Senator Joni Ernst
Joni Kay Ernst Where the Things Are in 13 Battlefield States ENERGY DURING THE NIGHT: Trump nominates controversial and veteran interim BLM director as director | Ernst sinks vote on Trump candidate EPA | A massive dust storm from Africa hits Texas, Louisiana Ernst sinks her vote on Trump nominee EPA MORE (R-Iowa) told reporters on Tuesday that explosive media reports that Russian military intelligence paid rewards to Taliban-linked militants for killing US service members is “absolutely inaccurate,” making the claim after she and other Republicans were briefed at the White House.
“I think the reporting was absolutely inaccurate. I had a briefing this morning and I know the evidence is not corroborated, “he said, stressing that he was putting” evidence “on air citations.
“We take threats seriously. At the tactical level, obviously making sure that our positions are hardened and that we are attentive to adversaries, “he added.
Ernst was one of approximately half a dozen Republican senators who were briefed by the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe
John Lee Ratcliffe Top intelligence officials issue statements criticizing the leak of information about Russian rewards. Information about Russian rewards was included in Trump’s daily briefing: Reports that Senators will have access to information about Russian rewards about US troops MORE, Chief of Staff of the White House Mark Meadows
Mark Randall Meadows Top intelligence officials issue statements criticizing leaking information on Russian rewards Republican Senator: Congress must find out what Trump knew about Russian rewards, and when Comer tapped to serve as the top Republican in overseeing the Camera MORE and other members of the intelligence community Tuesday morning at the White House, according to people familiar with the meeting.
He described the briefing as “very informative” and reiterated “the information in that article was very inaccurate,” apparently referring to the New York Times article that released the rewards on Friday.
He also said that information about the threats facing US troops in Afghanistan is being politicized by Democrats.
Democrats are really making a big business out of this. They had access to that same type of information months ago, ”he said.
Acting Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Marco Rubio
Marco Antonio Rubio Senators will have access to intelligence on Russian rewards in US troops Defense overnight: lawmakers demand answers on Russian rewards for deaths of US troops in Afghanistan | Amendments to the defense bill point to the withdrawal from Germany, the Pentagon program hands over weapons to the police. (R-Fla.) And the senator Tom Cotton
Tom Bryant CottonSunday shows preview: With coronavirus cases on the rise, lawmakers and health officials weigh in on The Hill’s Morning Report – Featured By Facebook – As concerns about the virus grow, can it get worse for Trump? Republican Senator Criticizes Washington Officials, Says DC Would Not Be a “Full Working Class State” PLUS (R-Ark.), A leading voice of the Senate on defense issues, was among Republicans who attended the White House briefing.
Rubio later told reporters that he believes media reports on classified intelligence are often inaccurate, although he declined to comment on details reported in recent stories about Russia offering rewards to US troops.
“I think almost all of the reports about alleged intelligence are inaccurate, not because reporters are wrong but because they don’t understand the purpose of the intelligence products. There is a big difference between analysis and raw intelligence and I think it is a point that is often overlooked, ”he said.
But Rubio acknowledged that “there are groups in Afghanistan that we know of, and in other places like Iraq and Syria, that we know are attacking the Americans.”
“It is very possible that they sometimes act as representatives on behalf of foreign adversaries and that is a well established fact,” he added. “The leaders of Congress knew this, knew it, or should have known it for a long time.”
.
