Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KY_EnviroGuy

(14,483 posts)
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 10:52 AM Jul 2020

CIA official chose not to tell Trump of Russia bounty report, top adviser claims

CIA official chose not to tell Trump of Russia bounty report, top adviser claims
* Robert O’Brien condemned for deflecting blame on to briefer

Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian World News
Wed 1 Jul 2020 23.48 BST

Read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/01/cia-official-trump-russia-bounty-robert-o-brien

Excerpts:
The US national security adviser said a CIA official tasked with briefing the president decided not to tell him about reports that Russia paid bounties to the Taliban for killing American soldiers because it was “unverified intelligence”. The claim from Robert O’Brien came as top members of the administration gave differing accounts on the status of intelligence reports on Russian bounty payments, and why Trump had not taken action in response, but had repeatedly pressed to re-admit Russia to the G7 club of nations.

.....O’Brien told Fox News, adding: “She made that call and, you know what, I think she made the right call, so I’m not going to criticize her. And knowing the facts that I know now, I stand behind that call.”

He added: “We now know that the information was included in Trump’s written PDB, which is how the intelligence community regularly flags items that the President needs to know. Nothing in the PDB is discretionary; everything in that short document is in there because – in the estimation of the intelligence community – the president needs to know it to fulfill his charge.”

A former senior US official confirmed to the Guardian that reports of Russian bounties were circulating inside the White House before the summer of 2019, and raised concern, but at that point had not been fully corroborated.
......“He doesn’t like hearing bad news about all kinds of things, unless he’s forced to,” the former senior official said.



KY........
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CIA official chose not to tell Trump of Russia bounty report, top adviser claims (Original Post) KY_EnviroGuy Jul 2020 OP
"A former senior US official" Mike 03 Jul 2020 #1
Bullshit C_U_L8R Jul 2020 #2
Agree. This is all just CYA! ananda Jul 2020 #6
"He doesn't like hearing bad news about all kinds of things, unless he's forced to." sop Jul 2020 #3
Sorry, but I don't believe this. Frustratedlady Jul 2020 #4
Fall gal shanti Jul 2020 #22
Now, that makes sense. Frustratedlady Jul 2020 #26
One Would Think The Proper Course... ProfessorGAC Jul 2020 #27
K&R UTUSN Jul 2020 #5
All of these sycophants covering for him will go down too when... brush Jul 2020 #7
Calling BS on this is being too kind, PRETZEL Jul 2020 #8
I was wondering what took them so long to begin the smear job Ponietz Jul 2020 #11
Not surprising they picked a woman to scapegoat. Nevilledog Jul 2020 #18
Of course shanti Jul 2020 #23
Same reaction here. crickets Jul 2020 #20
we see Trump's response to it: fake news RussBLib Jul 2020 #9
Plain and simple BS ScratchCat Jul 2020 #10
OK, that covers the past. What's the fuckface gonnna do about it NOW? SoonerPride Jul 2020 #12
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2020 #21
Everybody grab a shovel ! kentuck Jul 2020 #13
For people who lie all the time they sure are bad liars Solly Mack Jul 2020 #14
Pull him up before the Congress and put him under oath. kentuck Jul 2020 #15
Kentuck, I don't' read it as them covering for him but rather saying (indirectly) he's inept. KY_EnviroGuy Jul 2020 #19
Have him sit next to Haspel in the hearing. lagomorph777 Jul 2020 #25
I find that hard to believe. Turbineguy Jul 2020 #16
Sure they did-and if you believe that one! Dread Pirate Roberts Jul 2020 #17
So has Haspel admitted to this? lagomorph777 Jul 2020 #24
In the daily briefing book means he should have known chriscan64 Jul 2020 #28

Mike 03

(16,616 posts)
1. "A former senior US official"
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:00 AM
Jul 2020

Is this Bolton?

Associated Press reported that Bolton told colleagues he briefed Trump on the Russian bounties in March 2019.

But then Bolton himself declined to comment.

Bolton needs to pick a side. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

C_U_L8R

(44,889 posts)
2. Bullshit
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:02 AM
Jul 2020

Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

They've been stumbling over themselves for a week trying to find an excuse. Seems they've found a convenient middleman to blame (but they were briefing NATO at the same time?). The bullshit is deep in Trumpland. And still there is no explanation why action isn't being taken while our troops are presently being targeted by Putin. Fuck you Trump.

sop

(9,943 posts)
3. "He doesn't like hearing bad news about all kinds of things, unless he's forced to."
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:04 AM
Jul 2020

25th Amendment time.

Frustratedlady

(16,254 posts)
4. Sorry, but I don't believe this.
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:05 AM
Jul 2020

For one, any official who learned that our military was being targeted by the Taliban and paid by the Russians would surely be angry enough to want this stopped. Not sure if it was true? Dig deeper, but give the POTUS a chance to demand more investigation and do it quickly. I'm sure the CIA wanted revenge, as they are also caught up in dangerous situations and could easily be the target (if known who/where they are working).

Trump wants a way out. Plain and simple. Someone is a fall guy.

ProfessorGAC

(64,413 posts)
27. One Would Think The Proper Course...
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 02:50 PM
Jul 2020

...would be to say "We have a possible matter of great importance, and we'd like the authorization to confirm."
But, decided to say nothing?
Not believing it.

brush

(53,467 posts)
7. All of these sycophants covering for him will go down too when...
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:16 AM
Jul 2020

all their shilling and covering for him comes to light—especially the ones like Kellyanne Conway who have stayed for the entire time and have witnessed and known of his inability to do the job.

PRETZEL

(3,245 posts)
8. Calling BS on this is being too kind,
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:16 AM
Jul 2020

it's beyond just trying to scapegoat someone at the CIA in order to cover their own asses.

I heard this morning that she has had a 30+ year career at the CIA and is extremely well respected.

To use her to cover up for your own incompetence goes beyond the pale.

crickets

(25,896 posts)
20. Same reaction here.
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 01:19 PM
Jul 2020

Seriously, this comment alone is unacceptable:

“He doesn’t like hearing bad news about all kinds of things, unless he’s forced to,”

What this tells us is that trump is absolutely unqualified to handle the job, and everyone around him knows it, and has known for some time. It also tells us that his enablers are grossly unqualified to do their jobs. There is no capable hand at the wheel. We are on our own.

Thanks for letting us know, guys, as if we couldn't tell already. Oh, and doubling down on insulting your intelligence resources is stupid.

Good luck to them after pulling this stunt. They're gonna need it.

RussBLib

(8,983 posts)
9. we see Trump's response to it: fake news
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:17 AM
Jul 2020

He would have likely said the same thing way back when.

Someday we will get to the bottom of why he believes what Putin says over our own intelligence agencies, and I hope it's long before he's dead.

ScratchCat

(1,956 posts)
10. Plain and simple BS
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:18 AM
Jul 2020

Their story keeps changing everyday. Its one of two things:

They either told Trump, like we are hearing...or

They didn't tell Trump because they knew he would tell Putin.

Either way, people need to be demanding he resign NOW!

SoonerPride

(12,286 posts)
12. OK, that covers the past. What's the fuckface gonnna do about it NOW?
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:21 AM
Jul 2020

Throw the CIA under the bus. Fine.

We know Donny Dumbfuck also got this intel in his PDB in written form but doesn't read. So he's still derelict in his job.

And now it is 5 days later since the whole world knows the Russians put bounties and PAID bounties for dead Americans.
And what is fuckface doing to punish Russia?

Nothing.

Because he is a goddamned traitor.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
13. Everybody grab a shovel !
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:21 AM
Jul 2020

They are putting out lies faster than the big, red, bullshit machine can handle it.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
15. Pull him up before the Congress and put him under oath.
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:27 AM
Jul 2020

They have to realize that they are only making matters worse by covering for Donald Trump's ass.

KY_EnviroGuy

(14,483 posts)
19. Kentuck, I don't' read it as them covering for him but rather saying (indirectly) he's inept.
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 01:14 PM
Jul 2020

When I read what the CIA has actually said, this thing has been blown out of proportion and is focusing on the wrong issue.

Consider:
* The US has know for years (reportedly since 2014) that Russia pours money into the Taliban's coffers and probably weapons and ammo as well. That money ain't being used to plant gardens or buy TV sets - it's been used to kill and injure U.S. and coalition troops for many years. Therefore, this bounty program would seem an expansion of the same program.

* The big problem with any intelligence relating to Russia and Afghanistan is that Russia always covers their tracks perfectly with any operation and virtually nothing coming from Afghan sources can be believed. That's why evidence is so difficult to corroborate.

* Bolton said in an interview there had been chatter about unverified intelligence on the bounty thing since last summer but it was too shaky to act on.

* The CIA just made it clear the intelligence on the alleged bounty payments was based on "unverified intelligence” that had not been fully corroborated. Therefore, the agent that briefed tRump decided it was not credible enough to bother the chief idiot with it.

* If "sources" New York Times used for their article that triggered this debacle knew the intelligence was shaky, why didn't NYT report it that way?

Mr. Trump is said to often neglect reading that document, preferring instead to receive an oral briefing summarizing highlights every few days. Even in those face-to-face meetings, he is particularly difficult to brief on national security matters. He often relies instead on conservative media and friends for information, current and former intelligence officials have said.


So, what we obviously have is a president who is known by our intelligence officials (and others) to be incompetent and too inept to be bothered with items of concern (but unverified) because they know he does not pay attention to that sort of item.

The fundamental issue then is that Donald Trump simply does not have the ability to fullfill his duties and not one of him not acting on a particular item. Just as we've said here thousands of times, he's totally focused on self-interest and not that of the nation.

Lord help us, and the GOP does not care.

KY rant done.

Turbineguy

(37,206 posts)
16. I find that hard to believe.
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:28 AM
Jul 2020

I once worked for a company that would not buy parts when I ordered them. But I sent in orders anyway, because that's the job. Just because others in the chain refuse to do their job does not relieve you of doing yours.

Dread Pirate Roberts

(1,896 posts)
17. Sure they did-and if you believe that one!
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 11:42 AM
Jul 2020

Right-the CIA develops intelligence just for the heck of it. They then shake the Magic 8 ball to see if they should share it with the President and his staff.

Oh Magic 8 Ball, did the CIA withhold intelligence from the President?

chriscan64

(1,789 posts)
28. In the daily briefing book means he should have known
Thu Jul 2, 2020, 03:15 PM
Jul 2020

We are getting excuse whack-a-mole with every question. If it's in the book, it's credible enough for him to be briefed about it. The least objectionable scenario is that it was in the PDB, and he didn't read it. To me that doesn't pass for "not briefed". "Consuming intelligence verbally" 2 to 3 times a week when he watches Fox & Pals 5 times a week is in itself cause for removal.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»CIA official chose not to...