More Intelligence Sources Confirm Trump Not Briefed on Unsubstantiated ‘Russian Bounties’ Allegations
“Because the allegations in recent press articles have not been verified or substantiated by the Intelligence Community, President Trump had not been briefed on the items,” NSA Robert O’Brien said in a statement.
On Friday, the New York Times ran an alleged bombshell report alleging Russia had put bounties on American soldiers and other coalition forces in Afghanistan and that President Trump was briefed about it in March but had done nothing about it.
Democrats like Rep. Ted Lieu (CA) quickly jumped on the anonymously sourced story as “proof” that Trump is more loyal to Russian President Vladimir Putin than U.S. troops. Some Republicans including House Armed Services committee member Liz Cheney (WY) posted tweets asking questions:
If true this is outrageous conduct by Russia. Lack of a response by @realDonaldTrump suggests he may be beholden to Putin. @POTUS is putting US troops’ lives at risk by doing nothing. Having served on active duty, I find this behavior by our Commander in Chief to be unacceptable. https://t.co/RbHpVRpqrT
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) June 26, 2020
If reporting about Russian bounties on US forces is true, the White House must explain:
1. Why weren’t the president or vice president briefed? Was the info in the PDB?
2. Who did know and when?
3. What has been done in response to protect our forces & hold Putin accountable?— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) June 28, 2020
The report was denied by Trump and flatly debunked by DNI John Ratcliffe, who tweeted that he confirmed “neither the President nor the Vice President were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday.” Furthermore, he stated, the paper’s reporting “and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate.”
Richard Grenell, who was the Acting DNI when the alleged briefing supposedly took place, also blasted back at the various reports and ripped Lieu and other Democrats for not understanding “how raw intel gets verified” and for “manipulat[ing]” intelligence “for political gain.”
Because the New York Times doubled down over the weekend and other media outlets like the Associated Press filed reports that supposedly confirmed the alleged briefing, a full-scale feeding frenzy erupted on social media and Capitol Hill. Republicans pledged to get to the bottom of who knew what where and when, and Democrats and the mainstream media continuing to suggest this was just more evidence of Trump’s supposed allegiance to Putin over his own country.
However, more Trump officials are stepping forth on the record to confirm Trump was not briefed on the alleged bounties, including National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien:
— NSC 45 Archived (@WHNSC45) June 30, 2020
Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman also issued a statement, noting that “to date, the DOD has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations found in open-source reports,” which might explain why Trump wasn’t briefed on them:
JUST IN: Statement from the Pentagon on the intelligence that Russian GRU operatives had offered bounties for US troops in Afghanistan:
“To date, DOD has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations found in open-source reports.” pic.twitter.com/Q1rOjtgQXc
— Kristina Wong ?? (@kristina_wong) June 30, 2020
Ratcliffe tweeted Monday night that members of Congress and Trump would be briefed “at the appropriate time” about the alleged bounties and what if any credible information they can obtain on them:
DNI Ratcliffe issues statement on impact of unauthorized disclosures on force protection pic.twitter.com/Pr7PbWk443
— Office of the DNI (@ODNIgov) June 30, 2020
CBS News senior investigative reporter Catherine Herridge tweeted that a “senior intel official” told her the allegations “were not contained in the President’s Daily Brief (PDB)”:
DEVELOPING: A senior intel official tells @CBSNews the GRU/Taliban bounty allegations were not contained in the President's Daily Brief (PDB) which is the highly classified, daily summary of national security issues delivered to the President, key cabinet secretaries + advisers..
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) June 28, 2020
The official confirmed the NSC has been doing “due diligence,” and going back through their files since the story broke Friday, and they have not found the “intelligence assessment” described in media reporting. The official said the review is ongoing, but given current…
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) June 28, 2020
talks with the Taliban, intel about a GRU operation involving the Taliban, targeting US forces would have risen to the level of inclusion in the PDB. @CBSNews
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) June 28, 2020
In later tweets that matched up with other officials have gone on the record as saying, Herridge reported that an “intelligence official with direct knowledge” said the intelligence collected on the alleged bounties “did not go further” than “low levels” of the NSC because it was deemed “uncorroborated” and there was “dissent” within the intelligence community:
DEVELOPING: An intelligence official with direct knowledge tells CBS News there was an intel collection report and "NSA assesses Report does not match well established and verifiiable Taliban and Haqqani practices" + "lack sufficient reporting to corroborate any links."
