Perhaps not surprisingly, the next development in the bounty story has been a strong denial from the ventriloquist that there was ever any bounty.
From the BBC:
Russia has denied reports that it offered Taliban-linked militants bounties to kill US troops in Afghanistan.
Citing US officials, The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reported that a Russian military intelligence unit offered the alleged bounties last year.
The same unit has been linked to assassination attempts in Europe
The Russian embassy in the US said the claims had led to threats to diplomats.
The Taliban also denied doing any deal with Russian intelligence.
And of course the ventriloquist’s dummy has echoed his master’s voice.
So where does that leave us?
Putin denying it puts us in Mandy Rice-Davies territory.
Well, he would, wouldn’t he?
The key question is, what evidence, apart from the New York Times, do we have that intelligence officials concluded that the bounties were offered? Nothing else matters.
If officials did reach this conclusion and briefed the White House, all the criticisms levelled so far remain. It does not matter that Putin is NOW denying it. Why did the White House not act on this previously? Why was the response not
“Yes, we received this briefing. We investigated it further and concluded that the intelligence was wrong.”
Had that been the response, the White House would be inoculated from further criticism, however much we might disagree with the reassessment.
If officials did reach this conclusion and did not brief the White House, then nothing less than the firing of everyone involved in that failure to brief would be an acceptable response.
Moreover, the fact that when the story broke Trump chose to go golfing rather than deal with the issue is still utterly indefensible.
For these reasons, Trump’s denial that he was briefed is of no value. Whether he was or not, his actions and inaction in this matter go beyond any crime he has previously committed.
There is only one scenario which does not land Trump in deep, deep trouble. What if this actually is fake news? What if the intelligence services never did conclude that Putin had put a bounty on US soldiers?
Of the journalists involved, Charlie Savage has won the Pulitzer Prize, and Eric Schmitt has shared in three Pulitzer Prizes. Is it really credible that they would run with a story like this without being 100% certain of their sources? They must have known that this is the response it would get. So my money is on them having the goods to back it up.
Let’s see what happens when the next shoe drops. But for now, let’s treat the inevitable denials from the accused with the scepticism they deserve.