,
5 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I can’t figure out which is more sad: Obama vets claiming that Russia — via clickbait social media posts & alleged stolen emails — was “attacking our democracy”; or trying to deflect attention from the fact they did nothing about this supposed “attack” while it was happening:
from the book "Russian Roulette": in August 2016, NSC officials were "committed to a forceful response to Moscow’s intervention" and "began drafting options." But their "bosses at the White House were not on board", and Susan Rice told them to "stand down." 
rationale for Obama's decision to "stand down" is interesting: confronting Russia "risked blowing up the election." Also, Russia "could do more to damage us in a cyber war or have a greater impact," such as "possibly shut down the electrical grid." Does anyone buy that?
One more interesting thing on this front, via WP: after election Kerry proposed "a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference," but Obama's opposition
"effectively [killed] any chance that a Russia commission would be formed." washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/…
"effectively [killed] any chance that a Russia commission would be formed." washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/…
Now why would Obama "effectively kill" "the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference & make recommendations on how to protect future elections"? My guess: he didn't buy the (Brennan-delivered) intel that claim of "Russian interference" was based on.
