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

Hank Scorpio

mcmoustache wrote: »

What do you mean by "similar". There's a world of difference between what Obama did and what Kushner did. A secure communication line that the Russians can monitor but not the US?

Here's an earlier report from the same paper citing Kushner having "back-channel" communications with Mexico.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jared-kushner-a-shadow-diplomat-pulls-the-strings-on-us-mexico-talks/2017/02/09/aed2cf80-ef0b-11e6-9973-c5efb7ccfb0d_story.html?utm_term=.012283a9d847

The Russia connection looks fishy but it was reported as being a one off line to discuss Syria and ISIS, and also based on an anonymous letter. I don't particularly believe that explanation ( one off ) either but I also don't believe it was some part of a huge conspiracy.

Hank Scorpio

Igotadose wrote: »

Not true. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jun/02/kimberley-strassel/did-obama-seek-back-channel-talks-iran-during-his-/

And as the article goes on to state, discussions with Iran were well covered by journalists - something Trump and Tillerson badly dislike.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/01/politics/state-department-edited-iran-video/

There was all sorts of fishyness going on, it's not a justification for Kushner and I admit I was wrong. Totally different situations.

mcmoustache

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Here's an earlier report from the same paper citing Kushner having "back-channel" communications with Mexico.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jared-kushner-a-shadow-diplomat-pulls-the-strings-on-us-mexico-talks/2017/02/09/aed2cf80-ef0b-11e6-9973-c5efb7ccfb0d_story.html?utm_term=.012283a9d847

The Russia connection looks fishy but it was reported as being a one off line to discuss Syria and ISIS, and also based on an anonymous letter. I don't particularly believe that explanation ( one off ) either but I also don't believe it was some part of a huge conspiracy.

There's nothing inherently bad about back-channels by themselves. A Russian-controlled line to Putin, while Russian collusion (real or not) is in the news, is very fishy.

seamus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's just shíte tbh which makes no sense in technical terms, the opposite is true. Anyone can hide behind a Russian IP address or use a Tor client to have anonymity. If things get altered their timestamps and so on change and server backups can be used to compare databases.

No, I'm afraid you're quite wrong on these things.

Except maybe the "hiding behind a Russian IP" bit. But that only covers half the question; if it's people using Russian IPs as their exit point, then you're still left with the potential that someone was trying to compromise the system.

Hacking a system and extracting information is functionally the same as you leaving your back door unlocked, and then someone wandering in, taking a comprehensive video record of everything, including close-ups of personal documents, and then walking out again, closing the door behind them.

That is, it's pretty unlikely you'd ever know until you find money disappearing out of your bank account. And even if someone suggested it might have happened, you'd have a hard time finding any real evidence that there was someone in your home.

Changed data obviously leaves more potential to detect the issue, but it's far from straightforward. For the most part you would still need to be aware that it had happened in order to check for it; your routine checks wouldn't flag changes as an issue, because the data in computers changes all the time in normal use. So how do you tell which changes were "normal" and which were malicious?

In some systems you can; blockchains like bitcoin are secure, so attempts to bypass the system to change the data directly (e.g. to give yourself more money) are detected and rejected by the system.

But no voting systems yet implement this.

For the most part the universal rule is that a successful hack is rarely ever detected until long after the hacker is gone, and usually only when the data they've stolen appears in the wild.

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2016/04/when-will-we-ever-learn-92-percent-hacks-are-detected-months-after-fact/127750/

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

No it's not, perjury is willfully false testimony.

Well Leroy did not say convicted he said fired. You are correct that if no proof of intention to deceive then no crime. But a officer not getting information right may indeed be a dismissal offence.

CMOTDibbler

seamus wrote: »

Changed data obviously leaves more potential to detect the issue, but it's far from straightforward. For the most part you would still need to be aware that it had happened in order to check for it; your routine checks wouldn't flag changes as an issue, because the data in computers changes all the time in normal use. So how do you tell which changes were "normal" and which were malicious?

