Thread by @BBuchman_CNS

BOOKMARK IT. Join me this Thursday, July 9 at 1PM ET as I live-tweet the House Foreign Affairs Cmte hearing weighing the Trump admin's response (or lack thereof) to Russian bounties being placed on the heads of U.S. soldiers.
Witness list:
⬇️

https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1280835407547154442

Live-thread here @ 1PM ET.
Before, however, @SenDuckworth has issued a letter to the DoD asking whether it is probing American troop casualties potentially tied to the bounties on its own and if the dept. is collaborating with the intelligence community.
documentcloud.org/documents/6983…

For your info: According to a Congressional Research Service report from 7/1: Between 2006-2020, 17,645 active duty personnel have died serving in the U.S. military. “Since '06, approx. 2,187 US troops have died in Iraq w/48% of those deaths from IEDs."
fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec…

We're getting close to that time.

Again, a link for your convenience to today's live-stream:

https://twitter.com/HouseForeign/status/1281270349263515658?s=20

And so we begin today's hearing.
@HouseForeign vicechair Joaquin Castro starts: We are going to steer clear of discussing classified information.
But he says it is safe to say, "these allegations on Russian bounties were never denied by the White House."

Why has Russia faced no consequences, not even a public rebuke? Castro asks in opening remarks.
Secy. Pompeo was invited to testify but he refused.
He rarely if ever "summons the courage" to answer questions from former colleagues in the House as every other Secretary has done.

The Trump admin excuses keep changing about the bounty scheme.

Maybe he wasn't briefed because the intelligence was "disputed," Castro says, even though only the most important information would make it into the presidential daily briefing.

What did the White House do once it did or did not receive this information? Did Treasury slap sanctions on Russian officials involved in the plot? Did the Taliban pay a price? What are State and Defense going to do to protect troops and our NATO allies?

Castro continues: Trump has released a joint statement with Putin to purchase faulty Russian ventilators, withdraw from Open Skies. He ordered the reduction of US troop presence in Germany. Met with criticism from our allies but with praise from Putin.

Castro says it is almost as if Trump is on a mission to "make Russia great again."

The administration tries to gaslight the American people and is "frankly a page right out of Vladimir Putin's playbook," Rep. Castro says.
The Trump admin failed to uphold its most sacred duty, he adds, to keep Americans safe.
He turns it over ranking member Rep Mike McCaul.

The Republican lawmaker begins by acknowledging the way Putin "cannot be trusted" and "is certainly not our friend" - he acknowledges the covert missions Putin has carried out to harm Americans and allies.

On bounties "if true, it would be an unacceptable escalation and if true, the administration must take swift action to hold the Putin regime accountable and that includes not inviting Russia to rejoin the G7," Rep. Michael McCaul, R-TX, says.

The witnesses are now being introduced.
First up will be Michael Morrell, former deputy and acting director at the CIA.
He organized daily briefs under Pres. George W. Bush.

We will also hear from Dr. Celeste Wallander, former special asistant to the President and Senior Director for Russia/Eurasia on the National Security Council.

Regret the spelling error: former special assistant to the President, Dr. Celeste Wallander.

We will also hear from General John W. Nicholson , retired former Commander of U.S. Forces – Afghanistan and NATO’s Resolute Support Mission for the US Army

The last witness today will be Ian Brzezinski, the former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO Policy at the US Department of Defense

Michael Morrell, former acting/deputy dir for the CIA in his opening remarks says he will discuss how the presidential daily briefing process works, how the policy works at senior levels of the Bush and Obama administration where he spent much time in the situation room.

1. There's a misperception about who receives raw intel. Many assume it only goes to IC analysts and decide what to share.
That is not accurate, Morrell says.
Raw intel is disseminated widely, to analysts, to war fighters in field and policymakers in Pentagon, WH etc

Many people would have seen the raw intelligence as analysts were first beginning their work on it.
The key question is whether the information is clear to the reader what the Russians were doing or whether it could only be seen through a connecting of dots.

But even if it was only vaguely clear - that information would have made its way to the highest levels of the US govt nad POTUS before the analysts completed their work.

