Hey Josh, why didnít Obama eject China diplomats over OPM hack?
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Hey Josh, why didnít Obama eject China diplomats over OPM hack?

  1. #1

    Hey Josh, why didnít Obama eject China diplomats over OPM hack?

    Uh..UhÖHey Josh, why didnít Obama eject China diplomats over OPM hack? [Video]
    .
    Amazingly, ABC news correspondent Jon Karl asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest why no one from China was expelled after the OPM hack. The Office of Personnel Management lost 20 million government employee files to that incident. Nothing has ever been announced by the Obama administration about what the payback to China consisted of.
    .
    Call this the Question of the Week. ABCís Jon Karl asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Tuesday about why Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats for hacking the DNC but didnít expel any Chinese diplomats for hacking an actual government agency and stealing the highly confidential records of 21 million government employees. Earnest Ö really didnít have much of an answer. Via RealClearPolitics and our pal Matt Vespa:
    .
    JON KARL, ABC: So when the Chinese hacked OPM in 2015, 21+ million current and former government employees and contractors had their personal data stolen by the Chinese. Why did the White House do nothing publicly in reaction to that hack? Which in some ways, was even more widespread than what we saw here from the Russians?
    .
    JOSH EARNEST: These are two cyber incidents that are malicious in nature but materially different.
    .
    KARL: 20 million people had their personal data takenÖ fingerprints, social security numbers, background checks. This was a far-reaching actĖ
    .
    EARNEST: Iím not downplaying the significance of it, Iím just saying that it is different than seeking to interfere int he conduct of a U.S. national election. I canít speak to the steps that have been taken by the United States in response to that Chinese malicious cyber activityĖ
    .
    KARL: But nothing was announced. There was not a single step announced by the White House.
    .
    EARNEST: It is true that there was no public announcement about our response, but I canít speak to what response may have been initiated in private.
    .
    KARL: But no diplomats expelled, no compounds shut down, no sanctions imposed, correct? You donít do that stuff secretly.
    .
    Read more & watch video:
    .
    Uh..Uh...Hey Josh, why didn’t Obama eject China diplomats over OPM hack? [Video] | Conservative Byte
    .
    My Thoughts:
    .
    Great question isnít it? Just 17 more dayís to have to put up with all the lies and BS.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. You expect more from Obama's PIMP??
    Proud Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiricy

  4. They only cared that the DNC hacks showed just how corrupt the DNC is and a cesspool; that needs draining.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by JSmith View Post
    Don't count on Lord Cheeto to drain the swamp. Based on his cabinet picks and TurtleMan Mitch and the appointment schedule, the Republican Party is commited to filling the swamp to the brim!

    Usual lib tactic , if you don't like the facts , try to change the subject

  6. Quote Originally Posted by JSmith View Post
    Typical Conservative response. When you don't have a real answer, point at the person stating the obvious. I'm also not the one who brought up the subject of corruption. That was you kenny, but hey it's understandable you wouldn't have the balls or brains to talk about the real issue.
    I have enough balls to take you on at any place or any time.
    The OP was about what Obama did or didn't do and not about Trump draining the swamp.

    YOU ARE THE ONE THAT TRIED TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT OF THE POST

  7. our current government couldn't figure out who, how, when, where, nor what was going on with Hillary Clinton's emails that she leaked to foreign rogue governments, but now these same officials can positively say the Russian government leaked the proof of corruption about the democrat party?

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by ken grant View Post
    -snip-
    The OP was about what Obama did or didn't do and not about Trump draining the swamp.

    YOU ARE THE ONE THAT TRIED TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT OF THE POST
    Please don't use facts and truth to counter the "Trump is eeeevvviiil!" narrative. It is the only thing the leftists have to soothe their butt hurt.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by JSmith View Post
    Typical Conservative response. When you don't have a real answer, point at the person stating the obvious. I'm also not the one who brought up the subject of corruption. That was you kenny, but hey it's understandable you wouldn't have the balls or brains to talk about the real issue.
    Sort of like not having the balls or brains to talk about the real topic of the thread?
    .
    I used to work in the intelligence community when I was in the military. My job was SIGINT (Signals Intelligence). I can't give details but I'm familiar with tracking target nation 'electronic' activity. I was also a government contractor on a computer security contract for the Department of Defense from 2003 to early 2006. My job was to monitor live network traffic for multiple military installations to detect and counter any threats. I used to author the very kind of assessment reports that the Obama administration just released. I still know people that do this work, and I still talk with them about it from time to time. I can tell you that China has been engaged in far more of such activity than Russia, and for far longer. And as far as such traffic from foreign sources was concerned, Russia wasn't even one of the top offenders. My initial reaction to the supposed Russian hacking was almost identical to what was expressed in the OP. There's been far more of such activities from other places, so why was Russia singled out? The political motivation was blatantly obvious.
    .
    As much as I dislike WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, his assessment of the report released by the administration is spot on. It does not look at all like an intelligence report or an actual investigation, and you need only read the preface to discover that. It's full of words like "judgement", "assessment" and "assumptions." There are no findings, just guesswork. And while that guesswork is of the highly educated kind, it's still guesswork. They even state that in the report itself.
    .
    Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.
    In short, there is no smoking gun here, and the authors of the report repeatedly point that out. It's just being treated as a smoking gun by some in politics and in the media.
    .
    This is just an unclassified report based on classified information, so it's obvious we don't have all the facts. But since the authors went to such lengths to caution readers that this is more a matter of judgement than fact, it's also obvious there's no smoking guns in the classified report either. If there were, you can be assured that the administration would be screaming that from the hilltops.
    .
    There's also the matter of necessity. Why would a government need to get involved when the security that was breached was on the par of "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" Podesta's password was "password" for Christ's sake. You wouldn't need the support of a Russian elementary school to hack that, much less the support of the Russian government.
    .
    I also have to point out the impact. No one has seriously questioned the validity of the content in these emails, so this isn't a matter of someone attempting to maliciously manipulate the affairs of someone else, or the affairs of another nation as many are claiming. It was the truth. And based on the corruption and malicious activities in the content that was released, it's obvious that it was Clinton's campaign and the DNC who were attempting to rig the election, not the Russians. You could easily make the argument that the election was strengthened by the release of those documents because they pointed out the true nature of some of the participants in it. It gave the American public a rare glimpse into the inner workings of Clinton and the DNC. Is knowing the truth about them bad? Is it not an advantage to the US if the public knows the truth rather than the rhetoric? Some would make the argument that it wasn't fair because we only saw one side. There were no such leaks from the Trump campaign. But since the reprehensible activities were centered almost entirely around colluding with the media to dupe the populace, do you really think Trump could have been doing that? Do you really think the media in the US would cooperate with the Trump campaign to help him do anything? I won't be so smug as to claim there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever, but it's absurd to the point that the thought of it sure gives me a laugh.
    .
    -most-common-passwords.png
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Please don't use facts and truth to counter the "Trump is eeeevvviiil!" narrative. It is the only thing the leftists have to soothe their butt hurt.
    Not true!

    Now they have this!


    (Apply liberally!)

  11. After seeing the stance Dems take on Queers , maybe most take it in the butt and that accounts for the hurt.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast