Salvaging a fake news story about 74-year-old President Donald Trump getting briefed about Russia paying bounties on U.S. troops to Afghan’s Taliban, the New York Times has furiously ground out articles to prove they’re right. Trump said the Time’s June 25 story claiming the president was “briefed” on the subject was pure fake news. House Speaker 80-year-old Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and 77-year-old former Vice President and presumptive nominee Joe Biden (D-Del.) said its showed Trump “dereliction of duty,” something so egregious, prompting new calls for Trump’s impeachment. To show how fake the Times story about Russian bounty on U.S. troops paid to the Taliban, the New York Times used unnamed sources but then cited Trump’s 73-year-old former National Security Adviser John Bolton as proof of the story. Citing Bolton tells the whole story.
Bolton, who’s written a tell-all book denouncing Trump called “The Room Where it Happened,’ has about as much credibility of the New York Times, seeking anything possible to denounce Trump. Bolton was summarily dismissed by Trump Sept. 10, 2019 as NSA, for nearly single-handedly messing up Trump’s relationship with 36-year-old North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. Bolton said Trump should employ the Libyan paradigm to deal with Kim, the same policy of former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden and 72-year-old former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that toppled Col. Muammar Gaddafi Oct. 20, 2011. Kim went ballistic when Bolton suggested toppling Kim’s Pyongyang regime, prompting Trump to fire Bolton Sept. 10, 2019. Trump said he if he followed Bolton’s advice the U.S. would be in WW III.
Quoting Bolton to verify the New York Times story says everything you need to know about the Russian bounty-Taliban story: It’s more fake than a three-dollar-bill. Quoting Bolton, the Times said that Trump rarely reads his intelligence briefings, suggesting that Trump could have easily missed reports linking Russian to paying the Taliban to attack U.S. troops. “By definition, intelligence means looking at pieces of the puzzle,” said Glenn S. Gerstell, who retired this years as counsel to the National Security Agency. “It’s not unusual to have inconsistencies. And the President’s Daily Brief, not infrequently, would say that there is no unanimity in the intelligence community, and would explain the dissenting views or lack of corroboration,” Gerstell said. Gerstell’s statement gives the Times an out indicating that often the intel community has no consensus on briefs.
Trump’s been at this rodeo before with Democrats accusing him of colluding with 67-year-old Russian President Vladimir Putin. It wasn’t that long ago Democrats insisted that Trump challenge Putin on hacking the Democratic National Committee [DNC] servers and private email of former Hillary campaign Chairman John D. Podesta. Democrats demanded that Trump confront Putin, much like they’re doing now. If Trump doesn’t confront Putin, Democrats see that as Russian collusion. Russian has already emphatically denied reports, no matter how much U.S. cash the military found at a remote Taliban outpost, paying Taliban fighters to attack U.S. troops. Pelosi and Biden seized on the story, true or not, to attack Trump for not paying attention to essential intel to protect U.S. troops. U.S. officials know that Putin denies any involvement in paying Taliban mercenaries to kill U.S. troops.
When Trump signed an historic deal to end fighting with the Taliban Feb. 2, there’s been no U.S. casualties in Afghanistan. Whether there were deaths before the ceasefire agreement, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to say whether Russia paid Taliban fighters to attack U.S. troops. “When I ran for office,” Trump said in a statement. “I promised the American people, I would begin to bring our troops home and see to end this war. We are making substantial progress on that promise,” Trump said, contrasting himself with war hawks with no intention of ending the 18-year-old war. Whatever Trump did to end hostilities with the Taliban, it’s not enough. Pelosi and Biden insist Trump was derelict in his duties, using the fake Times report as proof of Trump incompetence or reluctance to confront Putin. Whether Trump makes a deal with the Taliban or does nothing, he’s slammed by the press.
Democrats and the media have one thing in mind saying Trump missed essential intel information: To prove he’s unfit for duty. “If you’re going to be on the phone with Vladimir Putin, this is something you ought to know,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence committee. Schiff thinks it’s appropriate protocol for Trump to accuse Putin of secret mercenary activity to harm American troops without a shred of proof. Schiff and other House and Senate Democrats were furious with Trump that he didn’t confront Putin on meddling in the 2020 election. Now Schiff insists Trump should confront Putin when he has no proof of Russian mercenary activities. Shifting charges against Trump, the New York Times no longer insists Trump was briefed on Russian mercenary activities to harm U.S. troops. Now the Times wants you to believe Trump’s just plain incompetent.
