[Innovative]

So, who broke security and told the paper all about it?

And can we believe any of this -- or is this just another attempt by the Dems and Obama to try to imply Russian involvement in the election with manufactured evidence?

[Jane Long]

Maybe 0 will write a book about this....

Mein Geheimnis Kampf

[piasa]

So, who broke security and told the paper all about it?

"This account of the Obama administration’s response to Russia’s interference is based on interviews with more than three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior positions in government, including at the White House, the State, Defense and Homeland Security departments, and U.S. intelligence services. Most agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue."

Apparently there are at least 3 dozen current and former officials who need to be punished for leaking. This says a lot about how unprofessional our intel agencies are, if true.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I really hate how little the Obama administration understood or care at all about security. Clinton was just the most obvious example of a gang who really didn’t care if all our secrets became public knowledge.

[right way right]

‘Obama should be indicted for sedition and possible treason for disrupting the normal transfer of executive branch powers’

(My dream Trump twitter)

I say, pour on the gas!

Obama and Hillary need to STHU!

[CharlesWayneCT]

BTW, I believe this story has ONE, and only ONE purpose for existing, and I believe it has been on the shelf for a while.

Specifically, last week President Trump started tweeting about how badly Obama botched the protection of our country from Russian “hacking”. It was a reasonable tweet, and this story seems to be saying “No, Obama was EXCELLENT at it and saved our country”.

[Luke21]

Took three imbeciles to produce this one.

[piasa]

And can we believe any of this -- or is this just another attempt by the Dems and Obama to try to imply Russian involvement in the election with manufactured evidence?

I think it's crap- the only reason they might have obtained intel on any of Putin's personal communications - given his experience level and the almost total lack of cybersecurity professionalism in the Obama admin- is if Putin WANTED them to have it and KNEW they would readily buy everything he said and behave just the way they are behaving.

[piasa]

Contrast the photo of the situation room in the bin Laden raid with so many people jammed into it that it had to stink of sweat...

To the situation room as described here with just a handful of people.

What’s the difference? The former event was a real national security issue where real people’s lives were at stake- the latter was a precaution used for a coverup of a partisan op to prevent the discovery and investigation of a conspiracy.

[piasa]

By August, Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged. Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russia’s efforts to discredit the outcome and potentially contaminating the expected Clinton triumph.

So after the elction, the Democrats at the highest leadership levels suddenly thought it wise to discredit the outcome and staged violent riots throughout the country in a fit of juvenile frustration?

[silverleaf]

So in October 2016 Obama lied publicly at a Rose Garden press conference where he slammed Trump for even suggesting the election could be rigged and lectured everyone about how it was impossible to hack US elections? And said Trump should stop whining and just go get more votes?

[piasa]

Despite the intelligence the CIA had produced, other agencies were slower to endorse a conclusion that Putin was personally directing the operation and wanted to help Trump.

First the article goes on in detail how brennan went to great lengths to keep other agencies from having access to the "intel" ... then the authors try to smear these agencies as "slow." Furthermore, the authors, without evidence, claim the other agencies wanted to help Trump? How did the authors come to this conclusion?

[piasa]

Jeh Johnson, the homeland-security secretary, was responsible for finding out whether the government could quickly shore up the security of the nation’s archaic patchwork of voting systems. He floated the idea of designating state mechanisms “critical infrastructure,” a label that would have entitled states to receive priority in federal cybersecurity assistance, putting them on a par with U.S. defense contractors and financial networks.

Here is the real Democrat aim of all this nonsense... they cannot succeed in impeaching trump but they do have some hope of duping people into supporting a federal takeover of the elections process through the usual means of federal takeovers of everything including highways and schools and environmental regs-- federal subsidies/funding of local and state elections to make local and state officials dependent on the central government for money.

This really WILL undermine the one thing that makes it difficult to rig a presidential election... our "archaic patchwork." that "archaic patchwork" makes it very difficult because it is not centralized- there's no cheap quick way to push a button or hack a computer and change thousands upon thousands of votes. To rig it requires an enormous investment of time and labor on the order of ACORN sized and funded organizations. For security, the more archaic the better.

[AmusedBystander]

What did President Obama know and when did he know it?

Why, when he read about it in the Washington Post of course.

Let's just sweep this spying on political enemies under the rug with the rest of the Obama scandals.

[piasa]

Ellen Nakashima knew about it since Crowdstrike and the DNC hatched it