That questioning should be more than just voicing our conclusions. What do you want to see changed to prevent it from happening again? Do you want to leave it to our elected professionals (as we did this time) or should there be laws/regulations to restrict their actions? What are they and do we really want to take ‘in the moment’ decisions away from the president?
I don’t expect you to change your conclusion.
C A Dazell

My conclusion that Obama erred is based on reasonable premises. If you find fault in my premises then I think you should make that clear. You tend to preach — and that’s ok in certain contexts — but if you believe I’m wrong you should point out where I went wrong.

The so-called hindsight fallacy you referred to ignores my explanation of why that fallacy does not apply — I’ve given you a reference.

I offer a number of premises, but the most compelling is that the president owed the voter sufficient disclosure of Russian intentions at an early date. The voter — as i’ve argued — was the medium on which the russian tactics worked. Therefore, only through the voter could the Russian tactics be credibly countered.

Looking ahead, I believe in a similar circumstance this policy of early and adequate disclosure would be the most appropriate response.

Also, in a democracy it should be self-evident that it is the right thing to do.

Again, I’ve already explained much of that here

Policy implications for the future can be derived from this essay. Something to contemplate.

(I also add this since it bears on the implications for democracy of Obama’s response to Russ. interference: