
© Carlo Allegri / Reuters Sean Spicer
The incoming White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, said it makes him wonder if President Obama's anti-Russian measures were "political retribution," given that a massive hack of federal data in 2015 linked to China saw "not one thing happen" in response.
Spicer brought into question the magnitude of the new sanctions approved by Barack Obama, which included the expulsion of 35 diplomats and the closing of two diplomatic facilities while
speaking to ABC's
This Week program hosted by Jonathan Karl and aired on Sunday.
"I think one of the questions that we have is, 'Why the magnitude of this?' I mean you look at 35 people being expelled, two sites being closed down, the question is, 'Is that response in proportion to the actions taken?' Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't - but you have to think about that," Spicer said, adding later, "If you look at our history, you haven't seen a response like that in modern history for any action."
Donald Trump's team member then went on to contrast Obama's decision with the apparent lack of action on what has been branded the biggest security breach in US government history, when millions of federal employees had their unique fingerprint records
stolen. While US officials have accused China of being behind the
hack that made headlines in June 2015, the furthest Obama went was to
warn Beijing of economic sanctions as President Xi Jinping was visiting the US.
Comment: Spicer's point on the lack of US response to the alleged 2015 Chinese hacks is apt in the sense that the US isn't consistent in the way that it responds to its own propaganda. This is a sign that the elite are feeling threatened and are striking out in more reactive and aggressive ways. No evidence was ever presented on the Chinese hacks just as no evidence has been presented on the so-called Russian hacks. Anonymous intelligence officials remain the sources of both claims, which have no credibility.
While there has been absolutely no evidence presented indicating 'Russian hacking', it's beyond clear that it was the Clinton team who were actively interfering in the elections as Spicer rightly points out during the interview:
"When are we going to start talking about the other side of this? Which is: What did Hillary Clinton do to influence the election? Is she being punished in any way?" Spicer asked, referencing the fact the Democratic nominee received debate questions ahead of time during the primary.
And later:
"The fact is that everyone wants to make Donald Trump admit to certain things," Spicer said.
"But the fact of the matter is, we're having part of a conversation. Why aren't we talking about ... other influences on the election?" he asked.
"Why aren't we talking about Hillary Clinton getting debate questions ahead of time? That's a pretty valid attempt to influence an election," he continued.
"... I can tell you this, if my boss at the time, Reince Priebus, had gotten the debate questions, and handed them off, he would have been driven out of this town on a stake, and Donald Trump would have been vilified. No one wants to ask those questions now."
Comment: For more on Kissinger's recent emergence into the limelight: