President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How will we know which countries are a threat to security? Presumably we'll wait to see which could tries he goes after and deem them the threats retrospectively.

If China is a threat (hacking etc), how is Russia not a threat (hacking etc)?

I'd say those countries that have terrorists on their soil and fueling conflict in various regions. So to give two examples.

Mexico has drug cartels that have easy access to America and the US has to assist Mexico many times in combating the terrorists in Mexico.

And then we have the likes of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan & Qatar all supported terrorism in North Africa and throughout Asia.

recedite

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats the official place of the Democratic and Republic Parties in the US Government? Isn't the hacking of the Democrats simply the hacking of a private organization where as the Chinese hack is actually an action against the government of the USA (comprised by those federal workers).

Of course, but the democrats (and the poster here, El Duderino) are trying to conflate a hack on their private organisation with a hack on the US state itself. Its all down to their being sore losers.

Fleawuss

AnGaelach wrote: »

As much as I dislike Putin and Russia's meddling in foreign countries, I don't see them being the boogeyman NATO plays them up to be. Aside from their nukes, they don't have the capacity to threaten the EU or NATO.

Russia's build up should spur European defence spending (which has spent decades in atrophy), but there's already estimates I've seen of them having to scale back drastically over the next few years. Russia will likely be content to play against the Chinese for control of Central Asia, I can't see them wanting a massive western expansion.

I disagree. Putin wants Russia restored to a position of dominating Eastern Europe and breaking NATO and the EU. He has set about it cleverly, seizing the Crimea with the Hitler tactic on the Sudetenland but using unconventional forces and destabilizing Ukraine in order to make it a dependency. He will do the same in the Baltic.

His actions in Syria have strengthened his negotiating hand worldwide and he has use of a Mediterranean port. He has tried to court Erdogan and has now got him threatening the continuation of Incirlik AFB. Detaching Turkey from NATO will be the aim but Erdogan is basically a shyster who can be negotiated with i.e. bought. Putin knows full well that Turkey will sit on the fence but it suits him to have the distraction. His trolls and Pubots (TM) will confuse and distract Western public opinion. The outstanding success of the US campaign will encourage him.
He has effectively reduced Trump to a lame duck president even before he takes office.

Militarily you are incorrect. Russian tank technology has advanced beyond that of NATO. Their new tank operates a gunnerless turret giving more survivability in combat. Their generation 5 jets are at least a match for the flawed F35 in what I have seen. Putin is clever enough to use the threat of this with unconventional warfare to achieve his goals.

Putin is very wary of Islam and extremist Islam with its threat to Southern Russia. There lies an interesting highway to managing him.

I learned years and years ago that Europe is dominated by either Germany or Russia. I know what Putin wants. I believe he and radical Islam are the greatest threats to Western democracy and civilization since Hitler.

recedite

Fleawuss wrote: »

I disagree. Putin wants Russia restored to a position of dominating Eastern Europe and breaking NATO and the EU. He has set about it cleverly, seizing the Crimea with the Hitler tactic on the Sudetenland..

What evidence is there of Putin wanting to take over any part of Europe, or anywhere else, that is not inhabited mainly by Russians?
Sudetenland was a part of Austria, inhabited by Germans, that was taken from them by the Allies after WW1. Giving it back was not necessarily a mistake. The mistake that led to WW2 was conflating selfish British, Dutch and French colonial interests in Asia and Africa with basic European and World interests. That led to resentment from Italy, Germany and Japan at being "left out" of the party and their banding together against the western Allies in an attempt to create a new world order.

Meanwhile in 2017, Obama is behaving like a drunk at closing time when he is told he can't have another drink. Smashing things up and insulting people. Time to get your coat and go, Obama. Trump will be in your place in less than two weeks.

Fleawuss

recedite wrote: »

What evidence is there of Putin wanting to take over any part of Europe, or anywhere else, that is not inhabited mainly by Russians?
Sudetenland was a part of Austria, inhabited by Germans, that was taken from them by the Allies after WW1. Giving it back was not necessarily a mistake. The mistake that led to WW2 was conflating selfish British, Dutch and French colonial interests in Asia and Africa with basic European and World interests. That led to resentment from Italy, Germany and Japan at being "left out" of the party and their banding together against the western Allies in an attempt to create a new world order.

A bizarre transposition of the Marxist arguments on the causes of WW1 to WW2. Germany did not join with Japan in military alliance until 1940. The Anti Comintern pact was an anti Communust pact i.e. Anti Russia and emerging Chinese communists. The causes of WW2 are well established: Putin is far cleverer than Hitler who announced his intentions clearly.

Anyway, what evidence would you accept about Putin's intentions? The answer is none. A quick google search will find you lots of alarm and military preparation in the Baltic states. NATO sea exercises, airborne reinforcements exercises and if my quick search is correct a reconfiguration of forces. You can be naive about Putin but Aleppo and the Crimea will leave less on for even that excuse.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

What evidence is there of Putin wanting to take over any part of Europe, or anywhere else, that is not inhabited mainly by Russians?

There's an utterly bizarre presumption buried in there: that Russia has an automatic right to annex part of another sovereign nation that happens to have a majority of Russian nationals in it.

RDM_83 again

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The hack was on the democratic party, PACs, think tanks, lobby groups and organisations that might influence policy. The purpose of the attack was primarily to delegitimise Clinton's presidency and to influence the election of the US President. The Chinese attack was different but they were both a means to weaken the US so I don't really see much difference.

One is on private organizations, the other is on the government itself, thats two fundamentally different things.
I would have liked if more stuff had been leaked about the Republicans but even if its one side being forced to air their dirty laundry in public more openness in politics shouldn't be considered a bad thing.

If the leaks had occurred earlier we would probably be looking at President Sanders which I think a lot of people here would have been the best outcome.

In relation to H.Clinton there seems to be massive double think occurring from the "establishment liberals", you can't say that her insecure private email servers and ignorance or lies (its one of the two as there is sworn testimony from her) about security classifications aren't a big deal yet Russian hacking facilitated by lax cyber security is a national threat.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's an utterly bizarre presumption buried in there: that Russia has an automatic right to annex part of another sovereign nation that happens to have a majority of Russian nationals in it.

A rudimentary knowledge of Crimean history from Yalta, to The Charge of the Light Brigade, and way before that, would tell you that it was always Russian, and they have always defended it.

Fleawuss

recedite wrote: »

A rudimentary knowledge of Crimean history from Yalta, to The Charge of the Light Brigade, and way before that, would tell you that it was always Russian, and they have always defended it.

You have to stop. Any google search on Ukraine and Crimea will educate you on its annexation by Russia in 1783 and Russia's violation of international treaties in its special forces led invasion recently. Apart from yourself and Zimbabwe and Venezuela, Sudan and Syria and such like the international community does not recognize Russia's invasion. Seriously, it's very poor posting. Leave it to Putins pros to try to spin his aggression.

recedite

Fleawuss wrote: »

You have to stop. Any google search on Ukraine and Crimea will educate you on its annexation by Russia in 1783 and Russia's violation of international treaties

Oh, so its Turkish then?
Again the Turks were only temporary invaders, just like Lords Raglan and Lucan with the Light Brigade.
BTW if you're ever in Dublin city centre on the Luas, there's an interesting info board up on the fancy new CHQ food hall at Georges Quay stop, telling the story of how it started off as a banqueting hall for war veterans who had returned from Crimea. Those lads who survived were left in no doubt that Crimea was Russian territory.

Fleawuss

recedite wrote: »

Oh, so its Turkish then?
Again the Turks were only temporary invaders, just like Lords Raglan and Lucan with the Light Brigade.
BTW if you're ever in Dublin city centre on the Luas, there's an interesting info board up on the fancy new CHQ food hall at Georges Quay stop, telling the story of how it started off as a banqueting hall for war veterans who had returned from Crimea. Those lads who survived were left in no doubt that Crimea was Russian territory.

You have the unique honor of being the first poster here to go on my ignore list. You cannot expect to be taken seriously.

recedite

Fleawuss wrote: »

honor..

Honour.
Just saying

AnGaelach

Fleawuss wrote: »

I disagree. Putin wants Russia restored to a position of dominating Eastern Europe and breaking NATO and the EU. He has set about it cleverly, seizing the Crimea with the Hitler tactic on the Sudetenland but using unconventional forces and destabilizing Ukraine in order to make it a dependency. He will do the same in the Baltic.

His actions in Syria have strengthened his negotiating hand worldwide and he has use of a Mediterranean port. He has tried to court Erdogan and has now got him threatening the continuation of Incirlik AFB. Detaching Turkey from NATO will be the aim but Erdogan is basically a shyster who can be negotiated with i.e. bought. Putin knows full well that Turkey will sit on the fence but it suits him to have the distraction. His trolls and Pubots (TM) will confuse and distract Western public opinion. The outstanding success of the US campaign will encourage him.

Turkey's level of commitment to NATO while ebb and flow as regional politics develop, but Erdogan isn't completely stupid. NATO is simply larger and stronger than Russia, its constituent parts have significantly more financial pull on the world than Russia does. Turkey relies on Russian oil but over time I'd expect them to reduce their dependence on Russia.

Fleawuss wrote: »

He has effectively reduced Trump to a lame duck president even before he takes office.

The Republicans dominate the Houses, do you think Trump is actually going to be able to do anything if Congress doesn't sign off on it?

Fleawuss wrote: »

Militarily you are incorrect. Russian tank technology has advanced beyond that of NATO. Their new tank operates a gunnerless turret giving more survivability in combat. Their generation 5 jets are at least a match for the flawed F35 in what I have seen. Putin is clever enough to use the threat of this with unconventional warfare to achieve his goals.

The Armata broke down on its display parade, and won't be deployed in numbers. The Pak-FA is not anywhere near the F-35 either, in capability or in numbers.

Russia can threaten unconventional war, but I think the Baltics and NATO is a bit better prepared than an atrophied and inept Ukrainian military.

eire4

recedite wrote: »

Of course, but the democrats (and the poster here, El Duderino) are trying to conflate a hack on their private organisation with a hack on the US state itself. Its all down to their being sore losers.

When a foreign government does what Russia seems to have done during the recent US election that is a very serious interference with their election process. The Russians hacked the Republican Party as well but chose not to release the data. Now was that because the Republicans are squeaky clean or was it because they wanted to help one side and hold leverage over the other side I know I would tend to think it was the later.

I will also add though that it is the height of hypocrisy for the Americans to be bleating about outside interference in their elections giving their history of interference in the process of government in other countries.

FreudianSlippers

RDM_83 again wrote: »

One is on private organizations, the other is on the government itself, thats two fundamentally different things.

I am not sure I understand the relevance of this distinction; either way it's a federal crime.

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I am not sure I understand the relevance of this distinction; either way it's a federal crime.

One is an offence against the state itself, the other is against a private individual or corporation.
Is hacking info from a private computer really a federal crime? I'd have thought maybe a minor misdemeanor, at most, in which case the "victim" would have to take a civil action.

FreudianSlippers

recedite wrote: »

One is an offence against the state itself, the other is against a private individual or corporation.
Is hacking info from a private computer really a federal crime? I'd have thought maybe a minor misdemeanor, at most, in which case the "victim" would have to take a civil action.

You're presuming a false distinction again between the individual/organisation that was hacked; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (as amended) would apply in both cases in this situation.

Hacking any party with a federal interest, the federal government, certain financial institutions (PACs for example) and a crime of an interstate nature are federal crimes pursuant to the CFAA (as amended).

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (as amended) would apply in both cases in this situation.

Just had a quick look at this on Wiki. Three things come to mind;
1. Penalties are generally for trespassing on govt. computers/phones but for actual damage to private computers/phones. So in this case I think Podesta/the DNC might have to prove damage to their computer. If any damage has occurred, it was damage to Hillary Clintons electoral success, which would not count. And anyway it would be very hard to quantify.

2. Previous cases listed are both civil and criminal. Not sure what that means, but it seems that this law is often used to back up other charges. Some serious, and some not.

