he does not read the daily brief and is give an oral brief. The multiple U.S. media are all repeating the same story that I have already commented on it detail in another post. It is the old game of they all repeat each other and make it look like a fact because you are hearing and reading it from so many sources but it is the same unverified, unproven, unsourced garbage.

disciple Clint · Jul 3, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
The testimony of a National Security Advisor that he briefed the president on a matter of national security seems an interesting enough fact.

it would be if he had said that but he did not say that, read the articles.

Allandavid · Jul 3, 2020

disciple Clint said:
Do you have any facts or real evidence??
Boy what a work of journalistic baloney. Some someone, Not Bolton said that Bolton briefed Trump BUT Bolton says, Bolton declined to comment Monday when asked by the AP if he had briefed Trump about the matter in 2019. Someone said, 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, BUT this does not tell us who they are and more importantly they are not saying that Trump knew about it. And these officials who ever they are say that The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. BUT again this does not say that Trump knew anything about it or that it was mentioned in the verbal brief he is given. And then the article says "Trump is not known to fully or regularly read the President's Daily Brief, something that is well-known within the White House," CNN reported. "He is instead orally briefed two or three times a week by his intelligence officials. The White House maintains he was not briefed about this in the oral session." So this whole article is a big nothing burger written by a far left rag. John Bolton briefed Trump on Russian bounties early last year: report

Salon has a far left bias in its daily reviews of domestic politics and provocative cultural topics. The American Journalism Review described Salon's political views as provocative and liberal, while many readers have noticed a uniquely progressive, Northern California style in the website’s content. Accordingly, the AllSides Bias Rating™ for Salon is far left, a rating we have a medium confidence level in. A majority of nearly 3500 AllSides community members agreed with this rating, while 29 of those who disagreed gave Salon an average bias rating of 70. This score falls in the middle of the lean left bias, but it is not enough evidence to change Salon's rating. Salon Media Bias Rating

Ummm....they were quoting Associated Press......but they’re probably communists...right?

You aren’t interested in sources or in truth....you’re only interested in denying anything that holds your incompetent hero in a critical light...

disciple Clint · Jul 3, 2020

Allandavid said:
Ummm....they were quoting Associated Press......but they’re probably communists...right?

You aren’t interested in sources or in truth....you’re only interested in denying anything that holds your incompetent hero in a critical light...

still waiting on you to provide that evidence, are you working on it?

Allandavid · Jul 3, 2020

disciple Clint said:
still waiting on you to provide that evidence, are you working on it?

You aren’t interested, as I said.

Deny, deflect, ignore...

disciple Clint · Jul 3, 2020

Allandavid said:
You aren’t interested, as I said.

Deny, deflect, ignore...

Oh I am very interested to see how you handle it when you find out that you cannot support your posts with facts, and as a matter of fact I am not the only person that is watching.

Oompa Loompa · Jul 3, 2020

disciple Clint said:
Try to stay on track the question was, did Trump know about this, was he briefed on it. You were going to provide some evidence to support the statement you made last night to OOMPA LOOMPA did you ever provide that evidence, I have not seen it.

I believe the "evidence" is that it makes Trump bad therefore it must be true. But to be fair, there are many times when people did the same to Hillary and Obama. This is why mob rule democracy is dangerous.

whatbogsends · Jul 3, 2020

JustSomeBloke said:
The fact that the opposition attempted to impeach President Trump, rather than simply trying to oust him at the ballot box, speaks volumes about how little faith they have that voters will buy into their policies when November comes. It's the behaviour of totalitarians. They don't trust the electorate to know what is good for them and make the right decision, so everything has to be decided by a politburo.

No, the fact that they tried to impeach him shows that he violated the trust of the office of President. Impeaching a President isn't about election chances, it's about holding the President accountable for his misdeeds. Even several of Trump's allies in the GOP admitted that what he did was wrong, they simply didn't hold him accountable for it.

whatbogsends · Jul 3, 2020

Allandavid said:
Donald Trump was given a written briefing months ago about intelligence suggesting Russia offered bounties for attacks on US forces in Afghanistan, multiple US media have reported on Monday night. The president said on Sunday he was not told of the allegations because the information was not “credible”.

'Russian bounties' intelligence was in Trump written daily briefing – reports

There you have it. A written brief. Obviously, the President doesn't look at written briefs. If it wasn't on Fox News, how was he supposed to see it?

camille70 · Jul 3, 2020

whatbogsends said:
No, the fact that they tried to impeach him shows that he violated the trust of the office of President. Impeaching a President isn't about election chances, it's about holding the President accountable for his misdeeds. Even several of Trump's allies in the GOP admitted that what he did was wrong, they simply didn't hold him accountable for it.

Since he was trying to affect the upcoming election, it made sense to impeach him before the election.

childeye 2 · Jul 3, 2020

disciple Clint said:
Run Forrest run

We can't run from the Truth and remain honest. When it finally came out, even Trump himself had to admit his campaign met with the Russians at Trump Tower. So why not follow Jesus in loving others and not evade the kind posters posts as was asked?

childeye 2 · Jul 3, 2020

JustSomeBloke said:
The fact that the opposition attempted to impeach President Trump, rather than simply trying to oust him at the ballot box, speaks volumes about how little faith they have that voters will buy into their policies when November comes. It's the behaviour of totalitarians. They don't trust the electorate to know what is good for them and make the right decision, so everything has to be decided by a politburo.

Projecting a negative prejudice onto others will only end up in being a hypocrite because it violates love others as yourself. Whereas it's not wicked to project a positive bias and forthrightly consider if there was a legitimate reason to impeach Trump.

cow451 · Jul 3, 2020

disciple Clint said:
Do you believe what the Taliban says are they a reliable source of information or are they an enemy that would find it in their interests to tell this story in an effort to create more fear in our troops and unrest in our political environment. If you were evaluating intelligence how much credibility would you give to self serving statements of your enemy?

Discerning readers consider the preponderance of the evidence. Discerning readers also know that "unnamed" sources are used because of the need to protect the safety of sources.

Discerning readers do recognize a case like this one has ambiguity. In a case like this one, the one thing that is crystal clear is that the Commander-in-Chief appeared rather clueless, which is not a good look. Had the President merely stated that there may have been bounties and that the US has also put bounties on specific enemy combatants. Further, the alarming aspect is not the bounties, but the possible involvement of Russia. Consequently Mr. Putin has been warned in absolutely no uncertain terms to cease and desist any such activities. And, BTW, the invitation to join the G-7 is on hold pending further review.

That, sports fans, is all the President had to say in order to appear... Presidential.

cow451 · Jul 3, 2020

disciple Clint said:
You do realize that the whole Russia witch hunt also had no source verification and almost no facts that proved to be true, when will people learn??

The witch hunt found a few warlocks, but some got away, thanks to the Senate.

Russian Bounty on US Soldiers...and Trump’s known for months...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Against both police brutality and cop killing.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Standing with Ukraine.

Standing with Ukraine.

Similar threads