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) June 29, 2020
The official said the inteligence collection report reached “low levels” NSC but did not go further, not briefed POTUS, or VP because it was deemed “uncorroborated” and “dissent intelligence community.” @CBSNews
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) June 29, 2020
With multiple officials on and of the record saying the intelligence was not substantiated to a level that would require the information to be in a PDB, and with the briefing White House officials gave to members of Congress yesterday, some of the Republicans who initially raised alarm bells appear to be backing down while still expressing concern:
Two GOP lawmakers briefed at the White House today, @RepKinzinger & @RepMcCaul, issue a joint statement saying they were informed of an "ongoing review to determine the accuracy of these reports" & believe this review should "take place before any retaliatory actions are taken." pic.twitter.com/BKCjtJGi1w
— Zachary Cohen (@ZcohenCNN) June 29, 2020
Cheney and ranking House Armed Services committee member Mac Thornberry (R-TX) issued this statement after the briefing:
“After today’s briefing with senior White House officials, we remain concerned about Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces. It has been clear for some time that Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan. We believe it is important to vigorously pursue any information related to Russia or any other country targeting our forces. Congress has no more important obligation than providing for the security of our nation and ensuring our forces have the resources they need. We anticipate further briefings on this issue in the coming days.”
All the bluster about this story has got me wondering if it was planted by a disgruntled former (John Bolton?) or a current official as a way of distracting from something potentially damaging to Democrats and/or former officials that may be getting ready to drop in the coming weeks. Wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This thing smelled funny right from the start and was obviously another attempt to drive a wedge between Trump and his base. Thankfully most of us don’t seem to be buying it, especially now with all the denials and proof being offered that Trump was not briefed on the matter. As to why he wasn’t: if I’m reading things right it seems they don’t bother him with things that so far just seem to be unsubstantiated rumors. If that’s the case I would say that’s a wise policy.
This sounds too much like something Adam Schitt would come up with for me to ever believe he wasn’t behind it all somehow
As a member of the Gang of Eight, he would have seen this classified rumor and could then put his own fictional twist on it, like he did with the Ukraine call
And we already know he leaks more than my little dog hitting 18 different spots in the yard before he’ll finally come in
More about firing up the base and throwing smoke for independents, I think.
No Trump supporters are going to think this latest is anything but dumb.
“The New York Times once again, without evidence, pushes Fake News in an effort to gaslight Americans.” – How NYT article should’ve been published.
It’s the ny times ‘scam of the day’.
It’s not a newspaper anymore: it’s ‘Pravada’.
You’ve got to accept that.
It’s Izvestia (news) on the Hudson, which prints all the fake news that fits its views, especially if Trump it screws.
Those news people are none too bright.
Welders, auto mechanics, sailors are smarter than them.
Occupation IQ
1. Surgeon 234.1
2. Physician 161.1
3. Corporate executive 148.0
4. Psychiatrist 147.7
5. Dentist 140.0
6. Orthodontist 131.2
7. Podiatrist 129.1
8. Judge 127.9
9. Attorney 127.8
10. Petroleum engineer 126.1
11. Pharmacist 126.1
12. Physicist 124.9
13. Commercial airline pilot 124.9
14. Astronomer 124.5
15. Financial planner 122.8
16. Nuclear engineer 121.1
17. Optometrist 120.7
18. Aerospace engineer 120.2
19. Mathematician 119.8
20. Public relations executive 118.1
21. Economist 116.9
22. Actuary 116.9
23. Software engineer 116.9
24. Meteorologist 116.0
25. School principal 116.0
26. Physician assistant 115.6
27. Electrical engineer 115.2
28. Web developer 115.2
29. Construction foreman 114.8
30. Geologist 114.4
31. Veterinarian 114.4
32. Computer systems analyst 112.7
33. Mechanical engineer 112.6
34. Civil engineer 112.2
35. Industrial engineer 111.8
