Jump to content

Russia rules...


DBP66

Recommended Posts

White House does not plan any immediate response over intelligence reports on Russian bounties targeting U.S. troops

 
Add to list
 
On my list
 
 
 
3EW7IVV344I6VDHVTQNY274EYY.jpg
President Trump delivers a speech following a tour in Marinette, Wis., on June 25. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)
 
July 1

The White House is not planning an immediate response to intelligence reports of Russian bounties given to Taliban-linked militants to kill U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan because President Trump does not believe the reports are true or “actionable,” according to two senior administration officials.

Trump is not convinced he should do anything about the bounty issue, which he decried in a Wednesday morning tweet as “just another made up by Fake News tale that is told only to damage me and the Republican Party.” One administration official said there is an internal White House dispute about how much information to declassify to support the president’s skepticism of the intelligence.

Some of Trump’s own senior intelligence officials viewed the information as credible enough to warn the Pentagon and allies so they could ensure they had measures in place to protect their forces in Afghanistan, and to begin developing options for responding to the Russian operation, national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien said Wednesday.

 

So he's going with the "fake news" excuse??….

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suspicions of Russian Bounties Were Bolstered by Data on Financial Transfers

Analysts have used other evidence to conclude that the transfers were most likely part of an effort to offer payments to Taliban-linked militants to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan.

 
Taliban prisoners were released near Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan in May after a peace deal between the Taliban and the United States.
Taliban prisoners were released near Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan in May after a peace deal between the Taliban and the United States.Credit...Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times
  • Published June 30, 2020 Updated July 1, 2020

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 familiar with the intelligence.

Though the United States has accused Russia of providing general support to the Taliban before, analysts concluded from other intelligence that the transfers were most likely part of a bounty program that detainees described during interrogations.

Investigators also identified by name numerous Afghans in a network linked to the suspected Russian operation, the officials said — including, two of them added, a man believed to have served as an intermediary for distributing some of the funds and who is now thought to be in Russia.

The intercepts bolstered the findings gleaned from the interrogations, helping reduce an earlier disagreement among intelligence analysts and agencies over the reliability of the detainees. The disclosures further undercut White House officials’ claim that the intelligence was too uncertain to brief President Trump. In fact, the information was provided to him in his daily written brief in late February, two officials have said.

Afghan officials this week described a sequence of events that dovetailed with the account of the intelligence. They said that several businessmen who transfer money through the informal “hawala” system were arrested in Afghanistan over the past six months and were suspected of being part of a ring of middlemen who operated between the Russian intelligence agency, known as the G.R.U., and Taliban-linked militants. The businessmen were arrested in what the officials described as sweeping raids in the north of Afghanistan as well as in Kabul.

A half-million dollars was seized from the home of one of the men, added a provincial official. The New York Times had previously reported that the recovery of an unusually large amount of cash in a raid was an early piece in the puzzle that investigators put together.

The three American officials who described and confirmed details about the basis for the intelligence assessment spoke on the condition of anonymity amid swelling turmoil over the Trump administration’s failure to authorize any response to Russia’s suspected proxy targeting of American troops and playing down of the issue after it came to light four days ago.

White House and National Security Council officials declined to comment, as did the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe. They pointed to statements late Monday from Mr. Ratcliffe; the national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien; and the Pentagon’s top spokesman, Jonathan Hoffman. All of them said that recent news reports about Afghanistan remained unsubstantiated.

The White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, berated The Times on Tuesday after this article was published, saying that reports based on “selective leaking” disrupt intelligence gathering. She did not address or deny the facts about the intelligence assessment, saying she would not disclose classified information.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DBP66 said:

you know who's in charge right??…..O.o

Well in whats sense. Theres this wonderful checks and balances. So really we have 3 branches that are in charge 

A president in this country is a political figurehead. Congress does most of the hard lifting 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HSFBfan said:

Well in whats sense. Theres this wonderful checks and balances. So really we have 3 branches that are in charge 

A president in this country is a political figurehead. Congress does most of the hard lifting 

COMMANER AND CHIEF....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

COMMANER AND CHIEF....

its COMMANDER. and do you know what that means? It goes back to Jefferson when he wanted the government to only be involved in military affairs. 

But in today's world he can't even declare war but u know that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HSFBfan said:

its COMMANDER. and do you know what that means? It goes back to Jefferson when he wanted the government to only be involved in military affairs. 

But in today's world he can't even declare war but u know that right?

it's means he's in charge...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

its COMMANDER. and do you know what that means? It goes back to Jefferson when he wanted the government to only be involved in military affairs. 

But in today's world he can't even declare war but u know that right?

he sets the agenda and makes life and death decisions....did he ask Congress before he dropped bombs in Afghanistan??...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DBP66 said:

it's means he's in charge...

So obv u had no idea what I brought up.

Good to know. Someone who is in charge has unlimited power and nobody questions him

In this country that doesn't exist. We have a president who has his powers limited and in check daily. 

Putin has power. Xi has power. 

We have a figurehead. Courts and congress make sure a president doesn't go to far. Well thats how its supposed to be. We all know for the past decades judges are political. Congress plays political games and we the constituents get fucked daily. 

Just depends on who believe is fucking you less. 

But for u I suggest u read thomas Jefferson and thr tripoli pirates. You can learn about our great marines as well 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DBP66 said:

he sets the agenda and makes life and death decisions....did he ask Congress before he dropped bombs in Afghanistan??...

did bush?? Nope. and under the doctrine set by bush under the terrorist act which did side step congress he didn't have too but again you knew that right?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

did bush?? Nope. and under the doctrine set by bush under the terrorist act which did side step congress he didn't have too but again you knew that right?? 

so he can do things without Congress's  approval??….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...