• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s

Athanasius68 said:
What is being denied is that Russia was successful in swinging the election to a particular candidate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But as Zyphlin said a few posts ago, it was likely less about swinging the election toward Trump, and more about swinging it away from Hillary Clinton
 
STUT said:
Perhaps. But as Zyphlin said a few posts ago, it was likely less about swinging the election toward Trump, and more about swinging it away from Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...

The other post earlier probably describes Russia's objective best: an effort to create confusion and controversy, and to weaken the president-- whoever it was.
 
Threegoofs said:
It was all about chaos and uncertainty.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's been my take since pretty much the beginning. Essentially, in order of most likely components of motivation.

1. Chaos, uncertainty, and distrust in the American electoral process
2. A way for Russia/Putin to prop up it's status as a super power in terms of capabilities
3. A means of exacting revenge against a slight Putin felt, or public presented that he felt, he was dealt by Hillary Clinton/the US
4. A belief that Trump could be more easily leveraged or manipulated to Russia interest
 
Threegoofs said:
A sitting President casting serious doubts on the legitimacy of the election would have looked bad for everyone
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you here. However, the impression that the story was routinely imparting to me was that the desire to not cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election was not due to some genuine care or concern for that particular overriding notion such that it would have been the guiding principle regardless of the front-runner, but rather that it was simply due to the fact that Mrs. Clinton was the person who's legitimacy was would've been in question that there was such concern about causing the question to be in place.

Admittedly, perhaps that is a poor take on my part, but the paragraphs I sourced above and others like them in the story routinely painted a picture where the actions and decisions of the Obama Administration were being made first and foremost out of some overriding concern over the principles of legitimacy and the like, but rather on the basis of their impact as it related to the potential election of Mrs. Clinton. I don't disagree with you that addressing it during the election would have caused Trump and his cronies to scream bloody murder; I 100% think they would have. What I am saying is that the impression I'm getting from the story is that the decision to not address it more strongly during the election seemed to be based more, or at least as much, on not wanting to harm MRS. CLINTON as it was about not wanting to cast doubt about the legitimacy of the election in general. What's more, it gave the impression that had the front runner been changed, that the decision on how to act could conceivably been different as well, which frankly is not a good impression to be left with for the very point you raise in your post.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A secondary to all this is that, we've been told by Brennen (I think) that other nations were trying to do the same.
Click to expand...

Well, my understanding was that the "other nations were trying to do the same" comment was a broad one in terms of other nations probing our voting systems, political parties computer systems, etc.

He's absolutely right there. When I was doing my research for the post/story I'm slowly working on regarding the motivations into the hacking, I was looking at how "common" some of this stuff was. There are news stories from 2012, 2008, and I believe I even found some from 2004 about foreign entities attempting to hack our election systems. It's not exactly a "new" thing. The ones that are typically "named" at any given time in the different stories? Not surprisingly, it's whatever country happens to be the "hot button" enemy at the time. Many of the stories in 2012 were focused around the threat of China and their probing attempts at our electronic systems.

What is somewhat different this time around, compared to years prior, is the potentially broader array of influential tools that the Russians arguably brought to bear.

The use of social media to flood clickbait propaganda type stories into the general consciousness, and the amount they managed to propogate, is something that is relatively new this time around. Part of that is the fact that 2016 was the first presidential election where news and social media has been this significantly intertwined that such efforts could actually find noticeable success. Part of it is the fact that Russia has shown themselves to have one of the most successful propaganda arms in regards to crafting these kind of things. Additionally, the DNC email hack and leak (I'm still unsure of the Podesta emails being a "Russian" backed thing; and even the various letters from intelligence agencies speak primarily of the DNC hack) is something unlike we've seen in previous election cycles and there's at least compelling reasons to potentially link that back to Russia.

While it's common that various adversarial state actors will probe our electoral systems and our political parties and entities, the success and the extent that Russia apparently managed to attain in this particular election cycle is unlike what any other state has managed...at least to public knowledge...up until this point. That's why, at least in part, it has garnered as much attention as it has. (the other reason being that it's par for the course now that each side has to find some thing to bitch about to declare the other sides rightfully chosen President as illegitimate)
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't disagree with you here. However, the impression that the story was routinely imparting to me was that the desire to not cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election was not due to some genuine care or concern for that particular overriding notion such that it would have been the guiding principle regardless of the front-runner, but rather that it was simply due to the fact that Mrs. Clinton was the person who's legitimacy was would've been in question that there was such concern about causing the question to be in place.

