Image 01 Image 03

Why Didn’t Obama Act Against Russia Sooner?

Why Didn’t Obama Act Against Russia Sooner?

Hillary was winning so screw our national security.

On Thursday, President Barack Obama passed sanction against Russia for allegedly interfering with our presidential election. This includes expelling 35 diplomats and closing down two compounds.

Two weeks ago, Politifact ran an article to call President-elect Donald Trump a liar about his doubts on Russia and accusing Obama of not acting against Russia until after Clinton lost. On Twitter, @neontaster pointed out evidence that contradicts Politifact’s “facts.”

It turns out, the administration has known for months about Russian involvement and did absolutely nothing because they thought Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump. No concerns about our national security because they thought their candidate would win.

That quote came from this NBC article.

Oh, wait there is more:

No, Politifact. NBC News found information that proves your fact-checking wrong. Obama talked to Putin at the G-20 summit about potential consequences if the schemes continued…back in SEPTEMBER.

Then the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement IN OCTOBER that blamed Russia for schemes to disrupt our election.

The administration knew FOR MONTHS that evidence pointed to people in Russia for the phishing scams that entangled the DNC and John Podesta.

Other officials told NBC News that they saw evidence that points to Putin having a hand in the schemes….IN OCTOBER:

Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.

Putin’s objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a “vendetta” against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to “split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn’t depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore,” the official said.

Let me repeat myself: Obama and his administration knew that Russia was meddling into our election since the polls showed Hillary beating Trump and they had confidence she would emerge victorious the administration did nothing.

So which is it? Is Russia meddling in our affairs good or bad? It’s okay just as long as the present administration’s candidate wins?

Now look, yesterday I pointed out that the evidence the DHS and FBI provided does not offer actual proof that the Russian government had direct involvement in the phishing schemes. When Obama released the sanctions, I raised my eyebrows because, like I said, the evidence given to us showed no concrete proof to basically give Russia fuel to officially restart the Cold War.

If anything, these reports show just how pettiness and the weakness of the Obama administration. Do they really care about our security?! Obviously not.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Obama and Clinton factions have been at war with each other since the 2008 election was influenced by the social complex to favor the former.

I wonder if Obama is the DNC insider, Deep Plunger, who overflowed Clinton’s WaterCloset.

There is no need to explain Obama’s reticence to respond to Russia’s hacking and phishing. It’s how he always reacts to Russian aggression. Once in office, Obama’s opening game with long-time US adversary Russia was a reset button, a clean the slate do over. In 2013 he backed off his Syrian ‘red line’ in deference – or fear – of the growing Russian influence in Syria. Obama did nothing in response to Russian theft of the Crimea, nor did he do anything to oppose Russian egress into the Middle East.

THe question isn’t why did Obama not respond to Russian cybernetic antics sooner, but why we think he’d respond at all.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 30, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    When I say Obama didn’t do anything, I mean he didn’t do anything substantive or effective, just kabuki sanctions and sternly spoken words – empty bluster, if even that.

    The Russians did not annex the Crimean peninsula. They prevented the progress of a violent coup that had carried out mass abortions throughout Ukraine, and threatened the lives and welfare of survivors in the Crimea. The Crimea was held by Ukrainians supported by Russia following the Western-backed coup.

      Valerie in reply to n.n. | December 30, 2016 at 8:16 pm

      The Ukrainians, like all the peoples of the former USSR satellites, hate the Russians because the Russians are kleptocrats. Russia’s claim to a welcome from the Ukraine stems from its practice of sending thousands of Russians to settle there, and then invite the Russian government in.

      Putin is no angel. The question is whether he is guilty of the current set of accusations.

        Anonamom in reply to Valerie. | December 30, 2016 at 9:00 pm

        I’m not exactly a big fan of Putin and Russia, but I think that the history of the area is far more complex than you are suggesting; it’s more than just the evil Russkies sending in settlers to muck things up. Ukraine in particular has been historically part of Russia (they even argue over who gets to claim to be the true descendants of “Rus.”) There are genuinely people in both Ukraine (especially the east) and in the Crimea who wish to be part of Russia.

    NavyMustang in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 31, 2016 at 2:49 am

    Kelly Anne Conway had the right idea when she said that Obama might be boxing Trump in.

    Now that the sanctions have been put in place, Trump looks bad no matter what he does.

    Removes the sanctions? The Dems will never let him or the Repubs ever forget it.

    Not remove them? Probably the best course politically except that it will complicate his future dealings with Putin.

    Either way the Dems win.

    All these things that Dear Leader is launching during the transition is to box him in and make his presidency that much more difficult. Everything is political.

While there is evidence of Russian influence, there is no evidence of Russian action. The available evidence supports that there was both domestic and foreign efforts to influence the election, beginning with the Democrat primary, and continuing with bipartisan establishment efforts.

There is, however, ample evidence that Western nations lead by the Obama administration, influenced elections, even backed violent coups, from Tripoli to Jerusalem to Damascus to Kiev.

Why Didn’t Obama Act Against Russia Sooner?

He was probably worried about hurting his chance of winning a second Nobel Peace Prize; this time for finishing two terms as President of the United States without actually starting WW III.

Since the Russians had nothing whatever to do with leaking or publicizing any incriminating e-mails, there was nothing for Obama to complain about.

So, how about the evidence?

Obama [claims he] talked to Putin at the G-20 summit about potential consequences if the schemes continued

That’s nice … too bad it’s not evidence.

Then the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement

That’s nice … too bad it’s not evidence.

Other officials told NBC News that they saw evidence that points to Putin having a hand in the schemes

That’s nice … too bad it’s not evidence.

Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows

That’s nice … too bad it’s not evidence.

After eight years of this crap, why would anybody believe an unsupported statement from any Obambot? Trust is earned; they never even tried to earn it.

Obama’s entire modus operandi depends on deception, misdirection, sophistry and lies. So … show me the evidence.

Anybody who’d believe in this unsupported and very improbable theory would also believe in BLM and AGW. You know, idiots.

Wikileaks: The DNC, Clinton Campaign and major parts of the news media colluded in serious electoral misconduct. This material was leaked to us by insiders.

James O’Keefe: Here’s video of members of the Clinton Campaign talking about serious electoral misconduct. Here’s another video. More.

Wikileaks: We will put up a reward for information about the murder of Seth Rich, a DNC staffer. Police wrote it off as a robbery, but nothing was taken.

Reddit: Damn! The O’Keefe videos are corroborated by the DNC and Podesta emails, along with the Federal Election database.

John Podesta via Wikileaks: Eric Braverman (former CEO of Clinton Foundation) is a mole

We Are Change: Where the Hell is Eric Braverman?

Obama: Oh look! Russians!!!!!!!!!!!

Ironically, it was American JournoLists acting in opposition to the interests and welfare of American citizens who not only influenced, but may well have been the deciding factor in the election. Well, that, and revelations of Democrat character from Clinton’s WaterCloset and Podesta’s PhishingPole.

i’ll keep asking this until i get a coherent answer: since Putin had already successfully bribed Shrillery for her approval of the uranium deal while SecState, why would he NOT want her as POTUS?

after all, the FSB undoubtedly has all the evidence necessary to prove she was bribed, to use as blackmail if she ever got squirrelly with him while in office, so what does he gain by her losing?

and what, exactly, are the Russians supposed to have “hacked” any way? certainly not the votes, or the counting, or the news coverage or the advertising, or the strategies of the campaigns…

this whole “story” is MFM #FakeNews, nothing more.

    DaveGinOly in reply to redc1c4. | December 30, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    Russia, that gets 80% of its foreign income from energy sales, would benefit the most by a win of which candidate:

    A. The candidate who threatened to close or throttle entire sectors of the US energy industry?


    B. The candidate who promised to unleash the American energy industry?

      Add to that: does Putin want the person who wants to expand us nuclear capabilities or someone who wants to further contract them?

      Does Putin want the person who wants to expand military capacity or the one who wants to contract it?

      Does Putin want the person who is battling with the UN or the one who wants to be further tied down and entangled by it?

      Does Putin want the person who is for missle defense systems or the person who is against them?

He’s pulling this crap now because 1) he has to deflect from the actual content of the emails and 2) to push marbles under Trump’s feet.

It is sad that the man child soon to be ex-president can’t just go quietly before he makes a bigger fool of himself.

“People in Russia” is a whole lot different than “The Russians.” If an American phisher (phishing isn’t hacking) goes after someone in Russia is that then “The Americans” did it?

Please. The liberals have come up with so many fantasies one after the next since Donald Trump won the election that the whole “The Russians” flap is just one more completely unbelievable “Little Boy Who Cried Wolf” moment.

The reason why the Obama administration has never taken action against any state for cyber attacks is because the US engages in the same activities. The normal response to any verified cyber intrusion is to either remain silent, or possibly make a brief public charge, and then seek to strengthen your defenses to preclude a future attack. Any response is usually limited to a cyber counter attack against a vulnerable, but not strategic, target. Very often these targets are non-governmental systems, i.e. private corporations, which will cause some economic damage. In fact, the foreign cyber attacks reported in the US may well be counter intrusions to discovered US intrusions.

Another reason may be that the leadership of the United States realizes that their antiquated server systems are horribly vulnerable to attack and intrusion and do not want to get into a knockdown drag-out cyber war with our existing framework. To harden our systems requires time and a lot of money.

This having been said, why would the outgoing President choose this particular moment to launch a diplomatic confrontation with a major nuclear power, which has been showing expansionist tendencies for the last 8 years, over an intrusion which has not been shown to have produced any strategic gain for any state and for which no evidence has been produced to incriminate the Russian state? There is a laundry list of possible reasons. In no particular order, they are:

1) This is an attempt to divert blame for the Clinton loss by making it seem as though it was totally the work of a foreign actor.

2) This is an attempt to forge a no nonsense, get-tough legacy for the outgoing President. {Though why any man would want to risk being known as the man who started WWIII, when his whole term in office has been geared to avoiding ANY conflict, is a mystery].

3) This is simply one more attempt to cause discord in the world. [Obama’s actions, in the foreign policy arena, make this a strong bet. He started the Arab Spring movement, worked against relatively stable Middle Eastern governments, supported, and armed, radical Muslim elements, went out of his way to alienate strong, established US allies, caused and supported internal divisions and dissension within the United States and, generally, did everything that he could to destabilize the whole world.]

4) There is strong evidence that Russia is engaged in offensive cyber warfare against the US. [maybe we will see it someday]

5) This is all geared to causing President-elect Trump as many future problems as possible.

People are free to choose any of these, or come up with their own list.