Suddenly fed up? That might be the case.

Rolling Stone:

This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all.

Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco.

“It’s déjà vu all over again” is how one friend put it…

How does Rolling Stone feel about the NY Times stating the hacking as fact, rather than going with “Obama says…” Well, apparently they don’t like the approach by NYT’s.

But we don’t learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now…

…Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the “small price” Russia paid for its “brazen attack.” The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is “insufficient” as a response to “attacks on the United States by a foreign power.”

The “small price” is an eyebrow-raiser. Also, like the WMD story, there’s an element of salesmanship the government is using to push the hacking narrative that should make reporters nervous…

…Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we’ve seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like “Russia hacked the election.”

https://truthkings.com/rolling-stone-says-obama-lying-russian-hacking/#

Turns out it wasn’t the Russians, men, women, recounts, blacks, or Hispanics that caused Hillary to lose.

Now she’s blaming Obama, claiming he did not “support” her enough.

Nevermind that he spent part of September, most of October and the first week of November campaigning for her.

From Daily Caller

Hillary Clinton’s staff is still furious over her loss, and more than anything, they blame former President Barack Obama.

The camps are clashing over the heated blame game. Clinton’s side insists Obama was the biggest reason she lost, according to Clinton staffers that spoke with Axios.

They think his lack of support was more harmful than her scandals, Russian interference in the election or FBI Director James Comey’s investigation.

Obama didn’t do enough, wasn’t active enough and should have been much less cautious in imposing sanctions on Russia, Clinton’s camp said.

“The White House was like everyone else: They thought she’d win anyway,” a member of Clinton’s campaign told Axios. “If he had done more, it might have lessened a lot of aggrieved feelings, although I don’t think it would have altered the outcome. The Russia thing was like a spy novel, and anything he said or did would have helped get people to believe it was real.”

Obama doesn’t seem to feel the same way about an election that should have been “an easy layup of a win.”

An Obama aide told Axios the White House didn’t come out harshly against Russia because they didn’t want to be seen as politicizing the hacks and using them to grandstand. If they had done so, the aide said, cooperation with Republicans on the state level would have “collapsed.”

He previously made a perceived dig at Clinton in a White House press conference Nov. 14 — six days after her loss to now-President Donald Trump. “I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW Hall, and there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points,” Obama said. “There’s some counties maybe I won, that people didn’t expect, because people had a chance to see you and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for.”

Clinton lost Iowa to Trump 41.7 percent to 51.1 percent, according to Ballotpedia. Obama won Iowa in both 2008 and 2012.