According
to a new report, Obama personally confronted Putin about messing with the U.S.
presidential election. But he didn’t stop him.Photo: Alexei Druzhinin/AFP/Getty Images
Yesterday’s Washington Post carried the Russia story of
the day. Post reporters Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous purport to
deliver the goods on “Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s
election assault.” It’s a long, long story that is of interest from a variety
of perspectives.
The Post purports to give us the inside story on the
collection of intelligence on Russian interference in the presidential election
and serve up the apologetics explaining the Obama administration’s passive
response. Based on highly classified intelligence related to the Post, the CIA
discovered Russian interference in the election while it was in process within
months of the election in the last year of the Obama administration. According
to the CIA intelligence, the interference came on the order of Vladimir Putin
and furthered Putin’s desire to aid the election of Donald Trump as president.
The Post dates the critical intelligence “bombshell”
obtained by the CIA to August 2016. The Post reports that CIA Director John
Brennan deemed it so confidential that he withheld it from the President’s
Daily Brief and conveyed it directly in writing to Obama by hand delivery.
The intelligence provided Obama administration officials
time to foil Putin’s plans and/or punish Putin’s deeds. Indeed, administration
officials concocted plans to punish and deter Russia from interference. The
Post reports that “Obama administration secretly debated dozens of options for
deterring or punishing Russia, including cyberattacks on Russian
infrastructure, the release of CIA-gathered material that might embarrass Putin
and sanctions that officials said could ‘crater’ the Russian economy. But in
the end, in late December, Obama approved a modest package” (emphasis added).
In other words, President Obama declined to take any action while it might
still have done some good in 2016.
One might infer from story that President Obama
“colluded” with Putin to defeat Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. One
might support the inference with Obama’s own comment open mic comment to Dmitri
Medvedev that during Obama’s second term he would have more “flexibility” to cooperate
with Putin.
To be fair, we might consider the explanation that Obama
was just a pusillanimous pussy disinclined to protect the interests of the
United States from our enemies. Perhaps Obama’s passivity was overdetermined
and other hypothetical explanations apply. Certainly some explanation beyond
any offered by the Post’s sources is called for. The possibilities are endless.
By contrast, however, the Post’s reportage offers no
evidence of Trump’s “collusion” with the Russian interference intended to assist
Trump’s election. Zero. Nada. Not even by inference.
Perhaps evidence of Trump “collusion” with Russia is
beyond the scope of the Post’s story. If the Post had obtained such evidence
from its numerous sources, however, it would certainly have found a place for
it in the story.
So far as I can tell, sophisticated commenters on the
story take it at face value and consider it on the terms presented by the Post.
See, for example, David French’s NRO column and Tom Rogan’s Examiner column.
The story comes complete with this revelation: “Obama
also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting
cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that
could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange
with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was
still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to
President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.”
I’m sure Putin is grateful for the heads-up from the
Post. You don’t have to be a CIA officer or analyst to figure that out.
Now like much of the Post story, this is a piece of
highly classified intelligence whose disclosure violates the oaths of those who
gave it to the Post. The violation of a solemn oath by a witness is commonly
taken to detract from the credibility of the witness’s testimony. Consider,
moreover, that the sources for the story were not under oath when they confided
in Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous. The intelligent reader would
be well within his rights not to believe a word they say.
If we believe it, however, this pertinent fact should be
added. The disclosure of highly classified intelligence by government officials
also violates the espionage laws of the United States. It is in all likelihood
felonious several times over in the case of each of the Post’s numerous
anonymous sources.
The Post and its reporters are accomplices to the crimes
committed by their sources. They have disseminated highly classified
intelligence to the enemies of the United States — as the left has lately
discovered Putin and Russia to be.
Taking the story at face value, we can conclude that the
Post and its sources have done great damage to the national security of the
United States. The Post attributes the leaks on which the story is based to
“three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior positions in
government, including at the White House, the State, Defense and Homeland
Security departments, and U.S. intelligence services. Most agreed to speak only
on the condition of anonymity…” As for the requirement of anonymity imposed by
the Post’s sources, see the paragraph above.
Again, taken at face value, the story buries this
bombshell. Three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior government
positions have undertaken a campaign of gross lawlessness for their own
purposes undermining the national security of the United States beyond anything
Vladimir Putin can do.
____________________________
Trump says Obama did 'Nothing' to Stop
Russian Meddling
By Alice Greene
With his heart set on Hillary Clinton becoming the
nation’s next president, you would think Obama would have made more of an
effort to stop the alleged Russian meddling.
"If Russia was working so hard on the 2016 election,
it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn’t they stop them?"
asked Trump last week on Twitter.
"If he [Obama] had the information, why didn't he do
something about it?" said Trump during a recent interview with Fox News.
"The CIA gave him information on Russia a long time before they even –
before the election. And I hardly see it. It’s an amazing thing,” said Trump.
On October 7th, the Obama Administration announced that
the theft and subsequent release of DNC emails was part of a larger campaign
“intended to interfere with the US election process" - but it wasn’t until
after Trump won the election that the administration started to take the threat
seriously.
A detailed timeline of events published last week in the
The Washington Post suggests the Obama Administration dragged its feet in order
to prevent politicization of the Russia threat during an election that was
already rife with scandal. “It is the hardest thing about my entire time in
government to defend,” an Obama administration official has ben quoted as
saying. “I feel like we sort of choked.”
Even the Dems are frustrated by Obama’s lack of action
regarding Russia's “attack” on the election. “It was inadequate. I think they
could have done a better job informing the American people of the extent of the
attack,” complained Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA). “I understand the analysis, but
look where we are right now. This was the worst mess our democracy has been in
since the Civil War.”
The penalties Obama levied on Russia were “barely a slap
on the wrist,” adds Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
President Trump has admitted that it is possible the
Russians tried to interfere in the election process, but continues to criticize
the Russian collusion investigation as a “witch hunt.”
Author's Note: The "Russia collusion" story is
indeed a witch hunt. It is a rumor started by the Democrats to wound Trump's
presidential campaign.
But apparently the meddling was an Obama Administration
failure. Experts and analysts from both parties have confirmed that the Russian
meddling had no effect on votes, but Obama still should have made protecting
the election a priority.
____________________________
The Supreme Court Upholds First Amendment Freedom Of
Religion Rights
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri, wins First
Amendment appeal at the Supreme Court, with a 7-2 majority saying the state may
not deny public money to religious institutions competing for grants along with
private secular groups.
More
on this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-rules-for-missouri-church-in-dispute-over-public-funding-access.html
____________________________
Trump travel ban: Supreme Court reinstates key parts of executive order
The court's decision means the justices will now wade
into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration -- the
president's order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a
"travel ban." The court made clear that a limited version of the
policy can be enforced for now.
"An American individual or entity that has a bona
fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a
refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded,”
the court wrote. “As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the
injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the
United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of
the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”
The justices decided to review the broader constitutional
issues over executive authority on immigration with oral arguments to be held
in the fall.
Trump has been incensed since his original executive
order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.
"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt
a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come
into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.
He added on Feb. 11: "Our legal system is
broken!"
In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order --
which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.
Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take up
the case and eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as more liberal
appellate judges.
Four days after signing the original ban, Trump nominated
Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Antonin Scalia died.
Gorsuch, who has since been confirmed, is largely seen as a conservative,
originalist justice in the Scalia mold and could help Trump claim an even more
definitive victory after arguments.
The Government has made a strong showing that it is
likely to succeed on the merits – that is, that the judgments below will be
reversed,” wrote Justice Thomas, supported by Alito and Gorsuch. “The
Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause
irreparable harm by interfering with its ‘compelling need to provide for the
Nation’s security.’”
At issue is whether the temporary ban violates the
Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
and 14th Amendments, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance
of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law.
Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in
recent weeks have ruled against the administration. A majority of the 4th
Circuit appeals court cited then-candidate Trump's campaign statements
proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."
The White House, on the other hand, frames the issue as a
temporary move involving national security. A coalition of groups in opposition
call the order blatant religious discrimination, since the six countries
involved have mostly-Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria,
and Yemen.
A major sticking point for the justices will be
navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration.
Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents
dating back to Jimmy Carter have used their discretion to deny entry to certain
refugees and diplomats -- including those from nations such as Iran, Cuba and
North Korea.
A 1952 federal law -- the Immigration and Nationality
Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence --
historically gives the chief executive broad authority.
"Whenever the president finds that the entry of any
aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to
the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such
period as he shall deem necessary," Section 212 (f) of the law states,
"suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or
non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem
to be appropriate."
In his opinion, Thomas criticized the majority for the
compromise nature of Monday's ruling, indicating he would have allowed the
order to be enforced in full. Thomas said he feared "the Court's
remedy" would inspire a flood of new litigation.
"Today’s compromise will burden executive officials
with the task of deciding -- on peril of contempt -- whether individuals from
the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient
connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote. "The
compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally
resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what
exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible
claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed
'simply to avoid §2(c)' of Executive Order No. 13780.”
Fox
News' Bill Mears contributed to this report.
