Schiff: Obama's delayed response to Russian interference 'a very serious mistake'

A

anatta

100% recycled karma
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday the Obama administration made "a very serious mistake" for not taking action against Russia after learning of election meddling.

"I think the administration needed to call out Russia earlier, needed to act to deter and punish Russia earlier and that was a very serious mistake," Schiff told host Dana Bash on CNN's "State of the Union."

Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, reasoned that President Obama reacted slowly because he was "worried about being perceived of trying to tip the scales for Hillary Clinton

" and that he didn't want to feed then-Republican candidate Donald Trump's narrative that the election was "rigged" against him.
The Washington Post reported last week that Obama knew Russian President Vladimir Putin was attempting to influence the 2016 election results months before the election took place.

Trump slammed Obama Saturday for failing to act more aggressively after learning about Russia's efforts to interfere in the election

"Since the Obama Administration was told way before the 2016 Election that the Russians were meddling, why no action? Focus on them, not T!" Trump tweeted.


"I think that was a mistake but I have to contest what President Trump is saying because for Donald Trump who openly egged on the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's emails and celebrated every release of stolen documents -- to criticize Obama is
 
I wonder if any of the MSM is going to bother reporting any of this. Just like I wonder if they will bother reporting the Lynch/Clinton/Fbi scandal. I won't hold my breath.
 
Frustrated Dems say Obama botched Russia response
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/339236-frustrated-dems-say-obama-botched-russia-response
Some Republicans argue the Obama administration only started to take the Russia threat seriously after President Trump had won the election.

Trump has called the influence operation a “hoax” and dismissed the various inquiries into Russian interference in the election — which include looking for possible collusion between his campaign and Moscow — as a “witch hunt.”

“By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them?” Trump tweeted Thursday.

The Obama administration announced on Oct. 7 that the theft and release of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails was part of a widespread campaign “intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

But it was not until January that it issued a separate declassified intelligence report that assessed Moscow was attempting to tip the election in t Trump’s favor — and only in December did Obama approve a modest package of retaliatory sanctions and expel a compound of Russian diplomats.
++

See the March 21st NYTimes article that showed Obama "seeding"the INTEL agenicies to "preserve"
Russian blah blah

It's clear Obama wouldn't have done that, except to provide reports for unmasking.
++

PPS. I do not support new Senate sanctions, as Germany does not want them-
also for separation of powers reasoning
 
anatta said:
Frustrated Dems say Obama botched Russia response
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/339236-frustrated-dems-say-obama-botched-russia-response
Some Republicans argue the Obama administration only started to take the Russia threat seriously after President Trump had won the election.

Trump has called the influence operation a “hoax” and dismissed the various inquiries into Russian interference in the election — which include looking for possible collusion between his campaign and Moscow — as a “witch hunt.”

“By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them?” Trump tweeted Thursday.

The Obama administration announced on Oct. 7 that the theft and release of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails was part of a widespread campaign “intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

But it was not until January that it issued a separate declassified intelligence report that assessed Moscow was attempting to tip the election in t Trump’s favor — and only in December did Obama approve a modest package of retaliatory sanctions and expel a compound of Russian diplomats.
++

See the March 21st NYTimes article that showed Obama "seeding"the INTEL agenicies to "preserve"
Russian blah blah

It's clear Obama wouldn't have done that, except to provide reports for unmasking.
++

PPS. I do not support new Senate sanctions, as Germany does not want them-
also for separation of powers reasoning
Click to expand...
:whoa:
 
^ lol


The Dubious Case on Russian ‘Hacking’
January 6, 2017

Advertised in advance as providing proof of Russian hacking, the report fell embarrassingly short of that goal. The thin gruel that it did contain was watered down further by the following unusual warning atop page 1: “DISCLAIMER: This report is provided ‘as is’ for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.”

Also, curiously absent was any clear input from the CIA, NSA or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Reportedly, Mr. Clapper will get a chance on Friday to brief an understandably skeptical Donald Trump, who has called the briefing delay “very strange,” even suggesting that top intelligence officials “need more time to build a case.”

Clapper’s Checkered History

Mr. Trump’s skepticism is warranted not only by technical realities, but also by human ones, including the dramatis personae involved. Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, false testimony regarding the extent of the National Security Agency’s collection of data on Americans. Four months later, after the Edward Snowden revelations, Mr. Clapper apologized to the Senate for testimony he admitted was “clearly erroneous.”..

Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any “hacked” emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened.

Lastly, the CIA is almost totally dependent on NSA for ground truth in this electronic arena. Given Mr. Clapper’s checkered record for accuracy in describing NSA activities, it is to be hoped that the director of NSA will join him for the briefing with Mr. Trump.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/06/the-dubious-case-on-russian-hacking/
 
I agree that Obama made a mistake in not going public with knowledge of what Putin was doing, but I also understand what a difficult position he was in. It was pretty much damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Had he gone public, the right would've been screaming about partisanship and unfounded accusations. It also could've created a negative backlash against HRC. And given what the polls were saying, that she was the most likely candidate to win in November, he was right in erring on the side of caution.

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to criticize after the fact and predictable that all the zeroes, nobodies and keyboard commandos who've never been in such a situation themselves, are now belly crawling out from under their rocks spouting off a lot of the usual coulda, shoulda, woulda garbage.

Obama made the best decision he could have given the situation.

The man is not perfect and neither is anyone else, especially his critics.
 
What, take action so that you lunatics could accuse him of trying to interfere in the election? There ARE no moderate Republicans, every one is a died in the wool fascist and white supremacist.
 
Nomad said:
I agree that Obama made a mistake in not going public with knowledge of what Putin was doing, but I also understand what a difficult position he was in. It was pretty much damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Had he gone public, the right would've been screaming about partisanship and unfounded accusations. It also could've created a negative backlash against HRC. And given what the polls were saying, that she was the most likely candidate to win in November, he was right in erring on the side of caution.

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to criticize after the fact and predictable that all the zeroes, nobodies and keyboard commandos who've never been in such a situation themselves, are now belly crawling out from under their rocks spouting off a lot of the usual coulda, shoulda, woulda garbage.

Obama made the best decision he could have given the situation.

The man is not perfect and neither is anyone else, especially his critics.
Click to expand...

you just made the case for collusion to get Hillary elected.
Thank you

now make the case, coming from a lefty loon, that Obama should be investigated for collusion, and obstruction of justice if he does not cooperate 100% with that investigation

I love how this all go's around come's around
 
Nomad said:
I agree that Obama made a mistake in not going public with knowledge of what Putin was doing, but I also understand what a difficult position he was in. It was pretty much damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Had he gone public, the right would've been screaming about partisanship and unfounded accusations. It also could've created a negative backlash against HRC. And given what the polls were saying, that she was the most likely candidate to win in November, he was right in erring on the side of caution.

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to criticize after the fact and predictable that all the zeroes, nobodies and keyboard commandos who've never been in such a situation themselves, are now belly crawling out from under their rocks spouting off a lot of the usual coulda, shoulda, woulda garbage.

Obama made the best decision he could have given the situation.

The man is not perfect and neither is anyone else, especially his critics.
Click to expand...

"Take action" could mean something as simple as mentioning it. Instead, in mid-December, he said it was impossible to rig US elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top