Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

by **Turtleneck** Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:17 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.5d8a0a2dda8c

Most of you have probably seen the Washington Post story by now. It does not suggest or imply collusion. The article does reinforce what has been previously been stated by others, that Russia sought to harm Clinton and help Trump. However, by no means does Russia's preference for Trump suggest or imply collusion. Russia likely concluded that they would have far greater flexibility - there would be less criticism of their foreign and domestic policy coming from the U.S. - with Trump in office. I wonder how Russia feels about that gamble today?

Anyway, what you can certainly take from this story is that the Obama administration did not do enough and the Trump administration is now doing even less. Yet this lack of action is not unrelated to partisan politics. Partisanship might be preventing us from forming a united front against a rival power allegedly threatening U.S. sovereignty. You can also take that our decentralized voting system is both a blessing and curse.

Some highlights from the story. This reads like it was ripped from the pages of a Hollywood script.

Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides.

Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.

But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.

The material was so sensitive that CIA Director John Brennan kept it out of the President’s Daily Brief, concerned that even that restricted report’s distribution was too broad. The CIA package came with instructions that it be returned immediately after it was read. To guard against leaks, subsequent meetings in the Situation Room followed the same protocols as planning sessions for the Osama bin Laden raid.

It took time for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA’s view. Only in the administration’s final weeks in office did it tell the public, in a declassified report, what officials had learned from Brennan in August — that Putin was working to elect Trump.

But in the end, in late December, Obama approved a modest package combining measures that had been drawn up to punish Russia for other issues — expulsions of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds — with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.

Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.

In political terms, Russia’s interference was the crime of the century, an unprecedented and largely successful destabilizing attack on American democracy. It was a case that took almost no time to solve, traced to the Kremlin through cyber-forensics and intelligence on Putin’s involvement. And yet, because of the divergent ways Obama and Trump have handled the matter, Moscow appears unlikely to face proportionate consequences.

But other administration officials look back on the Russia period with remorse.

“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” said a former senior Obama administration official involved in White House deliberations on Russia. “I feel like we sort of choked.”

Russia experts had begun to see a troubling pattern of propaganda in which fictitious news stories, assumed to be generated by Moscow, proliferated across social-media platforms.

Officials at the State Department and FBI became alarmed by an unusual spike in requests from Russia for temporary visas for officials with technical skills seeking permission to enter the United States for short-term assignments at Russian facilities. At the FBI’s behest, the State Department delayed approving the visas until after the election.

Meanwhile, the FBI was tracking a flurry of hacking activity against U.S. political parties, think tanks and other targets. Russia had gained entry to DNC systems in the summer of 2015 and spring of 2016, but the breaches did not become public until they were disclosed in a June 2016 report by The Post.

Obama’s approach often seemed reducible to a single imperative: Don’t make things worse. As brazen as the Russian attacks on the election seemed, Obama and his top advisers feared that things could get far worse.

They were concerned that any pre-election response could provoke an escalation from Putin. Moscow’s meddling to that point was seen as deeply concerning but unlikely to materially affect the outcome of the election. Far more worrisome to the Obama team was the prospect of a cyber-assault on voting systems before and on Election Day.

They also worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign. 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.

On Oct. 7, the administration offered its first public comment on Russia’s “active measures,” in a three-paragraph statement issued by Johnson and Clapper. Comey had initially agreed to attach his name, as well, officials said, but changed his mind at the last minute, saying that it was too close to the election for the bureau to be involved.

“The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations,” the statement said. “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

Early drafts accused Putin by name, but the reference was removed out of concern that it might endanger intelligence sources and methods.

The statement was issued around 3:30 p.m., timed for maximum media coverage. Instead, it was quickly drowned out. At 4 p.m., The Post published a story about crude comments Trump had made about women that were captured on an “Access Hollywood” tape. Half an hour later, WikiLeaks published its first batch of emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

The Situation Room is actually a complex of secure spaces in the basement level of the West Wing. A video feed from the main room courses through some National Security Council offices, allowing senior aides sitting at their desks to see — but not hear — when meetings are underway.

As the Russia-related sessions with Cabinet members began in August, the video feed was shut off. The last time that had happened on a sustained basis, officials said, was in the spring of 2011 during the run-up to the U.S. Special Operations raid on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan.

The blacked-out screens were seen as an ominous sign among lower-level White House officials who were largely kept in the dark about the Russia deliberations even as they were tasked with generating options for retaliation against Moscow.

Much of that work was led by the Cyber Response Group, an NSC unit with representatives from the CIA, NSA, State Department and Pentagon.

