This story broke yesterday (actually, probably Friday, but I saw it late yesterday):
(Via Towleroad, where you can year Rachel Maddow's commentary.)
The reaction has not been positive. A small sample:
There's lots more at the link.
It's indicative of the way Trump's mind works that he accused Obama of treason for "spying" on the Trump campaign. (L'Etat, c' est moi) There is some speculation that this was a combination of projection and deflection, since he reportedly knew about the Russian bounties at the time.
I think with any other president, this would be unbelievable. But it is believable. Here's an interesting take on that issue:
Whether Trump has actually committed treason is arguable. Treason is defined as:
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3.
Although there's been no format declaration of war against Russia, Putin's certainly not a friend of the U.S. And the Taliban is an enemy.
The White House, of course, is denying that Trump knew anything about it:
We're back at the believeability thing. Who are you going to believe, a serial liar or the New York Times?
At this point, it's almost a toss-up, but NYT still has more credibility than Trump.
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 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. 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.
(Via Towleroad, where you can year Rachel Maddow's commentary.)
The reaction has not been positive. A small sample:
NOTE TO AMERICA'S TROOPS:
— Mrs. Betty Bowers (@BettyBowers) June 27, 2020
Donald only protects troops who are made of metal or stone -- and fought for the other side. #TraitorTrump https://t.co/Z58SrAbtcC
A white supremacist, a sex offender, and a traitor walk into a bar. The bartender says "What'll it be, President Trump?"#TraitorTrump
— Middle Age Riot (@middleageriot) June 27, 2020
There's lots more at the link.
It's indicative of the way Trump's mind works that he accused Obama of treason for "spying" on the Trump campaign. (L'Etat, c' est moi) There is some speculation that this was a combination of projection and deflection, since he reportedly knew about the Russian bounties at the time.
I think with any other president, this would be unbelievable. But it is believable. Here's an interesting take on that issue:
Whether Trump has actually committed treason is arguable. Treason is defined as:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3.
Although there's been no format declaration of war against Russia, Putin's certainly not a friend of the U.S. And the Taliban is an enemy.
The White House, of course, is denying that Trump knew anything about it:
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement Saturday that the President and Vice President Mike Pence were not briefed “on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence.” McEnany said her statement “does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story,” which said Trump had been briefed.
We're back at the believeability thing. Who are you going to believe, a serial liar or the New York Times?
At this point, it's almost a toss-up, but NYT still has more credibility than Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment