It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WH Chief Cyber Official confirms told to 'stand down' in 2016 in creating Cyber Deterrence

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

No, you're not missing anything. She was supposed to win. Maybe they thought the Russians would help her get elected, IDK.

Fact is: the deep state was CERTAIN that HRC would win. And they knew about Russian interference. Period.

Make what you want of it. It's all speculation besides these facts anyway.




posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Correct that this is information that has been 'out there' but there is no discussion on it.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Are you trying to say that Obama and Democrats allowed Russia to interfere with the election? Why would they ever do that? To help Trump? To somehow help Clinton? Here's why Obama and Democrats didn't do anything and it's all because of the GOP controlled gov't.

Didn't Obama throw out like 30 something Russian spies, diplomats, etc?

Biden: McConnell Refused To Sign Bipartisan Statement On Russian Interference



Former Vice President Joe Biden says he and President Barack Obama decided not to speak out publicly on Russian interference during the 2016 campaign after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to sign a bipartisan statement condemning the Kremlin's role.


Why wouldn't McConnell play ball? Probably because he thought it would hurt Trump's, hence GOP, chances of taking the White House. He didn't want Obama to say anything because it would influence the election. You know, kinda like how Comey dropped a bombshell days before the election that he was opening a new investigation into Clinton? That definitely hurt her and McConnell, from a political standpoint, was totally correct in not having a similar situation for Trump, hence the GOP.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: matafuchs

Are you trying to say that Obama and Democrats allowed Russia to interfere with the election? Why would they ever do that? To help Clinton? To somehow help Trump? Here's why Obama and Democrats didn't do anything and it's all because of the GOP controlled gov't.


There ya go, fixed that for you. And maybe they thought Russians were going to help HRC and got double-crossed.

I'd be very happy if this was what actually happened.





Didn't Obama throw out like 30 something Russian spies, diplomats, etc?


Okay then, this is definitely proof that Obama wasn't working with/to/for the Russians then.

I'm sold.



Why wouldn't McConnell play ball? Probably because he thought it would hurt Trump's, hence GOP, chances of taking the White House.


Or maybe it wasn't Republican's fault for they to take blame on it???

But yea, smart move, Obama


too badddd it didn't work out very well



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 01:45 AM
link   
In looking at the OP Source, I noticed a few interesting statements that better define these cyber deterrence actions that were not implemented by the Obama administrations:


As intelligence came in during the late spring and early summer of that year about the Russian attack, Daniel instructed his staff on the National Security Council to begin developing options for aggressive countermeasures to deter the Kremlin’s efforts, including mounting U.S. “denial of service” attacks on Russian news sites and other actions targeting Russian cyber actors.

Daniel declined to discuss the details of those options during Wednesday’s open hearing, saying he would share them with the panel during a classified session later in the day. But he described his proposals as “the full range of potential actions” that the U.S. government could use in the cyber arena “to impose costs on the Russians — both openly to demonstrate that we could do it as a deterrent and also clandestinely to disrupt their operations as well.”
emphasis mine


In other words, these were not passive actions designed to harden domestic infrastructure. The actions proposed by Michael Daniel and his team were offensive actions targeting Russian systems. The Obama administration believed that such active counterattacks could escalate.

Obama officials were also worried that a vigorous cyber response along the lines Daniel had proposed could escalate into a full scale cyber war.


Further reading indicates that their direction was changed to helping US states implement better security.

Daniel added that “it’s not accurate to say that all activity ceased at that point.” He and his staff “shifted our focus” to assisting state governments to protect against Russian cyberattacks against state and local election systems.


It appears to me that the wisest course of action was the defensive path. Cyber-hardening this gaggle of poorly defended voting infrastructure targets would have been a first step in any event. Attempting to launch a counterattack without first plugging the holes seems to be counterproductive.

I'm not saying that the Obama administration's handling of this matter was perfect. However, rather than condemning them based solely on a headline, one should take into consideration exactly what actions were prohibited and why.

-dex



new topics

top topics
 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join