Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.

[Cow Poke]

Tulsi Gabbard sits on the House Armed Services Committee - and on the House Intelligence Subcommittee (along with several other Democrats). They get briefed on everything Trump gets briefed on.

Are you saying these Democrats swept this under the rug too?

Isn't Tulsi the Russian agent?

[Ronson]

Isn't Tulsi the Russian agent?

Oh, that's right. Hillary "civilian-power-tripping-president-wannabe" Clinton has accused Gabbard (17-year service member) as being a Russian asset. Gabbard, whose top priority is the safety of American troops. I forgot about that slimey witch's accusations.

Well, there are plenty more Democrats to choose from that also sit on those committees. OB can take his pick.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...894#post755894

[DivineOb]

Tulsi Gabbard sits on the House Armed Services Committee - and on the House Intelligence Subcommittee (along with several other Democrats). They get briefed on everything Trump gets briefed on.

Are you saying these Democrats swept this under the rug too?

So clear up what exactly is your claim here.

Is it your claim that there is no intelligence that indicates Russia offered bounties to kill Americans?

[Ronson]

So clear up what exactly is your claim here.

Is it your claim that there is no intelligence that indicates Russia offered bounties to kill Americans?

My claim is that the NYT story is either partly or completely bogus. And every other publication running the story is basing its information on the same questionable source(s).

If US intelligence exists that Russians (who exactly being unknown) offered bounties, then all of these people were briefed on it at around the same time. Since Trump is denying he or Pence were briefed and none of the Armed Services Committees have acknowledged any such information, then I suspect it is entirely bogus.

But if there is any truth to it, then all of these people knew about it and kept quiet for some reason - possibly because Russia dealt with the guilty parties already. But NYT on its aggressive quest to blame Trump for a rainy day decided to make this a hit job and didn't consider all of the other possibilities first.

[DivineOb]

My claim is that the NYT story is either partly or completely bogus. And every other publication running the story is basing its information on the same questionable source(s).

If US intelligence exists that Russians (who exactly being unknown) offered bounties, then all of these people were briefed on it at around the same time. Since Trump is denying he or Pence were briefed and none of the Armed Services Committees have acknowledged any such information, then I suspect it is entirely bogus.

But if there is any truth to it, then all of these people knew about it and kept quiet for some reason - possibly because Russia dealt with the guilty parties already. But NYT on its aggressive quest to blame Trump for a rainy day decided to make this a hit job and didn't consider all of the other possibilities first.

Got it. I will quote the Ronson standard from now on whenever I feel like denying something happened with the impregnable "I prefer it to be false."

Anyway, this one isn't going away and Trump isn't acting like someone who thinks he can clear his name. It's been another 24 hours and still no statement from him. Well, there was a tweet which incorrectly identified who would have been his CoS at the time so it's just more dementia-bait.

[shunyadragon]

"...The New York Times reported Friday."

The NYT referencing unnamed sources isn't terribly impressive. It may be true, or partially true, or complete baloney. It's usually in the "partially" true category.

Until a legitimate source puts some verification on this, I won't get too nervous about it.

Notice the White House did not deny the factual nature of the report.

[JimL]

My claim is that the NYT story is either partly or completely bogus. And every other publication running the story is basing its information on the same questionable source(s).

If US intelligence exists that Russians (who exactly being unknown) offered bounties, then all of these people were briefed on it at around the same time. Since Trump is denying he or Pence were briefed and none of the Armed Services Committees have acknowledged any such information, then I suspect it is entirely bogus.

But if there is any truth to it, then all of these people knew about it and kept quiet for some reason - possibly because Russia dealt with the guilty parties already. But NYT on its aggressive quest to blame Trump for a rainy day decided to make this a hit job and didn't consider all of the other possibilities first.

No one as of yet has denied the truth of the story, the president denies having been briefed, the head of National Intel. a know nothing Trump loyalist denies Trump was briefed, but no one has denied the truth of the intelligence itself as reported by the NY Times as of yet. For another thing, Trump gets Intel briefing reports every day, but reportedly does not always read them which is one way to deny having been briefed. We shall see, but that no one is denying the intel itself is interesting.

[Ronson]

Got it. I will quote the Ronson standard from now on whenever I feel like denying something happened with the impregnable "I prefer it to be false."

Anyway, this one isn't going away and Trump isn't acting like someone who thinks he can clear his name. It's been another 24 hours and still no statement from him. Well, there was a tweet which incorrectly identified who would have been his CoS at the time so it's just more dementia-bait.

I never said that. I said the NYT story is either partially or completely bogus. It doesn't make any sense the way it is reported. AND, the New York Times is also the same publication that on ...

Oct. 1, 2016: Reported Trump had not paid income taxes for 18 years. Later, tax return pages leaked to MSNBC ultimately showed that Trump actually paid a higher rate than Democrats Bernie Sanders and President Obama.
Feb. 14, 2017: Reported about supposed contacts between Trump campaign staff and "senior Russian intelligence officials. James Comey later testified "In the main, [the article] was not true."
May 10, 2017: Reported the same leaked information: that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey shortly after Comey requested additional resources to investigate Russian interference in the election. This turned out to be false.
July 6, 2017: Reported, as if fact, the Hillary Clinton claim that a total of 17 American intelligence agencies concluded that Russia orchestrated election year attacks to help get Trump elected. Only four agencies, not 17, had actually officially done so.
Sept. 7, 2017: Reported Democrat leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi called President Trump about an immigration issue. It turned out that Trump actually made the call to Pelosi.
(etc. etc)

The NYT is garbage, about on par with CNN.

[DivineOb]

I never said that. I said the NYT story is either partially or completely bogus. It doesn't make any sense the way it is reported. AND, the New York Times is also the same publication that on ...

Oct. 1, 2016: Reported Trump had not paid income taxes for 18 years. Later, tax return pages leaked to MSNBC ultimately showed that Trump actually paid a higher rate than Democrats Bernie Sanders and President Obama.

The article I believe you're talking about is this one.

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

Swing and a miss.

Feb. 14, 2017: Reported about supposed contacts between Trump campaign staff and "senior Russian intelligence officials. James Comey later testified "In the main, [the article] was not true."

As this article lays out the original reporting was substantionally, if not completely, accurate.

Since that article was published, there have been revelations in The Times and other news outlets reporting that Mr. Trump’s advisers were in contact with Russian intelligence.

Last year, for example, the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor the communications of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. Law enforcement officials believed the Russian government was trying to recruit Mr. Page as a foreign agent.

A former senior American intelligence official said that Mr. Page met with at least one suspected intelligence officer during two trips he took to Russia last year, although it is unclear whether Mr. Page knew about the identity or the motivations of the Russian.

Mr. Page has repeatedly declined to say whom he met and spoke with during one of the trips, to Moscow last summer. He has described them only as “mostly scholars.”

During the transition, Jared Kushner, a senior aide, met privately with the head of a Russian bank with deep ties to Russian intelligence, seeking a direct line of communication to the Kremlin. The banker, Sergey N. Gorkov, is a graduate of Russia’s spy school.

Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime Trump adviser, exchanged Twitter messages last year with Guccifer 2.0, an online persona that authorities say was a front for Russian intelligence officials.

Swing and a miss.

May 10, 2017: Reported the same leaked information: that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey shortly after Comey requested additional resources to investigate Russian interference in the election. This turned out to be false.

I couldn't find this article.

July 6, 2017: Reported, as if fact, the Hillary Clinton claim that a total of 17 American intelligence agencies concluded that Russia orchestrated election year attacks to help get Trump elected. Only four agencies, not 17, had actually officially done so.

I could an article making that claim. Perhaps you're referring to this one? It states

President Trump said on Thursday that only “three or four” of the United States’ 17 intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election — a statement that while technically accurate, is misleading and suggests widespread dissent among American intelligence agencies when none has emerged.

Swing and a miss (maybe, unless you can find the article where they stated her statement *was true* and was more than just reporting what she said).

Sept. 7, 2017: Reported Democrat leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi called President Trump about an immigration issue. It turned out that Trump actually made the call to Pelosi.

I found this article which states

By the time President Trump woke up on Thursday morning, he was feeling upbeat. And as he watched television news reports about his fiscal agreement with Democrats, he felt like telling someone.

He picked up the phone and called the two Democratic congressional leaders, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California. “The press has been incredible,” he gushed to Ms. Pelosi, according to someone briefed on their call. He was equally effusive with Mr. Schumer, boasting that even Fox News was positive.

Swing and a miss.

You obviously copied and pasted this list from somewhere without making even the slightest effort to vet it. Par for the course for a committed Christian I'm sure. Hows your wife, BTW?

The NYT is garbage, about on par with CNN.

Except this story has been re-confirmed by additional outlets including those which would absolutely not do so unless the info were solid since they're owned by Murdoch. And you've shown yourself to be totally disinterested with what is actually true about the world. My spidey sense is starting to tingle about you.

[Ronson]

The article I believe you're talking about is this one.

Swing and a miss.

As this article lays out the original reporting was substantially, if not completely, accurate.

Swing and a miss.

I couldn't find this article.

I could an article making that claim. Perhaps you're referring to this one? It states

Swing and a miss (maybe, unless you can find the article where they stated her statement *was true* and was more than just reporting what she said).

I found this article which states

Swing and a miss.

You obviously copied and pasted this list from somewhere without making even the slightest effort to vet it.

Of course I coped and pasted. I don't have time to research this stuff on my own. But I trust the source* . She has been accurate in the past. Since New York Times is behind a paywall for me to verify your links ...
* https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/06/...finitive-list/

Par for the course for a committed Christian I'm sure. Hows your wife, BTW?

My wife? What's that supposed to mean?

Except this story has been re-confirmed by additional outlets including those which would absolutely not do so unless the info were solid since they're owned by Murdoch. And you've shown yourself to be totally disinterested with what is actually true about the world. My spidey sense is starting to tingle about you.

I stand by my original position: The NYT article is partially or completely bogus.

Time will tell.

ETA: Speaking of spidey sense, why have you twice ignored addressing the list of Armed Services Committees?

[DivineOb]

Of course I coped and pasted. I don't have time to research this stuff on my own. But I trust the source* . She has been accurate in the past. Since New York Times is behind a paywall for me to verify your links ...
* https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/06/...finitive-list/

Sounds like you're really going out of your way to follow the truth wherever it leads.

I showed you that her list was total horse[poo]. Man up and admit you're wrong. And stop plagiarizing the "hard work" of other RWNJ grifters. That makes baby Jesus cry.

My wife? What's that supposed to mean?

Oh, you know.

I stand by my original position: The NYT article is partially or completely bogus.

Time will tell.

ETA: Speaking of spidey sense, why have you twice ignored addressing the list of Armed Services Committees?

Because the issue is Trump and his response to this issue. I don't know how widely this information was disseminated nor do I need to explain why any particular person didn't leak this *sooner*.

Congress is getting briefed on this tomorrow. Last chance to hop off Trump's mushroom.

[Cow Poke]

.... Hows your wife, BTW?....

This always looks like it's going lower than any of us want to go.

[Ronson]

This always looks like it's going lower than any of us want to go.

You mean creepy personal attacks?

[Cow Poke]

You mean creepy personal attacks?

Not sure where he's going with that, but I don't like it... from anybody.

[Ronson]

Sounds like you're really going out of your way to follow the truth wherever it leads.

It won't lead to the Times.

I showed you that her list was total horse[poo].

A couple. A couple you couldn't find and a couple you declared victory while acknowledging the articles were "not completely, accurate".

Man up and admit you're wrong. And stop plagiarizing the "hard work" of other RWNJ grifters.

Plagiarizing? Oh please.

Oh, you know.

I am beginning to suspect.

Because the issue is Trump and his response to this issue. I don't know how widely this information was disseminated nor do I need to explain why any particular person didn't leak this *sooner*.

Congress is getting briefed on this tomorrow. Last chance to hop off Trump's mushroom.

The committees were already briefed, assuming any of this is true.