10 Factors Making Russia Election Interference the Most Enduring Scandal of the Obama Era: Analysis

[rangerrebew]

10 Factors Making Russia Election Interference the Most Enduring Scandal of the Obama Era: Analysis

April 22, 2019 by Sharyl Attkisson Leave a Comment

There’s at least one conclusion on which there’s largely bipartisan agreement: Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election. No vote tallies were changed, according to Obama administration intel analyses, but the interference was serious enough that many insist drastic steps must be taken to avoid a repeat in 2020.

Now, with special counsel Robert Mueller’s exhaustive investigation over and no Trump official charged with taking part in any Russki scheme, Russian election interference may turn out to be the most persistent scandal of the Obama era.

To date, it’s also one of the most puzzling.

https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/04/10-factors-making-russia-election-interference-the-most-enduring-scandal-of-the-obama-era-analysis/

[Cyber Liberty]

FTA:

1.  Missed opportunity. Perhaps the best shot at disrupting Russian interference came as early as fall 2015. That’s when the FBI supposedly detected successful efforts by Russian hackers to breach Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers. For reasons unknown, the systems and others remained vulnerable to further attacks.

By July 2016, the DNC and FBI both had concluded Russians were responsible for additional hacks. Yet, the DNC reportedly refused to allowthe FBI to examine its servers and data in a timely fashion and — for reasons unexplained — the FBI failed to confiscate them. Obviously, when national security is at stake, the FBI does not need permission to examine evidence. A senior law enforcement official told CNN the DNC’s withholding of crucial evidence “caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.” If the FBI (then led by Director James Comey) had acted quickly and definitively to examine the evidence, could that have prevented further interference?

This part always mystified me, both the actions and the media cover-up.  Why did the DNC refuse to cooperate with the FBI, both in tracking down the hackers and in securing the servers from future hacks?  It never made much sense, unless the DNC actually wanted Russia to see their emails.  Considering Hillary Clinton's collusion with the Russians, I can understand why she allowed her personal email server to be hacked on purpose, but the DNC servers confound me.  And why did the Feebs allow it?

Direct link to the 10 points here:  https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439808-10-factors-making-russia-election-interference-the-most-enduring-scandal

They are not on the Attkisson website for some reason.

[EdJames]

FTA:

This part always mystified me, both the actions and the media cover-up.  Why did the DNC refuse to cooperate with the FBI, both in tracking down the hackers and in securing the servers from future hacks?  It never made much sense, unless the DNC actually wanted Russia to see their emails.  Considering Hillary Clinton's collusion with the Russians, I can understand why she allowed her personal email server to be hacked on purpose, but the DNC servers confound me.  And why did the Feebs allow it?

Direct link to the 10 points here:  https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439808-10-factors-making-russia-election-interference-the-most-enduring-scandal

They are not on the Attkisson website for some reason.

Well, all we have is the word of the DNC that their servers were ever hacked at all.

Supposedly they called in a (very shady) company called Crowdstrike that did the "analysis" and said that they were hacked.  (And IIRC, they claimed to have found 'signatures' identifying Russians....)

I have no reason to believe that any of that is true.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, all we have is the word of the DNC that their servers were ever hacked at all.

Supposedly they called in a (very shady) company called Crowdstrike that did the "analysis" and said that they were hacked.  (And IIRC, they claimed to have found 'signatures' identifying Russians....)

I have no reason to believe that any of that is true.

Supposedly it was the FBI that detected the hacks.  That said, I've since learnt they aren't to be believed either.

[EdJames]

Supposedly it was the FBI that detected the hacks.  That said, I've since learnt they aren't to be believed either.

Well, yes, they are not to be believed either.

But, IIRC, the Feebs were never given access to the servers at all.  Many months after the supposed hack, they were sent images of the server(s) in question.  To my knowledge that is the extent of it.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, yes, they are not to be believed either.

But, IIRC, the Feebs were never given access to the servers at all.  Many months after the supposed hack, they were sent images of the server(s) in question.  To my knowledge that is the extent of it.   

That's what I recall too.  Sloppy email practices seem to be a hallmark of Democrat endeavors.  And they take great pride in that.