It's not so much as Russia doing this, it's more of Trumpette knowing and saying nothing.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
How do you know Trump knew and didn't say anything? If your answer is, "The New York Times said so," you lose.
But even if he did know he didn't say anything about it, so what? He's under no obligation to relay any and all intelligence to the public.
That didn't answer the question. You claim Trump knew, and didn't say anything about it. How do you know that Trump knew?
Did WaPo name any of their sources? Of course not.
I'm not saying Russia didn't pay the Taliban, either in cash or in some other manner. If I had to bet on it, I'd bet they did. It's not like this would be the first time that Russia (or the US, for that matter) has aided some third party in a proxy.
The bigger question is, it appears the President wasn't actually briefed about it. The current and former WH Chief of Staff don't know anything about it, and the current and former DNI don't know anything about it. That's a problem. I realize the NSC is going to confirm everything, detail it out, and formulate response options, before taking something like this to the President, but somebody (namely the White House and/or the National Security Advisor) needs to explain why that didn't happen.
As for Trump's response, of course he has a duty to respond, but he's not obligated to publicly (especially if the public didn't know about it). He may need to respond publicly now, though. But he may have already responded. We don't know. But if he has yet to respond, he's certainly under to obligation to respond according to a timetable set by anyone outside the WH, least of all a timetable set by his critics.
His response could take any of a number of avenues. It could be diplomatic, sanctions, throwing a bigger monkey wrench in the natural gas pipeline to Germany, or he could go full-on John Bolton with it.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Might want to prepare yourself for that eventuality.
Russia bounty intelligence 'may have been' in Trump brief but wasn't deemed 'actionable,' senior Republican says
I suppose it can happen, but there's nothing in the linked article that indicates Catherine Herridge was anything other than accurate in reporting what intelligence officials told her.
One funny snippet from the article, though: "... prompting speculation that Trump may simply have not read his briefing materials."
I don't know why that would prompt speculation, as the President has plainly stated, and others have said the same, that he doesn't read the briefing materials, he gets the most important and critical intelligence in an oral briefing, and leaves the written materials to his National Security staff and others who get the same briefing materials.
Or a nothingburger.
No, the real shame is, we have American citizens who actually believe, without evidence, and in spite of real, actual evidence to the contrary, Russia not only has the capability, but has successfully co-opted the President of the United States to the point of the President committing ongoing treason as an agent of Russia.
Last edited: