Obama Did What He Had to Do: His cautious response to Russian interference protected our democracy.
By William Saletan
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/06/obama_s_response_to_russian_interference_he_did_his_job.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

Did President Obama blow the 2016 election? Should he have spoken up sooner and louder about Russia’s interference? That’s what many Democrats are wondering, particularly after reading the Washington Post’s latest investigative report on Obama’s reticent response to the Russian attack. A former official tells the Post that after the election, Obama’s aides, “mortified” by Donald Trump’s victory, thought to themselves: “Wow, did we mishandle this.”

There’s plenty to second-guess in Obama’s management of this episode. But the idea that he failed because Trump won is wrong. Obama’s job wasn’t to prevent the election of a particular person, even one as awful as Trump. Obama’s job was to preserve the country. That meant protecting the integrity of our elections and public faith in them, which he did, to the extent possible after Russia had already hacked into the Democratic National Committee and spread misinformation. The next task—exposing the full extent of Russia’s interference, punishing it, and deterring future attacks—is up to Trump. If he fails, the responsibility to hold him accountable falls to Congress. And if Congress fails, the job of electing a new, more patriotic legislature falls to voters.

According to the U.S. intelligence community’s Jan. 6 assessment, Vladimir Putin’s long-term goal in directing the interference campaign was to “undermine public faith in the US democratic process.” Obama responded accordingly. “We set out from a first-order principle that required us to defend the integrity of the vote,” Obama’s former chief of staff, Denis McDonough, told the Post. Russia’s hacks and leaks were bad, but corruption of voter rolls and election tallies would be far worse. So the Obama administration focused on alerting state officials, fortifying cyberdefenses, and privately threatening Russia with retaliation.

Why didn’t Obama raise public alarms about Russian infiltration? Because that might have backfired. “Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged,” says the Post. “Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russia’s efforts to discredit the outcome.” According to the paper, Obama and his team “worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign.” Rather than speak up when the CIA first warned him about Putin’s moves, Obama waited for “a high-confidence assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies on Russia’s role and intent.” He asked congressional Republicans to join him in cautioning citizens and state election officials. You can argue that this was politically naïve. But Obama wasn’t playing politics. He was trying to unite the country.

https://twitter.com/TheRealTnisha/status/878340078686265344

I am sure MSM would've really paid attention to Pres. Obama & these news because, you know, they did real good during the elections!

I am sure the House & Senate would've been on it had Pres. Obama had come public, because you know, they really cared about elections' integrity notwithstanding whether it means that they might lose. You know, McConnnell/Ryan that bastion duo of democracy & integrity.

(SARCASM)

By Nada Bakos June 23
Nada Bakos was formerly a CIA analyst and targeting officer. She is the author of the forthcoming book “The Targeter: My Life in the CIA.”

SNIP/

Every time President Trump tweets, journalists and Twitter followers attempt to analyze what he means. Intelligence agencies around the world do, too: They’re trying to determine what vulnerabilities the president of the United States may have. And he’s giving them a lot to work with.

Trump’s Twitter feed is a gold mine for every foreign intelligence agency. Usually, intelligence officers’ efforts to collect information on world leaders are methodical, painstaking and often covert. CIA operatives have risked their lives to learn about foreign leaders so the United States could devise strategies to counter our adversaries. With Trump, though, secret operations are not necessary to understand what’s on his mind: The president’s unfiltered thoughts are available night and day, broadcast to his 32.7 million Twitter followers immediately and without much obvious mediation by diplomats, strategists or handlers.

Intelligence agencies try to answer these main questions when looking at a rival head of state: Who is he as a person? What type of leader is he? How does that compare to what he strives to be or presents himself as? What can we expect from him? And how can we use this insight to our advantage?

At the CIA, I tracked and analyzed terrorists and other U.S. enemies, including North Korea. But we never had such a rich source of raw intelligence about a world leader, and we certainly never had the opportunity that our adversaries (and our allies) have now — to get a real-time glimpse of a major world leader’s preoccupations, personality quirks and habits of mind. If we had, it would have given us significant advantages in our dealings with them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/president-trumps-twitter-feed-is-a-gold-mine-for-foreign-spies/2017/06/23/e3e3b0b0-5764-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html?tid=ss_fb-bottom&utm_term=.7d4e29e8da5a

https://twitter.com/AlGiordano/status/878689279043674112

https://twitter.com/Jerusalem_Post/status/878668946584424448


Jared Kushner tries meeting with world leaders on Donald Trump’s behalf, blows it in comically bad fashion

For reasons known only to the two of them, Jared Kushner decided he was going to try to single handedly negotiate peace in the Middle East, and Donald Trump decided it would be a good idea to let him. The result: calamity. Kushner met with the Palestinian leadership, and the “tense” meeting resulted in both sides being upset with each other (source). Kushner came off like he was a delegate of Israel, rather than the kind of neutral arbiter required for any such negotiations.

http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/jared-kushner-world-leaders-blows-it/3616/



REPORTS THAT TRUMP CONSIDERING PULLING OUT OF PEACE EFFORTS 'NONSENSE,' US OFFICIAL SAYS

A Palestinian official claims Abbas is furious at American demands, accuses the US of taking sides

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Trump-may-exit-out-of-Peace-talks-after-tense-KushnerAbbas-meeting-497795?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

She mentioned at end of her show last night. Maybe Kennedy?

