NYT: Russians paid Afghans to kill American troops

[Dill]

(06-29-2020, 08:42 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Privately Clinton said "officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al-Queda-like group" and told the Prime Minister of Egypt "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the flim".  Both of this statements came less than 24 hours after the attack. At the same time Clintons deputy chief of staff said in an internal email "We're not saying the violence in Libya erupted 'over inflammatory videos'".
Less than 3 days after the attack officials in the state department were emailing each other "'it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence. It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists.”

I wouldn't want to go further discussing Benghazi here, other than to say it may exemplify how the public often lacks knowledge of the process by which the intel is collected and vetted, and other political players can use that lack of knowledge. Also, anyone at State communicating with foreign leaders has to be on the same page with the WH, not with his/her family members in a private email. But ultimately, it is the findings of the intel committees that people should be reading, as these give a completer picture of why emails may say one thing one day and another thing another day, without implying coverup. 

Shifting this issue of how the intel process works to Kayleigh's press briefing today on the Russian Bounty, it is really inconceivable that Trump did not hear about this last year. And according to Rachel Maddow, it appears the bounty actually resulted in US deaths.

The claim that there were "dissenting opinions" in the intel community cannot be a valid reason for not telling Trump. Same for the claim the intel was not yet "verified." Intel is routinely presented at NSC meetings and in PDBs with varying levels of confidence, and dissenting opinions are included. For issues potentially of great consequence, no one waits for absence of dissension or "verification" before presenting some findings at least to the president. Waiting could prevent timely reaction. Presidents make the final calculation of costs, benefits and risks. Also, it is the responsibility of the NSA and deputies to prioritize findings and MAKE SURE that the most consequential reach the president.

Further, it's not as if Bolton walked into the room one day and said "Oh by the way, Russians paying bounties" etc. And then left it all to Trump to think about. For an issue that serious, people would be set to preparing options--diplomatic and military--for the president's consideration.  You know I don't admire Bolton, but I really doubt he would have allowed that preparation to pass on his own say so.  I won't be surprised if it were ordered done, and then sat on.

And the Bounty would definitely be the kind of classified intel which Bolton could not put in his book. Now that it's leaked, maybe he can give us a better sense of what is broken in the NSC, the top of the chain where intel products come to rest, though there may still be controls on what he has to say.

Hell to pay if Trump refused to act on this while trying to get Russia back into the G-8 and inviting Putin for a state visit.