The DIA, the IC would have been involved. They would come to 2 judgments: whether they believe Moscow was offering bounties and their level of confidence, low, med or high.

Morrell: If the analysts believed at any level of confidence that Russians were providing the bounties, that judgment would be presented in the PDB.

If he doesn't read it, not all presidents have, he notes, then it would have been briefed to him elsewhere.

Morrell on bounties: Contrary to what has been said by some, dissent within the intel community with the judgment itself or confidence, WOULD NOT keep the piece out of the PDB, rather, the dissent would be noted in the briefing.

Morrell: Once the piece was in the briefing, the IC leadership WOULD brief Congress as early as the same day. If the piece ran in the PDB then no later than the next day.

If the intel community assessed Russians were providing bounties, that would kick off a policy process in NSC staff. A medium to high level of confidence would lead to a response, the former CIA dir. says.

A low level of confidence would result in more analysis before a policy decision is made.
General John W. Nicholson, former Commander of U.S. Forces will explain later how warfighters in Afghanistan can better explain this.

Morrell: Finally, a medium to high-level confidence would, in every administration he has worked in, and he's worked in 6, would "result in some kind of policy to deter Russians going forward."

Dr. Wallander says in this case, it may be that Russia needed the incentive to hasten US failure and withdrawal, it might be that they wanted to complicate the US-Taliban relationship.

Whatever the reason, if true, Wallander says the Russia govt has "gotten away with its phase zero operations" because we in the US tend to view these ops as political and allow the implausibly deniable to effectively run amok.

We hear next from Gen John Nicholson, If they did this, this would be a "serious miscalculation and a serious mistake."
Up to 2012, logistical cooperation with Russia was positive. That changed with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Russian threats to NATO alliance members.

Nicholson says Russia has been arming and equipping Taliban in 'modest quantities" not designed to be a gamechager; Taliban wanted surface to air missiles, and Russians didn't give them.
Despite the history, he says he was still somewhat surprised by reports of bounties.

But if this is validated, regardless of who made this decision and whether it as made in Moscow or the field, regardless of whether Russian leaders were complicit or incompetent, they are still responsible, Nicholson says.

Nicholson: There were 2 sides on this: Russians offered and the Taliban accepted. And this is in direct contradiction to the Aghan peace agreement.
This has to be condemned from highest level of US govt so Russians understand it is unacceptable.

Suspend troop withdrawals from Germany, Nicholson says says. This will be viewed as American weakness in the face of Russian threats.
Hold on troop drawdowns at the present level until the Taliban delivers on its promise re: peace agreement.

They must sever ties with Al-Qaeda and have a sustained reduction in violence, he concludes.

Ian Brzezinski, former deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO Policy, U.S. Department of Defense says the reports of Russian bounties are consistent with steady escalation by Russia for years.

There have been sanctions and "half-hearted" diplomatic isolation attempts. This incrementalism and lack of determination by the U.S. has failed to convince Putin to reverse course and may have emboldened him, Brzezinski says.

This promises continued confrontation with Russia and increases unintentional and intentional conflict, he adds. The US strategy should include NATO's readiness for high-intensity conflict.

On the eastern frontier, there is increased conflict because of Russia ramping up its military capability. Brzezinski says Trump should transition military combat brigade in Poland permanently and like Nicholson, says US shouldnt withdraw troops from Germany.

Joaquin Castro says in instances where Russians have paid to have Americans killed, in his experience, someone who carried out the presidential daily briefing, is this something briefers would make POTUS aware of?
Morrell: Yes sir. Without a doubt.

If intel was somehow NOT provided to POTUS, where does the failure come in? Who was responsible?
Morrell says being with Bush every morning for a year: if the briefer didn't raise something of such importance, it falls on whomever else is there at DNI or CIA.

Barring their failure to raise such information, then it falls on the national security adviser to make absolutely certain the president knows.

Dr. Wallander adds in the Obama WH, among duties of sr. directors was to read PDBs in advance to the presentation to POTUS and provide for NSC adviser, in their case, Susan Rice.