I hope not.

By Mark Lippman


After the special elections in Georgia and South Carolina, it’s time for the Republicans to panic. The explanation is simple. Two words. Speaker Pelosi.

Both House seats were deep in the red. The Montana and Kansas seats were, too. For Republicans, there can be no comfort in knowing that the Democrats didn’t flip any of the seats from red to blue. The trend to blue is undeniable and if it holds, or even if it weakens slightly, a slew of swing districts will move into the Democratic column in the midterm election.

A Democratic House majority would make Trump, or any other Republican, a lame Duck for the rest of his term. The idea of Paul Ryan handing the gavel back to Nancy Pelosi must be driving the Republicans to the edge. The Committee Chairs would pass to the Democrats as well.

That’s why you see a sudden outburst of emotion about Pelosi. She was always a favorite obsession of Right-wingers. Compare the legislation that the House passed by this date in 2009 with the current session. Pelosi gets the job done.

What the Republicans need is a compelling campaign theme for 2018. For now, at least, it seems like Pelosi’s age is it for them. It should be common sense that this isn’t a good look. It wasn’t four years ago and it isn’t now.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/23/1674522/-It-s-Pretty-Obvious-Why-Nancy-Pelosi-is-Suddenly-So-Important

I disagree with the premise of this article as I think Ossoff's showing in red beet district is good news for DEMS coming forward and bad news for Repubs as they will have to defend every district in 2018.



Leftwing Democrats say Jon Ossoff loss shows 'massive failure' of party's elites
by Adam Gabbatt
Progressives insist Ossoff’s ‘Republican-lite’ message turned voters off
‘He didn’t have a core progressive message. He didn’t stand for anything’

SNIP/
Key figures in the progressive movement said Ossoff had lost because he ran a “Republican-lite” campaign – instead of embracing progressive issues.

“I’m not surprised. I knew he would lose,” said Winnie Wong, who co-founded People for Bernie, an independent activist group with more than a million supporters. “My feeling on the failure of this campaign goes back to the way that Democratic party prioritizes the needs of the consultant class rather than listening to what the voters want.”

Wong said this represented a missed opportunity. “If you look at his platform, he didn’t talk about single-payer healthcare, he didn’t speak about free college or student debt,” she said. “As a 30-year-old, imagine how much appeal he could have held with millennials.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/21/jon-ossoff-georgia-democrats-party-establishment


Continuation of discussion here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029237154



Author of that piece Adam Gabbatt also wrote:


https://twitter.com/adamgabbatt/status/873529843018813440


https://twitter.com/adamgabbatt/status/873247777530281984






NOTE: I disagree with the premise of this article as I think Ossoff's showing in red beet district is good news for DEMS coming forward and bad news for Repubs as they will have to defend every district in 2018.

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/howard-dean-special-election-democrats-retaking-house/3565/


Looking at House races, Dems win 50 seats in 2018 if our candidates close the gap as much as these two did
https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/877456497739010048



Democrats need to win 24 House seats to take back the House. There are 71 seats bluer than GA 6. Be informed. Stay vigilant. Organize. Vote.

https://twitter.com/JessOConne11/status/877369756495470592


Richard Painter, a straight shooting Republican pundit, put it thusly:

RNC/RCCC never approve cabinet nomination of a House or Senate member who does not have a very safe R seat. Keeping it should be pg. 6 news
https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/877488468087242753

In other words, the Republican Party only allowed those two seats to be vacated because the resulting special elections were supposed to be automatic blowout victories. Instead, the GOP collapsed in both of those “safe” districts – and similar sized collapse in the 2018 midterms will mean an overwhelming majority for the Democrats.

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/howard-dean-special-election-democrats-retaking-house/3565/

"Since neither Hillary or Chelsea are running for office, Ossoff's thin loss in a 40-year GOP district means we have to scapegoat Pelosi."

https://twitter.com/AlGiordano/status/877366430949355521





https://twitter.com/TeamPelosi/status/877657774938873856

It did not work in my district even with Zephyr Teachout buying a house here because people knew why she bought the house and that she had no relationship to the district prior to running here.

I know, I made calls for her for months and spoke with lots of voters (Dems, Indep. & Repub: we called them all)


At least Ossoff was born in the district and lived next door. Not the case with Zephyr who was born in another state and lived and
worked NYC. Not next door. Honestly I don't know what she will do with the house she bought.