36. Biologist 111.4
37. Physical therapist 111.4
38. Statistician 111.0
39. Architect 111.0
40. Computer programmer 110.1
41. Occupational therapist 109.7
42. Sociologist 109.7
43. Chiropractor 108.9
44. Chemist 108.9
45. Stockbroker 108.6
46. Dental hygienist 108.4
47. Psychologist 108.0
48. Speech pathologist 107.6
49. Registered nurse 107.2
50. Historian 106.8
51. Technical writer 106.8
52. Occupational safety/health inspector 106.7
53. Audiologist 106.7
54. Market research analyst 106.4
55. Advertising account executive 106.3
56. Fashion designer 106.0
57. Philosopher 105.9
58. Accountant 105.5
59. Farmer 105.1
60. Industrial designer 104.7
61. Insurance underwriter 104.7
62. Telephone installer and repairer 104.6
63. Zoologist 104.2
64. Communications equipment mechanic 103.8
65. Loan officer 103.4
66. Purchasing agent 103.4
67. Engineering technician 103.4
68. Medical technologist 103.4
69. Author 103.0
70. Undertaker 103.0
71. Librarian 103.0
72. Surveyor 103.0
73. Railroad conductor 103.0
74. Conservationist 102.9
75. Anthropologist 102.5
76. Vocational counselor 102.5
77. Highway patrol officer 102.5
78. Aircraft mechanic 102.5
79. Respiratory therapist 102.5
80. Dietitian 102.1
81. Mail carrier 102.1
82. Motion picture editor 101.8
83. Sales representative 101.8
84. Publication editor 101.7
85. Archeologist 101.7
86. Physiologist 101.7
87. Stationary engineer 101.7
88. Teacher 101.7
89. Electrical equipment repairer 101.7
90. Newscaster 101.4
91. Tax examiner 100.9
92. Buyer 100.9
93. Police officer 100.9
94. Actor 100.8
95. Stenographer 100.5
96. Museum curator 100.5
97. Electrician 100.0
98. Bricklayer 100.0
99. Parole officer 100.0
100. Paralegal assistant 100.0
101. Tool-and-die maker 100.0
102. Insurance agent 99.7
103. Personnel recruiter 99.6
104. Hotel manager 99.6
105. Plumber 99.6
106. Architectural drafter 99.6
107. Firefighter 99.2
108. Set designer 99.2
109. Artist (fine art) 98.8
110. Industrial machine repairer 98.7
111. Advertising salesperson 98.4
112. Clergy 98.4
113. Sheet metal worker 97.5
114. Heating and refrigeration mechanic 97.5
115. Real estate agent 97.1
116. Photojournalist 97.1
117. Flight attendant 97.1
118. Construction machinery operator 97.1
119. Social worker 97.1
120. Sewage plant operator 97.1
121. Licensed practical nurse 97.0
122. Stevedore 96.6
123. Carpenter 96.6
124. Corrections officer 96.6
125. Choreographer 96.3
126. Automobile body repairer 96.2
127. Plasterer 96.2
128. Office machine repairer 96.2
129. Machinist 96.2
130. Truck driver 96.2
131. Carpet and tile installer 95.8
132. Drywall applicator and finisher 95.8
133. Computer service technician 95.8
134. Nuclear decontamination technician 95.8
135. Glazier 95.4
136. Sailor 95.4
137. Medical laboratory technician 95.4
138. Automobile mechanic 95.0
139. Dental laboratory technician 95.0
140. Welder 94.9
141. Newspaper reporter 94.6
142. Jeweler 94.5
143. Meter reader 94.5
144. Roofer 94.5
145. Bus driver 94.5
146. Appliance repairer 94.5
147. Painter 94.5
148. Agricultural scientist 94.5
149. Ironworker 94.5
150. Machine tool operator 94.5
151. Broadcast technician 94.2
152. Piano tuner 94.1
153. Musical instrument repairer 94.1
154. Compositor/typesetter 94.1
155. Optician 94.1
156. Bookkeeper 94.1
157. Typist 94.1
158. Electrical technician 94.0
159. Garbage collector 93.7
160. Roustabout 93.7
161. Dairy farmer 93.7
162. Lumberjack 93.7
163. Bookbinder 93.3
164. Telephone operator 93.3
165. Medical records technician 93.3
166. Travel agent 93.3
167. Drill-press operator 93.3
168. Photographer 92.9
169. Emergency medical technician 92.8
170. Vending machine repairer 92.8
171. Furniture upholsterer 92.8
172. Forklift operator 92.8
173. Medical secretary 92.8
174. Construction worker 92.4
175. Butcher 92.4
176. Disc jockey 92.1
177. Precision assembler 92.0
178. Shipping and receiving clerk 92.0
179. Automobile assembler 91.6
180. Dressmaker 91.6
181. Photographic process worker 91.2
182. Receptionist 90.7
183. Barber 90.3
184. Guard 90.3
185. Nurse’s aid 90.3
186. Bank teller 90.3
187. Cosmetologist 89.9
188. Teacher’s aide 89.9
189. Shoe maker and repairer 89.9
190. Recreation worker 89.5
191. Janitor 89.5
192. Chauffeur 89.5
193. Taxi driver 89.0
194. Retail salesman 88.6
195. Child care worker 88.2
196. Maid 88.2
197. Bartender 87.8
198. Waiter 87.8
199. Cashier 87.7
200. Dishwasher 87.7
Thank you Urban Meyer and Gene Smith
Comments section of this old article.
