Putin puts a bounty on US soldiers

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
43,439
Reaction score
2,456
Points
113
Now we're getting down to it. The PDB. A written record.

It's going to be hard for The Fellas to spin this one, if true.

However, I still don't understand what Putin would have to gain by doing this. Makes no sense from a strategic point of view.
Trump can't read. How dare you pick in him? Four more years!
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,412
Reaction score
1,545
Points
113
Now we're getting down to it. The PDB. A written record.

It's going to be hard for The Fellas to spin this one, if true.

However, I still don't understand what Putin would have to gain by doing this. Makes no sense from a strategic point of view.
It makes no sense in any regard. I already told you the likely explanation. Somehow it didn’t fit in your definitive list of 3. Low level reports, contradicted by other intel, not believed to be credible. Could have made it into a briefing anyway? No idea how long the briefings are. Very possible it wasn’t a memorable piece of intel. Keep hope alive.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
20,870
Reaction score
592
Points
113
We haven't even gotten past narrative number one. First, take a breath. Admit you maybe jumped the gun. and then we can move on to narrative number 2. You guys do this weekly. Take a breath,
A guy w/ 44K posts shouldn't tell other posters they jumped the gun and need to take a breath. Maybe you jumped the gun in your automatic defense of trump. Take a breath, deuce.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,020
Reaction score
1,051
Points
113
Normally I would have looked this and not thought too much about it, but the lesson I've learned from this thread is that obviously biased commenters on the record are to be trusted categorically.

 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,412
Reaction score
1,545
Points
113
Normally I would have looked this and not thought too much about it, but the lesson I've learned from this thread is that obviously biased commenters on the record are to be trusted categorically.

How did Chris Murphy see the intel? 10 minutes ago, Democrats were being excluded from the big Republican meeting to plan the cover up?
 

bigticket1

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
28
Points
48
As evidence mounts that the President was briefed about the Russia situation, he is tweeting about conducting a manhunt for two people who threw paint on a statue.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
743
Points
113
constant moral panic and outrage. a little tiring?
No moral outrage from The Fellas, though.

The possibilities:

1) No bounties; the entire thing was a "liberal media hoax".

2) Bounties, yes; but Trump wasn't told.

3) Bounties, yes; Trump was told. He then lied about it.

Which seems most likely, Deuce?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,175
Reaction score
1,284
Points
113
No moral outrage from The Fellas, though.

The possibilities:

1) No bounties; the entire thing was a "liberal media hoax".

2) Bounties, yes; but Trump wasn't told.

3) Bounties, yes; Trump was told. He then lied about it.

Which seems most likely, Deuce?
What about the possibility that the intelligence community was divided on whether the intelligence was accurate, verifiable and did not brief the WH?

The NYT says he was briefed on Feb 27th, yet NSA Robert O’Brien says had not been briefed, exactly like other administration officials had said.

You lefties put faith in any alleged “news” that reflects poorly on Trump b/c it’s what you want to believe. Pelosi and company act like it’s all true and you bite even harder. Meanwhile, those intelligence agencies that you all used to refer to have denied it and said that it had not been verified. As a result of the leaking, the likelihood of getting to the truth about Russia has been irreparably damaged...but you scored another media story against Trump. Yay.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,020
Reaction score
1,051
Points
113
What about the possibility that the intelligence community was divided on whether the intelligence was accurate, verifiable and did not brief the WH?

The NYT says he was briefed on Feb 27th, yet NSA Robert O’Brien says had not been briefed, exactly like other administration officials had said.

You lefties put faith in any alleged “news” that reflects poorly on Trump b/c it’s what you want to believe. Pelosi and company act like it’s all true and you bite even harder. Meanwhile, those intelligence agencies that you all used to refer to have denied it and said that it had not been verified. As a result of the leaking, the likelihood of getting to the truth about Russia has been irreparably damaged...but you scored another media story against Trump. Yay.
Where do you think Sasse and Cornyn rank on the lefty scale? To the right of Marx, but to the left of Trotsky?
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,936
Reaction score
689
Points
113
RememberMurray said:
That's the funniest thing I've read today. If righties only understood the concept of irony, they could have a laugh too.

It goes beautifully with Trump's harping on Obama for playing too much golf!
Trump and his loyal subjects are nothing but gigantic hypocrites. It was funny for a while....but now it's become sad and disturbing.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,412
Reaction score
1,545
Points
113
No moral outrage from The Fellas, though.

The possibilities:

1) No bounties; the entire thing was a "liberal media hoax".

2) Bounties, yes; but Trump wasn't told.

3) Bounties, yes; Trump was told. He then lied about it.

Which seems most likely, Deuce?
4) low level intel of bounties, contradicted by other intel, included in briefing report, Trump didn't read it
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,412
Reaction score
1,545
Points
113
What about the possibility that the intelligence community was divided on whether the intelligence was accurate, verifiable and did not brief the WH?

The NYT says he was briefed on Feb 27th, yet NSA Robert O’Brien says had not been briefed, exactly like other administration officials had said.

You lefties put faith in any alleged “news” that reflects poorly on Trump b/c it’s what you want to believe. Pelosi and company act like it’s all true and you bite even harder. Meanwhile, those intelligence agencies that you all used to refer to have denied it and said that it had not been verified. As a result of the leaking, the likelihood of getting to the truth about Russia has been irreparably damaged...but you scored another media story against Trump. Yay.
It's possible it was included in a briefing report, but that the briefing report doubted its accuracy, so anyone reading would discount.

In any event, here's what I think is almost surely false:
Russia is actually paying bounties for the assassination of US troops
Trump received credible intel that this was actually happening
Trump did nothing about it
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,175
Reaction score
1,284
Points
113
Where do you think Sasse and Cornyn rank on the lefty scale? To the right of Marx, but to the left of Trotsky?
Have they concluded that Trump was briefed but is lying or forgot?

They’re investigating, like all congressional members should be interested in instead of using it as a political hammer.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,598
Reaction score
870
Points
113
Almost NO one did. Yes, you were all YET AGAIN making ridiculous conclusions.
I was on record, the original report did not make sense. CBS news followed up and got a quote from someone directly involved, and this didn't rise above lower level staffers. That would make sense. Maybe something will come of this? But I doubt it. Like all the others, you'll forget about it in a day, and move on to the next outrage.

I didn't find the original story believable. Why is it my responsibility to ask myself why YOU did? I already know the reason. TDS.

No one who testified to Schiff stated that they had or had seen ANY evidence of Russian collusion. Many many high level people like Brennan and Schiff, flat out lied and said they had evidence. The people pushing this hoax and the entire effort to destroy Trump prior to him taking office did incalculable harm to the nation. That's the greater harm, not "Trump dealings with Russia" or parts of the Steele dossier. You all destroyed your credibility over nothing. Nice job.
Your take isn't aging well so far. Again, you need to give this time to evolve. Real journalists will iterate to the truth over time.


In contrast to your jumping the gun on this with firm conclusions based on one tweet, my take currently has far more evidence backing it:
The information is too scattered to know for certain yet. That's why I've hedged my posts on this subject with "if".

More probable than not is that the President was briefed on this through written information, and he never bothered to read it; as this is how he typically appears to operate. If he paid more attention to his own intelligence services and less to RW media kissing his huge backside and stroking his absurd ego, he might actually have a clue.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,598
Reaction score
870
Points
113
Yet the DNI and NSA say he wasn’t. I’m sure we’ll learn the truth.

And what if the briefing was ‘it’s unverified and we’ll let you know if it is or can be’?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's it! It might have been unverified!

OK, great. So do you support one of the President's seeming, fluid positions that well, if it wasn't verified, then I didn't have to worry about it? Or would you support a position where a President who saw disturbing, unverified information was inquisitive enough and cared enough about Americans that he would demand a thorough follow-up?

IF the best, current narrative of the story is correct, then AT BEST, our President either didn't bother to read this disturbing information contained in his intelligence briefing(s), or he didn't care about it. Which of these are acceptable to you?
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,020
Reaction score
1,051
Points
113
Can we just skip to the part of this where doing nothing was the right move geopolitically?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,175
Reaction score
1,284
Points
113
Can we just skip to the part of this where doing nothing was the right move geopolitically?
It’s being reported that it was not a part of his verbal briefing, but may have been a part of a written briefing as unconfirmed and unverified. In addition, it’s being reported that Indiana Rep Jim Banks said that these reports go back to 2014.

You know, shortly after Obama said to Romney that “the 80s called and wanted their foreign policy back”.
 
Last edited:

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,020
Reaction score
1,051
Points
113
It’s being reported that it was not a part of his verbal briefing, but may have been a part of a written briefing as unconfirmed and unverified. In addition, it’s being reported that former Indiana Rep Jim Banks said that these reports go back to 2014.

You know, shortly after Obama said to Romney that “the 80s called and wanted their foreign policy back”.
 
Top Bottom