Admittedly, perhaps that is a poor take on my part, but the paragraphs I sourced above and others like them in the story routinely painted a picture where the actions and decisions of the Obama Administration were being made first and foremost out of some overriding concern over the principles of legitimacy and the like, but rather on the basis of their impact as it related to the potential election of Mrs. Clinton. I don't disagree with you that addressing it during the election would have caused Trump and his cronies to scream bloody murder; I 100% think they would have. What I am saying is that the impression I'm getting from the story is that the decision to not address it more strongly during the election seemed to be based more, or at least as much, on not wanting to harm MRS. CLINTON as it was about not wanting to cast doubt about the legitimacy of the election in general. What's more, it gave the impression that had the front runner been changed, that the decision on how to act could conceivably been different as well, which frankly is not a good impression to be left with for the very point you raise in your post.
Click to expand...

I think it would have been the same situation if someone else was running, or if the parties in the WH were reversed (assuming a sane and rational POTUS).
 
Threegoofs said:
I think it would have been the same situation if someone else was running, or if the parties in the WH were reversed (assuming a sane and rational POTUS).
Click to expand...

Sadly I actually agree that it would probably be the same situation if it was someone else in the WH or if the parties were reversed....but probably not in agreement with what you actually mean. IE...if it was a Republican in the white house and a Republican, it wouldn't shock me if I a story came out giving me the impression that they didn't want to act because it may make the republican front runner look illegitimate, but it left me with the impression they would have been likely to act if the democrat was out front.

Maybe I'm just too cynical ;)
 
Zyphlin said:
Well, my understanding was that the "other nations were trying to do the same" comment was a broad one in terms of other nations probing our voting systems, political parties computer systems, etc.

He's absolutely right there. When I was doing my research for the post/story I'm slowly working on regarding the motivations into the hacking, I was looking at how "common" some of this stuff was. There are news stories from 2012, 2008, and I believe I even found some from 2004 about foreign entities attempting to hack our election systems. It's not exactly a "new" thing. The ones that are typically "named" at any given time in the different stories? Not surprisingly, it's whatever country happens to be the "hot button" enemy at the time. Many of the stories in 2012 were focused around the threat of China and their probing attempts at our electronic systems.

What is somewhat different this time around, compared to years prior, is the potentially broader array of influential tools that the Russians arguably brought to bear.

The use of social media to flood clickbait propaganda type stories into the general consciousness, and the amount they managed to propogate, is something that is relatively new this time around. Part of that is the fact that 2016 was the first presidential election where news and social media has been this significantly intertwined that such efforts could actually find noticeable success. Part of it is the fact that Russia has shown themselves to have one of the most successful propaganda arms in regards to crafting these kind of things. Additionally, the DNC email hack and leak (I'm still unsure of the Podesta emails being a "Russian" backed thing; and even the various letters from intelligence agencies speak primarily of the DNC hack) is something unlike we've seen in previous election cycles and there's at least compelling reasons to potentially link that back to Russia.

While it's common that various adversarial state actors will probe our electoral systems and our political parties and entities, the success and the extent that Russia apparently managed to attain in this particular election cycle is unlike what any other state has managed...at least to public knowledge...up until this point. That's why, at least in part, it has garnered as much attention as it has. (the other reason being that it's par for the course now that each side has to find some thing to bitch about to declare the other sides rightfully chosen President as illegitimate)
Click to expand...

I'm very skeptical of the claims of Russia flooding stories and the Russians hacked the DNC.
The former wasn't very significant, from what I can find and the latter has more evidence available that disputes it.
 
Zyphlin said:
Sadly I actually agree that it would probably be the same situation if it was someone else in the WH or if the parties were reversed....but probably not in agreement with what you actually mean. IE...if it was a Republican in the white house and a Republican, it wouldn't shock me if I a story came out giving me the impression that they didn't want to act because it may make the republican front runner look illegitimate, but it left me with the impression they would have been likely to act if the democrat was out front.

Maybe I'm just too cynical ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a sad situation at all. It's just reality. There's no way we want to see a sitting President casting doubt on a concurrent election publicly. I think they did the appropriate thing, and it's sadly getting ignored now when this is precisely the time to nip it in the bud.

And just look at the reaction GOP leadership in the WaPo piece had when confronted with the evidence.
 
Last edited:
JANFU said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ner-high_russiaobama-banner-7a:homepage/story


More and more we see intel on Russian interference in the Presidential election

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ssia-hacking-timeline/?utm_term=.ada5fd8f769b
Click to expand...

1. For decades Demokrats and their Goebbels Media have been complicit in poisoning America with Socialist claptrap... perverting a good portion of ignorant Americans.

2. Russia and others have always sought to influence US elections. They've succeeded. Just look at the Demokrat Party.

3. According to Jeh Johnson... the Russians had no influence on the election. Just as everyone else has stated.

4. When Russians hacked... why did the DNC not permit the FBI inspect their "server"? Odd, don't you think?

Trey Gowdy Jeh Johnson
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wBRk_9nXZuk

Trey Gowdy on Demokrats not allowing FBI look at their "server", and what it means (cough, cough... corruption).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4fahXU3NrKM
 
Gill said:
Maybe the American people aren't interested is because one intelligence official after another has testified that nothing the Russians supposedly did affected a single vote in the election.
Click to expand...
A number of people keep saying that and it is the single most retarded thing that can be said about the issue. Is it the inability to think or just willful stupidity that creates such idiocy?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I've seen a lot of claims, but very little evidence.
The one thing that is needed, is in short supply.
Click to expand...

Well we have had public testimony. Then we have leaks, and many do point to Russia. Eventually the Senate will need a Bi Partisan Committee to publish a report.
That will come whether Trump wants it or not.

On the other hand, and off topic, I think Flynn has been flipped by the FBI and has an immunity guarantee. Of all those that received subpoenas and such, he has the least money and the most to lose financially.
Lawyers are hellish expensive.
Lastly if convicted Flynn will lose his pension.
 
zimmer said:
1. For decades Demokrats and their Goebbels Media have been complicit in poisoning America with Socialist claptrap... perverting a good portion of ignorant Americans.

2. Russia and others have always sought to influence US elections. They've succeeded. Just look at the Demokrat Party.

3. According to Jeh Johnson... the Russians had no influence on the election. Just as everyone else has stated.

4. When Russians hacked... why did the DNC not permit the FBI inspect their "server"? Odd, don't you think?

Trey Gowdy Jeh Johnson
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wBRk_9nXZuk

Trey Gowdy on Demokrats not allowing FBI look at their "server", and what it means (cough, cough... corruption).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4fahXU3NrKM
Click to expand...

Ah Zimmer you are so easy to refute.
That always happens to hyper partisans.

BREAKING: GOP Congressman Says Russia Hacked Republicans Too | Mediaite

McCaul, who is Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, told Wolf Blitzer that RNC emails had been breached just as DNC emails were, according to briefings he had received.

Blitzer noted that RNC Chair Reince Preibus said in July that his party had not been hacked. McCaul said he could not say when the hack occurred, but he affirmed that the party had been informed. He said that the extent of the hack was unknown and was the subject of an ongoing FBI investigation.

“It’s curious that they released Democratic party information and not Republican party information. It’s curious to me. I assume it is to you as well,” Blitzer said.
Click to expand...

FBI Says Russia Hacked Republican State Campaigns, Just Not Trump's

Russia hacked into Republican state political campaigns and old email domains of the Republican National Committee but there is no evidence it successfully penetrated President-elect Donald Trump's campaign, FBI Director James Comey said on Tuesday.

Comey also told lawmakers Russia did not release information obtained from the state campaigns or the old RNC email domains, comments that may buttress the U.S. intelligence view that Moscow tried to help Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign.

U.S. intelligence agencies on Friday released an assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a covert effort to help Republican Trump's electoral chances by discrediting Clinton.
Click to expand...
 
JANFU said:
Well we have had public testimony. Then we have leaks, and many do point to Russia. Eventually the Senate will need a Bi Partisan Committee to publish a report.
That will come whether Trump wants it or not.

On the other hand, and off topic, I think Flynn has been flipped by the FBI and has an immunity guarantee. Of all those that received subpoenas and such, he has the least money and the most to lose financially.
Lawyers are hellish expensive.
Lastly if convicted Flynn will lose his pension.
Click to expand...

I think most of the things people believe are going to happen, aren't.
Most of this mess will die with a whimper, at worst Flynn may get in trouble.

Could be wrong, but I don't think there is anything there.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think most of the things people believe are going to happen, aren't.
Most of this mess will die with a whimper, at worst Flynn may get in trouble.

Could be wrong, but I don't think there is anything there.
Click to expand...

Old saying, where there is smoke, there is fire. And we have seen a ton of smoke. But time will tell
 
Threegoofs said:
And just look at the reaction GOP leadership in the WaPo piece had when confronted with the evidence.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing my point. It's not about whether or not we want to see a President casting doubt on a concurrent election publicly; it's about whether or not we want to see a President making that decision based on whether or not it would benefit or hurt their parties nominee.

But let's take your premise in terms of reality and the issues with perception and the difficulty with dealing with that, and play a bit of devil's advocate with things right now. If the focus was more on RUSSIA, and figuring out what RUSSIA was doing, and condemning RUSSIA, and talking about RUSSIA's wrongful action, and getting/punishing/dealing with RUSSIA.....and much less focused on Trump and his administration as anything more than potential patsies caught within the net, and with the seeming focus far less on finding ways of punishing and/or impeaching/thwarting Trump rather than the Russians....do you think the GOP, or at least portions of it, would be a bit more willing to get on board with going hard at the investigations going on?

Because as you said, there's a general notion that you don't want to cast doubts on the legitimacy of an election; that still holds true. And much like I get the impression from the article that part of why Obama didn't want to take action was because the casting of doubt would hurt his party specifically, I don't doubt there's some Republicans that are feeling the same right now.

I've been openly a proponent of digging into the Russian meddling fully and thoroughly for some time on this board. I think it's an atrocious thing that absolutely needs to be looked into, and responded to, thoroughly and significantly. At the same time, both sides have absolutely disgusted me in regards to their response to this, because frankly BOTH sides have largely been given Russia a pass in the manner in which they've been handling it. Many on the right, primarily the heavy Trump supporters, have been hand waving the whole thing away. Meanwhile, many on the left and some on the right, primarily the heavy Trump bashers, have been FAR more focused on "Getting Trump" and any and every possible facet that can be used to destroy/hinder/impeach him than they are in any way really giving a **** about Russia who frankly is the far more tangible, significant, and legitimate issue here.

But, again, cynical; just typical ****ing politics. It's the same reason I got so annoyed when Putin made this ridiculous aggressive comment a few weeks back, and yet somehow the thread became a condemnation/defense of Donald Trump for nonsensical and illogical reasons instead of, oh I don't know, condemning and criticizing Vladamir ****ing Putin.
 
JANFU said:
Old saying, where there is smoke, there is fire. And we have seen a ton of smoke. But time will tell
Click to expand...

I think that saying, by and large, is becoming somewhat irrelevant in the ever expanding nature of media today. This has been something I've been noticing for going on a decade now frankly. It began with 24/7 "news" channels, then you had the blogosphere, then moving into the proliferation of social media; there is SO much information out there, in so many formats, catered to so many different niches, that essentially there can always be smoke. We're basically created an environment that is a perpetual smog cloud. That doesn't mean there's not at times fires burning underneath it all, but time and time again it seems that the fires that are there are more often then not typically turning out to be nothing relative to the scale of the amount of "smoke" that appears, because the smoke is being artificially magnified compared to times in the past.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think you're missing my point. It's not about whether or not we want to see a President casting doubt on a concurrent election publicly; it's about whether or not we want to see a President making that decision based on whether or not it would benefit or hurt their parties nominee.

But let's take your premise in terms of reality and the issues with perception and the difficulty with dealing with that, and play a bit of devil's advocate with things right now. If the focus was more on RUSSIA, and figuring out what RUSSIA was doing, and condemning RUSSIA, and talking about RUSSIA's wrongful action, and getting/punishing/dealing with RUSSIA.....and much less focused on Trump and his administration as anything more than potential patsies caught within the net, and with the seeming focus far less on finding ways of punishing and/or impeaching/thwarting Trump rather than the Russians....do you think the GOP, or at least portions of it, would be a bit more willing to get on board with going hard at the investigations going on?

Because as you said, there's a general notion that you don't want to cast doubts on the legitimacy of an election; that still holds true. And much like I get the impression from the article that part of why Obama didn't want to take action was because the casting of doubt would hurt his party specifically, I don't doubt there's some Republicans that are feeling the same right now.

I've been openly a proponent of digging into the Russian meddling fully and thoroughly for some time on this board. I think it's an atrocious thing that absolutely needs to be looked into, and responded to, thoroughly and significantly. At the same time, both sides have absolutely disgusted me in regards to their response to this, because frankly BOTH sides have largely been given Russia a pass in the manner in which they've been handling it. Many on the right, primarily the heavy Trump supporters, have been hand waving the whole thing away. Meanwhile, many on the left and some on the right, primarily the heavy Trump bashers, have been FAR more focused on "Getting Trump" and any and every possible facet that can be used to destroy/hinder/impeach him than they are in any way really giving a **** about Russia who frankly is the far more tangible, significant, and legitimate issue here.

But, again, cynical; just typical ****ing politics. It's the same reason I got so annoyed when Putin made this ridiculous aggressive comment a few weeks back, and yet somehow the thread became a condemnation/defense of Donald Trump for nonsensical and illogical reasons instead of, oh I don't know, condemning and criticizing Vladamir ****ing Putin.
Click to expand...

