Obama Cyber Chief confirms a stand order against Russians

#177
#177
BigOrangeD said:
So by the DEMs standard, Obama is Guilty. Hang him. Hang him now I say.
Click to expand...

So based on the description in the article (1) there is no indication from the testimony that Obama was at the meeting, (2) there is no indication from the testimony that Obama gave, approved or knew about the "stand-down" order, and (3) the "stand-down" order was not for a full-stop or cessation of defensive cyber measures. Additionally, further information about the context about this meeting is needed to fully understand the rationale for the "stand-down" order, but that information is classified. Am I missing anything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#178
#178
evillawyer said:
So based on the description in the article (1) there is no indication from the testimony that Obama was at the meeting, (2) there is no indication from the testimony that Obama gave, approved or knew about the "stand-down" order, and (3) the "stand-down" order was not for a full-stop or cessation of defensive cyber measures. Additionally, further information about the context about this meeting is needed to fully understand the rationale for the "stand-down" order, but that information is classified. Am I missing anything?
Click to expand...

You would come across more credible if you extended the same courtesy to President Trump. Nice try though.
 
#179
#179
evillawyer said:
So based on the description in the article (1) there is no indication from the testimony that Obama was at the meeting, (2) there is no indication from the testimony that Obama gave, approved or knew about the "stand-down" order, and (3) the "stand-down" order was not for a full-stop or cessation of defensive cyber measures. Additionally, further information about the context about this meeting is needed to fully understand the rationale for the "stand-down" order, but that information is classified. Am I missing anything?
Click to expand...

Don’t you blame Trump for everything? This shouldn’t be any different In your eyes. Either you’re trolling terribly or just plain ignorant.
 
#180
#180
evillawyer said:
So based on the description in the article (1) there is no indication from the testimony that Obama was at the meeting, (2) there is no indication from the testimony that Obama gave, approved or knew about the "stand-down" order, and (3) the "stand-down" order was not for a full-stop or cessation of defensive cyber measures. Additionally, further information about the context about this meeting is needed to fully understand the rationale for the "stand-down" order, but that information is classified. Am I missing anything?
Click to expand...

No I don’t buy Your rationalization at face value. How about the paragraph right before the one you quoted?

Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"
Click to expand...

That is the part that was an “accurate description”. It’s even obvious to the counter cyber team it was a stupid idea.

Additionally it’s disingenuous to say it didn’t come from Obama. This guy worked directly for Obama. Trying to say “Rice told them to” doesn’t absolve Obama of his oversight. I don’t remember seeing this guy fired for cause fir getting out of his lane? Obama is easily implicate here. You guys skewer Trump for much much less every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#182
#182
evillawyer said:
So based on the description in the article (1) there is no indication from the testimony that Obama was at the meeting, (2) there is no indication from the testimony that Obama gave, approved or knew about the "stand-down" order, and (3) the "stand-down" order was not for a full-stop or cessation of defensive cyber measures. Additionally, further information about the context about this meeting is needed to fully understand the rationale for the "stand-down" order, but that information is classified. Am I missing anything?
Click to expand...

BigOrangeD said:
You would come across more credible if you extended the same courtesy to President Trump. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

AirVol said:
Don’t you blame Trump for everything? This shouldn’t be any different In your eyes. Either you’re trolling terribly or just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...

NorthDallas40 said:
No I don’t buy Your rationalization at face value. How about the paragraph right before the one you quoted?



That is the part that was an “accurate description”. It’s even obvious to the counter cyber team it was a stupid idea.

Additionally it’s disingenuous to say it didn’t come from Obama. This guy worked directly for Obama. Trying to say “Rice told them to” doesn’t absolve Obama of his oversight. I don’t remember seeing this guy fired for cause fir getting out of his lane? Obama is easily implicate here. You guys skewer Trump for much much less every day.
Click to expand...

Orangeslice13 said:
Are you actually arguing that President Obama wasn’t in on a decision that effected National Security?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

evillawyer, are you seriously wanting to discuss this again? We have been through step 1 and step 2. Would you like to go to step 3? You obviously have never owned a business or been a boss!
 
#183
#183
Orangeslice13 said:
Are you actually arguing that President Obama wasn’t in on a decision that effected National Security?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

He's reaching hard for this one ain't he?

Obama didn't have any input into how the US would respond to a foreign country interfering in a US presidential election. He deferred to someone else. Right.

