It is "inconceivable," they said, that the President would not have been briefed on such critical intelligence that Russian actions were potentially putting US soldiers in harm's way.

Asked whether there needs to be consensus within the intelligence community before present information to the President, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told Jake Tapper on CNN's "The Lead," "no, not really."

Referring to McEnany, he added, "by the way, when she says there is dissent across the intelligence community, this is more than some errant piece of intelligence that might come in or get thrown over the transom, either by an ally or some other collection, where there just wasn't enough to it. Clearly there was enough, there was lots of discussion, and oftentimes even where there is an affirmative agreement on what we think the intelligence says, there will be dissenting opinion and that dissenting opinion is normally heard, because you need that information to make a good decision."

The White House attempts to insulate the President from criticism over the deeply sensitive issue of military deaths -- particularly less than five months before the election -- come as Carl Bernstein reports for CNN that the President shows extraordinary deference to the Russian leader in phone calls, obsequiously courting Putin's admiration and approval to the point that Trump sometimes "left top national security aides and his chiefs of staff flabbergasted."