-
A few days in politics is a long time as well.
If evidence comes to light that Trump was briefed on Putin paying a “bounty” on US troops that will be the end of him. Even his senate support won’t be able to ignore that.
My guess is that this is incompetence rather than conspiracy. It is well known that he demands stripped down briefings and even then doesn’t take them in. The intelligence community has almost given up on him.
This, however, goes further. This is the commander in chief apparently ignoring the fact that a foreign leader that he promotes is incentivising the killing of US soldiers.
He’ll try and spin this all over the place but there are already cracks showing and top GOP senators are asking for answers. -
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial Wow that sounds like something worth looking into. What is your source?
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial Wow that sounds like something worth looking into. What is your source?
Should have worded that better, keen to know 'the source'. See if it is worth trudging through hyper-partisan media spin to look into.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial Wow that sounds like something worth looking into. What is your source?
Should have worded that better, keen to know 'the source'. See if it is worth trudging through hyper-partisan media spin to look into.
Even some 'Fox-ies' are raising questions on this. They don't want to go down with a sinking ship themselves.
It will certainly be interesting 'how' this gets proved. If it was in a briefing then that is a highly classified document so can't be leaked. Any whistleblower needs to point to the document as evidence.
Assuming that the allegations are correct, Trump is hiding behind controlling any official comment from military and appointed heads of dept. Also knowing that the PDB can't be released.
The story does appear to have some bones to it though. Some pretty reputable people have obviously seen/heard some kind of evidence. Whether it has been interpreted correctly could be the argument.
I have read somewhere (can't find link) that this was part of the usual Russian destabilisation type stuff pulled by the same unit that organised the Skripal attack.Look, Trump may even have 'justifiable ' policy reasons for not acting on this that he knows is unpalatable to the public. But the optics sure aren't good.
Even if Putin's mob were 'fishing' they would have known that this would be a win/win. If he doesn't take the bite he looks bad to the US public, if he does take the bite it keeps the whole Taliban conflict going. -
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
So again its 'anonymous sources'
Will have to be more than that to make people give a damn.
You can't always fob that off.
Watergate was anonymous sources as well.
When dealing with sensitive and highly confidential briefings/documents then of course sources will stay behind the curtains.
What is interesting here is that it looks at the moment like some people have been party to the 'evidence' and are asking the questions. You need to look at the quality of those raising the issue and ask if they would do so without substance. Even GOP Senators are saying 'this needs clearing up'. That is where the pressure will come from. If they realise that this can't be kept under wraps they will disavow Trump as quick as anything to jump on the bandwagon to save their own skins.
The next few days will be interesting, that's for sue.
-
@Crucial Of course not always. Sure 'Watergate' was anonymous sources but that was decades before this current media bs cesspit we currently deal with. Trust in media is at an all time low. Hell even if they managed to get something reputable trust is so low now that most still will probably think its bs.
I agree next few days will be interesting to see if there are any legs on this but at the moment it seems like hot air from the usual suspects.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial Of course not always. Sure 'Watergate' was anonymous sources but that was decades before this current media bs cesspit we currently deal with. Trust in media is at an all time low. Hell even if they managed to get something reputable trust is so low now that most still will probably think its bs.
I agree next few days will be interesting to see if there are any legs on this but at the moment it seems like hot air from the usual suspects.
I think you have brought into the 'fake news' trope too much.
Just as it is quite easy to spot those in the media looking to slant everything to their view it is also easy to spot things that make you sit up and watch for the evidence.
If any of this shit sticks it will spell the end for him.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
I agree he's fucked if its true.
What constitutes evidence he knew?
The Presidential Daily Briefing?
I don't know how these things work.Story seems to be that it was in a PDB.
So if you believe the story then he
- ignored it for policy reason (viable, but he has already scratched this out by denying knowing)
- ignored it because he likes Putin (as above)
- didn't see it because he is incompetent and doesn't listen to/read briefings
- is lying
Interesting part for me is that he has quickly denied knowing but hasn't said that if true (about Russia/Taliban) he will find out why he wasn't told.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
So the PDBs need to be searched ??By who? They are usually classified Top Secret (or higher).
Trump is saying that it wasn't there so unless someone who knows it was swears to it.....
It will take someone to crack for this to be proved unless a copy has been leaked or a GOP Senator pressures the White House.
However Trump has made plenty of enemies so who knows?
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I think you have brought into the 'fake news' trope too much.
Or maybe you haven't got the point yet. That the media just make stuff up. (Or rely on Trump haters who have made stuff up)
This is the world we live in today.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
A few days in politics is a long time as well.
If evidence comes to light that Trump was briefed on Putin paying a “bounty” on US troops that will be the end of him. Even his senate support won’t be able to ignore that.
My guess is that this is incompetence rather than conspiracy. It is well known that he demands stripped down briefings and even then doesn’t take them in. The intelligence community has almost given up on him.
This, however, goes further. This is the commander in chief apparently ignoring the fact that a foreign leader that he promotes is incentivising the killing of US soldiers.
He’ll try and spin this all over the place but there are already cracks showing and top GOP senators are asking for answers.Tone it down a bit and you might be more effective
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
A few days in politics is a long time as well.
If evidence comes to light that Trump was briefed on Putin paying a “bounty” on US troops that will be the end of him. Even his senate support won’t be able to ignore that.
My guess is that this is incompetence rather than conspiracy. It is well known that he demands stripped down briefings and even then doesn’t take them in. The intelligence community has almost given up on him.
This, however, goes further. This is the commander in chief apparently ignoring the fact that a foreign leader that he promotes is incentivising the killing of US soldiers.
He’ll try and spin this all over the place but there are already cracks showing and top GOP senators are asking for answers.Tone it down a bit and you might be more effective
Play the ball not the man please.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
A few days in politics is a long time as well.
If evidence comes to light that Trump was briefed on Putin paying a “bounty” on US troops that will be the end of him. Even his senate support won’t be able to ignore that.
My guess is that this is incompetence rather than conspiracy. It is well known that he demands stripped down briefings and even then doesn’t take them in. The intelligence community has almost given up on him.
This, however, goes further. This is the commander in chief apparently ignoring the fact that a foreign leader that he promotes is incentivising the killing of US soldiers.
He’ll try and spin this all over the place but there are already cracks showing and top GOP senators are asking for answers.Tone it down a bit and you might be more effective
To address your bolded bits.
Incompetence would be if he was provided the information but didn’t read it. Numerous sources back up this as being common, hence “it is well known” and “doesn’t take them in”. He even prides himself on acting from “gut instinct rather than info and has said so himself even in his Art of the Deal.
I also have direct sources that have confirmed this hence the “intelligence community “ comment.
“That he promotes” regarding Putin is obvious. Trump has promoted the cause of Putin rejoining the G7 since this information supposedly came out.No toning down needed.
US Politics