It's little wonder Gowdy is not going to run again.

[homersapien 11,353]

I'd like to give Trey the benefit of doubt and assume that his decision is largely a result of his disgust for what the Republican party has become.  They care more about Trump than they do the country.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/13/gowdy-russia-undermine-clinton-republicans-461612

Gowdy breaks from GOP committee, says Russia worked to undermine Clinton

A top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee distanced himself Tuesday from one of the panel's most explosive findings in its Russia investigation — that the FBI, CIA and NSA overplayed their hand when they declared Russia preferred a Donald Trump victory in the 2016 election.

Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina said that the evidence gathered by the committee clearly showed Russia's disdain for Trump's rival, Hillary Clinton, and was "motivated in whole or in part by a desire to harm her candidacy or undermine her Presidency had she prevailed."........

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

I'd like to give Trey the benefit of doubt and assume that his decision is largely a result of his disgust for what the Republican party has become.  They care more about Trump than they do the country.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/13/gowdy-russia-undermine-clinton-republicans-461612

Gowdy breaks from GOP committee, says Russia worked to undermine Clinton

A top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee distanced himself Tuesday from one of the panel's most explosive findings in its Russia investigation — that the FBI, CIA and NSA overplayed their hand when they declared Russia preferred a Donald Trump victory in the 2016 election.

Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina said that the evidence gathered by the committee clearly showed Russia's disdain for Trump's rival, Hillary Clinton, and was "motivated in whole or in part by a desire to harm her candidacy or undermine her Presidency had she prevailed."........

Trump admin just imposed new sanctions on Russia because of the cyber attack, halfwit.

[homersapien 11,353]

36 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Trump admin just imposed new sanctions on Russia because of the cyber attack, halfwit.

QFT.   You're name calling is a great reflection of your character and intellect.

By "just imposed" you fail to mention these sanctions were enacted by congress a month and a half ago.  What took so long?

"The delay was seen as sign of Trump's unwillingness to punish Russia for its meddling, which he has downplayed in the past. Members of Congress expressed frustration that their law, which passed almost unanimously, wasn't being enacted."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/politics/russia-sanctions-trump-yevgeniy-viktorovich-prigozhin/index.html

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

QFT.   You're name calling is a great reflection of your character and intellect.

By "just imposed" you fail to mention these sanctions were enacted by congress a month and a half ago.  What took so long?

"The delay was seen as sign of Trump's unwillingness to punish Russia for its meddling, which he has downplayed in the past. Members of Congress expressed frustration that their law, which passed almost unanimously, wasn't being enacted."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/politics/russia-sanctions-trump-yevgeniy-viktorovich-prigozhin/index.html

Your standards are flawed. A month and a half is not a long time at all. Didn't it take Obama over a year, after the FBI announced Russian interference with DNC, to implement Russian sanctions?

[homersapien 11,353]

House Republicans said Russia didn’t try to help Trump win the election. Now they’re backtracking.

Republicans may be bowing to public pressure.

Two days ago, the Republican leadership of the House Intelligence Committee made a startling claim: The US intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia tried to help President Trump win the White House was flatly wrong.

Now leading GOP members of the panel — including its chair — are already walking away from the claim and grudgingly admitting the Kremlin worked to undermine Hillary Clinton and boost Trump.......

See full article at: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/14/17121072/republican-house-intelligence-committee-trump-russia-collusion

[homersapien 11,353]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Your standards are flawed. A month and a half is not a long time at all. Didn't it take Obama over a year, after the FBI announced Russian interference with DNC, to implement Russian sanctions?

I don't recall Obama calling it a "hoax".

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't recall Obama calling it a "hoax".

That doesn't really move the needle though, does it? I mean, you want to b**ch about a month a half because it "took so long" right? 

[homersapien 11,353]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That doesn't really move the needle though, does it? I mean, you want to b**ch about a month a half because it "took so long" right? 

No, because there was a consensus from our intelligence agencies which Trump ignored for 6 weeks while still calling it a hoax. 

He clearly was unwilling to admit the truth because he felt - at least - it undermined his legitimacy and at most, because he was complicit.

I don't recall the full timeline of Obama's knowledge and response, but whatever reasons he had for his time frame had nothing to do with protecting his own self-interest.  I do recall that Obama and/or others in the Democratic party approached Republicans in an attempt to deal with this in a bipartisan way, but were rebuffed.  So, perhaps Obama didn't want to appear like he was personally interferring in the election.

[homersapien 11,353]

For well over a year, Donald Trump has dodged the subject of Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential charges of collusion and obstruction of justice. It’s all “phony,” a “hoax,” “fake news,” a “witch hunt.” Last year, during a multilateral summit in Vietnam, Trump met briefly with Vladimir Putin and then told reporters that he had asked the Russian President about election meddling. Not to worry, he told reporters: “Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn’t do that.’ And I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it.”

Trump cannot really accept what his own intelligence leaders tell him about the election; he even directed his C.I.A. director to meetwith a former operative turned conspiracy theorist who thought that the hack of the Democratic National Committee was an “inside job.” Only rarely, and begrudgingly, has Trump acknowledged Russian hacking, and, when he does, he hastens to emphasize its triviality, its meaninglessness.

The special counsel, Robert Mueller, has now charged thirteen Russian nationals and three Russian organizations with meddling in the election. Rod Rosenstein, Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, told reporters on Friday that the people and entities charged intended “to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy.” The indictment focusses on the Internet Research Agency, a troll farm based in St. Petersburg, Russia, which, beginning in 2014, allegedly carried out an expensive and intricate influence operation concentrated on highly contested battleground states, including Florida, Virginia, and Colorado. Some of the defendants, it said, posed as Americans and communicated with “unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.”

These indictments could, at least for the moment, allow Trump to believe that Mueller will not discover any knowing collusion in the President’s campaign. Nor do they demonstrate that Putin himself directed the operation.

And yet the indictments are unlikely to ease Trump’s sense of political embattlement even inside his own Administration. Earlier this week, (mid February) a group of intelligence chiefs, including the director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats; the F.B.I. director, Christopher Wray; and the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo—all Trump Administration appointees—told a Senate panel that they were in accord with the findings of January, 2017, when the intelligence community asserted that Russia had meddled in the 2016 elections and did so to the detriment of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

As Coats told the senators, “There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations.” The F.B.I. director added that President Trump had not directly ordered them to take measures to prevent meddling in the midterms.

Mueller’s indictment is in synch with the findings of the intelligence community—a collection of immense bureaucracies that Trump and his supporters have routinely denounced as a conspiratorial and establishmentarian “deep state” intent on undermining his Presidency. Trump has repeatedly expressed his fury with leaders of the C.I.A., the F.B.I., and the Justice Department, a toxic dynamic that seems, by now, more a constant state of affairs than a matter of fleeting temper.

Read the rest at: https://www.newyorker.com/sections/news/muellers-indictments-end-trumps-myth-of-the-russia-hoax

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, because there was a consensus from our intelligence agencies which Trump ignored for 6 weeks while still calling it a hoax. 

He clearly was unwilling to admit the truth because he felt - at least - it undermined his legitimacy and at most, because he was complicit.

I don't recall the full timeline of Obama's knowledge and response, but whatever reasons he had for his time frame had nothing to do with protecting his own self-interest.  I do recall that Obama and/or others in the Democratic party approached Republicans in an attempt to deal with this in a bipartisan way, but were rebuffed.  So, perhaps Obama didn't want to appear like he was personally interferring in the election.

But you're still maintaining that a month and a half is too long, correct? It took Obama over a year and it wasn't because Republicans were in his way. I personally just think you're searching for something to complain about. 

[homersapien 11,353]

17 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But you're still maintaining that a month and a half is too long, correct? It took Obama over a year and it wasn't because Republicans were in his way. I personally just think you're searching for something to complain about. 

False equivalency.

Obama had nothing to fear from this information, Trump did.  And since you seem to know, why did Obama not respond sooner?  

And to be accurate, the 6 weeks was just the interval between Mueller's indictments and Trump finally acting on the sanctions passed by Congress. 

Trump's been denying the Russians did this for well over a year.  He's finally had to act because of the overwhelming public knowledge of the facts.

And really "searching"?    Did you not read the summary in the post above from the New Yorker?  You don't have to look very hard to see Trump's guilty behavior.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

False equivalency.

Obama had nothing to fear from this information, Trump did.  And since you seem to know, why did Obama not respond sooner?  

And to be accurate, the 6 weeks was just the interval between Mueller's indictments and Trump finally acting on the sanctions passed by Congress. 

Trump's been denying the Russians did this for well over a year.  He's finally had to act because of the overwhelming public knowledge of the facts.

And really "searching"?    Did you not read the summary in the post above from the New Yorker?  You don't have to look very hard to see Trump's guilty behavior.

False equivalency because of "fear." Time is time isn't it? Aren't you getting at the valuable time that has elapsed, i.e., you think Trump should've imposed sanctions sooner? Look man, I don't know why Obama did not respond sooner, but I also don't care. 

Also, let's back up. Are you saying that the bill Trump signed today was passed in Congress 6 weeks ago?

[homersapien 11,353]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

False equivalency because of "fear." Time is time isn't it? Aren't you getting at the valuable time that has elapsed, i.e., you think Trump should've imposed sanctions sooner? Look man, I don't know why Obama did not respond sooner, but I also don't care. 

Also, let's back up. Are you saying that the bill Trump signed today was passed in Congress 6 weeks ago?

The measures come a month-and-a-half after the administration missed a congressionally mandated deadline to impose the new sanctions, which led to questions over President Donald Trump's willingness to punish Moscow for its cyber intrusion.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/politics/russia-sanctions-trump-yevgeniy-viktorovich-prigozhin/index.html

 

Trump has been denying Russia involvement in the election since it first became known.  Apparently, he has come to realize that he is the only one in the country that doesn't accept it, or at least that he cannot keep denying it.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

The measures come a month-and-a-half after the administration missed a congressionally mandated deadline to impose the new sanctions, which led to questions over President Donald Trump's willingness to punish Moscow for its cyber intrusion.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/politics/russia-sanctions-trump-yevgeniy-viktorovich-prigozhin/index.html

 

Trump has been denying Russia involvement in the election since it first became known.  Apparently, he has come to realize that he is the only one in the country that doesn't accept it, or at least that he cannot keep denying it.

I am asking because procedurally, didn't he have 10 days to approve or veto? I guess if he didn't sign the bill it would've become a pocket veto, but couldn't Congress override the veto in that case? 

I'm confused about exactly what happened procedurally. 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Didn't it take Obama over a year, after the FBI announced Russian interference with DNC, to implement Russian sanctions?

I think you're going to need to provide some references on this so we can all look at the specifics more.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I think you're going to need to provide some references on this so we can all look at the specifics more.  

Sorry, not meaning to offend your level of satisfaction. Knowledge of interference surfaced more than a year before the first sanctions were levied by Obama. Bottom line is, don't tout "trump waited a month and a half!" Promptness has been an ongoing issue, including Obama as well.

(CNN)Federal investigators tried to warn the Democratic National Committee about a potential intrusion in their computer network months before the party moved to try to fix the problem, U.S. officials briefed on the probe tell CNN. 

The revelation raises questions about whether the DNC could have done more to limit the damage done by hackers suspected of working for Russian intelligence. 

The DNC brought in consultants from the private security firm CrowdStrike in April. And by the time suspected Russian hackers were kicked out of the DNC network in June, the hackers had been inside for about a year.

 

[Separate Article]

 

Over a year after the FBI first discovered that the Russians were hacking into the Democratic National Committee, President Obama levied public sanctions on a group of Russian officials and organizations. In announcing the actions, the president stated, “These actions follow repeated private and public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government.”

..

But it is also true that the Democrats are not without fault here. Both White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and John Podesta have openly accused Trump and the Republicans of complicity with the Russian effort. After the election, the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank, published a long paper detailing Trump’s alleged alliance with Vladimir Putin and the top leaders in the Kremlin. Inevitably, the implicit challenge to the legitimacy of the Trump victory pushed Trump and his close advisers to double down in denying increasingly solid intelligence evidence.

