- President
Donald Trump on Wednesday suggested intelligence on a suspected Russian bounty plot was "FakeNews ," prompting sharp criticism from a former US ambassador toRussia . - "He always sides with Putin; never with his own intelligence officers or soldiers,"
Michael McFaul , the top US diplomat in Moscow from 2012 to 2014, said in a tweet. - Though the White House on Wednesday confirmed Trump has been "fully briefed" on the matter and is continuing to brief members of Congress, the president has essentially claimed the intelligence doesn't exist.
- American intelligence officials reportedly intercepted electronic data that showed large financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia's military intelligence agency (the GRU) to a Taliban-linked account, which reinforced intelligence gleaned from interrogations that suggested Russia was paying Afghan militants to target US troops.
A former US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, on Wednesday excoriated President Donald Trump for suggesting intelligence on a suspected Russian bounty plot involving the targeting of US soldiers was "Fake News."
McFaul, the top US diplomat in Moscow from 2012 to 2014, said Trump "always sides with" Russian President
"The Russia Bounty story is just another made up by Fake News tale that is told only to damage me and the Republican Party," Trump said in a tweet on Wednesday. "The secret source probably does not even exist, just like the story itself. If the discredited @nytimes has a source, reveal it. Just another HOAX!"
Responding to Trump, McFaul in a tweet said, "Trump said the exact same thing about the overwhelming U.S. intelligence that documented Putin's interference in our 2016 presidential election. He always sides with Putin; never with his own intelligence officers or soldiers."
Last Friday, the New York Times reported that US intelligence officials determined months ago that Russia paid bounties to Taliban-linked militants to kill US troops in
The intelligence was reportedly included in Trump's daily written briefing in late February. A separate report from the Associated Press on Monday said US officials knew about the suspected plot in the early months of 2019, far earlier than previously reported, adding that Trump was briefed on it in March 2019.
American intelligence officials reportedly intercepted electronic data that showed large financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia's military intelligence agency (the GRU) to a Taliban-linked account, which reinforced intelligence gleaned from interrogations that suggested Russia was paying Afghan militants to target US troops.
The Trump administration has downplayed the reports on the suspected Russian plot, painting them as unsubstantiated and stating that the president was never briefed on the matter.
—Mark Knoller (@markknoller) June 30, 2020
Trump has offered an array of responses to reports on the intelligence, ranging from claiming he was unaware of the intel to contesting its credibility and describing it as a "hoax." Though his administration has been briefing members of Congress on the intelligence and the White House briefed Trump on the intel this week, the president claims it doesn't actually exist. White House national security adviser Robert C. O'Brien on Wednesday said Trump had been "fully briefed" on the reports regarding the Russian bounty plot.
Congressional lawmakers who've been briefed on the intelligence have rejected Trump's efforts to dismiss its significance.
"The president called this a hoax publicly," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said. "Nothing in the briefing that we have just received led me to believe it is a hoax."
—The Hill (@thehill) July 1, 2020
The Russian government and the
Trump has a history of behaving in a deferential manner toward Putin. In perhaps the most infamous example, Trump during a 2018 summit in Helsinki, Finland, appeared to side with Putin over the US intelligence community on the subject of Russia's interference in the 2016 US presidential election. The incident prompted bipartisan uproar and criticism back in the US.