Comey also said that he assumed Clinton would win, and that assumption affected his decisions. He also intimated that he wasn’t the only one in the justice department who felt that way. It’s not a huge stretch to think that Obama would have come to the same conclusion.
Are you suggesting she wasn’t hacked while in office?
I’m not going to take this bait because whatever you’re on about has absolutely nothing to do with 2016 election interference, which is what this thread is about.
This.
As President, Obama has a legitimate role (in concert with Congress) in determining what United States’ foreign policy should be, and also the ultimate role in weighing and balancing competing harms and arriving at a compromise.
Obama had, in other words, every right to say, “This is bad, but upsetting the apple cart would be worse,” and issuing the direction in question.
I don’t think you have the slightest handle on the topic in the OP. I think what we are seeing in your posts is a Fox News-generated Pavlovian response, in which if someone says in everyday conversation, “I got this email the other day…” then certain conservatives must respond, “WHADDABOUTHILLARYSSERVER@!!!”
This is a hijack, but, there is no evidence that Clinton’s server was hacked while she was in office.
By the way - the hack that did occur during the campaign wasn’t a hack of Clinton’s server, either. It was a phishing scam aimed at John Podesta, via his gmail account.
Everyone - H. Clinton’s emails have nothing at all to do with this topic and it’s a hijack. Take it to another thread.
[/moderating]
Since I don’t have cable and don’t get fox and nobody emails me the voices in your head maybe you should dial back your fantasy of what other people think.
It’s pretty clear that Hillary made herself vulnerable to hacking with her server.
My last post was made while you posted this but you need to explain your post further. HRC was a high ranking official close to Obama and had emails from him on her private server which was hacked. How is that no relevant to a discussion involving Obama’s stand down of counter-cyber activities. They’re tied together.
Your premise is flawed. At the time that Obama was made aware of hacking and decided how to respond, Clinton was not a high ranking government official. And (pending some information that you will presumably provide) there is no evidence that her private server was hacked, or that emails from the President were compromised.
I presume that you are suggesting that Obama was somehow motivated to downplay the hacking because he didn’t want to be embarrassed when it came out that he was a victim, but there’s nothing to really support that.
I think the better explanation - already offered - is that Obama tried to take action, but knew that it would have to have bipartisan support, since they were in an election year. When McConnell refused, his hands were largely tied, since Obama was told he would be accused by the GOP of trying to rig the election in Clinton’s favor.
That, plus the fact that that the bulk of the response (if any) would have to come from the next president (since Obama’s term was coming to an end) limited Obama’s options.
I agree with Bricker, so time to decide: a nap or a drink? Nap.