The Obama White House is also culpable. It waited until mid-September to convene a meeting with congressional Republicans and Democrats to attempt to achieve a bipartisan united front accusing the Russian of interfering with the US presidential elections process. It was too late: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), for understandable reasons, warned the administration that action this close to the elections would be denounced by congressional Republicans. The president did warn Putin directly at the September G-20 summit that he would act if the political espionage did not cease, and later the White House used a seldom-activated hotline to make the same point. The Russians discontinued their activities — but this did not cover the publications of documents already purloined from Democratic (and some Republican) party files.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sorry, not meaning to offend your level of satisfaction. Knowledge of interference surfaced more than a year before the first sanctions were levied by Obama. Bottom line is, don't tout "trump waited a month and a half!" Promptness has been an ongoing issue, including Obama as well.

(CNN)Federal investigators tried to warn the Democratic National Committee about a potential intrusion in their computer network months before the party moved to try to fix the problem, U.S. officials briefed on the probe tell CNN. 

The revelation raises questions about whether the DNC could have done more to limit the damage done by hackers suspected of working for Russian intelligence. 

The DNC brought in consultants from the private security firm CrowdStrike in April. And by the time suspected Russian hackers were kicked out of the DNC network in June, the hackers had been inside for about a year.

 

[Separate Article]

 

Over a year after the FBI first discovered that the Russians were hacking into the Democratic National Committee, President Obama levied public sanctions on a group of Russian officials and organizations. In announcing the actions, the president stated, “These actions follow repeated private and public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government.”

..

But it is also true that the Democrats are not without fault here. Both White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and John Podesta have openly accused Trump and the Republicans of complicity with the Russian effort. After the election, the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank, published a long paper detailing Trump’s alleged alliance with Vladimir Putin and the top leaders in the Kremlin. Inevitably, the implicit challenge to the legitimacy of the Trump victory pushed Trump and his close advisers to double down in denying increasingly solid intelligence evidence.

The Obama White House is also culpable. It waited until mid-September to convene a meeting with congressional Republicans and Democrats to attempt to achieve a bipartisan united front accusing the Russian of interfering with the US presidential elections process. It was too late: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), for understandable reasons, warned the administration that action this close to the elections would be denounced by congressional Republicans. The president did warn Putin directly at the September G-20 summit that he would act if the political espionage did not cease, and later the White House used a seldom-activated hotline to make the same point. The Russians discontinued their activities — but this did not cover the publications of documents already purloined from Democratic (and some Republican) party files.

 

You didn't "offend" me, you just made a claim that I felt needed a little more backing up than you provided, which was none.

I also think you're gilding the lily a bit here.  Or the author of the  op-ed you're quoting does.  You don't date it from the first moment the FBI discovered it and compare that to a timeline that's measuring from the time Congress passed a law.  

According to this timeline, the FBI didn't announce they were investigating the hacking of the DNC until late July 2016.  So the timeline just on that basis was only about six months.  But Obama's situation was also different given the election season that was in full swing and he had to be more careful about taking any actions that could be interpreted as trying to unduly influence the outcome.

I just think the comparisons being made here aren't really apples to apples.  And there really wasn't any good reason for Trump to sit on a near unanimous bill from Congress.  Obama at least had some extenuating circumstances between waiting to see exactly what the FBI's findings were and the election cycle.  What plausible reason would Trump have for waiting on this?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

28 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

You didn't "offend" me, you just made a claim that I felt needed a little more backing up than you provided, which was none.

I also think you're gilding the lily a bit here.  Or the author of the  op-ed you're quoting does.  You don't date it from the first moment the FBI discovered it and compare that to a timeline that's measuring from the time Congress passed a law.  

According to this timeline, the FBI didn't announce they were investigating the hacking of the DNC until late July 2016.  So the timeline just on that basis was only about six months.  But Obama's situation was also different given the election season that was in full swing and he had to be more careful about taking any actions that could be interpreted as trying to unduly influence the outcome.

