The FBI claims that it “routinely notifies individuals and organizations of potential threat information.” However, former Navy intelligence officer Joe Mazzafro, whose private email was targeted by Fancy Bear in 2015, said, “No one’s ever said to me, ‘Hey Joe, you’ve been targeted by this Russian group.’ That our own security services have not gone out and alerted me — that’s what I find the most disconcerting as a national security professional.”
The knowledge of the hacking group recently come to light when it was reported last month that Fancy Bear worked closely with the Kremlin in hacking and stealing thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee. However, the group didn’t just focus on Democrats, but also more than 500 other U.S.-based targets including military personnel, diplomats and ex-intelligence workers.
The Associated Press interviewed more than 80 individuals who had been targeted by Fancy Bear and learned that only two were alerted by the FBI. A few others were notified by the FBI only after their emails had been leaked and published. And there are still individuals whose emails were hacked and leaked who have yet to hear from the FBI. Retired Maj. James Phillips, upon learning he had been hacked, said, “The fact that a reporter told me about DCLeaks kind of makes me sad.” Phillips said that he did not know that his emails were “flapping in the breeze” for two month until a journalist called him to asking for a comment.
An FBI official blamed the agency’s delay and lack of timely notifications on being overwhelmed by an “almost insurmountable problem.” But Charles Sowell, who formerly work as a senior administrator in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and who was also a victim of Fancy Bear’s hacking, isn’t buying it. Sowell said, “It’s absolutely not OK for them to use an excuse that there’s too much data. Would that hold water if there were a serial killer investigation, and people were calling in tips left and right, and they were holding up their hands and saying, ‘It’s too much’? That’s ridiculous.”
It seems that former FBI Director James Comey knew about the Russian hacking problem for years and yet it was only late last year when Americans learned about the problem. Why? ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52627
{townhall.com} ~ The English poet of the Middle Ages, Geoffrey Chaucer, is generally credited with coining the phrase that has been updated in modern English to read, "better late than never." It means to do something or to arrive later than expected may not be good, but it is better than not at all.
That may not be true in the case of former President liar-Bill Clinton's enablers and apologists for his sexual misdeeds before and after winning the White House.
At a time when people in the media, Congress and the entertainment industry are being exposed for allegedly -- and in some cases admittedly -- sexually harassing and assaulting women, the failure of President liar-Clinton's cabinet and staff to confront him on his misbehavior is only now being dealt with in light of other incidents.
President liar-nObama's secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, spoke to liar-nObama adviser David Axelrod for his podcast program.
About liar-Clinton's extramarital exploits, Sebelius said, "Not only did people look the other way, but they went after the women who came forward and accused him. And so it doubled down on not only bad behavior but abusive behavior. And then people attacked the victims."
Sebelius also criticized liar-Hillary Clinton and White House staff members for smearing her husband's accusers. She said the same pattern is being repeated today as various men are accused of sexual harassment and their accusers are being twice victimized.
Among others aiding liar-Clinton, either by their silence or by issuing misleading statements, was his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright. Albright appeared in the White House driveway before news cameras and vouched for liar-Clinton's veracity when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
If Albright and other higher-ups knew or suspected that liar-Bill Clinton was engaging in extramarital sex and liar-Hillary was aiding in the cover-up, they should have resigned in protest or confronted the president, or both.
While it's true, as Sebelius noted, that less powerful women fear speaking up because they might lose their jobs, the higher and mightier ones would presumably not have such concerns. In fact, they might be regarded as heroes or heroines and rescuers of casualties from the sexual revolution.
There should be no double standard about any of this; whether the abuser is the president or a boss, if allegations of sexual misconduct can be proved, that person should be forced to face the consequences. Tolerating or denying this behavior only guarantees we get more of it.
Every female is someone's daughter, wife, mother, girlfriend or sister. Would these abusers tolerate the harassment or rape of a close female relative or friend? Not unless they are sicker than the behavior they are alleged to have carried out.
In her interview with Axelrod, Sebelius drew a distinction between liar-Clinton's acts and those of accused groper Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and accused pedophile Roy Moore. In the case of Franken, she said, he admitted the bad behavior and immediately called for an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. Moore, Harvey Weinstein, President Trump and others have denied the accusations made against them.
Sebelius admitted the Senate Ethics Committee has a checkered history when it comes to investigating claims against members, but she thinks with so much public outcry, disgust and pressure, members won't be able to sweep things under the rug. The question is whether Franken's call for an investigation is an attempt to delay accountability for his actions.
One benefit from the Sebelius interview is that it should be the final word on the political lives of both liar-Clintons. They should leave the stage for a new generation. Given their past and lust for money, however, I'm betting they won't. It could be said their departure into retirement would be considered a case of better late than never.
Comments