3. Its likely to be repealed, due to the Aaron Swartz incident, as initially the law was not intended to apply to private computers. But the internet has made every private computer and mobile phone into an international device, and therefore covered.

InTheTrees

recedite wrote: »

2. Previous cases listed are both civil and criminal. Not sure what that means, but it seems that this law is often used to back up other charges.

I think it means a civil case for damages can follow a criminal conviction.
It makes it much easier to win damages if the plaintiff has already been found guilty criminally.

FreudianSlippers

recedite wrote: »

1. Penalties are generally for trespassing on govt. computers/phones but for actual damage to private computers/phones. So in this case I think Podesta/the DNC might have to prove damage to their computer. If any damage has occurred, it was damage to Hillary Clintons electoral success, which would not count. And anyway it would be very hard to quantify.

Sub-sections 1-7 of section 1030 are or not and.

Someone could be indicted on one of those or all of those listed offences.

2. Previous cases listed are both civil and criminal. Not sure what that means, but it seems that this law is often used to back up other charges. Some serious, and some not.

That's not really the way the law works; the Act itself provides for both criminal penalties (i.e. the State prosecuting an individual) and civil penalties (i.e. individuals suing other individuals).

The two are not mutually exclusive and individuals can be both prosecuted under criminal law and sued under civil law.

3. Its likely to be repealed, due to the Aaron Swartz incident, as initially the law was not intended to apply to private computers. But the internet has made every private computer and mobile phone into an international device, and therefore covered.

The CFAA isn't even remotely likely to be repealed any time soon, and nothing on wikipedia suggests that it is.

What is proposed is an amendment (and there have been many amendments to the legislation over the years) dealing with one specific area - in fact, they only propose two amendments (i) changing 3 words (ii) limiting the enhanced penalties imposed for multiple convictions.

Specifically:

Aaron's Law Act of 2013 - Amends provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) prohibiting computer fraud to replace the phrase "exceeds authorized access" with "access without authorization," which is defined as obtaining information on a protected computer that the accesser lacks authorization to obtain by knowingly circumventing one or more technological or physical measures that are designed to exclude or prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining that information.

Modifies CFAA penalty provisions to: (1) limit the imposition of enhanced penalties to subsequent offenses under such Act (currently, additional penalties are allowed if there is a conviction for another offense) and to criminal acts punishable under federal or state law by a term of imprisonment for more than one year; and (2) require the determination of the value of information for enhanced penalty purposes to be made by reference to fair market value.

It's my understanding that this is stalled at the moment due to lack of support.

as initially the law was not intended to apply to private computers. But the internet has made every private computer and mobile phone into an international device, and therefore covered.

I'd be interested in a source for this claim; there is nothing in the wording of the definitions in the CFAA that would support your claim. In fact, the Patriot Act would seem to be entirely contrary to this assertion.

In any event, the initial intention is irrelevant - the only thing that matters is the current amended state and intention of the legislation.

FreudianSlippers

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think it means a civil case for damages can follow a criminal conviction.
It makes it much easier to win damages if the plaintiff has already been found guilty criminally.

The question asked is the same whether criminal or civil; it's the standard of proof that is different - civil is on the balance of probabilities and criminal is beyond reasonable doubt.

It may be the case that a federal grand jury does not feel the criminal standard is met, but that doesn't stop a civil action; or, as you correctly point out, a civil suit can follow a successful conviction.

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'd be interested in a source for this claim; there is nothing in the wording of the definitions in the CFAA that would support your claim. In fact, the Patriot Act would seem to be entirely contrary to this assertion.

It defines "protected computers" as

(2) the term “protected computer” means a computer— (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or

(B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;

... which all seems OTT considering nowadays you could just say "any computer or cellphone".
But back in 1986 when this law was first enacted the ordinary private individual did not have access to computers networked at an interstate or international level. That would have been the preserve of of such organisations as the Pentagon, Federal Reserve and the stock exchanges.
The Patriots Act is not relevant unless we are talking about hacking such high level targets.

I am surprised that such draconian legislation exists in the US though. Could this be used against somebody who hacked into their neighbours facebook account?

FreudianSlippers

recedite wrote: »

It defines "protected computers" as
... which all seems OTT considering nowadays you could just say "any computer or cellphone".

It's about discretion; it allows the federal prosecutors to escalate some crimes. Individual computer hacking is still a federal crime under significant other legislation: the next step down would be the Wiretap Act, Identity Theft and Aggravated Identity Theft, Unlawful Access to Stored Communications, Communications Interference, Wire Fraud, Access Device Fraud - all federal crimes.

There is a federal prosecution handbook which is very helpful: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/14/ccmanual.pdf

But back in 1986 when this law was first enacted the ordinary private individual did not have access to computers networked at an interstate or international level. That would have been the preserve of of such organisations as the Pentagon, Federal Reserve and the stock exchanges.

Yeah... that's just not how legislation works in common law jurisdictions. The age and initial intent of the legislation are irrelevant as they are amended to keep them up-to-date.

The Patriots Act is not relevant unless we are talking about hacking such high level targets.

The USA PATRIOT Act significantly amended the CFAA

I am surprised that such draconian legislation exists in the US though.

As I said - very commonplace - but even despite that, the US still relies on their Constitution as the main foundation for both federal and state law.

Could this be used against somebody who hacked into their neighbours facebook account?

No.

MightyMandarin

Trump's national security pick posted this on twitter last year and still hasn't deleted it. It takes a special kind of stupid to post something like this.

https://twitter.com/MonicaCrowley/status/651043858541879296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Oh she's also the same person who plagiarized her book and also her PhD, so much like her boss she's nothing but a fraud.

Sometimes I struggle to see why he's chosen people like this for cabinet positions, but then you look at their job positions (CEO's of oil companies, lobbyists, silver-spooned clowns who inherited fortunes), then look at their bank balances (several billionaires, most are multi-millionaires at least), then their experience in the field they're assigned to manage (almost none, or in the case of the EPA and Energy pick, want to destroy it) and after all of this consideration I realise that he's just made 'the swamp' 10x smellier.

FreudianSlippers

FFS. That's actually so insane it shouldn't be allowed to be true!

MightyMandarin

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

FFS. That's actually so insane it shouldn't be allowed to be true!

I saw a screenshot and thought it must be a parody, but no, then she must've at least deleted it, but no to that aswell. Actually incredible this clown is in a high ranking Govt. position, but that could be said for pretty much for everyone in those positions next week.

Amerika

As Trump sets out to undo most of Obama’s executive orders, it would behoove him to get a judge on the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by the death of Scalia... and break most 4-4 ties. This will be the first of probably three judges Trump will appoint to the SCOTUS. I’m guessing he'll appoint a very conservative judge first to put the balance of power back to when Scalia sat. Odds seem to favor either Judge Diane Sykes and Judge William Pryor, both pretty conservative judges as Trumps first choices. When Harry Reid and his democrats changed the rules on confirmations, using the nuclear option, they left out Supreme Court picks. But if as promised, the democrats filibuster any and every judge Trump picks, I can see the Republicans adopting the nuclear option for SCOTUS, also. IMO, it would probably be best for democrats to confirm the first Trump pick and save the fight for later picks, or chance having a Trump Supreme Court be in power for decades if the nuclear option is put in place as the election of 2018 is looking to be a potential democratic Senate disaster.

InTheTrees

Senator Cory booker today announced that he will be testifying against the nomination of senator Jeff sessions to be attorney general.

The first time a US senator has testified against the cabinet nomination of another US senator.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Senator Cory booker today announced that he will be testifying against the nomination of senator Jeff sessions to be attorney general.

The first time a US senator has testified against the cabinet nomination of another US senator.

Why? What can Booker be a witness for? He has only been a Senator for four years. He doesn’t have any direct factual testimony to add to the record. It’s nothing more than a dog and pony show. But Booker’s name is mentioned often as the next democratic presidential candidate. So..... Let the 2020 games begin!

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Why? What can Booker be a witness for?

It's a senate confirmation hearing not a criminal trial. Senators have the ability to add testimony to the record. It's the same thing if he chose to testify for him, instead of against: "pfft, a new Senator, what could they possibly say positive with any merit?" :rolleyes: