Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[johnu]

? I feel sad.

If you compared the Manchurian President's DOJ to 3rd world autocracies, we would look much better B-)

[Winstonm]

Here are two headlines from tonight's edition of the online version of the WaPo:

 

 

White House pushes to put Trump loyalists in Pentagon

 

 

Trump's pick for Manhattan U.S. attorney refuses to say he would recuse from probes of president's associates

The takeaway? Trump wants to make corruption a way of life in America.

[y66]

Something shifted this month. Donald Trump’s hold on history loosened, and may be breaking. In some new way his limitations are being seen and acknowledged, and at a moment when people are worried about the continuance of their country and their own ability to continue within it. He hasn’t been equal to the multiple crises. Good news or bad, he rarely makes any situation better. And everyone kind of knows.

 

On Wednesday a Siena College/New York Times poll found Joe Biden ahead 50% to 36%. It’s a poll four months out, but it’s a respectable one and in line with others. (A week before, a Fox News poll had Mr. Biden leading 50% to 38%. The president denounced it as a fantasy.) This week’s poll had Mr. Biden leading among women by 22 points—a bigger lead than Hillary Clinton enjoyed in 2016. He has moderates by 33 points, independents by 21. On Thursday a separate Times/Siena poll had Mr. Trump losing support in the battleground states that put him over the top in 2016. His “once-commanding advantage among white voters has nearly vanished,” the Times wrote.

 

The latest White House memoir paints the president as ignorant, selfish and unworthy of high office. Two GOP House primary candidates the president supported lost their primaries resoundingly. Internet betting sites that long saw Mr. Trump as the front-runner now favor Mr. Biden. The president’s vaunted Tulsa, Okla., rally was a dud with low turnout. Senior officials continue to depart the administration—another economic adviser this week, the director of legislative affairs and the head of the domestic policy council before him. Why are they fleeing the ship in a crisis, in an election year?

 

Judgments on the president’s pandemic leadership have settled in. It was inadequate and did harm. He experienced Covid-19 not as a once-in-a-lifetime medical threat but merely a threat to his re-election argument, a gangbusters economy. He denied the scope and scale of the crisis, sent economic adviser Larry Kudlow out to say we have it “contained” and don’t forget to buy the dip. Mr. Trump essentially admitted he didn’t want more testing because it would result in more positives.

 

And the virus rages on, having hit blue states first and now tearing through red states in the South and West—Arizona, Florida, the Carolinas, Texas.

 

The protests and riots of June were poorly, embarrassingly handled. They weren’t the worst Washington had ever seen, they were no 1968, but still he wound up in the White House bunker. Then out of the bunker for an epically pointless and manipulative photo-op in front of a boarded-up church whose basement had been burned. Through it all the angry, blustering tweets issued from the White House like panicked bats fleeing flames in the smokestack.

 

It was all weak, unserious and avoidant of the big issues. He wasn’t equal to that moment either.

 

His long-term political malpractice has been his failure—with a rising economy, no unemployment and no hot wars—to build his support beyond roughly 40% of the country. He failed because he obsesses on his base and thinks it has to be fed and greased with the entertainments that alienate everyone else. But his base, which always understood he was a showman, wanted steadiness and seriousness in these crises, because they have a sense of the implications of things.

 

He doesn’t understand his own base. I’ve never seen that in national politics.

 

Some of them, maybe half, are amused by his nonsense decisions and statements—let’s ban all Muslims; let’s end this deadbeat alliance; we have the biggest, best tests. But they are half of 40%, and they would stick with him no matter what. He doesn’t have to entertain them! He had to impress and create a bond with others.

 

The other half of his base is mortified by his antics and shallowness. I hear from them often. They used to say yes, he’s rough and uncouth and unpolished, but only a rough man can defeat the swamp. Now they say I hate him and what he represents but I’ll vote for him because of the courts, etc. How a lot of Trump supporters feel about the president has changed. The real picture at the Tulsa rally was not the empty seats so much as the empty faces—the bored looks, the yawning and phone checking, as if everyone was re-enacting something, hearing some old song and trying to remember how it felt a few years ago, when you heard it the first time.

 

In the end, if the president loses, he’ll turn on them too. They weren’t there for him, they didn’t work hard enough, they’re no good at politics. “After all I did.”

 

That will be something, when that happens.

 

Nobody knows what’s coming. On New Year’s Eve we couldn’t imagine the pandemic, economic contraction and protests. We don’t know what will happen in the next four months, either. I believe in the phenomenon of silent Trump voters, people who don’t tell anyone, including pollsters, that they’re for him because they don’t want to be hassled. But eight, 10 or 14 points worth? No.

 

It’s generally thought that if the summer’s protests and demonstrations become riots again, if they’re marked by more violence and statues crashing to the ground, then Mr. Trump will benefit. This may be true. There will be powerful pushback if things are grim. But I’m not sure he will benefit. A sense that things have gone out of control under your watch does not help incumbents. A sense that he cannot calibrate his actions but will do any crazy thing to bolster his position will not help him. He is a strange man in a strange time, the old rules don’t necessarily apply.

 

It’s possible, but not likely, that a general calming will occur as progressive activists make progress in party primaries and corporate boardrooms, and as their ideological assumptions ascend in public life. They’ve already won and are winning a lot.

 

And it’s always possible Joe Biden will awaken to the moment we’re in, see that a leader isn’t someone who sits back in a sunny, well-appointed suburban room and watches, passively, as dramatic events unfold. He could emerge as a real leader with a series of statements putting forth guiding principles to weather our crises. We have problems with race, problems with the police. What rearrangements should be made? How do we make them nonviolently, democratically? What is the meaning of history? What is a statue? What is socialism? What is the path?

 

He is bowing to the ancient political wisdom that you should never interrupt a man while he’s destroying himself. And he’s afraid of being on the wrong side of rising progressive forces. But thoughtfulness and seriousness would put him squarely with wavering Trump supporters and the honestly undecided, and reassure them that a vote for him is not also a vote for unchecked extremism and mayhem.

 

Silence is short-term shrewd. Rising to the occasion, taking a chance, making a gamble when everything is going your way but the country needs more—that is long-term wise. And wise always beats shrewd in the end.

 

We had wondered if Mr. Trump can lead in a crisis. He cannot. Can Mr. Biden?

[kenberg]

The Peggy Noonan article illuminates where we are. I would not usually expect her to vote Democratic in general or for Biden in particular. But then what? It sounds as if Biden might be getting her vote. Same with the earlier article that reported the thinking of Arlene Myles. Afaik, Ms Myles is not a professional commentator, she was just asked for her thinking and gave it. She was a lifelong Republican, but now she is registered as an independent.

 

I am guessing that neither of these people, or the many like them, favor de-funding the police and they probably don't favor massive forgiveness of student debt. They simply recognize disaster when they see it, and Trump is a disaster. I expect that if we chatted, I would disagree with them on some things, agree on other things, but we could have a productive discussion..

 

It would be really good, or at least I would really like it, if our political life returned to a style of the past: Discussion, some agreement, some disagreement, mutual respect, not crazy. I know life changes, I expect life to change, but there are times I feel as if I am, to borrow a book title, or a biblical passage, a stranger in a strange land.

 

I know we can look at the past through tinted lenses, but I find the present to be seriously weird.

[Winstonm]

https://www.yahoo.co...-122942560.html

 

 

Hannity asked Trump: "If you hear in 131 days from now, at some point in the night or early morning: 'We can now project Donald J. Trump has been re-elected the 45th president of the United States'—let's talk. What's at stake in this election as you compare and contrast, and what is one of your top priority items for a second term?"