Wallander: Advice and context would be provided because she would go in and be part of that briefing and be ready to make sure that as Morrell noted, it was received correctly understood by WH leadership.

Morrell says we should recognize something on Putin's personality. He's a risk taker. When he takes a risk and he succeeds, he is often willing to take even larger risks in the future.

The failure for Putin to face any cost, significantly increases the chances for him to undermine the US and possibly larger than what we have seen in this case, Morrell adds.

Rep. Michael McCaul says the briefer was a career intel officer who made the decision not to brief.
Having said that, the nature of the intelligence being targeted at US troops "would be a significant departure in its relationship with Taliban. POTUS deserved to know about this"

McCaul, IC is doing a deep dive, but if true, Russia should be condemned and GRU should be sanctioned as authorized by Congress.

Nicholson says it does call into question the Taliban's commitment to the peace agreement.
McNaul notes that Amb. Roya Rahmani, special envoy to Afghanistan, is having discussions this week about a humanitarian cease-fire in the region.

Journalist sidebar: As a 34 year old woman who grew up in the total embrace of a post 9/11 word hearing the words "good faith" and "Taliban" together makes my brain sound like rice krispies for a second.

Rep Brad Sherman says Secy Pompeo's decision not to show up today is indefensible.
Russia attacks Georgia, Ukraine, interferes in Syria, in US elections, in Montenegro, occupies Crimea. When Pompeo speaks, he says Russia has armed Taliban for years.

Now there are good reports that bounties were placed on US soldiers, Rep Sherman says, and the admin's response is to say, "Oh, let's invite them into G8!"

Nicholson acknowledges that Russia has provided arms to Taliban.
Sherman, well, now they have provided the additional obscenity of not just giving extra weapons to kill Americans, but extra money if they do.

Would a ban on Russian sovereign debt inflict meaningful pain on Putin Sherman asks
Wallander fields: One of the most important targets for Russia is the financial sector, sovereign debt is part of a menu where you can increase those costs.

Wallander also suggests targeting Russian with sanctions on security services, i.e. the sales that Russia makes with defense capabilities abroad and financing that supports asymetric ops.

Rep. Steve Chabot, R-OH. says there should be no question that Russia and Putin are "no friend" to the US
He asks Nicholson about the strength of ties btwn Taliban/Al Qaeda - any reason to believe they will ever live up to any commitments they might make?

Nicholson is out of the game, so he doesn't have access to classified intelligence any longer & cant speak to intimate relations of late.
But he encourages a public renouncing of Al Qaeda by Taliban to improve the trust between all parties including US

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-NY, says this latest intelligence revelation is part of an alarming pattern from Russian government.
He, like other Dems today, is outraged that Pompeo is not here today to answer questions.

Where is the president and why has he failed to act, Rep Meeks asks.
We ask servicemen and women to put their lives on the line but the administration won't believe a credible piece of intelligence about bounties placed on heads of US troops, he continues.

The Russian government continues to act adversarially and the president continues to show deference to Putin, Rep. Meeks says before asking Nicholson about warfighters having access to raw intelligence.

Nicholson: We do have access to that intelligence and there is a vigorous dialogue that goes on at all levels, commanders, intel officers, multiple agencies. Washington is called, perceptions are compared, blanks are filled in.

This always helped inform him in the field historically.
If there was a threat, even if it was raw intel, you would see commanders take immediate steps to protect servicemembers., Nicholson continues. The default would be to act on that intelligence esp. w/protective measures

Nicholson: Before you go offensively, you would want more precise intel. but in any case, like Morrell confirmed earlier, it would also be immediately elevated to the top,.
Nicholson sticks his finger in the air "to the top" as he speaks.

Rep Scott Perry, R-PA, asks panelists if they have seen the intelligence on bounty story.
None have. (They are all former officials)
He singles out Wallander, asking if she totally believes the public reports.
She says for purposes of hearing, she is providing context.

