Why Didn't Ol'Flexible Stop Russia's Election Interference In 2016?

Here’s a nice article by NPR about that. There lots of BS before they get to the point, but they do a pretty good job once they get there…

" So why didn’t Obama’s administration do more?

That isn’t clear. Some former administration officials who have talked about it publicly have reproached themselves for not acting more aggressively. There also was a long-standing criticism of Obama that his foreign-policy making amounted to endless process with no outcomeshours of meetings that yielded more meetings but no ultimate action.

Plus, the relationship between the United States and Russia is multifaceted and often intensely complicated:

  • Obama scaled back missile defense plans in Europe to placate Moscow (Putin).
  • Obama wanted Russia to play a role in the international agreement under which Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear program — and Putin went along.
  • Obama spent the end of his presidency trying to bring ( Putin) Russia into a multilateral agreement to end the Syrian civil war, but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ultimately never committed.

So Obama’s team had to manage many spinning plates in addition to the active measures campaign it detected by the middle of 2016. One question Obama may address in his book is why he calibrated his choices in the way he did — whether he looked the other way on election interference to keep open other options elsewhere.

So, the answer was… Being Flexible for Putin 3 times…at least.

1 Like

So you didn’t read.

Diplomatic response

After Election Day, Obama ordered the U.S. intelligence community to issue a public report about the Russian scheme. Once it had — and concluded Russia’s attack was aimed at helping Trump and hurting Clinton — the United States imposed a slate of punitive measures against Moscow. In addition to imposing new sanctions, Washington also expelled a number of Russian diplomats and closed two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York.


Before Election Day, he went to Mitch McConnell to get bipartisan support for releasing a bunch of information about Russia’s schemes…he didn’t want to do it himself and risk the perception he was trying to tilt the election.

Given what we know now about Moscow Mitch’s personal dealings, can we be surprised he told Obama to get bent?

1 Like

That should be the end of this thread.

1 Like

“After Election Day”…lol!

1 Like

How? He just confirmed Ol’Flexible did nothing during the election…

Convenient isn’t it.

The Obama administration blew it big time.

1 Like

Too late.

1 Like

They don’t care

1 Like

Why did Mitch McConnell block a bipartisan response?

1 Like

Because Mitch knows that POTUS does not want to hear anything mentioned about Russia. :elephant::us:


Besides releasing stolen letters that told us the truth of what Democrats were doing, what interference are we talking about? Posting on the internet. Something like $50k spent on facebook ads. There was no great assault on our electoral process. That was all show after the election.
Compare that to all the problems caused by the fake dossier after the election.

1 Like

Have you ever done any advertising on Facebook?

I didn’t think so.

The cost was not on the ads that were purchased. The cost was on the personnel that was required to create the groups that were responsible for getting the message out.

How many people saw those ads and groups on Facebook.

Mueller report said 125,000,000. That is 125 MILLION people. Please tell me any medium where you can purchase $50,000 in advertising to reach 125 million people. No such medium exists. I know this. You and every person in this country should also know this.

It is absurd for you to believe that such a small investment can reach that many people.

The cost to Russia was in the people they had working on this. The product they produced was dependent on the personnel, not the advertising.

Stop promulgating this myth that they only spent $50,000. It is beyond stupid.


It seems to me that the OP is admitting that Russia DID interfere with our 2016 elections.

1 Like

That’s how I took it also. They messed around in the campaign with ads, bots… I don’t think there was overt collusion. The Russians didn’t need to go that far

Surprising today, my representative, Brad Wendstrup, took issue with idea that Republicans were silent on Russian meddling.

They even tossed out a thick printed report they created. First I’ve seen of that!

Don’t let POTUS see that report. He’ll get mad and tweet Russia, Russia, Russia at them and call them treasonous. :us::elephant:

1 Like

RIF = Reading Is Fundamental

1 Like

Well they probably will…:sunglasses:

1 Like

If Americans are so weak minded that they can be tricked into believing things because someone puts them on facebook, then democracy fails anyway.
We can’t legitimately defend democracy by blocking ideas we don’t agree with. That is actually a capitulation of democracy.


People here…and our own US Congressmen…are believing a misinformation campaign being run by Rudy Giuliani, John Solomon and the lawyers of a corrupt Eastern European oligarch.

People as a rule believe something first, and to the extent they look for evidence, only look for that evidence that confirms what they already want to believe.

People don’t realize that if they wanted true enlightenment, they would be working to falsify what they believe, not confirm it.