But, we all know that Barack Obama gave Iran money that was used to create thousands upon thousands of Shaped Charge IEDs that killed and maimed US Soldiers.
It is quite disturbing that the lies seem to never stop….
We will probably find out it was George Soros who offered the bounties.
One can argue that Soro’s money has caused the killing of more Americans this year alone than the Russians ever will.
The war in Afghanistan has killed over 43,000 civilians since 2001, with total civilian casualties in Afghanistan surpassing 100,000 in 2019. U.S. soldiers have also suffered from a decade of war with over 7,000 dead and over 52,000 wounded. 64 of those deaths occurred on Trump’s watch.
Do they REALLY want to have this conversation?
Last I looked, a couple years ago, some 1600+ died in Afghanistan during the Obama Nightmare
maybe he was just more “flexible”
there’s no mcstain around this…..nope.
This unsubstantiated report has led to countless Dems seizing the opportunity to make the “IF THIS IS TRUE —-Trumps an asswipe” charge. When asked, “What if it’s not true,” they respond, “Well, then Trump still failed.”
Mark–excellent point on American deaths in Afghanistan on President Trump’s watch.
If only Russian bounties was a problem.
We are rotting from within: the money and support to the left from soros/bezos/gates/styr/norman lear/david geffen/bloomberg/Dustin Moskovitz/Donald Sussman/Fred Eychaner/Jim Simons/Seth Klarman/Arthur sulzberger and the like seems to be used to killing more Americans than the Russians ever had, or ever will.
I don’t get it. Is the BLM stuff not working?
If the SLIMES wants to dispute it, make them produce the Classified PDB it came from. IF they cant it’s on them AGAIN.
How many “active” leak investigations are being run? Believe Barr said in the 100s, yet we’ve only seen two prosecutions and both were given light sentences. The Wolfe leaks were, in essence, covered up. The only way this stops is through heavy handed prosecution, which given Barr’s history the cover ups and non-prosecutions will continue.
The same people screaming about the alleged bounty are the same ones who cried when Soleimani was taken out. They obviously think the average American doesn’t have enough intelligence to see through their phony concern.
If the bounties existed, it would have been such a huge issue that had the attention of the top people in Defense, Justice, State, you name it. It would have been put under a microscope before briefing the President with a ton of background and options for addressing the issue, with a recommendation for action.
And I’m supposed to believe that Trump sat back and said, “Don’t do anything,” then everyone went, “okay,” got up and went on with their day. Seriously.
It just beggars the imagination.
Yet these same people don’t seem to have a problem with the US running its own bounty program. They even have a public database where you can search for the most wanted.
https://rewardsforjustice.net/english/
It would be no real surprise if our enemies had a similar program.
I still think the most likely explanation is that the low-level intel officer who caught this rumor and reported it to HQ is convinced of its importance and validity, and therefore assumes that the President must have been briefed on it, because how could he not be? And when the President seemed to have ignored it (because he never heard about it, because the officer’s superiors decided it wasn’t credible enough to pass up the chain) he got angry and went to the reporters, who have no idea how these things work, and told them all about it and they ran with it.
The Vindman effect
More than likely the same holds true of how “anonymous inside information” of most of what goes into the headlines as major “Anti Trump” inside information.
Without evidence, and according to unnamed sources. Sounds like #RussiaHoax all over again.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DonRedman11/status/1277795165231595522
Flashback: Obama went deadly silent when Iran paid the Taliban to kill American soldiers
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39014669/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/report-iran-pays-each-us-soldier-killed-taliban/#.XvwHvy81ihB
Rut Roh.
WaPo Does Damage Control After “Far More Damaging” Biden-Ukraine Tapes Disclosed
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wapo-does-damage-control-after-far-more-damaging-biden-ukraine-tapes-disclosed
Why would an intelligence analyst report an unsubstantiated rumor to the President, unless the analyst was part of a conspiracy to make news out of it.
That reminds me of what Comey did with the Steele Dossier!