So the logic then is Obama's national security advisor didn't ask him for direction or include him in their meetings on how they would proceed with their response to Russia.

So on top of the Obama admin handling it poorly, he's also a pathetically weak president for not being the one to make a call on how to respond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#184
#184
UT_VOLS13 said:
evillawyer, are you seriously wanting to discuss this again? We have been through step 1 and step 2. Would you like to go to step 3? You obviously have never owned a business or been a boss!
Click to expand...

I think we've exhausted this one. Pretty clear that no one has any evidence that this was Obama's decision or even that he was aware of the decision, or approved or ratified it. Get back to me when you got something concrete.
 
#185
#185
evillawyer said:
I think we've exhausted this one. Pretty clear that no one has any evidence that this was Obama's decision or even that he was aware of the decision, or approved or ratified it. Get back to me when you got something concrete.
Click to expand...

Obama was POTUS, the buck stops with him. PERIOD. You blame Trump for everything no matter what.
 
#186
#186
evillawyer said:
I think we've exhausted this one. Pretty clear that no one has any evidence that this was Obama's decision or even that he was aware of the decision, or approved or ratified it. Get back to me when you got something concrete.
Click to expand...

So Putin is innocent as well?

Cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#188
#188
evillawyer said:
I think we've exhausted this one. Pretty clear that no one has any evidence that this was Obama's decision or even that he was aware of the decision, or approved or ratified it. Get back to me when you got something concrete.
Click to expand...

So it was so serious that Brennan personally delivered the info to Obama directly in a separate envelope from other intelligence. But you don’t think he made a decision on it? Lol. Ok.


CIA '''had source close to Putin''' and told Donald Trump that Russian leader ordered election hacking
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#191
#191
evillawyer said:
I think we've exhausted this one. Pretty clear that no one has any evidence that this was Obama's decision or even that he was aware of the decision, or approved or ratified it. Get back to me when you got something concrete.
Click to expand...

Oh do we want to go the concrete route?

Get back to me when you have something on Trump. Can’t impeach if you have nothing concrete. Sound right now?
 
#192
#192
AirVol said:
Oh do we want to go the concrete route?

Get back to me when you have something on Trump. Can’t impeach if you have nothing concrete. Sound right now?
Click to expand...

When have I claimed there is anything concrete, at this time, on Trump himself? I mean he's a blabbering idiot, and his actions with all things Russian makes me deeply suspicious, but I've never said there's anything concrete on Trump's direct involvement with collusion. Obstruction is a different question.
 
#193
#193
evillawyer said:
When have I claimed there is anything concrete, at this time, on Trump himself? I mean he's a blabbering idiot, and his actions with all things Russian makes me deeply suspicious, but I've never said there's anything concrete on Trump's direct involvement with collusion. Obstruction is a different question.
Click to expand...

Maybe Trump could say such eloquent things like “red line” and “ I can do more after the election “ to garner your nimrodic approval.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#194
#194
evillawyer said:
When have I claimed there is anything concrete, at this time, on Trump himself? I mean he's a blabbering idiot, and his actions with all things Russian makes me deeply suspicious, but I've never said there's anything concrete on Trump's direct involvement with collusion. Obstruction is a different question.
Click to expand...

Mueller is leading the Trump-Russian collusion investigation.

Not the Trump obstruction of justice investigation.

Why are you ok with government agencies and bureaucrats blatantly abusing their power?

The Russian collusion thing is an absolute joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#195
#195
volfanhill said:
How is trump better in this area?
Click to expand...

Omnibus budget bills won't be allowed going forward.

The problem is that congress hasn't been passing true budget bills. Always threatening a government shutdown to pass some 1000+ page omnibus bill that no one reads.

Trump was highly critical of the omnibus, but passed to fund the military.

We will see how this changes going forward.
 
#196
#196
ajvol01 said:
Omnibus budget bills won't be allowed going forward.

The problem is that congress hasn't been passing true budget bills. Always threatening a government shutdown to pass some 1000+ page omnibus bill that no one reads.

Trump was highly critical of the omnibus, but passed to fund the military.

We will see how this changes going forward.
Click to expand...

You didn't address the fact that trumps proposed budget would have added $984B to the deficit. Not bad for a man who once described himself as the "king of debt."

Please stop acting like trump is fiscally conservative, you're still embarrassing yourself.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top