I just think the comparisons being made here aren't really apples to apples.  And there really wasn't any good reason for Trump to sit on a near unanimous bill from Congress.  Obama at least had some extenuating circumstances between waiting to see exactly what the FBI's findings were and the election cycle.  What plausible reason would Trump have for waiting on this?

The timeline concerning Obama’s knowledge varies. I’m not arguing for a plausible reason Trump had for waiting on this. I’m simply offering a  contention of caution re singling out Trump for issues that also plauged the former administration concerning Russia aggression. Democrats called out Obama’s complacency as well. 

In every respect, the U.S. is more powerful than Russia. It has a much larger economy. Its military is superior. Its cyber capabilities are greater. Its diplomatic position is stronger. So why did Putin believe he could treat America like it was Estonia?

The answer is that Obama spent the first six years of his presidency turning a blind eye to Russian aggression.

In his first term, Obama pursued a policy of “reset” with Moscow, even though he took office only five months after Russia had annexed two Georgian provinces in the summer of 2008. In the 2012 election, Obama mocked his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, for saying Russia posed a significant threat to U.S. interests. Throughout his presidency, Obama’s administration failed to respond to Russian cheating on arms-control agreements. His diplomacy to reach an agreement to temporarily suspend progress on Iran’s nuclear program made the U.S. reliant on Russian cooperation for Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement.

In the shadows, Russian spies targeted Americans abroad. As I reported in 2011 for the Washington Times, Russia’s intelligence services had stepped up this campaign of harassment during the reset. This included breaking into the homes of NGO workers and diplomats. In one case, an official with the National Democratic Institute was framed in the Russian press on false rape charges. In 2013, when the Obama administration appointed Michael McFaul to be his ambassador in Moscow, the harassment got worse. McFaul complained he was tailed by cameramen from the state-owned media every time he left the Embassy for an appointment. He asked on Twitter how the network seemed to always know his private schedule.

The Washington Post reported that these incidents continued throughout the Obama administration. In June 2016, a CIA officer in Moscow was tackled and thrown to the ground by a uniformed guard with Russia’s FSB, the successor agency of the KGB.

In 2011, the former Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Christopher “Kit” Bond, told me: “It’s not the intelligence committee that fails to understand the problem. It’s the Obama administration.”

This lax approach to Russia was captured in the memoir of Obama’s former defense secretary, Robert Gates. He wrote that Obama at first was angry at his FBI director, Robert Mueller, and his CIA director, Leon Panetta, for recommending the arrest in 2010 of a network of illegal Russian sleeper agents the FBI had been tracking for years.

“The president seemed as angry at Mueller for wanting to arrest the illegals and at Panetta for wanting to exfiltrate the source from Moscow as he was at the Russians,” Gates wrote. He quoted Obama as saying: “Just as we’re getting on track with the Russians, this? This is a throwback to the Cold War. This is right out of John le Carré. We put START, Iran, the whole relationship with Russia at risk for this kind of thing?” Gates recounts that the vice president wanted to ignore the entire issue because it threatened to disrupt an upcoming visit from Russia’s president at the time, Dmitry Medvedev.

After some more convincing, Obama went along with a plan to kick the illegal spies out of the country in exchange for some Americans. But the insight into the thinking inside his Oval Office is telling.

Eventually, Obama responded to Russian aggression after its stealth invasion of Ukraine in 2014. He worked closely with European allies to impose sanctions on Russia for their violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. But he never agreed to sell the Ukrainians defensive weapons. In the final years of his presidency, as Wired magazine has recently reported, the Russians engaged in bold cyberattacks against Ukraine’s electric grid. So far, the U.S. has not responded openly to that either.

Even after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Obama policy toward Russian aggression was inconsistent. As Foreign Policy magazine reported in May, Obama’s State Department slow-rolled a proposal from the U.S. Mission to the United Nations to lay out a set of options to punish Russia’s client Syria for its use of chlorine bombs against its own citizens in 2014. Russia and the U.S. forged the agreement in 2013 to remove chemical weapons from the country. In 2015, the Obama administration did nothing to deter Russia from establishing air bases inside Syria, preferring instead to support John Kerry’s fruitless efforts to reach a cease-fire agreement with Russia in Syria. That inaction now haunts the U.S. as Russia declared its own no-fly zone this month in Syria, after U.S. forces shot down a Syrian jet.

All of this is the context of Putin’s decision to boldly interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections. Perhaps Putin would have authorized the operation even if Obama had responded more robustly to Russia’s earlier dirty tricks and foreign adventures. But it’s easy to understand why Putin would believe he had a free shot. Russia probed American resolve for years. When Obama finally did respond, it was too late to save Ukraine and too late to protect our election.

[homersapien 11,353]

12 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

 

You didn't "offend" me, you just made a claim that I felt needed a little more backing up than you provided, which was none.

I also think you're gilding the lily a bit here.  Or the author of the  op-ed you're quoting does.  You don't date it from the first moment the FBI discovered it and compare that to a timeline that's measuring from the time Congress passed a law.  

According to this timeline, the FBI didn't announce they were investigating the hacking of the DNC until late July 2016.  So the timeline just on that basis was only about six months.  But Obama's situation was also different given the election season that was in full swing and he had to be more careful about taking any actions that could be interpreted as trying to unduly influence the outcome.

I just think the comparisons being made here aren't really apples to apples.  And there really wasn't any good reason for Trump to sit on a near unanimous bill from Congress.  Obama at least had some extenuating circumstances between waiting to see exactly what the FBI's findings were and the election cycle.  What plausible reason would Trump have for waiting on this?

This is one of the more pitiful "But Obama" arguments made on this forum.

Trump denied and stalled after everyone acknowledged Russian interference and after Congress passed explicit sanctions in response. 

This is hardly comparable to Obama picking his way on this, even though that's understandable, especially considering the response he got from Republicans.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

55 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This is one of the more pitiful "But Obama" arguments made on this forum.

Trump denied and stalled after everyone acknowledged Russian interference and after Congress passed explicit sanctions in response. 

This is hardly comparable to Obama picking his way on this, even though that's understandable, especially considering the response he got from Republicans.

 

Of course, Obama responded in a timely fashion (not). You Obama apologist. 

This isn't a "but Obama" argument. It speaks to the untimeliness towards Russia that has persisted for some time now. 

[homersapien 11,353]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Of course, Obama responded in a timely fashion (not). You Obama apologist. 

This isn't a "but Obama" argument. It speaks to the untimeliness towards Russia that has persisted for some time now. 

No, the point I am making speaks to Trump's refusal to recognize Russia's involvment long after it had been proven. 

While you can criticize Obama for how he reacted, you cannot deny that he accepted the intelligence summaries presented to him from the beginning.  And whatever delay or inaction he exhibited was undoubtedly motivated more by causing even more damage to the election process by interjecting himself in what would have been seen as a partisan way. McConnel told him as much.

On the other hand, Trump refused to accept the facts because the facts cast suspicion on him and his campaign.

This has nothing to do with "lag time".  There is a qualitative difference.  Trying to excuse Trump by trying to equivocate his behavior to Obama's is a pathetically desperate attempt to excuse Trump.  It's laughable.   

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 3/16/2018 at 3:43 PM, homersapien said:

No, the point I am making speaks to Trump's refusal to recognize Russia's involvment long after it had been proven. 

While you can criticize Obama for how he reacted, you cannot deny that he accepted the intelligence summaries presented to him from the beginning.  And whatever delay or inaction he exhibited was undoubtedly motivated more by causing even more damage to the election process by interjecting himself in what would have been seen as a partisan way. McConnel told him as much.

On the other hand, Trump refused to accept the facts because the facts cast suspicion on him and his campaign.

This has nothing to do with "lag time".  There is a qualitative difference.  Trying to excuse Trump by trying to equivocate his behavior to Obama's is a pathetically desperate attempt to excuse Trump.  It's laughable.   

You dumb SOB (not like s.o.b.) the point I’m making concerns both administrations. I’ll criticize trump and obama on this. They both deserve it.

im not excusing Trump. Gosh you struggle