A former Obama official has stated that one of his most indefensible failures from his time working for the administration is how they “sort of choked” when it came time for them to “punish” Russian President Vladimir Putin for attempting to influence the 2016 election in Donald Trump’s favor.
The reason for blowing their opportunity? The assumption Hillary Clinton would destroy Trump and take the White House.
WaPo — Senior Obama administration official on how they handled Russia hack: “I feel like we sort of choked.” https://t.co/iiuMo2TgCs
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 23, 2017
From The Washington Post:
(I)n 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.
So it sounds like Obama’s admin didn’t think it would be a big deal because Hillary would win so they weren’t overly proactive with the investigation.
Most damning: lack of urgency based on the belief that Clinton would win. https://t.co/SJkwsNgeWu
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) June 23, 2017
The fact that the Obama admin barely acted because they were sure Hillary would win and didn't want to hamstring her is a HUGE deal. https://t.co/7oQsyZl3oe
— paraneon (@neontaster) June 23, 2017
You know what they say about assuming….
The Democrats paid a heavy price for their arrogance in thinking Hillary had this election sewed up, as she was clearly way, way out of step with the majority of American voters.
The question now is whether or not they will learn from this experience. The good money is on “no.”
[Note: This article was written by Michael Cantrell]