Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson says the Russian government at President Vladimir Putin's direction clearly conducted cyberattacks on the United States to influence the presidential election, but the assault did not change ballots, the final count or the reporting of election results.

In prepared testimony, Johnson described the steps he took once he learned of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, his fears about a cyberattack on the election itself and his rationale for designating U.S. election systems, including polling places and voter registration databases, as critical infrastructure in early January two weeks before President Donald Trump's inauguration.

Johnson, who worked for Democratic President Barack Obama, is slated to testify on Wednesday before the House intelligence committee, which is investigating Russian meddling in the election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. The Senate intelligence committee plans a hearing on the same election issues with current FBI, homeland security and state election officials.

"In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," said Johnson, who warned that cyberattacks would get worse before they get better.

Johnson described his discussions with state election officials about ensuring the integrity of the voting process. He said 33 states and 36 cities and counties used his department's tools to scan for potential vulnerabilities.

He also said he contacted The Associated Press, which counts votes, and its CEO, Gary Pruitt.

"Prior to Election Day, I also personally reviewed with the CEO of The Associated Press its long-standing election-day reporting process, including the redundancies and safeguards in its systems," Johnson said.

In the end, the former homeland security chief said, "To my current knowledge, the Russian government did not through any cyber intrusion alter ballots, ballot counts or reporting of election results. I am not in a position to know whether the successful Russian government-directed hacks of the DNC and elsewhere did in fact alter public opinion and thereby alter the outcome of the presidential election."

Johnson served as Obama's homeland security chief from December 2013 to January 2017.

The Senate intelligence committee, which also is examining Moscow's interference in the campaign, is holding a separate hearing Wednesday with officials from DHS and the FBI's counterintelligence division. Special counsel Robert Mueller is conducting an inquiry into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Trump has decried the probes as witch hunts and he's rejected the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Russia's hacking and disinformation campaign was intended to aid his candidacy.

Johnson's designation of U.S. election systems as critical infrastructure was aimed at providing more federal cybersecurity assistance to state and local governments to keep voting safe from tampering.

Johnson announced the shift on the same day as the release of a declassified U.S. intelligence report that said Putin "ordered" an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. The report said Russian intelligence services had "obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple U.S. state or local electoral boards."

None of the systems targeted or compromised was involved in vote tallying, the report said, and there's no indication Russia's prying changed vote counts in key states.

But Johnson's decision triggered an outcry from state and federal election organization officials. They complained that Johnson's department failed to respond to questions and concerns they had about the designation before the change was made.

American elections are highly decentralized. Voters cast ballots in roughly 185,000 precincts spread over 9,000 jurisdictions during the 2016 presidential election. Elections are also subject to rigorous and elaborate rules that govern how and what equipment is used.

Original post:
Ex-Obama homeland security chief to face intelligence panel - Fox News

Barack Obama defended his administration Tuesday against charges from President Trump that it did not do enough to secure the release of an American student jailed in North Korea.

During the course of the Obama administration, we had no higher priority than securing the release of Americans detained overseas, Obama spokesman Ned Price said in a statement, according to Deadline.com.

Their tireless efforts resulted in the release of at least 10 Americans from North Korean custody during the course of the Obama administration, he added.

It is painful that Mr. (Otto) Warmbier was not among them but our efforts on his behalf never ceased, even in the waning days of the administration, said Price, who was Obamas National Security Council spokesman.

Trump on Tuesday called the death of the 22-year-old Warmbier who was returned comatose to the US last week after 18 months in captivity a total disgrace.

The president took aim at Obama for not gaining the release of the University of Virginia student.

It should never, ever be allowed to happen. And frankly, if he were brought home sooner, I think the results would have been a lot different, Trump told reporters at the White House.

Warmbiers father, Fred, has praised Trump for helping secure his sons release.

Asked a few days ago whether he felt the Obama administration had not done enough to help his family, Warmbier said, I think the results speak for themselves, the Washington Post reported.

US

See original here:
Obama: We never stopped trying to get Otto Warmbier home - New York Post

By using fired FBI Director James Comey to attack the new Republican administration, Democrats have opened up a legal can of worms for the Obama administration.

Under sworn questioning, Comey has veered off the topic of President Trump and Russia and revealed several damning incidents in which his predecessors administration politically interfered in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And now the Senate will investigate Team Obama for obstruction of justice.

Specifically, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced last week it will hold hearings to examine then-Attorney General Loretta Lynchs involvement in the Clinton email server investigation.

The findings of the powerful panel, which has oversight of the Justice Department and FBI, could lead to a separate criminal investigation and the naming of another special counsel exactly what Trump needs to distract attention from his growing legal woes.

What Lynch did reeks of obstruction. According to Comey, his ex-boss:

There are also concerns, raised by a New York Times report, that Lynch privately assured the Clinton campaign she would keep FBI agents in check and wouldnt let their investigation go too far, according to a message the FBI intercepted involving then-Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Worried his boss had a conflict of interest overseeing the Clinton investigation, Comey testified he considered whether I should call for the appointment of a special counsel to take over the case. That wouldve been the right move. Curiously, Comey instead shut down the probe and let Clinton off the hook three weeks before her presidential nomination.

How compliant was Comey? Heres how he responded to Lynchs demand he align his rhetoric with the Clinton camp: I just said, OK. What other Lynch meddling did he go along with during the yearlong Hillary probe, which was marred by suspiciously generous immunity deals, favorable ground rules, a near-absence of grand jury subpoenas and a rushed closure ahead of the DNC convention?

These are questions the Senate judiciary panel, chaired by GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, might like to ask Comey, along with: Who else was in the room during your meetings with Lynch, and did you take notes?

Any notes could be subpoenaed, along with the Wasserman Schultz document, which, contrary to recent media reports, isnt fake. (Comey testified such reports are nonsense.) So might the NSA recording of Lynchs chat with Clinton, which took place on board a government plane.

Congressional sources say Lynch will almost certainly be called to answer Comeys allegations under oath. What did she and Bill Clinton discuss? Did the investigation come up? Why didnt she recuse herself, despite admitting it looked bad? And did she in fact promise the Clinton campaign a whitewash?

Also on the potential witness list are Wasserman Schultz and Amanda Renteria, the senior Clinton campaign staffer with whom Wasserman Schultz claimed Lynch had been in communication.

Democrats will have a hard time dismissing the inquiry as partisan. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary panel, is on record saying Lynchs suspicious actions are a legitimate avenue of inquiry. Those remarks provide Republicans the political cover they need to aggressively pursue Comeys leads, and refer evidence to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions would recuse himself from that probe, too, the case could end up in the hands of a special prosecutor, who, like Robert Mueller, would have wide-ranging authority to poke around.

Thats a nightmare scenario for Democrats, who are betting the 2018 midterms on convincing voters of Trump graft. Much to their chagrin, Comeys testimony has given Republicans grounds to shift focus from the Russia probe back to Clinton-Obama corruption.

Witch-hunting Democrats may soon learn that turnabout is fair play. Paul Sperry is a former Hoover Institution fellow and author of The Great American Bank Robbery.

Follow this link:
Next up: a special counsel to probe Team Obama's obstruction of justice - New York Post

Gallup reports:

Former President George W. Bushs national image continues to improve in his retirement, with his favorable rating rising seven percentage points over the past year to 59%. This continues the fairly steady improvement in Bushs favorable rating since it registered a meager 35% at the start of his post-presidential years in March 2009.

Bushs favorability now approaches that of former President Barack Obama, who measured at 63% in the same poll, conducted June 7-11.

Over the past year, Bushs image has improved, and to a similar degree, among nearly all major demographic and political groups. One exception is young adults, among whom his favorable rating is unchanged and well below the national average, at 42%.Compared with Bushs post-presidential low point in 2009, his favorable rating has nearly doubled among political independents to 56% and has increased fourfold among Democrats to 41%. His already positive 72% rating from Republicans in 2009 has improved less, registering 82% today.

