Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:How do you see that as Obama's concern being to party there?

Because he had information regarding possible Russian involvement in the election and declined to disclose it to the people for political reasons? Who cares what the Republicans would do? He had an obligation regardless.

And from a purely tactical standpoint, it's a weak and stupid decision, and that sort of mindset is a big reason they lost IMO.

digster wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:How do you see that as Obama's concern being to party there?

Because he had information regarding possible Russian involvement in the election and declined to disclose it to the people for political reasons? Who cares what the Republicans would do? He had an obligation regardless.

And from a purely tactical standpoint, it's a weak and stupid decision, and that sort of mindset is a big reason they lost IMO.

I think this is letting the "plague on both their houses" approach override the very real differences between the motivations of Obama and McConnell. Obama seemed concerned about sullying the supposed non-partisanship of the intelligence community in a move that opponents would likely decry as a sitting president weaponizing the CIA for the benefit of his preferred candidate. McConnell did it to win an election.

I agree that it was a remarkably dumb way to approach it, but there were differences in motivation.

digster wrote:If I had any inclination that the spats between Trump and the intelligence community actually had to do with legitimate reticence on the part of Trump towards their findings, I could understand that reticence. But my inclination is that he's not doing the intelligence briefings cause he can't be bothered to, and he's disputing the findings about Russia cause he doesn't seem to accept anything that doesn't affirm his worldview.

also from the article wrote:Some Clinton supporters saw the White House’s reluctance to act without bipartisan support as further evidence of an excessive caution in facing adversaries.

“The lack of an administration response on the Russian hacking cannot be attributed to Congress,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who was at the September meeting. “The administration has all the tools it needs to respond. They have the ability to impose sanctions. They have the ability to take clandestine means. The administration has decided not to utilize them in a way that would deter the Russians, and I think that’s a problem.”

digster wrote:If I had any inclination that the spats between Trump and the intelligence community actually had to do with legitimate reticence on the part of Trump towards their findings, I could understand that reticence. But my inclination is that he's not doing the intelligence briefings cause he can't be bothered to, and he's disputing the findings about Russia cause he doesn't seem to accept anything that doesn't affirm his worldview.

"First of all, these are very good people that are giving me the briefings. And I say, 'If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I'm available on one-minute's notice.'"

A report published last week said the president-elect receives on average only one presidential intelligence briefing a week. That number is far lower than his predecessors, according to the Reuters report.

Trump suggested during the interview it isn't necessary for him to receive the presidential briefings daily.

"I'm, like, a smart person," the president-elect said during the interview.

Former intelligence officers told the Guardian they considered retaliation by Trump to be all but a certainty after he is sworn into office next month. Trump still has several appointments to make at the highest levels of the intelligence apparatus, picks which are likely to be bellwethers for the new president’s attitudes toward the agencies.

“There is not just smoke here. There is a blazing 10-alarm fire, the sirens are wailing, the Russians provided the lighter fluid, and Trump is standing half-burnt and holding a match,” said Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer and interrogator.

Carle said Trump’s temperament had played into Russia’s hands and put the president-elect on a collision course with the CIA.

He said: “Look, in my professional assessment as an intelligence officer, Trump has a reflexive, defensive, monumentally narcissistic personality, for whom the facts and national interest are irrelevant, and the only thing that counts is whatever gives personal advantage and directs attention to himself.

“He is about the juiciest intelligence target an intelligence office could imagine. He groans with vulnerabilities. He will only work with individuals or entities that agree with him and build him up, and he is a shockingly easy intelligence ‘target’ to manipulate.”

John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who serves as chair of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee; Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the committee’s ranking Democrat; Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who sits on the committee; and Chuck Schumer, the incoming Democratic minority leader of the Senate. wrote:For years, foreign adversaries have directed cyberattacks at America's physical, economic, and military infrastructure, while stealing our intellectual property. Now our democratic institutions have been targeted. Recent reports of Russian interference in our election should alarm every American.

Congress's national security committees have worked diligently to address the complex challenge of cybersecurity, but recent events show that more must be done. While protecting classified material, we have an obligation to inform the public about recent cyberattacks that have cut to the heart of our free society. Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyber-attacks.

This cannot become a partisan issue. The stakes are too high for our country. We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security.

Bi_3 wrote:It's almost a parody of the "drain the swamp" mentality.