The FBI had detected suspected Russian attempts to penetrate election systems in 21 states, and at least one senior White House official assumed that Moscow would try all 50, officials said. Some officials believed the attempts were meant to be detected to unnerve the Americans. The patchwork nature of the United States’ 3,000 or so voting jurisdictions would make it hard for Russia to swing the outcome, but Moscow could still sow chaos.

“We turned to other scenarios” the Russians might attempt, said Michael Daniel, who was cybersecurity coordinator at the White House, “such as disrupting the voter rolls, deleting every 10th voter [from registries] or flipping two digits in everybody’s address.”

Despite the dire warnings, there were no meltdowns in the United States’ voting infrastructure on Nov. 8, no evidence of hacking-related fraud, crashing of electronic ballots or manipulation of vote counts.

I will stop here. It gets better, but you get the idea.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:39 pm

Re: obama not doing enough- in retrospect that's fair, but if we're honest about it, I can come up with two conclusions as to why they didn't. 1) everyone assumed Hillary was gonna win anyway. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Russia literally changed election results so much as influenced people into voting for trump via ridiculously over the top dishonest means. So there wasn't reason to panic about it. If they were going to literally change votes that'd be different. 2) what could he have done that wouldn't feed into exactly what Russia wanted? I mean, imagine the sound bytes that trump could have screamed into a microphone. Given point 1, the assumption was that it wasn't going to matter, I think they erroneously decided to let the next administration handle it.

by **Turtleneck** Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:59 pm

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Re: obama not doing enough- in retrospect that's fair, but if we're honest about it, I can come up with two conclusions as to why they didn't. 1) everyone assumed Hillary was gonna win anyway. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Russia literally changed election results so much as influenced people into voting for trump via ridiculously over the top dishonest means. So there wasn't reason to panic about it. If they were going to literally change votes that'd be different. 2) what could he have done that wouldn't feed into exactly what Russia wanted? I mean, imagine the sound bytes that trump could have screamed into a microphone. Given point 1, the assumption was that it wasn't going to matter, I think they erroneously decided to let the next administration handle it.

There is no way - and the report says as much - that Obama was going to be able to say anything publically between August and November 8th. Any public statement about Russian interference would have been interpreted as Obama interfering in the election. Same for after the election. It would have been interpreted as Obama trying to delegitimize Trump. I believe you are exactly right, and it is this thought that contributed to me saying "the lack of action is not unrelated to partisan politics."

Thus far the Trump administration has viewed the TPP and Paris Agreement as a greater threat to U.S. sovereignty than a rival power meddling in our election. That is problematic. The previous administration did not react strongly enough, and this administration does not seem to be reacting at all.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:10 pm

Turtleneck wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Re: obama not doing enough- in retrospect that's fair, but if we're honest about it, I can come up with two conclusions as to why they didn't. 1) everyone assumed Hillary was gonna win anyway. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Russia literally changed election results so much as influenced people into voting for trump via ridiculously over the top dishonest means. So there wasn't reason to panic about it. If they were going to literally change votes that'd be different. 2) what could he have done that wouldn't feed into exactly what Russia wanted? I mean, imagine the sound bytes that trump could have screamed into a microphone. Given point 1, the assumption was that it wasn't going to matter, I think they erroneously decided to let the next administration handle it.

There is no way - and the report says as much - that Obama was going to be able to say anything publically between August and November 8th. Any public statement about Russian interference would have been interpreted as Obama interfering in the election. Same for after the election. It would have been interpreted as Obama trying to delegitimize Trump. I believe you are exactly right, and it is this thought that contributed to me saying "the lack of action is not unrelated to partisan politics."

Thus far the Trump administration has viewed the TPP and Paris Agreement as a greater threat to U.S. sovereignty than a rival power meddling in our election. That is problematic. The previous administration did not react strongly enough, and this administration does not seem to be reacting at all.

Since I think continuing to go over and over and over the 2016 election is somewhat frivolous at this point (people need to accept that trump is our president through 2018 and more likely 2020 no matter what comes out. Republicans are absolute cowards who only care about getting more money for rich people. They arent going to grow a spine) I think this comment brings up an interesting hijacking question. Should Obama be doing more right now, like he did yesterday re: health care?

