Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

You got nothing and you KNOW IT. You are just a piece of dumb, poor, white trash.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:


Wishy the Pig:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Dictators in Russia shutting down opposition to Dictatorship.

I'm sure Kiki and Sig will say something like "They were arrested for their own protection", RIGHT?

What's the harm in a little light slavery? That's what a dictatorship is, right?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49125045

Police in Moscow have detained more than 1,000 people at a rally, in one of the biggest crackdowns in years.

Demonstrators were dragged away from the city hall as security forces used batons against the crowd.

People were protesting against the exclusion of opposition candidates from local polls. The opposition say they were barred for political reasons.

Some of the candidates banned from standing in the 8 September election had been detained earlier.

---

Quote:

---

I'm sure Kiki and Sig will say something like "They were arrested for their own protection", RIGHT?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:


And why do YOU care, WISHY? As far as I know, Russia isn't YOUR country, is it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:







If you are wondering... 90 military personnel have been killed so far this year.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The NYT Trash rag article in question.

(Archived, of course, since I will no longer be clicking on any of these websites directly and giving them any ad revenue to reward them peddling lies).

https://web.archive.org/web/20200629131928/https://www.nytimes.com/202
0/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghanistan-bounties.html

"American intelligence officials..."
"...according to officials briefed on the matter."
"...the officials said."
"...the officials said."
"...the officials said."
"Spokespeople at the National Security Council, the Pentagon, the State Department and the C.I.A. declined to comment."
"The officials familiar with the intelligence..."
"The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity..."
"They said..."
"The officials did not describe..."
"Although officials collected the intelligence earlier in the year..."
"Both American and Afghan officials"
"While officials were said... they have greater uncertainty..."
"Some officials have theorized..."
"Officials have also suggested..."
"The officials briefed on the matter said..."
"Western intelligence officials say..."
"American intelligence officials say..."
"..., American officials say..."
"... but officials briefed on its operations say..."


Yes. That is all in one single article.



So Ted...

Let me ask you this one simple question.

In a parallel world where the NYT shilled constantly for Republicans instead of Democrats, would you have read a story with verbiage such as this about the Obama administration and taken any of it as fact?


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Answer the question.

Coward.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Lol. Whatever.

Sound familiar

---

Quote:

---

Oh, and HYPOCRITE!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Looks like WISHY got duped by fake news, again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


How so?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Looks like WISHY got duped by fake news, again.

---

It looks like the Commie Cocksucker Twins are doing their very best to downplay or repudiate things that are in America's best interest to acknowledge...

What a surprise


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8473209/White-House-aware-Rus
sian-bounties-2019.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Looks like WISHY got duped by fake news, again.

---

It looks like the Commie Cocksucker Twins are doing their very best to downplay or repudiate things that are in America's best interest to acknowledge...

What a surprise


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8473209/White-House-aware-Rus
sian-bounties-2019.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

There doesn't seem to be a 'there' there.

What exactly is the problem?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Is there evidence the 'bounty' claim is true?

---

Shoo comrade...

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


How so?

---

Duh, Demanding he answer your questions when your stupid azz doesn't answer questions ALL THE TIME.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Is there evidence the 'bounty' claim is true?

---

Shoo comrade...

T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

---

Quote:

---

Spy chief Ratcliffe says Trump never briefed on Russia offering Taliban bounties

The nation’s spy chief denied reports that President Trump had been briefed on a U.S. intelligence report claiming that Russian military intelligence was offering bounties to Afghan militants to target U.S. and coalition forces.

“I have confirmed that neither the President nor the Vice President were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday,” Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement released just before midnight on Saturday. “The White House statement addressing this issue earlier today, which denied such a briefing occurred, was accurate. The New York Times reporting, and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate.”

The New York Times reported on Friday that a U.S intelligence assessment concluded that a Russian spy unit paid Taliban-connected militants in Afghanistan to kill U.S. and other coalition troops, even as the Trump administration sought to reach a peace deal involving the Taliban and the Afghan government. The New York Times further reported Trump was briefed about the bounties during an interagency meeting late in March. Officials developed a list of options to respond, but the outlet's sources said the administration has yet to authorize any of the actions.

The Trump administration has denied that Trump was briefed on the alleged plot, although it has neither confirmed nor denied the veracity of the alleged intelligence report itself.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said on Saturday that the United States “receives thousands of intelligence reports a day and they are subject to strict scrutiny” and that “while the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA Director, the National Security Adviser, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence” She added that “this does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter.”

