5 ms·

> However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically. Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility

> However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically. Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears about Russia to benefit his party. But I think the line was crossed in the other direction when he imposed sanctions and evicted diplomats. For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty and ought only be done if the new administration approves of it. Doing so was far beneath Obama, and was akin to leaving an unflushed bowel movement in the oval office bathroom so Trump would find it on his first day. Obama did it only because he was under great pressure from his party to do so.

unclebucknasty 10y ago
>Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party No. In this case, simply carrying out the normal duties of the president could have been seen as political, given the context. Obama himself later mentioned this and indicated it was why he hadn't acted sooner, especially with Trump already making the "rigged election" charges. >If there had been evidence There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. >For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty He was still president and doing his job. Had we been attacked militarily, it's doubtful that anyone would advocate that he await Trump to respond. The attack on our electoral process was no less destructive in the eyes of those of us who value our democracy.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and over. There was not evidence presented to the public, only an assessment in which the NSA felt it was only marginally probable that meddling had occurred, and it was only from a small number of agencies. The document was also an informal, unusual concoction that is not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances. I've critiqued that document before on HN, but the bottom line is that it was an extremely amateurish and embarrassing hodge podge of pasted-in boilerplate, wild speculation, and hand waving that intentionally blurred the line between all sorts of disconnected things and attempted to present a narrative of a Russian conspiracy. But it all rests on trusting the agencies who concocted such an embarrassing document. We're told that the proof was redacted for security reasons, but I think that such grandiose claims ought to be accompanied by at least the tiniest bit of non-circumstantial evidence. Note that HRC supporters (and McCain, as is often the case) were chest-pounding and calling for war. I think a bit of skepticism is in order considering that it wasn't long ago that we were misled into another very costly war.
  - willstrafach 10y ago
    The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify some of the evidence used to create their judgements. > not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances. This statement is untrue. That release is absolutely what an Intelligence Community Assessment looks like. Other declassified ICAs are public, so you do not even need to take my word for it.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly acting at the behest of the Russian government. In order to be credible, the analysis would have to offer a sense of what Russia/Putin's alleged strategic mindset was. How did he benefit from the overwhelmingly likely event that HRC got elected and revelations that Russia meddled came out? One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over. It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.
      - willstrafach 10y ago
        Personally I do not have enough knowledge on the circumstances to credibly argue one way or another with regards to the alleged meddling. > My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. This is not the case. The declassified version only had open source evidence. In combination with the fact that the general public is not going to know how exactly to read an ICA or read between the lines, the release was not very helpful, as it understandably lead many to think that they were presenting their full case, rather than the reality of "evidence is too sensitive so here is some analysis of RT!" being what they put in the ICA. Definitely not a good strategy, as I said, this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.

unclebucknasty 10y ago

>Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party No. In this case, simply carrying out the normal duties of the president could have been seen as political, given the context. Obama himself later mentioned this and indicated it was why he hadn't acted sooner, especially with Trump already making the "rigged election" charges. >If there had been evidence There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. >For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty He was still president and doing his job. Had we been attacked militarily, it's doubtful that anyone would advocate that he await Trump to respond. The attack on our electoral process was no less destructive in the eyes of those of us who value our democracy.

grandalf 10y ago
> There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and over. There was not evidence presented to the public, only an assessment in which the NSA felt it was only marginally probable that meddling had occurred, and it was only from a small number of agencies. The document was also an informal, unusual concoction that is not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances. I've critiqued that document before on HN, but the bottom line is that it was an extremely amateurish and embarrassing hodge podge of pasted-in boilerplate, wild speculation, and hand waving that intentionally blurred the line between all sorts of disconnected things and attempted to present a narrative of a Russian conspiracy. But it all rests on trusting the agencies who concocted such an embarrassing document. We're told that the proof was redacted for security reasons, but I think that such grandiose claims ought to be accompanied by at least the tiniest bit of non-circumstantial evidence. Note that HRC supporters (and McCain, as is often the case) were chest-pounding and calling for war. I think a bit of skepticism is in order considering that it wasn't long ago that we were misled into another very costly war.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify some of the evidence used to create their judgements. > not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances. This statement is untrue. That release is absolutely what an Intelligence Community Assessment looks like. Other declassified ICAs are public, so you do not even need to take my word for it.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly acting at the behest of the Russian government. In order to be credible, the analysis would have to offer a sense of what Russia/Putin's alleged strategic mindset was. How did he benefit from the overwhelmingly likely event that HRC got elected and revelations that Russia meddled came out? One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over. It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.
    - willstrafach 10y ago
      Personally I do not have enough knowledge on the circumstances to credibly argue one way or another with regards to the alleged meddling. > My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. This is not the case. The declassified version only had open source evidence. In combination with the fact that the general public is not going to know how exactly to read an ICA or read between the lines, the release was not very helpful, as it understandably lead many to think that they were presenting their full case, rather than the reality of "evidence is too sensitive so here is some analysis of RT!" being what they put in the ICA. Definitely not a good strategy, as I said, this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.