Also timestamps on files can be easily changed. At the most basic level, there are free utilities available on the internet to do this. Many trojans have that capability built into them now.

ScumLord

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Also timestamps on files can be easily changed. At the most basic level, there are free utilities available on the internet to do this. Many trojans have that capability built into them now.

Timestamps on normal files maybe, but I would have thought anything managed by a database would see timestamps changing as a red flag something wrong.

CMOTDibbler

ScumLord wrote: »

Timestamps on normal files maybe, but I would have thought anything managed by a database would see timestamps changing as a red flag something wrong.

Yeah, I was referring to a comment about file timestamps supposedly betraying unauthorised access.

Database timestamps would be changing rapidly anyway. Both file and record ones.

The issue with these attacks is that they are targettiing users. So getting valid logins and therefore making it far harder to distinguish normal access from hacker access.

Overheal

Regarding this pedantic nonsense about whether people saw evidence or intelligence or whatever: here you go. People have seen some ****, it's classified, and the Senate Intel Committee who is doing the investigating and the questioning for the Congress, has access to the data. So yeah, it exists even if nobody on the Hill has leaked the specifics to the press, probably to protect our intelligence assets.

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

Regarding this pedantic nonsense about whether people saw evidence or intelligence or whatever: here you go. People have seen some ****, it's classified, and the Senate Intel Committee who is doing the investigating and the questioning for the Congress, has access to the data. So yeah, it exists even if nobody on the Hill has leaked the specifics to the press, probably to protect our intelligence assets.

But but Diane Feinstein video. Or Clapper video.

Just kidding but this is important. Intelligence agencies have seen evidence tying Trump's campaign to Russian interference.

Diane Feinstein saying she has not seen any evidence, without disclosing classified information, is not a good counter point. Especially when words are put in her mouth.

James Clapper saying that he did not see evidence is also not a good counter point. Especially as he has publicly stated since then that that should not be interpreted as there being no evidence.

When people trot out those videos as evidence of no collusion, they either don't really have a good grasp of the English language or are trying to deceive. And everyone can see right through it.

Itssoeasy

Right so Sean spicer just said that trump tweets are "OFFICIAL presidential statements" case closed then.

Igotadose

Overheal wrote: »

Regarding this pedantic nonsense about whether people saw evidence or intelligence or whatever: here you go. People have seen some ****, it's classified, and the Senate Intel Committee who is doing the investigating and the questioning for the Congress, has access to the data. So yeah, it exists even if nobody on the Hill has leaked the specifics to the press, probably to protect our intelligence assets.

Overheal has the best handle on Boards.:D:D:D

Water John

Comey will say he never assured Trump that he was not under investigation: CNN

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Right so Sean spicer just said that trump tweets are "OFFICIAL presidential statements" case closed then.

I thought it was a joke but Fox has covered the story as well with Charles Krauthammer. It blows Kellyanne Conway's view on the importance of Don's tweeting out of the water... Kellyanne Conway, for instance, visited NBC’s Today show to excoriate the press for covering Trump’ explosive weekend and Monday morning tweets, mocking “this obsession with covering everything he says on Twitter and very little of what he does as president.”

MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin, who was on Today, noted it is Trump’s “preferred method of communication with the American people.”

“Not true,” Conway shot back, though Trump’s Twitter activity indicated otherwise.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Comey will say he never assured Trump that he was not under investigation: CNN

Oh boy. Balls in your court mr president.

aloyisious

Fox News just mentioned something similar. Don meantime is plowing ahead with his healthcare plan. He's tweeting that the media hates that he doesn't use msm as they can't interfere with his tweets and making direct contact with the public, or words to that effect.

namloc1980

aloyisious wrote: »

I thought it was a joke but Fox has covered the story as well with Charles Krauthammer. It blows Kellyanne Conway's view on the importance of Don's tweeting out of the water... Kellyanne Conway, for instance, visited NBC’s Today show to excoriate the press for covering Trump’ explosive weekend and Monday morning tweets, mocking “this obsession with covering everything he says on Twitter and very little of what he does as president.”

MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin, who was on Today, noted it is Trump’s “preferred method of communication with the American people.”

“Not true,” Conway shot back, though Trump’s Twitter activity indicated otherwise.

This tweet today literally and clearly contradicted her.

Why do any of the news media interview her anymore?

ThisRegard

Money being funneled from his sons cancer charity into Trump's business and other charities related to him to generate revenue for his companies, mostly his golf courses

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/amp/

aloyisious

Fox News... Judge Napolitano saying the woman who leaked info to the media that the Int Com knew that the Russians hacked the US probably did Don a favour by leaking it but will probably go to jail for doing so.

According to Fox there's some tale being tweeted about that J Comey told a friend that he will tell the committee that Don didn't try to get him to back off Flynn, AND another story that Jeff Sessions told Don he wanted to resign but Don didn't want him to so he didn't. Of course as these have not been verified through several other sources, they may be worthless.

There's some much "info" flooding the market that it's unbelievable, almost like there's blood in the water, like the sharks smell it and are coming in to feed.

SkepticQuark

aloyisious wrote: »

There's some much "info" flooding the market that it's unbelievable, almost like there's blood in the water, like the sharks smell it and are coming in to feed.

This, it's almost impossible now to tell what's bull**** and what's legitimate...

jimmycrackcorm

roddy15 wrote: »

This, it's almost impossible now to tell what's bull**** and what's legitimate...

Well we know that everything Trump says is bull.

mcmoustache

aloyisious wrote: »

There's some much "info" flooding the market that it's unbelievable, almost like there's blood in the water, like the sharks smell it and are coming in to feed.

That's sort of true. The info from some media organisations has been very reliable while info from others, particularly talking head pundit types has been such a consistent type of bullshít that they are easily separable.

For a while, I was having doubts myself but it's becoming more and more obvious that people spinning for trump, even in this forum, have a loose relationship with the truth. At the same time, people who thought that this lying creep of a ****ty indebted crooked conman have been shown to be telling us the truth all along.

To be fair though, if you want the truth about Trump, watch him, listen to him. He just can't help incriminating himself.

aloyisious

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's sort of true. The info from some media organisations has been very reliable while info from others, particularly talking head pundit types has been such a consistent type of bullshít that they are easily separable.

For a while, I was having doubts myself but it's becoming more and more obvious that people spinning for trump, even in this forum, have a loose relationship with the truth. At the same time, people who thought that this lying creep of a ****ty indebted crooked conman have been shown to be telling us the truth all along.

To be fair though, if you want the truth about Trump, watch him, listen to him. He just can't help incriminating himself.

Plus mind^^^^ing his media staff...

Peregrinus

namloc1980 wrote: »

This tweet today literally and clearly contradicted her.

Why do any of the news media interview her anymore?

Because of the contrast between what she says, as Trump's spokesperson, and what Trump says.

Clearly, Trump says one thing to his own press officers and another to Twitter, and he does this systematically. It's not an occasional error; it's his modus operandi. This is relevant and interesting information, and we wouldn't know if if we didn't listen to what his press officers are saying.

aloyisious

The NY Times will be giving Don plenty to tweet about today. running stories that J Comey told Jeff Sessions not to leave him alone with Don after the one on one meet he has about Flynn and asked Flynn to protect the FBI, plus that Don is getting tired and dis-satisfied with Jeff.

Some lawyers for tweeters are asking for Don to change his ban on them from accessing his twitter account as he doesn't like their responses; threatening to go to court on 1st amendment grounds if he doesn't. His statement, via Sean, that they are official presidential statements, might help their case on infringement of their right to free speech.

Igotadose

This is pretty damning: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/06/jeff-sessions-trump-resign-239226

Sessions offered to resign prior to the junket to the middle east and the Vatican (which, btw, might've precipitated the Qatar crisis). The attorney general resigning in disgrace 6 months after taking office. Amazing. Administration is in chaos.

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

This is pretty damning: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/06/jeff-sessions-trump-resign-239226

Sessions offered to resign prior to the junket to the middle east and the Vatican (which, btw, might've precipitated the Qatar crisis). The attorney general resigning in disgrace 6 months after taking office. Amazing. Administration is in chaos.

I don't tweet so don't have access to it to confirm the following story. NYT reported that Don tweeted that he told the others at the Saudi meeting that funding had to end for radical ideology, saying leaders pointed at Qatar - look, claiming what's happened between Qatar and its Arab neighbours is down to him.

“During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology,” President Trump said on Twitter. “Leaders pointed to Qatar — look!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/middleeast/trump-qatar-saudi-arabia.html

Jeff Sessions.... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/politics/jeff-sessions-donald-trump.html

aloyisious

Umm. CNN reporting that a Russian "fake news" story is behind what's happened to Qatar.

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

This is pretty damning: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/06/jeff-sessions-trump-resign-239226

Sessions offered to resign prior to the junket to the middle east and the Vatican (which, btw, might've precipitated the Qatar crisis). The attorney general resigning in disgrace 6 months after taking office. Amazing. Administration is in chaos.

That wouldn't be the Attorney General resigning in disgrace, Igotadose. That would be the Attorney General resigning because he didn't enjoy the confidence of the President. And the issue which would have caused that loss of confidence would be the A-G's decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation which, far from being a disgraceful decision, was an entirely proper one.

Incidentally, Trump may have refused Sessions' offer to resign, but he continues to take public swipes at his own Justice Department over, e.g., their handling of the Supreme Court proceedings over the ban/not-a-ban. He tweeted that "The Justice Department should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered-down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C." [the Supreme Court]. Which gives rise to two obvious comments:

1. Donald, you're the chief executive. If the Justice Department is handling things badly, the buck stops with you. Are you going to do anything about it?

2. You signed the "watered-down, politically correct version", Donald. If you think the Justice Department should have persisted with the first ban, why did you revoke the first ban and sign the watered-down, politically correct one?

Igotadose

Peregrinus wrote: »

That wouldn't be the Attorney General resigning in disgrace, Igotadose. That would be the Attorney General resigning because he didn't enjoy the confidence of the President. And the issue which would have caused that loss of confidence would be the A-G's decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation which, far from being a disgraceful decision, was an entirely proper one.

Incidentally, Trump may have refused Sessions' offer to resign, but he continues to take public swipes at his own Justice Department over, e.g., their handling of the Supreme Court proceedings over the ban/not-a-ban. He tweeted that "The Justice Department should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered-down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C." [the Supreme Court]. Which gives rise to two obvious comments:

1. Donald, you're the chief executive. If the Justice Department is handling things badly, the buck stops with you. Are you going to do anything about it?

2. You signed the "watered-down, politically correct version", Donald. If you think the Justice Department should have persisted with the first ban, why did you revoke the first ban and sign the watered-down, politically correct one?

I agree - I was mistaken saying it was 'in disgrace.' It actually shows some character, a rare trait these days. Thank you for the clarification.

There's a firehose of reports streaming out now from all over about Comey, Trump, this that and the other scandal. When the campaign was running, i got into it on FB with some friends (still amazingly still friends) who were Trump supporters on Trump's obvious lack of readiness and ability to do the job. Kind of painful to be proven right, these days seemingly on an hourly basis. Will be traveling to the USA in the future and frankly terrified at what I'm going to find there. Descriptions from friends are 'it's tense' 'don't discuss politics with strangers' 'we wait for the impeachment announcement' and so on. Horrible times to be an American. Elections have consequences for everyone.

I want a boring President like the last one.