In its long article about the indictment of a dozen Russian government agents for interfering in the US election of 2016, the NYT writing:
It was not until October 2016 that the government put out its first public statement on the Russian intrusion. If Americans knew much earlier about Russian actions, there will be questions about why they did not warn the targets, try countermeasures or call Russia out publicly before they did. — www.nytimes.com/...
Oh you’re wondering why the US government or Americans in the know didn’t raise the alarm earlier?
Let me give you a clue.
[...] the Obama administration became so convinced by the intelligence community’s consensus about the Russian involvement that it directed top intelligence officials to brief a bipartisan assembly of congressional leaders in September, with the aim of generating support for a bipartisan statement about the intrusion into US politics. But McConnell blocked it.
You can have skepticism about claims that Russia is behind the DNC/Podesta hacks, and many people do. None of us should take intelligence community claims at face value, even if there is growing consensus outside the world of US intelligence that Russia was involved. But McConnell’s role stands out here as particularly treacherous. — www.thenation.com/...
Dear NYT editors, in case you haven’t figured out the plot yet, here it is. Stealing a Supreme Court seat was much more important to Mitch McConnell than ensuring the security of our electoral process. How do we know?
Specifically, the White House wanted congressional leaders to sign off on a bipartisan statement urging state and local officials to take federal help in protecting their voting-registration and balloting machines from Russian cyber-intrusions. [...]
According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics. — www.washingtonpost.com/...
“Partisan politics”. Is that like when you refuse to meet with or hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee for almost a year because you want to steal the seat? Perhaps the NYT could tell us. Or they could continue the charade of “both sides”, pretending that partisan means the same thing on both sides of the aisle.