Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says

a reply to: andy06shake
"Catherine Herridge
@CBS_Herridge
·
Jun 28
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"

Yep
"They" always cover for him.
Lol

Not like the briefings are recorded or anything.
Lol

Now
Are you the type to admit you are wrong?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Not like Trump reads the briefs nether.

Because they're, not brief enough.

If you don't imagine Trump nor his administration got an inkling into Intelligence that suggested Afghan Militants were killing American troops for Russian Bounties i can't fathom why.

a reply to: andy06shake
Ah
So now you are privy to the briefs?
Mkay

a reply to: shooterbrody

Not me, but Trump and his administration should be privy to any pertinent intelligence.

If they're not in that loop im apt to ponder why?

It's not what I'm privy to that important nor in question, but Donald's lack of knowledge on the subject that's so unbelievably suspect bordering on belligerent ignorance if we are honest.

a reply to: andy06shake
He lacked knowledge because it was not in the brief.
This is not difficult.

No worries.

a reply to: shooterbrody

NBC news passed this 2010 article over to the New York Times, who changed a few names and published it again.

www.nbcnews.com...

The American mainstream media continues destroying itself.

a reply to: carewemust
Wow
NYT all the crap that is fit to print.





Lol
Russian official response..."it's a bull#"
Lol

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: shooterbrody

NBC news passed this 2010 article over to the New York Times, who changed a few names and published it again.

www.nbcnews.com...

The American mainstream media continues destroying itself.

😎B-U-S-T-E-D😎

a reply to: shooterbrody

Or lacked the knowledge because he did not read the brief.

Which is pretty difficult for Trump to accomplish given the muppet prefers pictures and graphics to actually sentences and paragraphs.

The Man believes Putin over his own intelligence services.

No worries, aside from America of course, who should be very, very worried indeed.

a reply to: andy06shake

No worries, aside from America of course, who should be very, very worried indeed.

We've been pretty worried - but you know, I think somebody, somewhere just did America and the world a real solid

This story doesn't have to be one bit true to work. Who knows what's really going on - but Trump has consistently destroyed his own credibility. This story is easy to believe from every angle - he didn't read the briefs, he did but didn't act on it - because of Putin?

Putin could have set him up for this, other countries - our own intelligence guys, deep state peeps - administration officials - his own inner circle?

How many people have a motive?

Or, the story is just true and there's no mystery whatsoever. Any way you look at it, Trump is stuck. No shadowland stuff is necessary

Anyhow - I am really surprised this thread isn't exploding here at ATS right now. Then again, not that surprised. Something has changed :-)

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: shooterbrody
NBC news passed this 2010 article over to the New York Times, who changed a few names and published it again.
www.nbcnews.com...
The American mainstream media continues destroying itself.

😎B-U-S-T-E-D😎

So, is this just wishful thinking on your part? Where is your proof that this current issue is a fake rehash of a 10 year old news item? This isn't the mudpit, and it would seem appropriate to show sources. I take note that the White House is making a lot more noise about unauthorised leakage than about denial.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Further study is most definitely required.

It will all come out in the wash as long as they hang it on the line for the people to see.

The guy is either inept and incompetent or simply not part of the loop, in ether case, something is very wrong indeed.

Hmmm...
Chief Pentagon Spokesman Jonathan Hoffman...
" to date, DOD has no cooborating evidence to validate the recent allegations found in open-source reports"

Hmmm...

"Because the allegations in recent press articles have not been verified or substatiated by the intelligence community, President Trump had not been briefed on the items."
NSA Robert O'Brien

a reply to: shooterbrody

Now watch who denounces the DOD after believing a faked-up fable form the NYT about intel agencies 😎

a reply to: xuenchen
Again, I'd be much obliged if you could provide your sources to prove what you are saying here.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: shooterbrody

Now watch who denounces the DOD after believing a faked-up fable form the NYT about intel agencies 😎

Oh you know it.
Wait until the leaker is outed.
Outrage galore.

I’m curious as to what constitutes a valid source?
a reply to: shooterbrody

I can't embed the Youtube link i want for some reason.

Working on it.

"Let's talk about Trump and new developments about Russia"

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: PartyCow
I’m curious as to what constitutes a valid source?
a reply to: shooterbrody

Aren't we all.
Perspective perhaps?
I will take the word of the DOD, and NSA.

IMO none of them like trump to begin with as he campaigned on bringing troops home and making nato pay their fair share, so not a fan of the mic.
I don't think they would go out of their way to cover for him.