When former president George W. Bush left office, he was one of the most hated people on the planet. Things have been different lately. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

Another interesting note: Obamas current rating is far more politically polarized than Bushs. To some degree, that may reflect the passage of time since each was president just five months for Obama versus eight years for Bush giving Americans more time to forget about any political disagreements they may have had with Bush. Moreover, Bushs extraordinarily successful post-presidency as a painter, author and continued activist for disabled veterans has at the very least confounded critics who were certain he was intellectually uncurious.

This all comes at a time when President Trumps approval is at a historical low point at this juncture in a presidents term. Its impossible not to view past presidents in light of the current Oval Office inhabitant. Well, at least Bush hired good people, read books and didnt peddle in ludicrous conspiracy theories, Democrats can acknowledge. Obama never attacked his own intelligence community and understood his own health-care bill, Republicans can acknowledge. He wasnt an obnoxious, know-nothing bully. Its fair to conclude that intellectually, temperamentally and ethically, Trump is a far worse president than either Bush or Obama. How can the latter twonot look better in hindsight?

That said, part of our affection for past presidents relates to the tribalism that infects the current political scene. Its become a them or us political world, most especially for Trump cultists who cannot process any facts at odds with the Trump party line nor reject any daft rumor if it helps discredit their opponents. Tribalism the intense identification with one party or another that matters more than ideology, policy or personality has turned politics from problem-solving to an endeavor in self-expression or psychotherapy. With regard to ex-presidents, however, they no longer threaten the tribe of either party; they become in retirement (sadly, only then) the presidents of all Americans. Their errors are not forgotten, but the venom is gone, as is the need to savage the other guys leader.

We are left to contemplate two aspects of ex-presidents tenures. First, they hold a unique unifying role that exceeds the current political players. They cannot and should not weigh in on every policy debate, but they have a special role when it comes to defending our institutions. At meaningful moments, a unified statement from ex-presidents can be powerful, particularly because they comment so rarely. Should, for example, Trump arrange to fire special prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III, a joint statement from ex-presidents could be a powerful inducement for members of Congress and the public to defend democratic norms. Second, the hyperactive 24/7 news environment which five minutes away from Twitter leaves one feeling as if theyve fallen hopelessly behind the news deprives us of perspective and nuance. We all suffer from the impulse to infuse every presidential decision with grave importance and to render a verdict on presidents moment by moment.

Ex-presidents remind us that their tenure can be assessed only over time and graded on a curve. In that regard, every president (even James Buchanan) owes Trump a debt of gratitude. Wed take just about any one of Trumps 44 predecessors around now.

The rest is here:
The growing affection for Obama and Bush: Nostalgia or misremembering? - Washington Post (blog)

He may have been the 44th president of the United States, but theres one role that Barack Obama cherishes above all: Dad.

The former commander-in-chief shared an endearing throwback photo of him squeezing his two daughters, Sasha and Malia, back when they were tiny girls.

Of all that Ive done in my life, Im most proud to be Sasha and Malias dad, he wrote while linking to the photo. To all those lucky enough to be a dad, Happy Fathers Day!

Former first lady Michelle Obama, who was first to post the photo, also expressed the familys ongoing love for him in its caption:

Happy #FathersDay @BarackObama. Our daughters may be older and taller now, but theyll always be your little girls. We love you.

Sasha and Malia were just 7 and 10 years old, respectively, when they moved into the White House in 2009. The girls have since grown up in the public eye, with Sasha recently turning 16 and Malia turning 19 in July.

REUTERS/Marcos Brindicci and REUTERS/Jim Bourg

Happy Fathers Day to all the dads out there!

Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified Malia as the youngest. She was in fact 10 when she moved into the White House and her sister, Sasha, was 7.

Originally posted here:
Barack Obama Just Posted The Sweetest Father's Day Throwback ...