Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides.

Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.

But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.

At that point, the outlines of the Russian assault on the U.S. election were increasingly apparent. Hackers with ties to Russian intelligence services had been rummaging through Democratic Party computer networks, as well as some Republican systems, for more than a year. In July, the FBI had opened an investigation of contacts between Russian officials and Trump associates. And on July 22, nearly 20,000 emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee were dumped online by WikiLeaks.

But at the highest levels of government, among those responsible for managing the crisis, the first moment of true foreboding about Russia’s intentions arrived with that CIA intelligence.

The material was so sensitive that CIA Director John Brennan kept it out of the President’s Daily Brief, concerned that even that restricted report’s distribution was too broad. The CIA package came with instructions that it be returned immediately after it was read. To guard against leaks, subsequent meetings in the Situation Room followed the same protocols as planning sessions for the Osama bin Laden raid.

It took time for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA’s view. Only in the administration’s final weeks in office did it tell the public, in a declassified report, what officials had learned from Brennan in August — that Putin was working to elect Trump.

[Putin ‘ordered’ effort to undermine faith in U.S. election and help Trump, report says]

Over that five-month interval, the 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 combining measures that had been drawn up to punish Russia for other issues — expulsions of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds — with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.

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.

In political terms, Russia’s interference was the crime of the century, an unprecedented and largely successful destabilizing attack on American democracy. It was a case that took almost no time to solve, traced to the Kremlin through cyber-forensics and intelligence on Putin’s involvement. And yet, because of the divergent ways Obama and Trump have handled the matter, Moscow appears unlikely to face proportionate consequences.

Those closest to Obama defend the administration’s response to Russia’s meddling. They note that by August it was too late to prevent the transfer to WikiLeaks and other groups of the troves of emails that would spill out in the ensuing months. They believe that a series of warnings — including one that Obama delivered to Putin in September — prompted Moscow to abandon any plans of further aggression, such as sabotage of U.S. voting systems.


Denis McDonough, who served as Obama’s chief of staff, said that the administration regarded Russia’s interference as an attack on the “heart of our system.”

“We set out from a first-order principle that required us to defend the integrity of the vote,” McDonough said in an interview. “Importantly, we did that. It’s also important to establish what happened and what they attempted to do so as to ensure that we take the steps necessary to stop it from happening again.”

But other administration officials look back on the Russia period with remorse.

“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” said a former senior Obama administration official involved in White House deliberations on Russia. “I feel like we sort of choked.”

The post-election period has been dominated by the overlapping investigations into whether Trump associates colluded with Russia before the election and whether the president sought to obstruct the FBI probe afterward. That spectacle has obscured the magnitude of Moscow’s attempt to hijack a precious and now vulnerable-seeming American democratic process.

Beset by allegations of hidden ties between his campaign and Russia, Trump has shown no inclination to revisit the matter and has denied any collusion or obstruction on his part. As a result, the expulsions and modest sanctions announced by Obama on Dec. 29 continue to stand as the United States’ most forceful response.

“The punishment did not fit the crime,” said Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia for the Obama administration from 2012 to 2014. “Russia violated our sovereignty, meddling in one of our most sacred acts as a democracy — electing our president. The Kremlin should have paid a much higher price for that attack. And U.S. policymakers now — both in the White House and Congress — should consider new actions to deter future Russian interventions.”

The Senate this month passed a bill that would impose additional election- and Ukraine-related sanctions on Moscow and limit Trump’s ability to lift them. The measure requires House approval, however, and Trump’s signature.

This account of the Obama administration’s response to Russia’s interference is based on interviews with more than 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, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

The White House, the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.

[…]

The secrecy extended into the White House.
Susan Rice, Avril Haines and White House homeland-security adviser Lisa Monaco convened meetings in the Situation Room to weigh the mounting evidence of Russian interference and generate options for how to respond. At first, only four senior security officials were allowed to attend: Brennan, Clapper, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and FBI Director James B. Comey. Aides ordinarily allowed entry as “plus-ones” were barred.

Gradually, the circle widened to include Vice President Biden and others. Agendas sent to Cabinet secretaries — including John F. Kerry at the State Department and Ashton B. Carter at the Pentagon — arrived in envelopes that subordinates were not supposed to open. Sometimes the agendas were withheld until participants had taken their seats in the Situation Room.

Throughout his presidency, Obama’s approach to national security challenges was deliberate and cautious. He came into office seeking to end wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was loath to act without support from allies overseas and firm political footing at home. He was drawn only reluctantly into foreign crises, such as the civil war in Syria, that presented no clear exit for the United States.

Obama’s approach often seemed reducible to a single imperative: Don’t make things worse. As brazen as the Russian attacks on the election seemed, Obama and his top advisers feared that things could get far worse.

They were concerned that any pre-election response could provoke an escalation from Putin. Moscow’s meddling to that point was seen as deeply concerning but unlikely to materially affect the outcome of the election. Far more worrisome to the Obama team was the prospect of a cyber-assault on voting systems before and on Election Day.

They also worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign. By August, Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged. Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russia’s efforts to discredit the outcome and potentially contaminating the expected Clinton triumph.

Before departing for an August vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, Obama instructed aides to pursue ways to deter Moscow and proceed along three main paths: Get a high-confidence assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies on Russia’s role and intent; shore up any vulnerabilities in state-run election systems; and seek bipartisan support from congressional leaders for a statement condemning Moscow and urging states to accept federal help.

— 

Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Adam Entous at The Washington Post on former President Obama’s attempts to punish Russia for its role in meddling in the 2016 elections (06.23.2017)

In an envelope from the CIA shown to just former President Obama and 3 other aides of his in August 2016, the letter revealed that Putin had a gameplan: defeat (or least severely weaken) Hillary and elect Trump as the 45th President.


See Also: Washington Post: The Post’s new findings in Russia’s bold campaign to influence the U.S. election

bzfd.it
Trump Revealed Highly Classified Information To Russians During White House Visit
The president discussed classified national security information with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister last week, two US officials confirmed to BuzzFeed News.
By Jim Dalrymple II, Jason Leopold

Two US officials who were briefed about Trump’s disclosures last week confirmed to BuzzFeed News the veracity of the Post report, with one official noting that “it’s far worse than what has already been reported.”

Really Washington post? “He was paralyzed in a shooting, but she still wanted to marry him.”

Because being disabled makes us an unmarriable burden. She’s so special for wanting to marry the man she loves despite that he became disabled during their engagement. That’s not how it works. Disabled people love and marry and have sex and live their lives with partners and spouses like everyone else. What bull.

American democracy is approaching a critical moment. President Trump and his followers are stepping up their attacks on the press. In both word and deed, they have set out to challenge the very assumption that a free press is a crucial and indispensable part of our democracy.

A Republican congressional candidate allegedly assaults a journalist — and gets away with it. Security guards at the Federal Communications Commission rough up a reporter who tries to question an official. Someone fires shots at a newspaper office in Kentucky. The enabler in chief in all these cases none other than the president himself, who has repeatedly railed at journalists — at one point resorting to the Stalinist expression “the enemy of the people” — simply for doing their jobs.

People in the United States, who have relatively little firsthand experience with authoritarian leaders, tend to be somewhat naive about restrictions on press freedom. The typical American generally assumes that the prime danger to reporters is a vague practice known as “censorship.” Yet censorship is a blunt weapon at best, and quite often it’s the last resort of dictators who have already established their control and want to maintain it. If we want to anticipate what Trump is likely to do next, it makes more sense to look at a different set of countries — those where leaders have gradually subverted democratic institutions on the way to building up their own personal power.

Consider Turkey. These days, now that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has enshrined himself as a virtual ruler for life, it’s easy for him to simply throw journalists in jail. Yet not that long ago, when he still had reason to maintain a democratic veneer, Erdogan often opted for intimidation, applied indirectly. Rather than attacking critical journalists head-on, officials ordered tax audits or punitive inspections of businesses owned by the offender’s relatives. The government also became adept at exerting pressure through the owners of private media outlets, who were often all too eager to rein in their reporters.

Vladimir Putin followed a similar pattern in Russia when he took power in 2000. At the time, the country still had a variety of competing media outlets. But the new president didn’t deploy censors against them — he sent in the tax police instead. That’s how he began his crackdown on NTV, the privately owned TV station that had made a name for itself by criticizing the government. NTV belonged to the oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky, who soon found himself indicted on fraud charges relating to his business dealings. In the end, the company was taken over by Gazprom, a state-controlled rival. The critical reporting ceased soon after that.

It’s worth noting that Trump has already hinted at the use of comparable tactics. He has threatened to unleash an antitrust action against Amazon, the company founded by Jeff Bezos, as a form of retaliation against critical coverage from the Bezos-owned Washington Post. He has also vowed to sue the New York Times for its reporting on sexual harassment claims against him during the campaign (and again for publishing leaked pages from one of his tax returns).

[…]

Will Trump follow through? It’s possible, of course, that the president is merely trying to keep his critics guessing. But one thing is clear: If the experience of the world’s ex-democracies is anything to go by, this is no time for complacency.

“No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly,” Donald Trump said this week as he heard the special prosecutor’s footsteps.

Thus did our assured head of state, equal parts narcissistic and uninformed, rank his treatment worse than that of Benito Mussolini (executed corpse beaten and hung upside down in public square), Oliver Cromwell (body disinterred, drawn and quartered, hanged and head hung on spike), Leon Trotsky (exiled and killed with icepick to the skull), William Wallace (dragged naked by horses, eviscerated, emasculated, hanged and quartered) and the headless Louis XVI, Mary Queen of Scots and Charles I.

In this, Mr. Trump is not entirely unlike President Barack Obama, his predecessor, in early 2009. Yet Mr. Obama also frequently conducted town hall meetings in which members of the public were allowed to directly address the president, and some asked challenging questions. Moreover, Mr. Obama’s press team was capable of answering basic questions about his administration.

I nearly choked on my cheese and crackers just now