 

 

 

 

Deja Vu. As an RN, I have seen this same look of panic in the eyes of many dementia patients when they cannot understand a question but desperately want to hide that fact from public view. It is a startling look that once seen cannot be unseen

[johnu]

https://www.yahoo.co...-122942560.html

 

Hannity asked Trump: "If you hear in 131 days from now, at some point in the night or early morning: 'We can now project Donald J. Trump has been re-elected the 45th president of the United States'—let's talk. What's at stake in this election as you compare and contrast, and what is one of your top priority items for a second term?"

 

Deja Vu. As an RN, I have seen this same look of panic in the eyes of many dementia patients when they cannot understand a question but desperately want to hide that fact from public view. It is a startling look that once seen cannot be unseen

 

Or maybe he realized how bad his answer would sound right before he started talking.

 

The Manchurian President's top priority items for a second term:

 

1. Become the most racist and bigoted President in history

2. Increase graft and corruption of the US government until he becomes the richest person in the world.

3. Put all his enemies in Federal prison

4. Establish a TV network that features himself 24/7

[y66]

Will somebody w access to the Oval Office read the WSJ editorial “The Trump Referendum” to President Trump. We won’t hv more good scotus justices or the best economy in 50 years like we hv had if he doesn’t follow that advice

The Trump Referendum by the WSJ Editorial Board:

 

President Trump may soon need a new nickname for “Sleepy Joe” Biden. How does President-elect sound? On present trend that’s exactly what Mr. Biden will be on Nov. 4, as Mr. Trump heads for what could be an historic repudiation that would take the Republican Senate down with him.

 

Mr. Trump refuses to acknowledge what every poll now says is true: His approval rating has fallen to the 40% or below that is George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter territory. They’re the last two Presidents to be denied a second term. This isn’t 2017 when Mr. Trump reached similar depths after failing to repeal ObamaCare while blaming Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. He regained support with tax reform and a buoyant economy that really was lifting all incomes.

 

***

 

Now the election is four months away, voters know him very well, and Mr. Trump has reverted to his worst form. His record fighting the coronavirus is better than his critics claim after a bad start in late February and March. He mobilized federal resources to help hard-hit states, especially New York.

 

But he wasted his chance to show leadership by turning his daily pandemic pressers into brawls with the bear-baiting press and any politician who didn’t praise him to the skies. Lately he has all but given up even talking about the pandemic when he might offer realism and hope about the road ahead even as the country reopens. His default now is defensive self-congratulation.

 

The country also wants firm but empathetic leadership after the death of George Floyd, but Mr. Trump offers combative tweets that inflame. Not long ago Mr. Trump tweeted that a 75-year old man who was pushed by police in Buffalo might be an antifa activist. He offered no evidence.

 

Americans don’t like racial enmity and they want their President to reduce it. Mr. Trump has preached racial harmony on occasion, but he gives it all back with riffs that misjudge the national moment. His “law and order” message might resonate if disorder and rioting continue through the summer, but only if Mr. Trump is also talking about racial reconciliation and opportunity for all.

 

Mr. Trump has little time to recover. The President’s advisers say that he trailed Hillary Clinton by this much at this point in 2016, that they haven’t had a chance to define Mr. Biden, and that as the election nears voters will understand the binary choice. Perhaps. But in 2016 Mrs. Clinton was as unpopular as Mr. Trump, while Mr. Biden is not.

 

Mr. Biden hasn’t even had to campaign to take a large lead. He rarely leaves his Delaware basement, he dodges most issues, and his only real message is that he’s not Donald Trump. He says he’s a uniter, not a divider. He wants racial peace and moderate police reform. He favors protests but opposes riots and violence.

 

Some Democrats are literally advising Mr. Biden to barely campaign at all. Eliminate the risk of a mental stumble that will raise doubts about his declining capacity that was obvious in the primaries. Let Mr. Trump remind voters each day why they don’t want four more years of tumult and narcissism.

 

Mr. Trump’s base of 35% or so will never leave, but the swing voters who stood by him for three and a half years have fallen away in the last two months. This includes suburban women, independents, and seniors who took a risk on him in 2016 as an outsider who would shake things up. Now millions of Americans are close to deciding that four more years are more risk than they can stand.

 

***

 

As of now Mr. Trump has no second-term agenda, or even a message beyond four more years of himself. His recent events in Tulsa and Arizona were dominated by personal grievances. He resorted to his familiar themes from 2016 like reducing immigration and denouncing the press, but he offered nothing for those who aren’t already persuaded.

 

Mr. Trump’s advisers have an agenda that would speak to opportunity for Americans of all races—school choice for K-12, vocational education as an alternative to college, expanded health-care choice, building on the opportunity zones in tax reform, and more. The one issue on which voters now give him an edge over Mr. Biden is the economy. An agenda to revive the economy after the pandemic, and restore the gains for workers of his first three years, would appeal to millions.

 

Perhaps Mr. Trump lacks the self-awareness and discipline to make this case. He may be so thrown off by his falling polls that he simply can’t do it. If that’s true he should understand that he is headed for a defeat that will reward all of those who schemed against him in 2016. Worse, he will have let down the 63 million Americans who sent him to the White House by losing, of all people, to “Sleepy Joe.”

[y66]

https://www.yahoo.co...-122942560.html

 

Deja Vu. As an RN, I have seen this same look of panic in the eyes of many dementia patients when they cannot understand a question but desperately want to hide that fact from public view. It is a startling look that once seen cannot be unseen

Didn't somebody make a movie about this called Dead Man Talking?

[johnu]

Not everybody thinks the Manchurian President is an awful excuse for a man.

 

Donald Trump Claims A Friend Called Him ‘The Most Perfect Person’

 

During a televised town hall with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday, the president claimed a pal had told him he has to be “the most perfect person” because he was not brought down by the Russia investigation.

 

It's unclear who he is quoting. Was it:

 

1: His imaginary friend Jim

2. His pseudonym John Barron

3. His pseudonym John Miller

4. His pseudonym Carolin Gallego

5. His pseudonym David Dennison

6. His alter ego Individual-1

[y66]

Not everybody thinks the Manchurian President is an awful excuse for a man.

 

Donald Trump Claims A Friend Called Him ‘The Most Perfect Person’

 

 

 

It's unclear who he is quoting. Was it:

 

1: His imaginary friend Jim

2. His pseudonym John Barron

3. His pseudonym John Miller

4. His pseudonym Carolin Gallego

5. His pseudonym David Dennison

6. His alter ego Individual-1

chas_p?

[y66]

From Suzanne Vranica at WSJ:

 

Consumer-goods giant Unilever PLC said it would halt U.S. advertising on Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. for at least the remainder of the year, citing hate speech and divisive content on the platforms, a significant escalation in Madison Avenue’s efforts to force changes by the tech companies.

 

Unilever, whose many household brands include Dove soap, Hellmann’s mayonnaise and Lipton tea, joins a growing list of companies that are boycotting Facebook for varying lengths of time, including Verizon Communications Inc., Patagonia Inc., VF Corp., North Face, Eddie Bauer and Recreational Equipment Inc.

 

“Based on the current polarization and the election that we are having in the U.S., there needs to be much more enforcement in the area of hate speech,” said Luis Di Como, Unilever’s executive vice president of global media, in an interview.

 

“Continuing to advertise on these platforms at this time would not add value to people and society,” the company said. Its Facebook ban also will cover Instagram.

 

The Facebook advertising boycott came after civil-rights groups including the Anti-Defamation League and NAACP called on brands to pull ad spending from Facebook for July. The groups said the social-media giant hadn’t made enough progress enforcing its policies on hate speech and misinformation.

 

Twitter wasn’t a target of the civil-rights group’s boycott call, but it has also come under scrutiny on Madison Avenue.

 

In a statement to The Wall Street Journal, Facebook said it invests billions of dollars every year to keep its platform safe and has banned 250 white-supremacist organizations from Facebook and Instagram. It said artificial intelligence helps it find nearly 90% of hate speech before anyone flagged it. “We know we have more work to do,” the company said, adding that it would continue to work with Global Alliance for Responsible Media—an ad-industry group created to improve the digital ecosystem, and of which Unilever is a founding member—as well as other experts “to develop even more tools, technology and policies to continue this fight.”

 

“We have developed policies and platform capabilities designed to protect and serve the public conversation, and as always, are committed to amplifying voices from underrepresented communities and marginalized groups,” said Sarah Personette, Twitter’s vice president of Global Client Solutions, in a statement. “We are respectful of our partners’ decisions and will continue to work and communicate closely with them during this time.”

 

Facebook has taken some steps in recent years to better police its platforms, adding workers and developing new technology. That has resulted in the removal of hate speech and other objectionable content.

 

“We acknowledge the efforts of our partners, but there is much more to be done, especially in the areas of divisiveness and hate speech during this polarized election period in the U.S.,” Unilever said. “The complexities of the current cultural landscape have placed a renewed responsibility on brands to learn, respond and act to drive a trusted and safe digital ecosystem.”

 

Mr. Di Como said Unilever would like to see a reduction in the level of hate speech on the platforms and wants independent companies to measure and confirm that progress has been made.

 

Unilever, which is one of the biggest ad spenders in the world, said it would shift its U.S. ad dollars that have been earmarked for Facebook and Twitter to other media. Unilever spent $42.3 million on Facebook ads in the U.S. last year, research company Pathmatics Inc. estimates. Unilever declined to comment on its ad spending.

 

The big tech platforms have been under increasing pressure—from politicians, outside groups, and their own users—to crack down harder on misinformation and hate speech. Facebook, in particular, has become a target because of its position that political speech, including comments by President Donald Trump, generally shouldn’t be fact-checked and removed.

 

Tensions have been heightened since the widespread U.S. protests spurred by the killing of George Floyd, and the resulting national dialogue about race and police brutality. But many concerns about the platforms have been festering for years. The Anti-Defamation League, for example, has long pushed Facebook to view Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech.

 

Corporate advertisers, whose ad spending is the financial foundation for tech giants, have applied pressure as well—sometimes quietly, behind the scenes, sometimes in public. The latest boycott represents a substantial escalation, especially with the addition of bigger players like Unilever and Verizon. Verizon said it was pausing its advertising until Facebook can create a solution that makes the company comfortable.

 

Motives for joining such boycotts can be all over the map. Some companies see a chance to get positive attention for taking a stand on a social matter. Others are worried about their brand’s association with controversial content —and, if history is a guide, they may return to advertising when the dust settles. Some see an opportunity to strike a blow at the powerful digital platforms.

 

And for others, ad boycotts are a moral fight that is worth having even if it hurts their business.

 

Facebook's Top Ten

 

Home Depot

Walmart Stores

Microsoft

AT&T

Disney

Starbucks

Procter &Gamble

Wells Fargo

New York Times

Cricket Communications

 

For many companies, pulling ads off Facebook is a difficult proposition, because it is such an efficient marketing vehicle and has so much data on consumers to help target ads. Unilever said it isn’t removing Facebook and Twitter ads in non-U.S. markets because the divisive content is currently more pronounced in the U.S.

 

Unilever has been a leader in demanding that tech giants clean up the digital ad ecosystem. It has pushed them to police advertising fraud and has been outspoken about the lack of transparency in Facebook’s and Google’s metrics that show whether advertising is working.

 

Unilever also has taken stances on social issues: This week, it said it would discontinue the name “Fair & Lovely” for its international skin-lightening cream, acknowledging it reinforces the racist notion that light skin is better. The product will still be sold. The company has also been working to eliminate stereotypical portrayals of women in its advertising.

 

Procter & Gamble Co., another consumer products giant that is highly influential on Madison Avenue, said it is reviewing all platforms on which it advertises for objectionable content. Facebook is included in that review, according to a person familiar with the matter. The company’s marketing chief, Marc Pritchard, on Wednesday vowed that the company wouldn’t advertise “on or near content that we determine is hateful, denigrating or discriminatory.”

[Winstonm]

I, Too

by Langston Hughes

 

I, too, sing America.

I am the darker brother.

They send me to eat in the kitchen

When company comes,

But I laugh,

And eat well,

And grow strong.

Tomorrow,

I'll be at the table

When company comes.

Nobody'll dare

Say to me,

"Eat in the kitchen,"

Then.

Besides,

They'll see how beautiful I am

And be ashamed—

I, too, am America.

[Winstonm]

President Donald Trump was harshly criticized on Friday after a bombshell New York Times report on Russia offering bounties for the killing of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

"American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops — amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there," the newspaper reported," the newspaper reported.

 

 

To be clear, here is what this administration is presently doing:

Although Russia is offering bounties for killing American soldiers, AG Bill Barr is trying to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about the discussions he had with the Russian ambassador promising more favorable sanction treatment to Russia after Russia had attacked our democratic election process and hacked into our election machinery.

[PassedOut]

The Times article: Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says

 

The officials familiar with the intelligence did not explain the White House delay in deciding how to respond to the intelligence about Russia.

 

While some of his closest advisers, like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have counseled more hawkish policies toward Russia, Mr. Trump has adopted an accommodating stance toward Moscow.

No surprise there. He never wants to bite the hand that feeds him.

 

But somebody -- even in the Donald J. Trump administration -- should object to the US president covering up the killing of US soldiers by Trump's Russian base.

[Winstonm]

I've often stated I think libertarian thinking is for the most part adolescent thinking. I cannot imagine a better example of my argument than the current iteration of the Republican party:

 

WASHINGTON — A bitter dispute erupted in a congressional hearing room on Friday, with Republicans refusing to wear face coverings and Democrats insisting that they do so.

 

 

[Winstonm]

The Times article: Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says

 

 

No surprise there. He never wants to bite the hand that feeds him.

 

But somebody -- even in the Donald J. Trump administration -- should object to the US president covering up the killing of US soldiers by Trump's Russian base.

There is more and it's worse:

 

 

 

President Donald Trump has refused to authorize any response after being briefed that Russia was offering bounties for the killing of U.S. troops, according to a bombshell new report in The New York Times.

 

"American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan

 

 

"The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House's National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.

my emphasis

 

 

June 1: Donald Trump has offered to invite Vladimir Putin to an expanded G7 meeting in September, but the invitation has already been adamantly opposed by the UK and Canada.

[johnu]

There is more and it's worse:

Of course, there is even more:

 

Trump confirms plan to cut troops in Germany

US President Donald Trump has confirmed plans to withdraw 9,500 American troops from bases in Germany.

 

It is just a coincidence that that is exactly something that Putin would want. Just masterful negotiations by the Dotard in Chief.

 

Of course we don't have anything to fear from our puppet master Russia. The Grifter in Chief needs those troops in the US to crack down on its own citizens :rolleyes:

[Winstonm]

Of course, there is even more:

 

Trump confirms plan to cut troops in Germany

 

 

It is just a coincidence that that is exactly something that Putin would want. Just masterful negotiations by the Dotard in Chief.

 

Of course we don't have anything to fear from our puppet master Russia. The Grifter in Chief needs those troops in the US to crack down on its own citizens :rolleyes:

 

He needs those 9000 soldiers to dominate the streets of Washington D.C. so he can have his propaganda pictures taken without having to hide out in his bunker.

[Winstonm]

[Zelandakh]

There is more and it's worse:

There is worse still. At the end of March Russia was desperate to find its way out of an oil dispute with Saudi Arabia that had sent its economy into serious deficit. On 30th March, dodgy Donald picked up the phone and called Putin, not to discuss bounties but rather to offer help in brokering a deal and where the two men agreed to "work closely" together. On 13th April then publicly thanked Vladimir Putin and on 26th April the two men issued the joint "Spirit of the Elbe" statement. Into May, the US sent $5.6 million worth of ventilators to Russia despite shortages at home on the 22nd and announced his intention to invite Putin to the G7 summit on the 30th. It is also worth remembering that this period coincided with reports being released where the intelligence agencies confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election, so it is not like there were secondary considerations for rewarding Putin.

 

Finally, in case there is any doubt as to what was on dodgy D's mind at this time, he was tweeting about "Mutiny on the Bounty" on 14th April and the US announced a bounty on Venezuelan President Maduro on 2nd April. Apparently the reaction was to think that bounties were a good idea and to reward Putin for giving it to him. I doubt somehow that the friends and families of the US and UK soldiers that were killed by the Taliban will see it the same way.

[Winstonm]

The worst part is that Trump, as representative of the United States, has not responded at all:

 

 

WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops — amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there, according to officials briefed on the matter.

 

The United States concluded months ago that the Russian unit, which has been linked to assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe intended to destabilize the West or take revenge on turncoats, had covertly offered rewards for successful attacks last year.

 

Islamist militants, or armed criminal elements closely associated with them, are believed to have collected some bounty money, the officials said. Twenty Americans were killed in combat in Afghanistan in 2019, but it was not clear which killings were under suspicion.

 

The intelligence finding was briefed to President Donald Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said. Officials developed a menu of potential options — starting with making a diplomatic complaint to Moscow and a demand that it stop, along with an escalating series of sanctions and other possible responses, but the White House has yet to authorize any step, the officials said.

 

my emphasis

 

 

[johnu]

The worst part is that Trump, as representative of the United States, has not responded at all:

 

 

my emphasis

Sorry to disagree but the Manchurian President has responded. He has repeatedly rewarded Putin and Russia for their actions. If I lived in Alaska I would be worried that the Manchurian President would give part or all of the state back to Russia. If I was in the military, I would be terrified that the Manchurian President would put a Russian General in charge of the Pentagon. With reelection hopes slipping away, the Manchurian President has limited time to perform for his Russian Puppet Masters before he is voted out of office.

[Winstonm]

The White House has now responded: "Nobody told us!"

 

By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times - Saturday, June 27, 2020

The White House said Saturday that President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were not briefed on U.S. intelligence that Russia offered bounties to militants in Afghanistan to kill coalition forces, including U.S. troops.

 

“While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA Director, National Security Advisor, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence,” said White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany in a statement.

 

 

This is about as believable as a child holding a cookie with a broken cookie jar on the floor saying, Not me!

[Winstonm]

TRE45ON

trēzən

noun

the crime of betraying one's country

 

[johnu]

The White House has now responded: "Nobody told us!"

By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times - Saturday, June 27, 2020

 

The White House said Saturday that President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were not briefed on U.S. intelligence that Russia offered bounties to militants in Afghanistan to kill coalition forces, including U.S. troops.

 

“While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA Director, National Security Advisor, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence,” said White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany in a statement.

This is about as believable as a child holding a cookie with a broken cookie jar on the floor saying, Not me!

Of course, now that they have been instructed to do so, nobody who wants to continue working for the Administration is going to say anything different as long as they aren't under oath and subject to perjury prosecutions. You can be sure that nobody who actually knows what happened is going to testify before a House committee before the November election.

 

Nobody will confirm that when a briefing was attempted the Manchurian President put a finger into each ear and ran out of the room while screaming "Nyet, Nyet, Nyet..."