Rep. Perry, R-PA says panelists not having seen any of the intel personally, and "understanding that Russia's GRU is daily engaged in misinformation" and that the report is based on "specious" motives - he thinks its "breathtakingly irresponsible" for panelists to comment today

Wallander says she takes the comment, but *if* it was reported in a PDB, it would be appropriate for a messaging strategy, at the very least, to be initiated by US

Rep Perry asks where verification of intelligence lies in terms of hearing the report? Is it from the moment the claim is made? Is action required then? Where is verification from time you hear it and take action?

Former CIA dep/acting dir. Morrell says an administration is required to take action and notes whatever that action is, is part of the policy process, but the admin is required to take action when the IC judges with medium to high confidence that something has happened.

That's why knowing what that level of confidence is on this judgment is so very important, Morrell says.
Rep. Perry mistakenly thinks Morrell said he has intel on the report.

Morrell says no, he is suggesting if confidence was low, he is perfectly comfortable with the idea of senior admin officials going back and saying we need more information before acting.

Rep Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., says its too much to call this a hoax but its too hard to say what is definitively true based on reports that he has read himself.

I will resume live-tweeting shortly.

Live-stream available here: foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearings?ID=8F…

Ian Brzezinski says the fact that we are even considering that this report is plausible is a sign that we have to recalibrate our position toward Russia altogether.

Rep. Gerry Connolly asks Morrell if POTUS rationale given for why he wasn't briefed is reasonable and Morrell says emphatically it is not.
It never functioned like that in his experience with presidential daily briefings.

Brzezinski tells Connolly now that reports of the bounty are out in the public domain, it is incumbent on the Trump administration to respond unequivocally. Not even with policy at the outset, but some basic acknowledgment to start, essentially.

Questions now from Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-PA - a former FBI agent who served in Ukraine, says he is aware of Putin's "sinister motives in that region." He adds "we know Putin has geographic dominance aspirations to reconstitute the USSR"

Former Obama admin official Wallander says Russian and Iran collab in Syria and have for years. The Russian military is not a ground presence in Syria and relies on as she said earlier, quasi-private military mercenary groups and other actors.

Russia coordinates with China where they want to challenge American leadership, like at the UN Security Council. "They share an interest in wanting to revise the global order."

Morrell goes through the process of the PDB again.
Meeting each morning. Questions that need answers right away are addressed. Sorted between priority for next day items. These pieces are drafted within agency that writes them and coordinated across the intel community.

That's where you get agreement or dissents, DIA/CIA think one thing maybe, NSA thinks something else.
Within each agency, the process for getting a piece approved to even be considered for coordination is extraordinarily rigorous, Morrell says.

He emphasizes: These are not his views,. These are the views of the US intelligence community.

If the Russian bounty scheme was in the PDB, it means at least one agency, one important agency, believed the information to be true at some level of confidence, Morrell says.

"So that's the response. Someone in the IC believed that information to be true and that's why it was in the PDB. It wouldn't be in there otherwise," Morrell says.
@CourthouseNews

*If it is not in the PDB* and POTUS needs to know info the briefer can raise it on their own. Or the DNI can raise it and say, literally, There is something else you need to know. Or the director fo the CIA, or anyone else in the room Morrell says.

People forget, the president's briefer is the most junior person in the room, Morrell says.
The national sec. adviser, VP, WH chief of staff, DNI, dir of CIA, they are all in the room typically during briefings.

"Anyone is capable of saying Mr. President, in addition to what is in your book, you need to hear this or that," fmr. acting/deputy CIA dir Michael Morrell tells lawmakers asking Qs about Trump's stmt that Russian bounty scheme, didnt rise to the occasion to appear in PDB.

Ian Brzezinski fields a Q about whether we have a meaningful strategy to deal with Russian aggression.
It's been incremental and not fully powerful, he tells Rep. David Cicilline, D-RI.
Brzezinski says we should be "hammering" Russia with more aggressive financial sanctions.

Brzezinski essentially argues that upping economic sanctions shouldn't be hard for US to do.
And he notes the significance of Russia GDP. (1.6T in 2018)

They aren't strapped. The US can afford to throw its weight around and apply far tougher sanctions.

If you have enjoyed following along or found this thread in your Twitter sojourns - please give me a follow and follow my masthead @CourthouseNews.

I'll have a full report coming up.