@shootersa pick one thread to discuss this on and tell me where it is and let's stick to that one thread.

You get to choose. But then we stick to that one thread. Do you agree?

 

You been running all over the place spewing. If you can manage to stick with one thread, fine, in fact we'll start a new one and call it
Is rear admiral motherfucker a liar or a liar?

 

Those screaming for named sources and documents know they are running a scam because these are the most serious leaks I have seen since the Pentagon Papers. The leakers who appear to be inside the White House, the Department of Defense and the CIA are in fact leaking classified information and risk going to prison if they are exposed. So no there will not be named sources and/or documentation like the President's Daily Briefing showing up anytime soon.

But that is what actually makes these leaks credible. It has to be something really big and bad for sources risking going to prison are willing to step forward.

So what we can do is look at the preponderance of evidence. And there is a ton of it.

Now for the Trump supporters who just want to make up excuses for Putin putting bounties on our troops to contend its all fake news have to also claim the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and the AP are all lying because they are all running a series of stories with multiple sources.

AP sources: White House aware of Russian bounties in 2019
https://apnews.com/fcf3ec359401c7575f5402b4da9b00a3

Now we have reports John Bolton told Trump about Putin putting bounties on our troops clear back in March of 2019. And while Bolton will not deny or confirm that because it would be classified information let's look at what he said Sunday on Face The Nation.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-john-bolton-on-face-the-nation-july-5-2020/

Now that certainly says Bolton does not believe the White House story that Trump would not have been"briefed." So he is calling bullshit on that at least. But the opposite is even more glaring. If the reports that Bolton personally briefed Trump on the Russian bounties were not true he could say so. But he doesn't.

And the same is true with the reports that Putin putting bounties on our troops was included in written form in the February 27th President’s Daily Brief. If that were not true is would be a very simple thing for Trump and the White House to say that is not true and provide the brief from that day. But no one at the White House is denying the information was in his written brief that day.

Instead the White House changed the terminology from "the President was not briefed" to "the president was not "VERBALLY" briefed.

And while that appears to not be true if just for the sake of argument it is not true and Trump and Pence were never "VERBALLY BRIEFED" about Putin putting bounties on our troops in Afghanistan why not since White House was well aware of the intelligence reports about Putin putting bounties on our troops. So for Trump not to be informed about it would be the biggest intelligence breakdown since 9/11.

Also on the side of the preponderance of the evidence no one is denying the intelligence reports are false. Instead they fall back on the wore out claim "there was no consensus" on the reports. But where have we heard that before?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-says-agencies-agree-russian-meddling-n785481

And:

https://www.rollcall.com/2018/11/20...s-with-saudi-story-in-jamal-khashoggi-murder/


Trump's go to excuse any time there is bad news about his allies Putin or MbS is to try and claim there is no consensus on the intelligence.

But again we look at the preponderance of evidence. No one is trying to claim the underlying intelligence that Putin was paying bounties for the Taliban to kill our troops is false. Instead they claim Trump wasn't personally verbally briefed on it.

And we can either believe the preponderance of evidence or believe the guy who has lied more than 19,000 times.

 

I need to clear up another one of @shootersa 's lies. He is trying to claim:

That is easily proven just another one of his phony lies.

This is what I said.

The keyword there is discuss. Not just put up an attack thread and demand he gets to make me defend what I have posted. But to actually "discuss" this issue. But @shootersa is to much of a phony coward to commit to answering questions not just get to ask them.

And I will not waste my time on a one way street where @shootersa gets to dictate all the terms and then yowl like a mashed cat when I refuse to play his phony lying game.

I defended everything he asked above. And will continue to post new developments as they come out.

 

Dismissed

 

Britain Confirms Seeing US Intelligence On Russian Bounty Plan
Russia has flatly rejected suggestions it would pay Taliban soldiers to kill US troops.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/bri...on-russian-bounty-plan-on-us-soldiers-2254731

 

Yeah I know. They don't count and never did.

• Sgt. Benjamin Hines, 31, of York, Pa.
• Staff Sgt. Christopher Slutman, 43, of Newark, Del.
• and Cpl. Robert Hendriks, 25, of Locust Valley, N.Y.

U.S. Marine Corps
These file photos provided by the U.S. Marine Corps show, Sgt. Benjamin S. Hines, 31, of York, Pa., Staff Sgt. Christopher K.A. Slutman, 43, of Newark, Del., and Cpl. Robert A. Hendriks, 25, of Locust Valley, N.Y., all whom were killed April 8, 2019, when a roadside bomb hit their convoy near Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.

 

Oh.
Are these your victims of Russian bounty?

Anything, as long as it gets Trump, eh?

Motherfucking ass licking piece of goose shit lying hypocrite.
Siddown.

 

And fuck you Anon, you ass licking piece of shit.
The only intelligence, or lack of intelligence, Shooter has questioned around here is your cock sucking motherfucking mouth piece.
Tell him to do his own dirty work. You are not worthy.

 

The Russia-Taliban bounties: What did the president know and when did he know it?

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/07/th...d-the-president-know-and-when-did-he-know-it/

 

And yet I've given you my reasons why I believe what I do. You won't even bother to challenge McCaffery in the slightest because you know you can't. Any beef you have with me is with his assessment of the situation. Go ahead and shout at the wind, you're good at it.

 

You've regurgitated what your handlers told you to.
McCaffery is retired, and has zero knowledge of Russian bounties, what the administration knew or didn't know and is a paid pundit for leftist media. Shooter has no reason to care what McCafferys views on the issue are.

You can only troll for arguments but you're so lame and bad at it you aren't worth the effort. But, like rear admiral motherfucker you just have to take it personal to see what rise you can get.

Shooter is intolerant of rude behavior, in particular from loudmouthed arrogant shit heads like you.

 

There is some very interesting word tracking in this very carefully parsed statement. The General does not deny Putin was paying bounties on our troops and doesn't really deny that US troops were killed for the bounties. It says he doesn't really know but he is "skeptical."

US general skeptical that bounties led to troops’ deaths

*Translation: I don't really fucking know but I am looking into it.

**And since Trump is actually just Putin's puppet he will not do a fucking thing to address that threat. Better American troops die than Trump do or say anything to his boss.

https://apnews.com/6c63243827283084a941ea3b4f79bd11

 

Very succinct.
shooters - you could have left out the "handlers" dog-whistle conspiracy nonsense & the nasty personal jibe at anon.
You covered it all in 3 words brother

Nice to see latecomer's still covering your ass ....

 

And so... I've got handlers? Ok. You go right ahead and think I'm part of some massive conspiracy to influence a bunch of people on a porn site.

Says the king of rude...

 

Trump’s Russia bounty scandal exposes his fundamental inability to digest new information

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/07/tr...damental-inability-to-digest-new-information/