I was an FBI agent. Trump's lack of concern about Russian hacking shocks me.

[niyad]

I was an FBI agent. Trump’s lack of concern about Russian hacking shocks me.
Is the president breaking his oath to protect and defend the country from foreign attacks?

By Asha Rangappa June 10
Asha Rangappa is an associate dean at Yale Law School.

Comey says there's 'no doubt' he was fired because of the Russia investigation
At the June 8 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, former FBI director James B. Comey testified that he believes he was fired to "change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted," adding, "That is a very big deal." (Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post/Reuters)

Reactions to former FBI director James B. Comey’s testimony Thursday mostly seemed to follow predictable, partisan lines. To many Democrats, Comey appeared to be describing a clear case of obstruction of justice by President Trump. To Republicans who support the White House, Comey’s recounting of “leaking” his memos about conversations with Trump showed that he deserved to be fired. But as a former FBI counterintelligence agent, what I saw as the most explosive aspect of the testimony didn’t involve any legal violation of the U.S. code or questions about whether Comey had broken established Department of Justice protocols. Instead, it was the prima facie evidence that Comey presented that Trump appears unwilling to uphold his oath “to preserve, protect, and defend” the country — which puts the security of our nation and its democracy at stake. In the nine times Trump met with or called Comey, it was always to discuss how the investigation into Russia’s election interference was affecting him personally, rather than the security of the country. He apparently cared little about understanding either the magnitude of the Russian intelligence threat, or how the FBI might be able to prevent another attack in future elections.

. . . .




The FBI can usually disrupt this threat under the radar — for instance, by delicately alerting unwitting individuals that they may be being targeted by a foreign power, or by identifying and recruiting an intelligence service’s sources to become double agents for the United States. The Russia case is different, because its operation last year did not simply try to use the American system as a vehicle for Russia’s benefit. Instead, Russia essentially attempted to break the system itself, by hacking political parties’ computer and email systems, flooding the media with disinformation and purposely sowing political chaos in the voting process, which is the bedrock of our democracy. Although its activities didn’t involve bombs or dead bodies, Russia’s efforts were no less dangerous than any terrorist attack. In fact, the insidiousness of Russia’s interference lies in its invisibility: The American public did not even know that their freedom of choice was potentially being manipulated and distorted for foreign interests. For any president to ignore the situation is shocking. My former colleagues at the FBI who are working on this case and have uncovered the full scale of Russia’s efforts must be incredulous at Trump’s cavalier attitude.

To understand their perspective, consider this happening in the context we normally think of as a national security threat: Imagine that during the 2016 presidential election, a candidate publicly invited the Islamic State to bomb the Democratic Party headquarters. And then imagine that such a bombing in fact took place, resulting in the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now further imagine that the new president not only had no interest in learning more about who caused the attack or bringing them to justice, but in fact went out of his way to make nice with the Islamic State and offer them political and diplomatic concessions. Finally, imagine that there may be evidence that members of the president’s campaign or other American citizens were actively or passively involved in facilitating such an attack.

The fact pattern of the Russia investigation so far is similar — and that’s an investigation Comey says Trump had no interest in following closely. Regardless of which story line you believe about Comey’s testimony, it is, in the end, a sideshow. The real issue is Russia’s assault on our democracy and how we respond to it. If the president intends to stay true to his oath, both he and all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, will support the FBI in getting to the bottom of the Russian threat and making sure that it never happens again.

. . .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/10/i-was-an-fbi-agent-trumps-lack-of-concern-about-russian-hacking-shocks-me/?utm_term=.f2d2784d1322

[dalton99a]

1. Kick.

[weydowner]

2. The biter bit.

What this monster has done to your country, and what, by omission, he has allowed -encouraged, indeed - Russia to do is just what you, dear United States, have been doing to other countries, in Asia, in South and Central America, in Australasia and in Europe throughout most, if not all, your history.

The usual excuses will be found, especially relating to the spread of Communism and the rise and fall of the Cold War,, but the CIA has done far worse to countries lacking your wealth and massive media operations.
Much of the world will - when the shock and fury has abated - fin a great satisfaction that the country that has wrecked the prospects of so many foreign countries and decent leaders has been dealt the same deck of cards by the democratic process that it praises so much.
Can anyone comment on this in a rational way? What, exactly, is the difference?

I've followed most critical views since DT threw his hand in 2 years back but have not read anything critical of US foreign policy re. this area. I'm writing this as a long-time enthusiast of the US; its good bits anyway, but there seems a blind spot here. Most of the world doesn't see the US as a shining city on a hill, and doesn't see American virtues as something that all the world must emulate.

[niyad]

3. . . .