Richard Grenell, the former acting director of National Intelligence, said the New York Times story wasn’t true when Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, tweeted at Grenell daring him to confirm whether he did not tell Trump and Vice President Mike Pence about a Russian military intelligence unit offering financial rewards to Taliban militants to kill U.S. troops or that McEnany was lying.

"I never heard this," Grenell said. "And it’s disgusting how you continue to politicize intelligence. You clearly don’t understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for political gain."

Lieu retorted: “If you are telling the truth, why doesn’t White House deny bounty story instead of saying you didn’t brief @POTUS?”

Grenell replied, “All anonymous sources. And these same reporters gave us the Russian collusion hoax you still hold on to.”

Grenell served as Trump's acting spy chief from Feb. 20 to May 26, overseeing the 17-member U.S. Intelligence Community. He also was U.S. ambassador to Germany and remains the special presidential envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations.

Numerous commentators on Twitter began asking why officials would decide not to tell Trump or Pence about a Russian spy unit paying militants to kill U.S. troops.

Grenell responded to an NBC News reporter asking this "obvious and very serious question."

"You are basing a whole bunch of assumptions on an anonymous source from the NYT," he said. Grenell also dismissed a tweet asking if a bounty on American heads was fine with him. "Disgusting. No one would be fine with this if it were true," he tweeted.

Other outlets — including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and CNN — also reported on the alleged bounties against U.S. and other coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The Taliban denied that it accepted bounties from Russian intelligence in exchange for killing coalition forces, and the Russian Embassy in the United States called the reporting "fake news."

Former Vice President Joe Biden reacted to the reporting by saying Saturday that Trump's “embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin.” The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee claimed that Trump’s “entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale.”

The New York Times claimed that officials briefed on the matter said the bounty operation was pushed by Russian military intelligence’s Main Directorate of the General Staff, known as the GRU, and specifically by its Unit 29155. That GRU unit is also believed to be behind the 2018 Novichok nerve agent poisoning of former Russian military officer and British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the United Kingdom. That unit is additionally believed to be behind a number of other international operations.

Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation named two other GRU units, Unit 26165 and 74455, as being behind Russia’s election interference efforts during the 2016 presidential election, including the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s email systems and the provision of the purloined emails to WikiLeaks for dissemination.

Twenty-four U.S. service members have been killed in combat in Afghanistan since the start of 2019. It remains unclear which of those killings, if any, may be under suspicion of having a financial incentive. The U.S. and the Taliban struck a shaky peace agreement in February.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Is there evidence the 'bounty' claim is true?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
LIKE I SAID: F*** BOLTON, WAPO, NYT, MSNBC, CNN ... and while I'm at it, OBAMA, BRENNAN, CLAPPER, CLINTON, and COMEY.

And you can add BBC, MI6, and a whole host of other deep-state actors.

---

Quote:

---

according to intelligence gleaned from U.S. military interrogations

...Several people familiar with the matter
...people said
...two of the people
...These people ... anonymity
... a senior U.S. official said
...the official said.
...two people said.

---

Quote:

---

But as more details have unfolded, the primary controversy in Washington over the weekend revolved around denials by President Trump and his aides that the president was ever briefed on the intelligence.

Trump on Sunday confirmed statements by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and the White House press secretary that he received no briefing on the subject, and he referred in tweets to “so-called reports?? by “Fake News.??

“Nobody briefed or told me, [Vice President] Pence or Chief of Staff [Mark Meadows] about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an ‘anonymous source’ by the Fake News .?.?. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us Trump said on Twitter

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Is there evidence the 'bounty' claim is true?

---

Yes, but we've seen how you reacted many times before; you will say "No" when told about Russia. But your "No" is worth nothing since you are a Russian Troll.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Is there evidence the 'bounty' claim is true?

---

Yes, but we've seen how you reacted many times before; you will say "No" when told about Russia. But your "No" is worth nothing since you are a Russian Troll.

---

T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Is there evidence the 'bounty' claim is true?

---

Yes, but we've seen how you reacted many times before; you will say "No" when told about Russia. But your "No" is worth nothing since you are a Russian Troll.

