Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
Interesting comment in same article:
"The third volume of the report was released by the committee in February, and found that the Obama administration was “frozen” in combatting 2016 Russian election meddling and “not well-postured” to counter Russian interference.Burr and Warner found that the Obama administration “struggled to determine the appropriate response,” and stated that it was “frozen by ‘paralysis of analysis,’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived” and debated courses of action “without truly taking one.”
Seems like this failure in leadership needs to be included in the discussion... JMO
Now let’s review:
Obama brought this to Mitch McConnell asking for help. Obama didn’t want to make it public as he felt it would look like he is being partisan in his response. So Obama wanted Mitch’s help to release a bi-partisan response and approach.
What did McConnell do?
Absolutely nothing. He squashed it, knowing any news from the GOP that said Russians were helping Trump could cost them votes.
Hence Obama did nothing when McConnell refused to cooperate.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference
Obama looked for political cover rather than doing the right thing to block and expose it. Got it. If he truthfully had the goods, he should have been a leader and brought it forward. Truth speaks for itself. What did McConnell know and how clear cut the evidence? If it wasn't clear cut, I wouldn't sign on either.
Quoting the article "McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House's claims." Not clear cut enough to convince McConnell. If Obama believed he had the goods, should have exposed it to the American people.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@ A1Janitor said:
Fools like me?
I know the truth. And you are intentionally ignoring the recent documents that were released.
Jimmy - why is he allowed to continue these insults?
I'm guessing for the same reason you are.
Jimmy only seems to notice when I do it.
Disingenuous to say the least. Of course the post where I am called a fool is the one right before I posted. And flagged.
You can claim I do it ... but like everything else related to the Obama spygate corruption - you can’t back it up.
Weren’t you the fella that used to always cry to mods? I will have to ask a few others from the other site.
If Jimmy wants to allow the name calling so be it.
Well, if you are being treated unfairly, might I suggest P1's board? Maybe there are more gentlemen, such as yourself, over there.
Yes, I reported NJVike numerous times. So? He was a one note kazoo and finally met his end here.
Quote: @IDVikingfan said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
Interesting comment in same article:
"The third volume of the report was released by the committee in February, and found that the Obama administration was “frozen” in combatting 2016 Russian election meddling and “not well-postured” to counter Russian interference.Burr and Warner found that the Obama administration “struggled to determine the appropriate response,” and stated that it was “frozen by ‘paralysis of analysis,’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived” and debated courses of action “without truly taking one.”
Seems like this failure in leadership needs to be included in the discussion... JMO
Now let’s review:
Obama brought this to Mitch McConnell asking for help. Obama didn’t want to make it public as he felt it would look like he is being partisan in his response. So Obama wanted Mitch’s help to release a bi-partisan response and approach.
What did McConnell do?
Absolutely nothing. He squashed it, knowing any news from the GOP that said Russians were helping Trump could cost them votes.
Hence Obama did nothing when McConnell refused to cooperate.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference
Obama looked for political cover rather than doing the right thing to block and expose it. Got it. If he truthfully had the goods, he should have been a leader and brought it forward. Truth speaks for itself. What did McConnell know and how clear cut the evidence? If it wasn't clear cut, I wouldn't sign on either.
Quoting the article "McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House's claims." Not clear cut enough to convince McConnell. If Obama believed he had the goods, should have exposed it to the American people.
If Obama wanted to make it political he would have taken the Trump route:
Cherry picked the data, made it an GOP vs Dem issue, blamed Dems and chastised them and wanted no part of trying to work together.
So by Obama not using this as a launching pad to scream about Russians helping Republicans which he could have, using the GOP as a punching bag like we all know Trump would have, and instead tried to do the adult, respectable thing by trying to work with the other party and they shut him down .... you see it as a failure of leadership by Obama?
Interesting take, and completely laughable.
Maybe Obama is the only one man enough to put politics aside and defend the USA against our enemies - the GOP doesn’t seem to care about Russians interfering in elections as long as they are helping the GOP. Why won’t McConnell even put any of the bills that were introduced to a vote for safeguarding our elections?
The failure of leadership rests on the do-nothing, vote on nothing piece of shit running the Senate McConnell.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
Hahaha Keep watching.
The problem of course is this senate committee drafted this when Obama was in office. They knew about this ... so if they admitted the House committee was right, they would implicate themselves.
This is in direct contradiction to the Horowitz report. Some more redactions to be removed shortly that will destroy these corrupt bastards.
So the corrupt bastards are now Senate Republicans? Because they are all part of a deep state trying to protect Obama??
LOL
And I love how you insulted me yesterday and now you’re playing the victim card today about being insulted.
If you’re that hyper-sensitive to criticism while dishing out your own fair share maybe you should try 4-chan
My God how many times can you guys go over the same shit?
Everybody is so damn entrenched in “their belief” after all this that you could release a video tape of exactly what was said and when and it wouldnt change anybodies mind.
Sing the frozen song and “Let it go”
Quote: @BlackMagic7 said:
The suicide hotline number is classy. Get me the fuck out of here...
For what I assumed were grown men posting on a football message board in the “Sensitive Topics”, there’s a lot of thin-skinned, easily offended people who feel compelled to respond ...
I am from the west coast not the midwest, I assume people recognize a joke/sarcasm but maybe all the hot dish makes it hard to digest
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
Interesting comment in same article:
"The third volume of the report was released by the committee in February, and found that the Obama administration was “frozen” in combatting 2016 Russian election meddling and “not well-postured” to counter Russian interference.Burr and Warner found that the Obama administration “struggled to determine the appropriate response,” and stated that it was “frozen by ‘paralysis of analysis,’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived” and debated courses of action “without truly taking one.”
Seems like this failure in leadership needs to be included in the discussion... JMO
Now let’s review:
Obama brought this to Mitch McConnell asking for help. Obama didn’t want to make it public as he felt it would look like he is being partisan in his response. So Obama wanted Mitch’s help to release a bi-partisan response and approach.
What did McConnell do?
Absolutely nothing. He squashed it, knowing any news from the GOP that said Russians were helping Trump could cost them votes.
Hence Obama did nothing when McConnell refused to cooperate.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference
Obama looked for political cover rather than doing the right thing to block and expose it. Got it. If he truthfully had the goods, he should have been a leader and brought it forward. Truth speaks for itself. What did McConnell know and how clear cut the evidence? If it wasn't clear cut, I wouldn't sign on either.
Quoting the article "McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House's claims." Not clear cut enough to convince McConnell. If Obama believed he had the goods, should have exposed it to the American people.
If Obama wanted to make it political he would have taken the Trump route:
Cherry picked the data, made it an GOP vs Dem issue, blamed Dems and chastised them and wanted no part of trying to work together.
So by Obama not using this as a launching pad to scream about Russians helping Republicans which he could have, using the GOP as a punching bag like we all know Trump would have, and instead tried to do the adult, respectable thing by trying to work with the other party and they shut him down .... you see it as a failure of leadership by Obama?
Interesting take, and completely laughable.
Maybe Obama is the only one man enough to put politics aside and defend the USA against our enemies - the GOP doesn’t seem to care about Russians interfering in elections as long as they are helping the GOP. Why won’t McConnell even put any of the bills that were introduced to a vote for safeguarding our elections?
The failure of leadership rests on the do-nothing, vote on nothing piece of shit running the Senate McConnell.
He's your man, be proud. Unwilling to take action to protect our elections, assuming he had the goods. We'll never know as he never said during a critical time. So brave, so laudable. Yes, blame a republican and then do nothing. Leadership by inaction and indecision. I get it, you're solidly in the blue camp and can not see anything as an obama failure. Fine, I don't agree.
Quote: @IDVikingfan said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
Interesting comment in same article:
"The third volume of the report was released by the committee in February, and found that the Obama administration was “frozen” in combatting 2016 Russian election meddling and “not well-postured” to counter Russian interference.Burr and Warner found that the Obama administration “struggled to determine the appropriate response,” and stated that it was “frozen by ‘paralysis of analysis,’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived” and debated courses of action “without truly taking one.”
Seems like this failure in leadership needs to be included in the discussion... JMO
Now let’s review:
Obama brought this to Mitch McConnell asking for help. Obama didn’t want to make it public as he felt it would look like he is being partisan in his response. So Obama wanted Mitch’s help to release a bi-partisan response and approach.
What did McConnell do?
Absolutely nothing. He squashed it, knowing any news from the GOP that said Russians were helping Trump could cost them votes.
Hence Obama did nothing when McConnell refused to cooperate.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference
Obama looked for political cover rather than doing the right thing to block and expose it. Got it. If he truthfully had the goods, he should have been a leader and brought it forward. Truth speaks for itself. What did McConnell know and how clear cut the evidence? If it wasn't clear cut, I wouldn't sign on either.
