6 ms·

How many Obama campaign managers did they indict? How many Obama National Security Advisors did they indict and force to resign over Russian ties? How many tim

How many Obama campaign managers did they indict? How many Obama National Security Advisors did they indict and force to resign over Russian ties? How many times did Obama deny that the Russians attacked American interests during an election only to be rebut by the FBI with a string of foreign indictments?

s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
Well, the Obama administration were the ones who ignored the Russia meddling. They knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people. In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election. They also ignored violations of the nuclear treaty, various previous hacking attempts, cancelled missile defenses in Eastern Europe, allowed Russia to sell air defenses to Iran. The Obama Administration was extremely soft on Russia.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  > They knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people. In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election. Except the reporting was clear about the source since June. The President wanted to publicize it earlier to but McConell refused to sign a bipartisan condemnation. Even then the intelligence community was unequivocal. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-russia-obama-joe-biden-359531 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-ru...
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
    McConnell's office disputed Biden's account, as reported by Politico, "pointing to a letter signed by all four congressional leaders in September 2016 and sent to the president of the National Association of State Election Directors, urging cybersecurity precautions in light of reports of attempted hacking." Comey reportedly wanted to announce the active measures in an op-ed column, as Newsweek reported in March 2017. Two sources with knowledge about the matter told Newsweek that Obama administration officials blocked the effort. Obama should have publicized it instead of sitting on it, regardless if everyone wanted to sign on or not. Putting it all off on McConnell isn't really acceptable when you're President, but to be fair Biden pushed the blame, not Obama, Obama doesn't think he would do anything differently. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/obama-putin-hacking-news-conference.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/obama-putin-h...
thatoneuser 8y ago
This is propaganda. This is what this thread is about.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  In what way? It's absolutely true. It's not possible to reason away the criminality of the people Trump appointed or selected. I'm genuinely unsure of what would convince Matt Taibbi that Russiagate was a dud with so many indictments and such a consequential SCO investigation.
  - thatoneuser 8y ago
    The point of mueller was to determine if Trump worked with Russia to steal a us presidential election. I may just not know the evidence so I'm asking in total honesty - what indictments demonstrate that happened?
    - akhilcacharya 8y ago
      > The point of mueller was to determine if Trump worked with Russia to steal a us presidential election. This is false, the charter was more broad than that. It investigated interference in the Russian election including this possibility. This is why they also prosecuted cases against Russian intelligence officers that performed the hacking operations and individuals that lied to the FBI over their ties to Russian cutouts in Wikileaks (specifically Stone and Corsi, though they gave up on Corsi). Stone: https://www.apnews.com/1dcac576e9964f3d98b96b8052f61f8c https://www.apnews.com/1dcac576e9964f3d98b96b8052f61f8c >After WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, released hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee, the indictment says, a senior Trump campaign official “was directed” to contact Stone about additional releases and “what other damaging information” WikiLeaks had “regarding the Clinton campaign.” The indictment does not name the official or say who directed the outreach to Stone. Russian Intelligence: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indic... > coordinated to release damaging information to sway the election under the names “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” Meanwhile I'm old enough to remember people saying Guccifer 2.0 was an "inside source". How the tables turn.
giardini 8y ago
That will likely be examined somewhat further by the Inspector General's report which hasn't yet been released but promises to be the real bombshell.

s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago

Well, the Obama administration were the ones who ignored the Russia meddling. They knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people. In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election. They also ignored violations of the nuclear treaty, various previous hacking attempts, cancelled missile defenses in Eastern Europe, allowed Russia to sell air defenses to Iran. The Obama Administration was extremely soft on Russia.

akhilcacharya 8y ago
> They knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people. In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election. Except the reporting was clear about the source since June. The President wanted to publicize it earlier to but McConell refused to sign a bipartisan condemnation. Even then the intelligence community was unequivocal. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-russia-obama-joe-biden-359531 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-ru...
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
  McConnell's office disputed Biden's account, as reported by Politico, "pointing to a letter signed by all four congressional leaders in September 2016 and sent to the president of the National Association of State Election Directors, urging cybersecurity precautions in light of reports of attempted hacking." Comey reportedly wanted to announce the active measures in an op-ed column, as Newsweek reported in March 2017. Two sources with knowledge about the matter told Newsweek that Obama administration officials blocked the effort. Obama should have publicized it instead of sitting on it, regardless if everyone wanted to sign on or not. Putting it all off on McConnell isn't really acceptable when you're President, but to be fair Biden pushed the blame, not Obama, Obama doesn't think he would do anything differently. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/obama-putin-hacking-news-conference.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/obama-putin-h...

thatoneuser 8y ago

This is propaganda. This is what this thread is about.

akhilcacharya 8y ago
In what way? It's absolutely true. It's not possible to reason away the criminality of the people Trump appointed or selected. I'm genuinely unsure of what would convince Matt Taibbi that Russiagate was a dud with so many indictments and such a consequential SCO investigation.
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  The point of mueller was to determine if Trump worked with Russia to steal a us presidential election. I may just not know the evidence so I'm asking in total honesty - what indictments demonstrate that happened?
  - akhilcacharya 8y ago
    > The point of mueller was to determine if Trump worked with Russia to steal a us presidential election. This is false, the charter was more broad than that. It investigated interference in the Russian election including this possibility. This is why they also prosecuted cases against Russian intelligence officers that performed the hacking operations and individuals that lied to the FBI over their ties to Russian cutouts in Wikileaks (specifically Stone and Corsi, though they gave up on Corsi). Stone: https://www.apnews.com/1dcac576e9964f3d98b96b8052f61f8c https://www.apnews.com/1dcac576e9964f3d98b96b8052f61f8c >After WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, released hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee, the indictment says, a senior Trump campaign official “was directed” to contact Stone about additional releases and “what other damaging information” WikiLeaks had “regarding the Clinton campaign.” The indictment does not name the official or say who directed the outreach to Stone. Russian Intelligence: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indic... > coordinated to release damaging information to sway the election under the names “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” Meanwhile I'm old enough to remember people saying Guccifer 2.0 was an "inside source". How the tables turn.

giardini 8y ago

That will likely be examined somewhat further by the Inspector General's report which hasn't yet been released but promises to be the real bombshell.