I get that the norm is that the old president retires off to the $400,000 a speech circuit. But, when the current president is accusing the old one of wire tapping him (everyone seems to have forgotten about that already) and other insane shit, should he be speaking out more to the lunacy that's going on? I think yes, but at the same time I think he's way smarter than I am and can do a better job of picking and choosing when to speak out in the interest of protecting the country.

by **Turtleneck** Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:19 pm

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

There is no way - and the report says as much - that Obama was going to be able to say anything publically between August and November 8th. Any public statement about Russian interference would have been interpreted as Obama interfering in the election. Same for after the election. It would have been interpreted as Obama trying to delegitimize Trump. I believe you are exactly right, and it is this thought that contributed to me saying "the lack of action is not unrelated to partisan politics."

Thus far the Trump administration has viewed the TPP and Paris Agreement as a greater threat to U.S. sovereignty than a rival power meddling in our election. That is problematic. The previous administration did not react strongly enough, and this administration does not seem to be reacting at all.

Since I think continuing to go over and over and over the 2016 election is somewhat frivolous at this point (people need to accept that trump is our president through 2018 and more likely 2020 no matter what comes out. Republicans are absolute cowards who only care about getting more money for rich people. They arent going to grow a spine) I think this comment brings up an interesting hijacking question. Should Obama be doing more right now, like he did yesterday re: health care?

I get that the norm is that the old president retires off to the $400,000 a speech circuit. But, when the current president is accusing the old one of wire tapping him (everyone seems to have forgotten about that already) and other insane shit, should he be speaking out more to the lunacy that's going on? I think yes, but at the same time I think he's way smarter than I am and can do a better job of picking and choosing when to speak out in the interest of protecting the country.

By after the election, I mean through the inauguration only; the period of time when Obama was president and Trump was president-elect. This is when Obama still had the power to take action, which he did in December. After the inauguration, if Russia was really involved, you would hope the relevant agencies and executive would continue to pursue action against Russia.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:24 pm

Yeah, no I know what you meant, im talking about a totally different unrelated thing. Not really about Russia. Like, when trump says "you were wire tapping me" should he grab a microphone and say "no I wasn't you insane lunatic." And also speak out about other relavant things. Or should he stick with the historic norm of fading off to his ranch in Crawford Texas?

Maybe I should start my own thread. That'd make more sense.

by **Turtleneck** Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:41 pm

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Yeah, no I know what you meant, im talking about a totally different unrelated thing. Not really about Russia. Like, when trump says "you were wire tapping me" should he grab a microphone and say "no I wasn't you insane lunatic." And also speak out about other relavant things. Or should he stick with the historic norm of fading off to his ranch in Crawford Texas?

Maybe I should start my own thread. That'd make more sense.

Per Infowars or some other site, Obama commands thousands of soldiers ready to take back the government. I think he has them crammed into his basement in his DC home.

by **DWags** Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:43 pm

Democrats have been stepping on our own dick for going on four years now. Dysfunctional pissed off no true leadership. Trump and those like him are the result because we have no message.

Obama dropped the ball here. I think he didn't like Hilliary like many of us. I have no doubt we nominate palosi as our next presidential candidate.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:52 pm

DWags wrote:Democrats have been stepping on our own dick for going on four years now. Dysfunctional pissed off no true leadership. Trump and those like him are the result because we have no message.

Obama dropped the ball here. I think he didn't like Hilliary like many of us. I have no doubt we nominate palosi as our next presidential candidate.

Why the hell everyone hates pilosi is another thread I should start but won't. She hasn't really done much to warrant as much absolute fury as she gets from the other side, other than be a leadership democrat. Idea- when democrats take the house and senate back, rotate the leadership positions every year. Maybe even six months. Don't even give them a target to rally against.

Okay I'll stop hijacking turtlenecks thread with random thoughts. Just kidding totally not going to stop.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:53 pm

Turtleneck wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Yeah, no I know what you meant, im talking about a totally different unrelated thing. Not really about Russia. Like, when trump says "you were wire tapping me" should he grab a microphone and say "no I wasn't you insane lunatic." And also speak out about other relavant things. Or should he stick with the historic norm of fading off to his ranch in Crawford Texas?

Maybe I should start my own thread. That'd make more sense.

Per Infowars or some other site, Obama commands thousands of soldiers ready to take back the government. I think he has them crammed into his basement in his DC home.

Did you hear about the protest cash you can get from George Soros? If you did hear about it, and hear where I can get some, PM me.

by **GRR Spartan** Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:21 pm

Obama was too much of an idealist when it came thinking his Presidency should stay above the fray in the 2016 election.

He sat by as the tone deaf DNC stacked the deck with super delegates and a front loaded primary that allowed Clinton to wrap up the nomination with a bunch of delegates the Democrats had no shot of winning in November. I also think he got caught a bit flat footed when Beau Biden's illness/death took Joe Biden out of race.

Nothing has changed with the Democrats tone deaf leadership. They just spent $25 M on a race to run against a former GA Sec of State for a seat Gingrich secured for the GOP in '79.

Obama also underestimated how so many GOP legislators think party then country. The country first mindset that sunk Nixon is gone.

by **DWags** Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:25 pm

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
DWags wrote:Democrats have been stepping on our own dick for going on four years now. Dysfunctional pissed off no true leadership. Trump and those like him are the result because we have no message.

Obama dropped the ball here. I think he didn't like Hilliary like many of us. I have no doubt we nominate palosi as our next presidential candidate.

Why the hell everyone hates pilosi is another thread I should start but won't. She hasn't really done much to warrant as much absolute fury as she gets from the other side, other than be a leadership democrat. Idea- when democrats take the house and senate back, rotate the leadership positions every year. Maybe even six months. Don't even give them a target to rally against.

Okay I'll stop hijacking turtlenecks thread with random thoughts. Just kidding totally not going to stop.

Well, here's my bitch, maybe she has, but it doesn't seem like it. However, why the fuck don't we have some new blood with some new ideas on how to make this shit work out. I'm not drunk yet, but when I get home, I'll spew mine. Stop bring out the boss and bon jovi and Bill Clinton and act like most college age kids want us to act like. anyway, I gotta go

by **Turtleneck** Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:42 pm

GRR Spartan wrote:Obama was too much of an idealist when it came thinking his Presidency should stay above the fray in the 2016 election.

.

The report makes it sound like his reasoning was pragmatic as opposed to being too idealistic. I tend to think the report is correct. Obama was for more pragmatic that most Rs or Ds like to admit.

Consistent with the report, my guess is Obama calculated the political consequences of going public to be too great. This was reinforced by having very little to no support from Republicans on the issue. In Obama's mind, it was a lose-lose situation. Not only would he get backlash from Rs, but he would contribute to already eroding trust in a core democratic institution. His administration said little - although it sounds like they sounded a bit of an alarm only to be outdone by "grab them by the pussy" - and did little relative to the significance of the accusation.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:46 pm

DWags wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Why the hell everyone hates pilosi is another thread I should start but won't. She hasn't really done much to warrant as much absolute fury as she gets from the other side, other than be a leadership democrat. Idea- when democrats take the house and senate back, rotate the leadership positions every year. Maybe even six months. Don't even give them a target to rally against.

Okay I'll stop hijacking turtlenecks thread with random thoughts. Just kidding totally not going to stop.

Well, here's my bitch, maybe she has, but it doesn't seem like it. However, why the fuck don't we have some new blood with some new ideas on how to make this shit work out. I'm not drunk yet, but when I get home, I'll spew mine. Stop bring out the boss and bon jovi and Bill Clinton and act like most college age kids want us to act like. anyway, I gotta go

Well they do dwags. I mean... they didn't summarily execute the older guard after the election, so they still have a fairly dominant voice, but there are younger folks coming up. I think people just need to give it a little bit of time before they start spazzing about stuff like that. It's only been 7 months. Names I'm talking about (people I like) Corey booker, Adam Schiff, Chris Murphy... there are more if I think about it for a minute but I won't. Anyway, it's really not a shock that no one brand new has taken over as the dominant voice that you can point to at this point. What opportunity was there for anyone to do so?

As far as new ideas, yeah, that's probably not a bad idea. But, same thing, give it time. I fully expect the republicans will pass their insane, cruel, and completely evil healthcare bill. That'll give them a chance to rally around universal health care. I'm sure other terrible things will happen that they'll also be able to rally around in the next 18-42 months.

by **Turtleneck** Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:54 pm

This is why Russia is winning. They can count on our ADHD.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:58 pm

Turtleneck wrote:This is why Russia is winning. They can count on our ADHD.

Perhaps you would prefer to have this conversation with your boy, el presidente.

Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin DDDAw5bUIAApDBJ?format=jpg&name=large

Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin DDDAw5bUIAApDBJ?format=jpg&name=large

(This is the fashion in which I prefer to receive his tweets. A) a reminder that he is no longer some dotty old racist Fox News watcher and b) I don't want to help give him the happiness he receives with every new follower.)

by **Turtleneck** Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:42 pm

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:This is why Russia is winning. They can count on our ADHD.

Perhaps you would prefer to have this conversation with your boy, el presidente.

(This is the fashion in which I prefer to receive his tweets. A) a reminder that he is no longer some dotty old racist Fox News watcher and b) I don't want to help give him the happiness he receives with every new follower.)

Did nothing is not exactly true. Not to mention, as the sitting president, what is he doing right now? This guy is such a joke.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:45 pm

Turtleneck wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Perhaps you would prefer to have this conversation with your boy, el presidente.

(This is the fashion in which I prefer to receive his tweets. A) a reminder that he is no longer some dotty old racist Fox News watcher and b) I don't want to help give him the happiness he receives with every new follower.)

Did nothing is not exactly true. Not to mention, as the sitting president, what is he doing right now? This guy is such a joke.

He's watching cable news turtleneck.

by **NigelUno** Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:06 pm

So, now Trump admits the Russians meddled?

Or is he still going to hedge on that?

by **Turtleneck** Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:43 pm

President Trump took to Twitter to question his predecessor's judgment and actions — at the end of a week characterized by a steady drumbeat of questions about how and when the Obama administration chose to respond to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

"Why no action?," the president asked in the first of two tweets Saturday evening that suggested the Obama administration didn't do enough — and soon enough — to stop Russia last year.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Obama Administration official said they "choked" when it came to acting on Russian meddling of election. They didn't want to hurt Hillary?
4:44 PM - 24 Jun 2017

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Since the Obama Administration was told way before the 2016 Election that the Russians were meddling, why no action? Focus on them, not T!
4:28 PM - 24 Jun 2017

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/24/534248580/trump-asks-why-no-action-amid-questions-about-obamas-response-to-russian-meddlin?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=us

by **GRR Spartan** Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:55 am

Trump was quick to jump on anything that the Obama administration did prior to election day to claim the White House was helping the Clinton campaign. How could proof of Russian meddling help the Clinton campaign?

Trump will say anything at any time to deflect.

Recently Trump admitted he lied about the existence of a taped conversation between himself and then FBI Director Comey.

by Guest Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:55 am

GRR Spartan wrote:Trump was quick to jump on anything that the Obama administration did prior to election day to claim the White House was helping the Clinton campaign. How could proof of Russian meddling help the Clinton campaign?

It's pretty hard to imagine.

Let's see.

The Obama administration announces that they're investigating the Russians for trying to elect Trump.

Yeah, I can't see any way in the world that helps Hills. Well other than the fact it would paint Trump as an ally of Russia. You'd think if that hurt Trump the Dems would being doing it now.......

by **Turtleneck** Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:54 am

LooseGoose wrote:
GRR Spartan wrote:Trump was quick to jump on anything that the Obama administration did prior to election day to claim the White House was helping the Clinton campaign. How could proof of Russian meddling help the Clinton campaign?

It's pretty hard to imagine.

Let's see.

The Obama administration announces that they're investigating the Russians for trying to elect Trump.

Yeah, I can't see any way in the world that helps Hills. Well other than the fact it would paint Trump as an ally of Russia. You'd think if that hurt Trump the Dems would being doing it now.......

In theory yes, but the optics would have more controversial than you are willing to admit. More importantly, if you put partisan politics aside, it would have further eroded trust people have in their government.

by Guest Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:30 am

...and putting partisan politics aside is a dream anymore.

Used to happen at the water's edge - not anymore.
Used to happen when your successor took office, not this time.
Used to happen in times of tragedy, not anymore.

And I'm not blaming either party, there's plenty of it to go around.

by **DWags** Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:49 am

LooseGoose wrote:...and putting partisan politics aside is a dream anymore.

Used to happen at the water's edge - not anymore.
Used to happen when your successor took office, not this time.
Used to happen in times of tragedy, not anymore.

And I'm not blaming either party, there's plenty of it to go around.

Yep

by **NigelUno** Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:37 am

Turtleneck wrote:
President Trump took to Twitter to question his predecessor's judgment and actions — at the end of a week characterized by a steady drumbeat of questions about how and when the Obama administration chose to respond to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

"Why no action?," the president asked in the first of two tweets Saturday evening that suggested the Obama administration didn't do enough — and soon enough — to stop Russia last year.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Obama Administration official said they "choked" when it came to acting on Russian meddling of election. They didn't want to hurt Hillary?
4:44 PM - 24 Jun 2017

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Since the Obama Administration was told way before the 2016 Election that the Russians were meddling, why no action? Focus on them, not T!
4:28 PM - 24 Jun 2017

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/24/534248580/trump-asks-why-no-action-amid-questions-about-obamas-response-to-russian-meddlin?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=us

Now that Trump has fallen for it (and admits he knows the Russians meddled), the question should be what action will he take?

Will he start his own investigation?

by Sponsored content

Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin

Re: Obama administration was made aware of significant Russian interference in the election; interference linked directly to Putin