Quoting the article "McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House's claims." Not clear cut enough to convince McConnell. If Obama believed he had the goods, should have exposed it to the American people.
If Obama wanted to make it political he would have taken the Trump route:
Cherry picked the data, made it an GOP vs Dem issue, blamed Dems and chastised them and wanted no part of trying to work together.
So by Obama not using this as a launching pad to scream about Russians helping Republicans which he could have, using the GOP as a punching bag like we all know Trump would have, and instead tried to do the adult, respectable thing by trying to work with the other party and they shut him down .... you see it as a failure of leadership by Obama?
Interesting take, and completely laughable.
Maybe Obama is the only one man enough to put politics aside and defend the USA against our enemies - the GOP doesn’t seem to care about Russians interfering in elections as long as they are helping the GOP. Why won’t McConnell even put any of the bills that were introduced to a vote for safeguarding our elections?
The failure of leadership rests on the do-nothing, vote on nothing piece of shit running the Senate McConnell.
He's your man, be proud. Unwilling to take action to protect our elections, assuming he had the goods. We'll never know as he never said during a critical time. So brave, so laudable. Yes, blame a republican and then do nothing. Leadership by inaction and indecision. I get it, you're solidly in the blue camp and can not see anything as an obama failure. Fine, I don't agree.
Are you unaware of the sanctions Obama put in Russia in response?
The same sanctions Trump wanted lifted?
You blame Obama for inaction because he tried but got no support from GOP, yet you give McConnell a free pass ... there’s the issue. Blame the Dems for another GOP failure, that’s all I’m seeing.
I am independent, not team blue. I am Dem by default because GOP has morphed into a bizarre “blindly support Trump at all costs” movement.
Back to the OP.
Not much "buzz" on this story, the day after.
Hey, SFVF & BigAl got a "BIPARTISAN!" (funny that word was never a 'descriptor' & was not in headlines when the same committee found "no Trump collusion" earlier)
Senate Intel Committee to proclaim: "the intel community/ICA was proper tradecraft".
As I said in another thread, that was the total opposite finding of the intel community's "tradecraft", by EVERY OTHER entity reviewing the intel community's actions:
The following were blistering in their assessments of the intel community (only one can be argued as 'partisan'): - the fellow House intel review
- the department's exhaustive OIG (Horowitz) review
- former and current FBI directors admissions of several/major errors/mistakes
- past and former FISA court head Judges (so much so, the present head Judge -- Boasberg -- has ordered a review OF ALL SIMILAR FISA apps/& have barred offending intel community agents from appearing before his (Boasberg's) court)
But ya'll got the Senate Intel Committee, disagreeing. Yay?
More Media Misdirection on Trump-RussiaBy ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
April 22, 2020
The most useless committee on Capitol Hill has answered a question no one was asking.The headline is an attention-grabber, particularly the subhead. The New York Times breathlessly reports that a Republican-led Senate panel has issued a report that “undercuts claims by President Trump and his allies that Obama-era officials sought to undermine his candidacy by investigating Russia’s 2016 election meddling.”
Naturally, you’re thinking: “That’s it. All Trump’s diatribes about a ‘hoax’ have been the usual claptrap. Even the GOP admits that the Obama administration had good reasons to investigate whether Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia.”
Except . . . that’s not what the Times story actually says. Carefully parsed, it’s not even what the headline says.
In truth, the story is a nothing-burger. We learn that one of the most useless committees on Capitol Hill, the Senate Intelligence Committee, has issued a 158-page report — festooned with the usual “there are things we can’t tell you” redactions — as a capper to its three-year investigation into a question no one is asking: Did the intelligence community competently conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign?
No one is asking that question because, for the vast majority of people closely following the collusion caper, that would be like asking whether the Chiefs won the Super Bowl.
We know Russia interfered in our campaign. Given Moscow’s long history of meddling in American politics, it would only have been a story if Russia did not meddle. The principal argument by President Trump and other intelligence agency critics has not been that Obama officials undermined Trump’s candidacy and presidency “by investigating Russia’s 2016 election meddling.” The argument is that they undermined Trump’s campaign and presidency by claiming that Trump and his campaign were complicit in Russia’s 2016 election meddling.
On that key question the Useless Committee is, as is its custom, mum.
To be sure, there are some pockets of doubters on the question of Russia’s culpability. There always will be because, as I described chapter-and-verse in Ball of Collusion, (a) the Obama administration habitually politicized intelligence to serve its narratives, and (b) the Obama-era Justice Department and FBI ignored rudimentary investigative practice by failing, in one of the most consequential investigations in American history, to take custody and conduct their own forensic examination of the body of the crime, the Democratic Party servers that had been hacked — relying, instead, on a DNC contractor with deep connections to the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration.
Add to this that Robert Mueller, that senescent Washington fixture, larded his staff with activist Democrats whose indictments were long on political narrative but short on actual crimes. Add, too, that Mueller’s case against Russian companies charged in the “troll farm” scheme collapsed after it became painfully clear that the social-media propaganda conspiracy was laughable, improvidently charged, and could not be tied to the Kremlin.
You get the point: Few people doubt that Russia is guilty, but if the Washington establishment cannot convince everyone of that fact, it’s got itself to blame.
But that’s all a sideshow.
(cont)
(cont)
The real question is whether the Obama administration and its officials held over by the new administration fabricated a tale about the Trump campaign’s complicity in Russia’s hacking. Did they peddle that tale to the FISA court while willfully concealing key exculpatory evidence? Did they continue the investigation under the guise of counterintelligence after Trump was elected, in the hope of finding a crime over which he could be impeached? Did they consciously mislead an American president about whether he was under investigation? Did they purposefully suggest in public testimony that the president was a criminal suspect, while privately assuring him that he was not one? And finally, when the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense was collapsing in a heap, did they open a criminal obstruction case — based on an untenable legal theory and facilitated by a leak of investigative information that was orchestrated by the just-fired FBI director — in order to justify continuing the probe under the auspices of a special counsel?
On these questions, the Useless Committee’s report is silent. Indeed, the report says right up front, in the findings section, that the intelligence agencies, over the FBI’s objection, did not include information from the infamous Steele dossier in its December 30, 2016, assessment on Russian interference — though, “as a compromise to the FBI insistence,” dossier allegations were included in an annex to the assessment. The Senate-report findings do not get into why the FBI was pushing so hard on the preposterous dossier. Nor do they mention that, by the time of the assessment, the bureau had already heavily relied on the dossier to obtain a surveillance warrant from the FISA court, and was even then preparing a submission to get yet another warrant — telling the federal judges the bureau believed that the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Kremlin.
We don’t hear much about what matters from the Useless Committee. Indeed, when last we heard mention of the committee, it was because Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.), its chairman and the ultimate insider, made news for having feverishly dumped $1.7 million in his personal stock holdings on the eve of the coronavirus market collapse.
On the matter of Trump-Russia collusion allegations, the intelligence issue that roiled the nation for three years, the Intelligence Committee has had little to say. For a while, there was some dark collusion innuendo from Burr’s friend, Senator Mark Warner (D., Va.), the ranking member on the preeningly bipartisan committee. But we haven’t heard much since Warner was caught using the Washington lobbyist of a Putin-tied oligarch to try to score a tête-à-tête with the dossier fabulist, Christopher Steele. As Warner observed at the time, in a text to the lobbyist, we’d “ rather not have a paper trail” on this one.
And then there was Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla), another senior Useless Committee Republican. He was heard from a while back, assuring the media that, from all that he had seen, there was “ no evidence” that the FBI had been investigating the Trump campaign. Rubio was regurgitating the FBI’s talking points about how tasking informants to chat up Trump campaign officials about the campaign’s purported collusion with Russia was somehow not investigating the campaign. This, by the way, was after public disclosure that the FBI, in its FISA applications, had proclaimed its suspicion that the Trump campaign was enmeshed in a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” with the Kremlin — an allegation the bureau copied nearly word-for-word from the too-good-to-check Steele dossier (which baselessly alleged that this “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” was managed on the Trump side by campaign manager Paul Manafort, with Carter Page as an intermediary). Senator Rubio has not had much to say since the Justice Department’s inspector general began issuing reports about the FBI’s serial deceptions of the FISA court.
So now, the committee that does nothing has released a report about nothing new, which the Times promptly serves up as a bombshell that purportedly undercuts Trump contentions about the Obama administration’s Russia investigation . . . even though the committee report does not actually address the president’s main contention: that Obama intelligence and law-enforcement officials tried to frame Trump for conspiring in Russia’s election meddling.
Par for the course.
( link)
|