Russian bounties to Taliban-linked militants resulted in deaths of U.S. troops, according to intelligence assessments

https://web.archive.org/web/20200630120510/https://www.washingtonpost.
com/national-security/russian-bounties-to-taliban-linked-militants-resulted-in-deaths-of-us-troops-according-to-intelligence-assessments/2020/06/28/74ffaec2-b96a-11ea-80b9-40ece9a701dc_story.html

www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/russian-bounties-to-taliban-l
inked-militants-resulted-in-deaths-of-us-troops-according-to-intelligence-assessments/2020/06/28/74ffaec2-b96a-11ea-80b9-40ece9a701dc_story.html

June 28, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. CDT
Russian bounties offered to Taliban-linked militants to kill coalition forces in Afghanistan are believed to have resulted in the deaths of several U.S. service members, according to intelligence gleaned from U.S. military interrogations of captured militants in recent months.

Several people familiar with the matter said it was unclear exactly how many Americans or coalition troops from other countries may have been killed or targeted under the program. U.S. forces in Afghanistan suffered a total of 10 deaths from hostile gunfire or improvised bombs in 2018, and 16 in 2019. Two have been killed this year. In each of those years, several service members were also killed by what are known as “green on blue” hostile incidents by members of Afghan security forces, which are sometimes believed to have been infiltrated by the Taliban.

The intelligence was passed up from the U.S. Special Operations forces based in Afghanistan and led to a restricted high-level White House meeting in late March, the people said.

The meeting led to broader discussions about possible responses to the Russian action, ranging from diplomatic expressions of disapproval and warnings, to sanctions, according to two of the people. These people and others who discussed the matter spoke on the condition of anonymity because of its sensitivity.

The disturbing intelligence — which the CIA was tasked with reviewing, and later confirmed — generated disagreement about the appropriate path forward, a senior U.S. official said. The administration’s special envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, preferred confronting the Russians directly about the matter, while some National Security Council officials in charge of Russia were more dismissive of taking immediate action, the official said.

It remained unclear where those discussions have led to date. Verifying such intelligence is a process that can take weeks, typically involving the CIA and the National Security Agency, which captures foreign cellphone and radio communications. Final drafting of any policy options in response would be the responsibility of national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Is there evidence the 'bounty' claim is true?

---

Yes, but we've seen how you reacted many times before; you will say "No" when told about Russia. But your "No" is worth nothing since you are a Russian Troll.

---

T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
LIKE I SAID: F*** BOLTON, WAPO, NYT, MSNBC, CNN ... and while I'm at it, OBAMA, BRENNAN, CLAPPER, CLINTON, and COMEY.

And you can add BBC, MI6, and a whole host of other deep-state actors.

---

Signym, the Russian Troll must post to get paid by Putin.

The White House appears to be homing in on a defense of last resort for President Trump when it comes to the Russia bounties controversy: He doesn’t read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/30/2-things-that-seem-
explain-trumps-ignorance-about-russias-bounties/

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Monday claimed Trump hadn’t been briefed on the intelligence that Russia placed bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. But when pressed on whether the intel appeared in Trump’s written President’s Daily Brief, or PDB, she declined to directly respond.

There appears to be a reason for that. The Washington Post and others have confirmed that the information has indeed appeared in the PDB. The Post reports that two sources say “the intelligence was considered significant and credible enough that it was included in the President’s Daily Brief.” The New York Times is also reporting that information appeared in the PDB in late February. The Associated Press reported that it appeared in the PDB as far back as early 2019. And GOP lawmakers who were briefed Monday at the White House also appeared to grant that the info was probably in the PDB. “I believe it may have been,” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) told NBC News.

The first thing to note here is the semantic game the White House appears to be playing. They’re suggesting that the President’s Daily Brief document doesn’t itself constitute a “briefing” — despite having “brief” in its name — but that a briefing must be done orally.

That’s quite the parse. And as longtime Times national security reporter David Sanger notes, it’s not how this works.

David Sanger @SangerNYT
I’ve covered national security over four presidencies. This is the first in which a written intelligence product sent to the President didn’t constitute a “briefing.” https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1277744113870344203

Jim Sciutto @jimsciutto
Several intelligence veterans have advised me to beware administration officials parsing the word “briefed”, as in whether they mean orally briefed or contained in briefing documents. https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1277742879167975430
6:05 AM - Jun 30, 2020

But aside from that, it’s worth distilling the White House’s apparent defense down to its basest form, which is that Trump may have actually been provided the intelligence, but he didn’t actually consume it.

And that makes complete sense, given everything we know about Trump and his approach to both detailed intelligence and — more importantly in this moment — to intel about Russia specifically.

The Post reported in early 2018 that Trump doesn’t read the PDBs:
For much of the past year, President Trump has declined to participate in a practice followed by the past seven of his predecessors: He rarely if ever reads the President’s Daily Brief, a document that lays out the most pressing information collected by U.S. intelligence agencies from hot spots around the world.
Trump has opted to rely on an oral briefing of select intelligence issues in the Oval Office rather than getting the full written document delivered to review separately each day, according to three people familiar with his briefings.

What’s more — and this would seem the most important point given the current imbroglio — even when it comes to oral briefings, aides have been reluctant to even bring up Russia, according to an extensive Post report in late 2017:

Current and former officials said that his daily intelligence update — known as the president’s daily brief, or PDB — is often structured to avoid upsetting him.
Russia-related intelligence that might draw Trump’s ire is in some cases included only in the written assessment and not raised orally, said a former senior intelligence official familiar with the matter. In other cases, Trump’s main briefer — a veteran CIA analyst — adjusts the order of his presentation and text, aiming to soften the impact.
“If you talk about Russia, meddling, interference — that takes the PDB off the rails,” said a second former senior U.S. intelligence official.
...
“If you say ‘Russian interference,’ to him it’s all about him,” said a senior Republican strategist who has discussed the matter with Trump’s confidants. “He judges everything as about him.”

To emphasize the most important sentence there: “Russia-related intelligence that might draw Trump’s ire is in some cases included only in the written assessment and not raised orally.” This was at a time when that Russia-related intelligence generally dealt with its 2016 election interference. But it’s logical to assume this tactic by intelligence briefers may live on today, too, given Trump’s unceasing desire to improve relations with Russia.

The White House’s suggestion is that the intelligence not being raised orally with Trump is a testament to its lack of significance. McEnany said Monday that such information must be “verified” first — despite that not being how the PDB generally works — and claimed that there was “no consensus” on the intel.

The alternate explanation though, given the above reporting, is that perhaps the briefers knew this was something the president simply didn’t want to hear. And that’s extremely plausible, given that this intelligence is reportedly much more significant than the White House lets on. It was significant enough to share with British intelligence, after all, so how can it not be something worth bringing to Trump’s attention? That doesn’t make sense.

We’ll have to see how this all shakes out, but it’s certainly worth entertaining the possibility that Trump’s aversion to detail and to bad news about Russia have conspired to render him hopelessly uninformed about an issue of significant national interest — one involving the lives of U.S. troops, no less. (The intelligence has connected the bounties to actual deaths.)

And even if that doesn’t fully account for what happened here, it’s stunning that the White House’s defense here seems to be that Trump simply didn’t bother to learn about all of this, even though the information was provided to him.

As The Post reported in that late 2017 piece, “by not reading the daily briefing, the president could hamper his ability to respond to crises in the most effective manner, intelligence experts warned.”

Trump’s aversion to this kind of detailed intelligence already reared its ugly head early this year, when Trump downplayed the threat of the novel coronavirus for two months despite the dire warnings contained in his PDBs. Now, it appears to have happened again.

And in case you were wondering, there was once a man who strongly criticized a president for being ignorant of important information and supposedly not reading his intelligence briefings: His name was Donald Trump.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Fact--Obama does not read his intelligence briefings nor does he get briefed in person by the CIA or DOD. Too busy I guess!
3:15 PM - Sep 30, 2014

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I got as far as Russian Troll™ and stopped reading. You know for a fact I'm not one and yet you lie ... and troll ... and lie some more. I can't even think of one single post of yours that hasn't been a lie and a troll.

So all your posts ... I just shitcan.

But keep digging your own grave for your honesty and sanity. I'm not so nice that I don't cheer a bit inside when I watch you spend all that time and energy turning yourself into an ever more odious moral and mental garbage dump.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
What you can't seem to digest is the need for EVIDENCE.

EVIDENCE is paramount. A requirement for EVIDENCE would have kept the US out of a lot of disasters it never should have been in in the first place, from Vietnam to Libya. Maybe you should have learned that lesson back then from Vietnam, instead of becoming a nutcase over 'republicans'. Personally, for me, it's made the difference between swallowing shit like the domino theory, WMD!!! and RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!!RUSSIA!!! and crediting actual, real things like SARS-CoV-2.

So, since you were unable to answer the question the first time (which speaks volumes about your mental acuity, btw), let me ask it again - what EVIDENCE is there that this is even real?

---