Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And it happened under Obama's watch. Obama was aware of it and expressly told the FBI to "stand down" in their efforts to expose it and block it.
Yet another weak and useless deflection. The question isn't what Obama is going to do about this, is it?
The question is what TRUMP is going to do about it, now that Mueller has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Russians attacked us on our shores. So far I haven't got any answer whatsoever to that question. What is his plan to protect us? When will he bring his fiery outrage against Putin and the thugs that desecrated our national election?
Pure nonsense. McConnell stopped Obama from speaking out on it? McConnell is not even in the loop between Obama and the CIA or DOJ. Obama didn't need anyone's consent or approval to do any of a hundred things he could have done but chose not to.
Michael Daniel confirmed Wednesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice ordered him and his staff to "stand down" in 2016 in regard to Russian attempts to meddle in the 2016 election.
... Daniel's staff reportedly responded to the order in "disbelief."
The Washington Post reported that Obama himself — along with three top aides — was given direct evidence from the CIA of Russian President Vladimir Putin's cyber campaign to influence the election. The Obama administration reportedly knew of Russia's actions for months ahead of the 2016 election, but failed to take retaliatory action until December.
If not, it means your faux outrage over Benghazi is political grandstanding and nothing more
2 completely different situations...I don't expect you to be able the make the distinction, since well, you posted something that is completely opposite....
But, lets play....
Were they under the same circumstances as the other?
Your own quote shows you are wrong. MUELLER did not agree that obstruction did not occur. As you quoted, Barr and Rosenstein concluded that, after less than 48 hours review. Not Mueller.
Let us be frank: we don't even know if Rosenstein agreed with the conclusion cited by Mr. Barr. It was odd that Mr. Rosenstein did not sign this 4 page Barr report.
Indeed, this is all starting to be silly. People keep yapping about the "Mueller Report" as if it has been released to the public. It has not. We do not know even how many pages the report is. We do have a 4 page report from Mr. Barr.
Soon, the Mueller report will be released. After all, President Trump himself said he wanted it released. Right?
Oh, but Mr. Trump's attorney said this morning that the written answers Mr. Trump provided to Mr. Mueller will not be released. Hmm.
And it happened under Obama's watch. Obama was aware of it and expressly told the FBI to "stand down" in their efforts to expose it and block it.
Yes because Obama feared a full on cyber war would be escalated. Some good explanation in the article below about the actual testimony given.
Obama chose to address the issue directly with Putin and that had a direct impact on the 'cyber' interference and saw a shift to social media manipulation.
Your first link, why is it a lie? We all, know when we raised our right hand what we are getting into? Have you ever raised your right hand for that purpose? I did....
The second link, what does that have to do with anything? Did you even read the link?
Obama knew Russia was trying to interfere with our last election as far back as 2014 and did nothing about it. There's where the investigation will lie.
"POLITICO spoke with more than a dozen current and former officials from across the national security spectrum, including intelligence agencies, the State Department and the Pentagon. Almost all said they were aware of Russia’s aggressive cyberespionage and disinformation campaigns — especially after the dramatic Russian attempt to hack Ukrainian elections in 2014 — but felt that either the White House or key agencies were unwilling to act forcefully to counter the Russian actions."
When the report is released let's revisit -- for now all we have is Barr's summary -- which could be influenced by his bias .
Nope, there's no reason to revisit anything--you're simply moving the goal posts. All of sudden, NOW Mueller's findings aren't good enough and the AG's interpretation of those findings aren't good enough???
You've been wrong, everyday, for 2 years now. The report articulates the facts and the findings.
Mueller's recommendations request "NO NEW INDICTMENTS" and Barr's summary reflects that.
It's over, it's done.
GO back to pushing "new green" deals and pushing reperations for slaves from 300 years ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