If you switched parties on this issue, I think you'd see similar reactions among political partisans. I think its more pronounced with Trump though because the perception, which I dont think its unreasonable, that Trump is a bigger danger to the US than Russia.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think that saying, by and large, is becoming somewhat irrelevant in the ever expanding nature of media today. This has been something I've been noticing for going on a decade now frankly. It began with 24/7 "news" channels, then you had the blogosphere, then moving into the proliferation of social media; there is SO much information out there, in so many formats, catered to so many different niches, that essentially there can always be smoke. We're basically created an environment that is a perpetual smog cloud. That doesn't mean there's not at times fires burning underneath it all, but time and time again it seems that the fires that are there are more often then not typically turning out to be nothing relative to the scale of the amount of "smoke" that appears, because the smoke is being artificially magnified compared to times in the past.
Click to expand...

True but IMHO it just keeps on getting worse. I do think the head of steam is increasing and we will see more leaks, even public testimony (Senate more so than the House) as the demands grow for transparency. That would include ensuring no information is made public that would harm/impede an investigation.
Eventually a public report / investigation will be needed
 
STUT said:
For all the spectacle surrounding the Trump-Russia investigations, its unfortunate that this story has kind of taken a back seat. Even more disturbing is that many people still dont believe and deny that Russia directly worked to sway the election in favor of a particular candidate. Trump has many faults, and I doubt he personally colluded with Russia, but the lack of any sort of pubic response to the Russian thing for the Trump administration is both sad and suspicious
Click to expand...
Donald Trump has never publicly castigated Moscow for attacking our election process nor warned them to never do that again.

On the contrary, Commander-in Chief Trump invited the attackers into the Oval Office for some ketchup burgers and belly laughs.

C_5mYKAUwAAPiu1.jpg
 
prometeus said:
A number of people keep saying that and it is the single most retarded thing that can be said about the issue. Is it the inability to think or just willful stupidity that creates such idiocy?
Click to expand...

Neither, it is called reality.

1. There is zero evidence that Russia affected the outcome of the race.
2. There is zero evidence that any Americans acted on Russia's behalf.

Should we let Russia get away with it? Of course not. I firmly believe Putin knew he could play with our election with little or no consequences from Obama or Clinton if she had won the election. Both showed little inclination to confront Putin or pressure him during their time in office.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Donald Trump has never publicly castigated Moscow for attacking our election process nor warned them to never do that again.

On the contrary, Commander-in Chief Trump invited the attackers into the Oval Office for some ketchup burgers and belly laughs.
Click to expand...

Just think how mad you would have gotten if Trump had sent a personal message to Putin that he would have "more flexibility" after the election to work with him.

Right??

russia.jpg
 
Zyphlin said:
We're basically created an environment that is a perpetual smog cloud..
Click to expand...
It would be one thing if it was just coming from the Democratic talking heads or the press, but it's not.

Remember this originated as a classified counter intelligence investigation, and only made its way to the press a year or so later. Comey is not the press, he was the Director of the FBI. It also happens to have been specifically concerning the very people running for election, it was Russia's plan to hurt Hillary, and elect Trump (in so many words). How can that not look bad for Trump? Who can change that? Only Trump can, because Russia won't, and the press will report what occurred, which as stated, looks bad for Trump.
But Trump can't manage that.
Was it the press that told Trump to tweet "Obama wire tapped me, bad man" (or whatever)?
Was it their choice not to clarify officially?
Was it the press that made Nunes run cover on that same issue for Trump, while simultaneously heading up the house investigation into the same Russian meddling?
Was it the press that made Trump keep Flynn despite being warned by Obama, despite later being again warned by Yates??

You're too reasonable to bore with more of that laundry list of similar Trump/staff originated efforts that caused the press and the public to choke on the smoke, I know you know it's a long list.

Yes, I do think the press on political matters helps strengthen a cloud of misinformation. I also think some networks are better than others (both in terms of factual reporting, and in terms of partisan lean). Let's not make this out to be some moot point. The right wing media machine is just better at perpetuating half truths as facts, as compared to MSM.
 
Gill said:
Just think how mad you would have gotten if Trump had sent a personal message to Putin that he would have "more flexibility" after the election to work with him.
Click to expand...
Obama is not the sitting president and CinC. Trump is.

Try again.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Obama is not the sitting president and CinC. Trump is.

Try again.
Click to expand...

That shouldn't stop you from addressing his post, unless doing so would destroy your own narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom