Bounty In ‘Russian Bounty’ Story, Evidence-Free Claims From Nameless Spies Became Fact Overnight Based upon a bombshell New York Times report (6/26/20), virtually the entire media landscape has been engulfed in the allegations that Russia is paying Taliban fighters bounties to kill US soldiers. The Washington Post (6/27/20) and the Wall Street Journal (6/27/20) soon published similar stories, based on the same intelligence officials who refused to give their names, and did not appear to share any data or documents with the news organizations. “The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have confirmed our reporting,” tweeted the Times article’s lead author, Charlie Savage. The Post’s John Hudson seemed to back him up: “We have confirmed the New York Times scoop: A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan,” he responded. Yet these statements were categorically untrue. The Times stressed how unsure they were about the allegations, using qualifying language throughout, such as “it was not clear” and “greater uncertainty.” And Hudson’s own article uses the phrase “if confirmed” in relation to the bounty claims, explicitly conceding they are not confirmed. NYT Fake News "...experts have simply assumed that the claims of Russian bounties for killing American troops are true. They—and we—should know better." The sensational story[1] that Russia paid bounties for the killing of American soldiers in Afghanistan is just the most recent example. The Times articles were based on anonymous intelligence officials’ statements about interrogations of captured Taliban militants or criminals in Afghanistan. The National Security Agency strongly dissented[2] from the reported intelligence assessment. The Pentagon, which used a route across Russia to supply US forces in Afghanistan, said that it “has no corroborating evidence” to validate the allegations. The Taliban indignantly denied the claims. George Beebe, former head of Russia analysis at the CIA, and constitutional lawyer David Rivkin argued that the sources for the story were not very credible, particularly because the Afghan government, which oversaw the interrogations, had a clear motive: It “desperately wants the U.S. military to remain in Afghanistan.” By July 7, even the Times belatedly acknowledged that “there’s a lot missing from the reports that Russia paid for attacks on American and other coalition forces in Afghanistan.” It then urged that “emotions and politics be kept at bay,” yet it was the Times itself that had inflamed emotions and stoked partisan controversy. References for this paragraph: [1] "Russia paid bounties for the killing of American soldiers in Afghanistan" http://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghanistan-bounties.html [2] The NSA strongly dissented https://www.wsj.com/articles/nsa-differed-from-cia-others-on-russia-bounty-intelligence-11593534220 [3] The Pentagon, which used a route across Russia to supply US forces in Afghanistan, said that it “has no corroborating evidence” to validate the allegations. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/505164-pentagon-no-corroborating-evidence-to-validate-bounty-allegations [4] George Beebe, former head of Russia analysis at the CIA, and constitutional lawyer David Rivkin argued that the sources for the story were not very credible, particularly because the Afghan government, which oversaw the interrogations, had a clear motive: It “desperately wants the U.S. military to remain in Afghanistan.” https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/505804-why-we-need-a-little-skepticism-and-more-evidence-on-russian [5] By July 7, even the Times belatedly acknowledged that “there’s a lot missing from the reports that Russia paid for attacks on American and other coalition forces in Afghanistan.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/opinion/russia-bounty-afghanistan-trump.html

briefings CIA did not verbally brief Trump on Russia report, because it was unverified says official President Donald Trump was not verbally briefed on reports Russia paid militants to kill US soldiers, said national security adviser Robert O'Brien, because of a lack of confidence in the intelligence. The CIA officer decided the intelligence was not verified.