Because he was being taunted with "where's your white hood?"
— praxis

Right and so of all comebacks and possible satire why would you validate a heckler’s claim by saying white power? — Anaxagoras

sar·casm
noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

i·ro·ny
noun
The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

"Where's your white hood?"
"Where's your white hood?"
"Racist! Racist!"

"Yeah, you got it, white power! white power!"

But let’s focus on why some anti-Trump protestors feel this way. — Anaxagoras

I agree that Trumps populism contains an element of racism, by design. I don't think that yelling at his supporters that they're fucking nazi fascist pigs and racists is the best approach to dealing with them. If nothing else, it plays into the hands of whoever benefits from a divided nation.

The Miami Herald is not the only news outlet — Anaxagoras

I've noticed that. I've also noticed that you didn't answer my question, which is fine.

Do notice the media where published.

But we can see the Trumpist response already: it didn't happen, all the various intel was dubious (as if then it would be taken to NSC to think about the response). It's the Deep State against Trump! It's all a sham. A conspiracy. And note that everything about it will be now top secret.

Only afterwards we'll see from the documents that indeed the President was briefed about the issue. As always. Above all, now as it is "a hoax" or "unconfirmed intel", Trump will not do anything. Because "he wasn't informed" lie goes only so far as now he surely is informed.

And hence the reason why Putin would in the first place indeed do such a thing.

At least Trump is getting his version of angry mothers of killed soldiers that Russia has "had a problem with" since the first war in Chechnya: Mothers of military sons killed in Afghanistan want probe of Russian death bounties.

Putin helped Trump and Republicans get elected, the least they can do in return is let Vlad kill a few US troops. I agree with the GOP, no big deal here, just business as usual. Trump 2020 :death: :party:

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2241964/statement-by-assistant-to-the-secretary-of-defense-for-public-affairs-on-intell/

The pentagon has found no corroborating evidence of recent allegations regarding Russian bounties. It’s starting to look like 2016 all over again. — NOS4A2

According to this, "some of Trump’s own senior intelligence officials viewed the information as credible enough to warn the Pentagon and allies so they could ensure they had measures in place to protect their forces in Afghanistan, and to begin developing options for responding to the Russian operation, national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien said Wednesday."

You can watch the interview here.

It might not have been corroborated but that doesn't mean there was no substance to it and so dismissed. Preparations were made in response to the raw intelligence. The concern here is over whether or not Trump was briefed on this. I don't know much about the inner workings of government, but are Presidents only briefed on things after they've been proved? Or are they made aware of potential matters of national security? There are reports saying that it was included in at least two written briefs (although there are also reports that Trump often doesn't read his briefs). There are also reports that he was orally briefed last year. If this is true then Trump needs to explain why he has continued to be so favourable to Russia, even suggesting that they be reinstated to the G7. That doesn't seem at all appropriate, and once again shows that Trump trusts Putin over U.S. intelligence (or worse yet, doesn't care if it's true).

Perhaps the sources were wrong (or lying) when they claimed that Trump was briefed, but evidently they weren't wrong about there being intelligence that Russia was offering these bounties. Clearly there was some degree of verification before the New York Times (and others) ran the story. Of course, being journalists and not government officials with direct access to confidential material, they're not going to know everything. So honestly, what do you want from them? Should the news only report on things that are already public? Or are you going one step further and suggesting that journalists are fiction writers who fabricate stories and lie about them having sources? Does the New York Times have brainstorming sessions where they think of something that sounds plausible and that hurts Trump and then publish it? By some improbable luck, did their made-up story on Russian bounties just happen to be true (even if the part about Trump being briefed wasn't so lucky)?

If I were a journalist and John Bolton contacted me to tell me about this intelligence and that Trump had been briefed, but asked to be kept anonymous, and if he'd shown himself to be a reliable source in the past, and if two or more other government officials had contacted me to say the same thing, then I'd run the story. Wouldn't you? That's how journalism and anonymous sources work. Just look at Deep Throat and the Watergate scandal. There's sense in this even if it isn't perfect or doesn't always pan out.

American decline.

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. — A Real President (1962)

:fire:

Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away ... Don’t forget, we have more cases than anyone in the world, but why? Because we do more testing. When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases ... Maybe it is overrated ... Testing is a double-edged sword. … So I said to my people, slow the testing down please. — A Reality TV President (2020)

:mask:

*dumb blonde mode one*

It's like as if American has less words today, you know?

*mode off*

Duh. :smirk:

Trump to Nation: Drop Dead

Trump to Nation: Drop Dead — Maw

Literally.

I bet a shiny nickel that one of his own will go Lee Harvey Oswald on that ass-gibbon. Let's hope this dead twat tweeting is the last president of the Confederacy and that he takes the fuckin "lost cause" and as many bleach-drinking, maskless, Karen & Kyle "deplorables" as possible with him when he goes away - "miraculously!" - full metal jacket, and all.

Happy Juneteenth, Maw (yeah, my red white & Blues is still stuck on that).

It might not have been corroborated but that doesn't mean there was no substance to it and so dismissed. — Michael

It's interesting what constitutes corroborating evidence to invested parties. US troops have testified to it. Afghan security council members have testified to it. Various Afghan tribes have testified to it. Captured Islamic militants have testified to it. The Taliban themselves have testified to it. We have intercepted large sums of money flowing from GRU to Taliban accounts.

But where's the corroborating evidence? I can only imagine this constitutes Putin saying, in English, "Yeah we totally did that and it was awesome", with Trump slamming him a high five.

I wonder whether Trump apologists would want the police to handle a local drug gang in their suburb the same way. "Sure, we can see those guys giving drugs to those other guys, and those other guys giving money to these guys, and these guys giving money to this guy, and literally every single person involved testifies thatthis is what's happening. But where's the corroborating evidence?"

Even Trump has moved his position from "It's unconfirmed" to "I didn't know." Imagine loving Trump so much you have to make yourself slower-witted than that.

If I were a journalist and John Bolton contacted me to tell me about this intelligence and that Trump had been briefed, but asked to be kept anonymous, and if he'd shown himself to be a reliable source in the past, and if two or more other government officials had contacted me to say the same thing, then I'd run the story. Wouldn't you? That's how journalism and anonymous sources work. Just look at Deep Throat and the Watergate scandal. There's sense in this even if it isn't perfect or doesn't always pan out.

I’d be weary of it for ethical reasons. The public should have as much information as possible in order to judge the reliability and motivations of sources. What if these “officials” are Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff? Wouldn’t you want to know that? Don’t you think the public deserves to know that?

I’d be weary of it for ethical reasons. The public should have as much information as possible in order to judge the reliability and motivations of sources. What if these “officials” are Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff? Wouldn’t you want to know that? Don’t you think the public deserves to know that? — NOS4A2

I think the story, and source protection, is more important. Whether or not Russia is paying bounties and whether or not Trump was briefed matters far more than who leaked the information.

Besides, I'm pretty sure it must have been someone who works for the administration. Who else would know about what has been reported to Trump? And as far as I know the Gang of Eight (including Schiff and Pelosi) were only briefed on Thursday.

So this questioning of the source just seems like deflection from the main issue. We know whoever it was is at least somewhat trustworthy; there really was intelligence on Russia offering bounties – intelligence that was reliable enough that measures were prepared. It's not a stretch to consider that they were correct about Trump knowing about this.

The onus is now on Congress to investigate the matter. They did it over Benghazi (10 times, in fact), so why not this too? That's part of their job after all.

We know whoever it was is at least somewhat trustworthy; there really was intelligence on Russia offering bounties – intelligence that was reliable enough that measures were prepared. It's not a stretch to consider that they were correct about Trump knowing about this. — Michael

Trump already has said the whole thing is a hoax. Fake news, never happened. End of story.

And, btw, both Russia and the Taleban have denied it. So I guess we have to believe what they say. :roll:

Sure, you can have later, decades from now, even interviews with the GRU agents confirming this and confirming everything, but that doesn't matter. Then when you have multiple detailed histories done about the Trump administration (and believe me, there will be a ton of literature), everything will be even more clear as it's now. But who cares, it's just history then!

According to “multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing”, Schiff was briefed in February, but for some reason took no action.

Top committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, were briefed in February on intelligence about Russia offering the Taliban bounties in Afghanistan, but he took no action in response to the briefing, multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing told The Federalist. The intelligence was briefed to Schiff’s staff during a congressional delegation, or CODEL, trip to Afghanistan in February.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/02/schiff-learned-of-russian-bounty-intelligence-in-february-withheld-information-from-congress-and-took-no-action

So perhaps an investigation is indeed in order. I suppose we’ll see.

So you understand the importance of journalists reporting on non-public information and keeping their sources anonymous? They ought not be dismissed just because identities aren't revealed. There's often truth to the stories (maybe more often than not).

According to “multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing”, Schiff was briefed in February, but for some reason took no action.

Top committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, were briefed in February on intelligence about Russia offering the Taliban bounties in Afghanistan, but he took no action in response to the briefing, multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing told The Federalist. The intelligence was briefed to Schiff’s staff during a congressional delegation, or CODEL, trip to Afghanistan in February.


https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/02/schiff-learned-of-russian-bounty-intelligence-in-february-withheld-information-from-congress-and-took-no-action

So perhaps an investigation is indeed in order. I suppose we’ll see. — NOS4A2

Suppose Schiff was derelict. Does this somehow imply Trump was not?

The bounty issue was conveyed to Trump in his written intelligence briefings - which his senior staff also receive. Trump is derelict on an ongoing basis for failing to read these, but even if we set that aside because everyone knows he doesn't read them - why wasn't this verbally raised to his attention by his staff? Trump is responsible for the activities, and inactivities, of his staff. Their incompetence is his problem - he appointed them. Compound this with the fact that Trump's initial reaction was that it was a MSM hoax, which was clearly wrong.

I couldn't care less if Schiff gets investigated. It has zero bearing on Trump's dereliction of duty.

Suppose Schiff was derelict. Does this somehow imply Trump was not? — Relativist

If members of an intelligence committee are briefed with secret material, they cannot talk about it. Yet it's the action that counts. That is what matters.

And Trump acted just as I predicted him to do: he won't do anything. Even it say that there would have been some possible truth to this, would have been too much for Trump. For Trump, this has to be fake news.

And Putin could actually predict this outcome very easily. He's a brilliant case officer.

(Seldom Vlad smiles so happily:)

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN24A268

Not Trump related per se, but Gorsuch has been a very interesting justice so far...

Happy Juneteenth, Maw — 180 Proof

Happy Juneteenth to you too!

Feels like we are on the raft with Aguirre

Feels like we are on the raft with Aguirre — Maw

:fire:

Suppose Schiff was derelict. Does this somehow imply Trump was not?

The bounty issue was conveyed to Trump in his written intelligence briefings - which his senior staff also receive. Trump is derelict on an ongoing basis for failing to read these, but even if we set that aside because everyone knows he doesn't read them - why wasn't this verbally raised to his attention by his staff? Trump is responsible for the activities, and inactivities, of his staff. Their incompetence is his problem - he appointed them. Compound this with the fact that Trump's initial reaction was that it was a MSM hoax, which was clearly wrong.

I couldn't care less if Schiff gets investigated. It has zero bearing on Trump's dereliction of duty.

It wasn’t raised to his attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it.

It wasn’t raised to his attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. — NOS4A2

You know this or you are a liar. Which is it? If you know, evidence. How, by what means, do you know?

It wasn’t raised to his attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it. — NOS4A2

If you truly believe the intel was not credible, why did you blast Schiff?

The publicly available information on this intelligence does not support your view that it wasn't "credible". It was unproved, but that doesn't imply it shouldn't be a cause of of concern. - it was not presented as a questionable, unsupported rumor. It was not a "hoax" as Trump initially alleged, and it WAS in the written briefing material he received. A competent President would have known it was not a hoax - he had the information, but failed to read it.

There's no way to spin this in way that is positive for Trump.

If you truly believe the intel was not credible, why did you blast Schiff?

The publicly available information on this intelligence does not support your view that it wasn't "credible". It was unproved, but that doesn't imply it shouldn't be a cause of of concern. - it was not presented as a questionable, unsupported rumor. It was not a "hoax" as Trump initially alleged, and it WAS in the written briefing material he received. A competent President would have known it was not a hoax - he had the information, but failed to read it.

There's no way to spin this in way that is positive for Trump.

But there is a way to spin it so it is negative for Trump. Hence the leaker, the Democrats, the fake news singing the same songs in unison. They want hearings on unverified information, the leaks of which may have compromised ongoing intel and operations and even lives.

It wasn’t raised to his attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it. — NOS4A2

I'll quote myself from last week as you seem to have forgotten:

According to this, "some of Trump’s own senior intelligence officials viewed the information as credible enough to warn the Pentagon and allies so they could ensure they had measures in place to protect their forces in Afghanistan, and to begin developing options for responding to the Russian operation, national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien said Wednesday."

You can watch the interview here. — Michael

It's more than gossip.

It’s gossip. Robert C. O’Brien also said the reporting was a hoax, and that the information was unverified and not corroborated. This is why you should probably view the context rather than taking on faith what the WaPo tells you to.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?473567-1/national-security-adviser-robert-obrien-president-previously-briefed-russian-bounties

But there is a way to spin it so it is negative for Trump. Hence the leaker, the Democrats, the fake news singing the same songs in unison. They want hearings on unverified information, the leaks of which may have compromised ongoing intel and operations and even lives. — NOS4A2

It IS negative for Trump. It highlights the fact that he doesn't read the written intelligence reports he's given. We knew this previously only because of leaks from his staff, but it had not been admitted by the administration. It also shows he's an idiot for his knee-jerk "fake news" response when he first heard about it. This is absolutely not fake news.

It's interesting that you make the most positive possible assumptions about this. We really don't know how credible the intelligence was, but we do know it was credible enough to include in his briefing. You parrot the administration (talking about singing in unison!) stressing that it's "unverified" - which is the general nature of intelligence.

Why was it leaked? Was it strictly for partisan purposes, or was it because someone had a genuine concern? I acknowledge it could be either, or it could be both. Why can't you?

There is no fact that Trump doesn’t read intelligence reports. It is fake news because the story is, according to the administration, false.

You make the most negative possible assumptions about this, and you also assume the mind-states of the president in the worst possible ways. You parrot the partisan news and the line of the democrat party, so if you don’t like hearing the other side of the story, you might want to include it in your analysis from here on out.

Well I think what is a hoax is the initial reporting ... that the President had been briefed about this unverified, uncorroborated intelligence and chose not to take action on it. — O’Brien

He didn't say that the Russia bounties is a hoax. He says that "we've been working for several months on options for the President". I don't think they do that on gossip.

Also Top US general says Russian bounty intelligence 'wasn't proved' but 'proved enough to worry me':

"The intelligence wasn't proved to me. It was proved enough to worry me. It wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law. That's often true in battlefield intelligence," McKenzie said, according to a transcript provided by the Defense Department. — McKenzie

Again, more than gossip.