• 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!

Did Susan Rice commit obstruction of justice?

Did Susan Rice commit obstruction of justice?

  • Yes - using her office to protect Russian interference is obstruction of justice

    Votes: 7 87.5%

  • No - using her office to protect Russian interference is legal

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Total voters
    8
J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Former Obama administration National Security Council cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel confirmed on Wednesday that a "stand down" order was given to counter Russian cyberattacks during the 2016 election.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's cyberattacks. Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"

Obama cyber chief confirms '''stand down''' order against Russian cyberattacks | Fox News

That is a clear a case of obstruction of justice as it gets. She should be indicted and prosecuted. What say you?
 
Last edited:
A Trump defender speaking about obstruction of justice is worth less than a :fart
 
Obama didn't do enough to stop trump and the russians ?



tumblr_pq622nXhtD1r75mb5_1280.jpg




:lol:
 
Mr Person said:
A Trump defender speaking about obstruction of justice is worth less than a :fart
Click to expand...

As is you feeble attempt at deflection. :fart
 
I don’t think that constitutes obstruction of justice. It definitely appears to be dereliction of duty.

My guess is the Obama administration didn’t think Russia’s attempts would succeed so didn’t want to rock the boat while trying to get the Iran deal done. It was a bad decision.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I don’t think that constitutes obstruction of justice. It definitely appears to be dereliction of duty.

My guess is the Obama administration didn’t think Russia’s attempts would succeed so didn’t want to rock the boat while trying to get the Iran deal done. It was a bad decision.
Click to expand...

They didn't take action because they hoped Trump would actually collude with the Russians and they could get him on it. Fail. That was Strozak's "insurance policy". Well, the insurance didn't pay off. Trump beat them fair and square.
 
chuckiechan said:
It looks like all road leads to Obama.
Click to expand...

Its going to be a seriously black mark against his presidency for years, decades to come, and rightfully so, that he either didn't bother to know or care about this stuff, or that he orchestrated this stuff.
 
joko104 said:
Former Obama administration National Security Council cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel confirmed on Wednesday that a "stand down" order was given to counter Russian cyberattacks during the 2016 election.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's cyberattacks. Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"

Obama cyber chief confirms '''stand down''' order against Russian cyberattacks | Fox News

That is a clear a case of obstruction of justice as it gets. She should be indicted and prosecuted. What say you?
Click to expand...

Do Russian cyberattacks fall under legal US law?

In order to obstruct justice, you have to have corrupt intent for an advantage and act on it. This would seem to be pretty hard to make the case on this.

Now, failing to protect the US against a known, clear and present danger or threat, that would be a different set of statues, wouldn't it?
 
joko104 said:
Former Obama administration National Security Council cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel confirmed on Wednesday that a "stand down" order was given to counter Russian cyberattacks during the 2016 election.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's cyberattacks. Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"

Obama cyber chief confirms '''stand down''' order against Russian cyberattacks | Fox News

That is a clear a case of obstruction of justice as it gets. She should be indicted and prosecuted. What say you?
Click to expand...
Im not sure obstruction is the correct charge

Either aiding and abetting or conspiracy seems more fitting

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Im not sure obstruction is the correct charge

Either aiding and abetting or conspiracy seems more fitting

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

TB2YoZccCB0XKJjSZFsXXaxfpXa_!!383076372-0-headline_editor.jpg
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I don’t think that constitutes obstruction of justice. It definitely appears to be dereliction of duty.

My guess is the Obama administration didn’t think Russia’s attempts would succeed so didn’t want to rock the boat while trying to get the Iran deal done. It was a bad decision.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think the left were so totally and completely arrogant that the election was in the bag for them they felt that after a Hillary win, they didn't want Trump to have any legitimacy in trying to claim that the election was rigged in any way. So, they ordered they stand down so that when Hillary won it would look like pure sour grapes with Trump claiming foul. Just like with Hillary not writing a concession speech, the left felt they could just let the Russia thing go and still win. That's how over confident they were.
 
joko104 said:
Former Obama administration National Security Council cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel confirmed on Wednesday that a "stand down" order was given to counter Russian cyberattacks during the 2016 election.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's cyberattacks. Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"

Obama cyber chief confirms '''stand down''' order against Russian cyberattacks | Fox News

That is a clear a case of obstruction of justice as it gets. She should be indicted and prosecuted. What say you?
Click to expand...

First off, she was just following orders. Second off, this isn't technically obstruction of justice.
 
Waddy said:
They didn't take action because they hoped Trump would actually collude with the Russians and they could get him on it. Fail. That was Strozak's "insurance policy". Well, the insurance didn't pay off. Trump beat them fair and square.
Click to expand...

Immorality pays! I find it hard to believe I am reading this tripe with my own eyes. God, this country is going to the gutter.
 
Moderate Right said:
Personally, I think the left were so totally and completely arrogant that the election was in the bag for them they felt that after a Hillary win, they didn't want Trump to have any legitimacy in trying to claim that the election was rigged in any way. So, they ordered they stand down so that when Hillary won it would look like pure sour grapes with Trump claiming foul. Just like with Hillary not writing a concession speech, the left felt they could just let the Russia thing go and still win. That's how over confident they were.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I don’t think that constitutes obstruction of justice. It definitely appears to be dereliction of duty.

My guess is the Obama administration didn’t think Russia’s attempts would succeed so didn’t want to rock the boat while trying to get the Iran deal done. It was a bad decision.
Click to expand...

I think that's also Fox News' guess.
 
Moderate Right said:
Personally, I think the left were so totally and completely arrogant that the election was in the bag for them they felt that after a Hillary win, they didn't want Trump to have any legitimacy in trying to claim that the election was rigged in any way. So, they ordered they stand down so that when Hillary won it would look like pure sour grapes with Trump claiming foul. Just like with Hillary not writing a concession speech, the left felt they could just let the Russia thing go and still win. That's how over confident they were.
Click to expand...

Apparently Obama feared that calling out Russia would give them what they wanted.

A source familiar with the matter did not contest the characterization, but said the Obama administration "timed its response so as to not provoke the Russians into materially affecting the outcome of the election."
Click to expand...

Susan Rice told White House cyber team to 'knock it off' on combatting Russian meddling - Business Insider
 
j brown's body said:
Immorality pays! I find it hard to believe I am reading this tripe with my own eyes. God, this country is going to the gutter.
Click to expand...

You're correct; the immoral and probably illegal actions by the Democrat operatives who would rather allow Russian interference because it might catch a big fish rather than enforce the law of the land. Why didn't they warn Trump?
 
joko104 said:
Former Obama administration National Security Council cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel confirmed on Wednesday that a "stand down" order was given to counter Russian cyberattacks during the 2016 election.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's cyberattacks. Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"

Obama cyber chief confirms '''stand down''' order against Russian cyberattacks | Fox News

That is a clear a case of obstruction of justice as it gets. She should be indicted and prosecuted. What say you?
Click to expand...

The experts must have been getting too close to uncovering the truth for democrats to allow them to continue.
 
joko104 said:
Former Obama administration National Security Council cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel confirmed on Wednesday that a "stand down" order was given to counter Russian cyberattacks during the 2016 election.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's cyberattacks. Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"

Obama cyber chief confirms '''stand down''' order against Russian cyberattacks | Fox News

That is a clear a case of obstruction of justice as it gets. She should be indicted and prosecuted. What say you?
Click to expand...

It seems you didn't read the article. The order was to reduce the number of people involved not to stop working on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom