Trump To Target Foreign Meddling In US Elections With Sanctions Order (reuters.com) 187
An anonymous reader shares an exclusive report from Reuters: President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order as soon as Wednesday that will slap sanctions on any foreign companies or people who interfere in U.S. elections, based on intelligence agency findings, two sources familiar with the matter said. Trump's decision to sign an executive order coincides with intelligence agencies, military and law enforcement preparing to defend the Nov. 6 congressional elections from predicted foreign attacks even as Trump derides a special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
Sanction targets could include individual people or entire companies accused of interfering in U.S. elections by cyber attacks or other means, a U.S. official told Reuters. The order will put a range of agencies in charge of deciding if meddling occurred, led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and including the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Homeland Security Department, the sources said. Based on a recent draft of the order reviewed by the U.S. official, it will require any federal agency aware of election interference by foreigners to take the information to the office of Director of National Intelligence. Election interference will be defined in the order as hacking attempts against "election infrastructure," and efforts to sway public opinion through coordinated digital propaganda or systematic leaks of private political information. UPDATE: The story has been updated with additional information from Reuters.
Sanction targets could include individual people or entire companies accused of interfering in U.S. elections by cyber attacks or other means, a U.S. official told Reuters. The order will put a range of agencies in charge of deciding if meddling occurred, led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and including the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Homeland Security Department, the sources said. Based on a recent draft of the order reviewed by the U.S. official, it will require any federal agency aware of election interference by foreigners to take the information to the office of Director of National Intelligence. Election interference will be defined in the order as hacking attempts against "election infrastructure," and efforts to sway public opinion through coordinated digital propaganda or systematic leaks of private political information. UPDATE: The story has been updated with additional information from Reuters.
Finally... (Score:4, Interesting)
...I'm sure all of Trump's detractors will agree that he has done the right thing and it's about time.
Won't they?
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
He talked. Talk is cheap.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether there is an exemption for Russia
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on how you define "meddling" and what he has as "proof."
Re: (Score:3)
Intelligence agency findings are secret because of national security, so basically the USA is thinking about passing a law that will enable them to slap sanctions on anyone they want around the world and we're supposed to shut up about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, would that be the same intelligence agency that told the UK that Saddam had WMD's that could hit London in 40 mins?
Re:Finally... (Score:4)
I've never been a fan of how they toss around "national security" to justify everything. Not a fan of blanket laws that let them interpret a crime any way they want too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...any foreign companies or people.
I don't see government in there so unless the XO covers those guys, e.g. Russia. It doesn't mean much. I have a hunch this XO was inspired more by David Hogg [newsweek.com] than Russian interference.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. Rule by decree much? Cunt can't even do a thing with a republican controlled house and congress.
1/10, not impressed, would rant again.
Re: (Score:1)
It's quite hard to get things done when your own staff are intentionally undermining you.
But that's last week's news, maybe you've forgotten it already.
Re: (Score:3)
It's quite hard to get things done when your own lying idiot boss is intentionally undermining you.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...I'm sure all of Trump's detractors will agree that he has done the right thing and it's about time.
Won't they?
I guess hope springs eternal in that regard. Irrational behavior doesn't usually change. Just like there are those who wouldn't care if he shot someone dead on a public street (his example, not mine) there are those who'd complain if he single handedly cured cancer and poverty world wide.
So my guess is this action will 1. not be covered by his detractors in the media who will ignore it and 2. when covered. will be derided for various reasons (ineffective, to late, etc.). The end result will be that he
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to say this, but the executive order is likely illegal and a violation of the first amendment. The constitution extends its protections to foreign nationals while they reside in the country. Of course as Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, so far no one has a crime that actually involves the Russians. Well unless you count Mueller indicting a company that didn't exist until after the elections
https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
If the Russians have time travel this is all moot anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is a violation of anybody's rights. All the order does is put individual folks on the "do not trade with" list with all sorts of other unsavory actors like known terrorists, drug and human traffickers, arms dealers and folks who are known to trade with the same. It is roughly the same as the "Do Not Fly" list, only it's maintained by the Department of Commerce, not the TSA. So you get on this list and US companies are barred from selling or buying stuff from you. This is not a new list,
Re: (Score:1)
Devil is in the details. I was thinking after I wrote it, he might want to force a discussion of just what does constitute interference in our elections.
Re: Finally... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know the minutia of why the catering firm would be named but I think focusing on that is a red herring compared to the actual suspicion on Concord management.
Well that's a pretty good bit of reasoning, but apparently Mueller never actually expected to have a trial of any kind and was indicting to show he was indicting.
A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case.
The 13 people charged in the high-profile indictment in February are considered unlikely to ever appear in a U.S. court. The three businesses accused of facilitating the alleged Russian troll farm operation — the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management, and Concord Catering — were also expected to simply ignore the American criminal proceedings.
https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
Yes yes sentence first, trial later. Wouldn't want lack of evidence, lack of a criminal, lack of a crime getting in the way of justice.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
...I'm sure all of Trump's detractors will agree that he has done the right thing and it's about time.
Won't they?
When it comes to Trump you get all the consistency of a magic 8 ball. If somebody shakes the old fart between now and the election we will get a totally different reaction to any election meddling from what he's rambling about now. In the absence of any consistency in this White House I'll believe he's willing to slap sanctions on Russia it when I see him do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Here ya go.
U.S. Widens Russia Sanctions Amid Calls They Don’t Go Far Enough [wsj.com]
Russia keeps getting hit with sanctions. Do they make a difference? [washingtonpost.com]
Ruble Tumbles as U.S. Sets Out New Sanctions on Russia [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:1)
...I'm sure all of Trump's detractors will agree that he has done the right thing and it's about time.
Won't they?
When it comes to Trump you get all the consistency of a magic 8 ball. If somebody shakes the old fart between now and the election we will get a totally different reaction to any election meddling from what he's rambling about now. In the absence of any consistency in this White House I'll believe he's willing to slap sanctions on Russia it when I see him do it.
::Shakes Magic 8 Ball:: You may rely on it
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/08... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
...I'm sure all of Trump's detractors will agree that he has done the right thing and it's about time.
Won't they?
When it comes to Trump you get all the consistency of a magic 8 ball. If somebody shakes the old fart between now and the election we will get a totally different reaction to any election meddling from what he's rambling about now. In the absence of any consistency in this White House I'll believe he's willing to slap sanctions on Russia it when I see him do it.
::Shakes Magic 8 Ball:: You may rely on it
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/08... [cnn.com]
Don't you mean ::Shakes Old Fart:: ??
Re: (Score:1)
Don't you mean ::Shakes Old Fart:: ??
I didn't realize you were an old fart. Sorry thought you actually wanted to know what was happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean ::Shakes Old Fart:: ??
I didn't realize you were an old fart. Sorry thought you actually wanted to know what was happening.
It's Trump who's the old fart in the big white house and it's him you'll have to shake in hopes of getting a new result. If you shake him long enough, and if you're lucky enough, he won't bankrupt the US like he did those six hotels/casinos.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't you mean ::Shakes Old Fart:: ??
I didn't realize you were an old fart. Sorry thought you actually wanted to know what was happening.
It's Trump who's the old fart in the big white house and it's him you'll have to shake in hopes of getting a new result. If you shake him long enough, and if you're lucky enough, he won't bankrupt the US like he did those six hotels/casinos.
Yeah I mean that 9 trillion in debt Obama added is hard to top.
Re: (Score:1)
And who added the first half of that debt?
Errr not Trump ? Little defensive there aren't you chief ?
Re: (Score:2)
And who added the first half of that debt?
Errr not Trump ? Little defensive there aren't you chief ?
Not really, just laying the ground work for pointing out that the Republicans are on track to match Obama. Bush was in eight years responsible for somewhat less than half of the current US debt, Obama added the second half in eight years, Clinton was responsible for much of the rest. So far Trump has added $1.46 trillion to the national debt in just 19 months [cnbc.com] and if that rate of debt collection continues he'll probably add more than even Obama did. This projection [crfb.org] put Trump's national probable debt increa
Re: (Score:1)
Not really, just laying the ground work for pointing out that the Republicans are on track to match Obama.
I see why you posted AC then because you are doing it wrong.
Obama took the debt from 10 Trillion to 19 Trillion. For Trump to do as badly he would have to hit 38 Trillion.
Seeing as we are talking about projections, as a percentage of GDP the CBO has projected that Trump won't come close to matching Obama in debt spending
https://www.cbo.gov/publicatio... [cbo.gov]
Say what you want about Obama but he never bankrupted a casino. To quote Jim Jefferies, if somebody gave you a casino, and you spent a every day for a year at the bar drunk as a skunk and your nights in your room sleeping with hookers and the staff robbed you blind, at the end of the year, you'd still turn a profit. It takes a truly spectacular kind of moron to bankrupt not one, not two, not three, not four, not five but a grand total of six Hotels/Casinos. You can keep trying to convince us that Trump is anything other America's Yeltsin but you're trying to polish a really big, wet and mushy turd.
You really are a deranged puppy aren't you ? I said you were defensive when you were hiding behind being an AC but I had no idea.
Re: (Score:1)
The only reason I posted AC because I didn't want to lose too much karma to being down modded by a bunch of Trumpkins.
Why am I envisioning Gollum holding a karma score ?
. As for Trump's deficits that report dates to a time before Trump was even sworn in. Remarkably enough, despite this those charts are projecting deficits that exceed the historic deficit average for entire duration of presidency
So the report is wrong, but because it says bad things about Trump it's good enough for you ?
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason I posted AC because I didn't want to lose too much karma to being down modded by a bunch of Trumpkins.
Why am I envisioning Gollum holding a karma score ?
Why am I envisioning you clutching a bottle of Trump Brand Cool-Aid with a warning from the Surgeon general on it: "Warning: May cause severe delusions and imaginary fact generation in certain types of right-wing snow flakes."
. As for Trump's deficits that report dates to a time before Trump was even sworn in. Remarkably enough, despite this those charts are projecting deficits that exceed the historic deficit average for entire duration of presidency
So the report is wrong, but because it says bad things about Trump it's good enough for you ?
No, the report is right even though it was written while Trump was still a candidate. It basically predicted what I said, and what he has done so far with his tax cuts and spending sprees on the military, during Trump's reign he will have constant budget deficits and they will be highe
Re: (Score:1)
Why am I envisioning you clutching a bottle of Trump Brand Cool-Aid with a warning from the Surgeon general on it: "Warning: May cause severe delusions and imaginary fact generation in certain types of right-wing snow flakes."
he only reason I posted AC because I didn't want to lose too much karma to being down modded by a bunch of Trumpkins.
t's Trump who's the old fart in the big white house and it's him you'll have to shake in hopes of getting a new result. If you shake him long enough, and if you're lucky enough, he won't bankrupt the US like he did those six hotels/casinos.
Tell me is the man keeping you down ?
No, the report is right even though it was written while Trump was still a candidate. It basically predicted what I said,
Even before he was actually elected or took office. Amazing
Re: (Score:2)
Why am I envisioning you clutching a bottle of Trump Brand Cool-Aid with a warning from the Surgeon general on it: "Warning: May cause severe delusions and imaginary fact generation in certain types of right-wing snow flakes."
he only reason I posted AC because I didn't want to lose too much karma to being down modded by a bunch of Trumpkins.
t's Trump who's the old fart in the big white house and it's him you'll have to shake in hopes of getting a new result. If you shake him long enough, and if you're lucky enough, he won't bankrupt the US like he did those six hotels/casinos.
Tell me is the man keeping you down ?
No, not at all, I'm having tremendous fun exploring the depth and severity of a Trumpkin's delusions.
No, the report is right even though it was written while Trump was still a candidate. It basically predicted what I said,
Even before he was actually elected or took office. Amazing
Dude you linked to a report dated March 24, 2016. Trump wasn't even elected until November 2016 and that report you linked to still correctly predicde that whoever would take over from Obama would blow up the deficit. Turned out his they guy who took over form Obama was named Trump and he immediately blew up the deficit. One more time, If you want to throw reports at people get off your ass and read them fir
Re: (Score:2)
No, not at all, I'm having tremendous fun exploring the depth and severity of a Trumpkin's delusions.
Let me see,
When it comes to Trump you get all the consistency of a magic 8 ball. If somebody shakes the old fart between now and the election we will get a totally different reaction to any election meddling from what he's rambling about now. In the absence of any consistency in this White House I'll believe he's willing to slap sanctions on Russia it when I see him do it.
I forget is it a delusion when you can't see something that's there or just denial ? Either way giving you a link to CNN set you off like a bomb.
Dude you linked to a report dated March 24, 2016.
I admitted my mistake, You not only can't acknowledge yours but you are bound and determined to compound it.
But please tell me how a report that says whoever took over would have this problem makes Trump uniquely evil.
One more time ... yes linking to that report was indeed a mistake on your part since that report predicted everything Trump has done in terms of blowing up the national debt, except they underestimated how much Trump would blow it up and how quickly he has done it. I won't hold that against them since they probably assumed that whoever took over from Obama would actually be competent. As for Trump being uniquely evil you brought that up, I didn't, so please stop putting words in my mouth. All I did was poin
Re: (Score:2)
...I'm sure all of Trump's detractors will agree that he has done the right thing and it's about time.
Won't they?
When it comes to Trump you get all the consistency of a magic 8 ball. If somebody shakes the old fart between now and the election we will get a totally different reaction to any election meddling from what he's rambling about now. In the absence of any consistency in this White House I'll believe he's willing to slap sanctions on Russia it when I see him do it.
Are you looking at what he does then?
Didn't he sign the bill that increased the sanctions on Russia that passed though Congress early in his term? I believe he did on 8/2/17. Now I hear lots of folks say that this was because he didn't have a choice given the margins it passed Congress with, but he signed it. See H.R.3364 on Tomas.gov for details.
So are you paying attention?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...I'm sure all of Trump's detractors will agree that he has done the right thing and it's about time.
Won't they?
When it comes to Trump you get all the consistency of a magic 8 ball. If somebody shakes the old fart between now and the election we will get a totally different reaction to any election meddling from what he's rambling about now. In the absence of any consistency in this White House I'll believe he's willing to slap sanctions on Russia it when I see him do it.
Are you looking at what he does then?
Didn't he sign the bill that increased the sanctions on Russia that passed though Congress early in his term? I believe he did on 8/2/17. Now I hear lots of folks say that this was because he didn't have a choice given the margins it passed Congress with, but he signed it. See H.R.3364 on Tomas.gov for details.
So are you paying attention?
Paying attention?? ... Well ... You said it yourself. The margins were so large the first time that bill passed it was obvious it was veto proof since Congress can override a presidential veto by a two-thirds supermajority in both houses. H.r.3364 passed the House with 419 votes to 3 against and the senate with 98 votes to 2 against. Trump had no choice but to sign. If he hand't signed Congress would have shoved that bill down his throat with a second vote and since Trump is always a winner he could not ver
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: every piece of evidence that contradicts the Russiagate cult (i.e. Trump being far more confrontational with Russia than Obama ever was) is proof that the dumbest conspiracy theory of all time is correct.
Russigaters would still be calling Trump a "Putin Puppet" if he had ICBM's in the air on their way to Moscow. Because that's how cults work.
Re: (Score:1)
...I'm sure all of Trump's detractors will agree that he has done the right thing and it's about time.
Won't they?
He did? How exactly? There are already laws against that! Why do you think the Mueller probe is on?
Re: (Score:2)
and
Re: (Score:2)
...I'm sure all of Trump's detractors will agree that he has done the right thing and it's about time. Won't they?
I hope you didn't just anticipate a negative response from a group of people and use your anticipation feel critical about them!
I hope you won't expect ALL members of a group to do something right (since that's not how groups of humans ever work). And I hope you won't criticize the group as a whole based on just some of them failing to do something right; only if you have evidence that a significant portion of group members fail to do it.
I think it's very possible that you won't do either of those things. (
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on (a) what the order actually says and (b) how far he goes to actually do anything about it.
I don't hate Trump, I just don't think he's a good man or a good president. But if he actually cracks down on Russian interference in the election, and doesn't use it for an excuse for political ratfucking, I won't hesitate to say he's done a good job on this issue.
The thing is, announcing you are going to do something isn't the same thing as doing it, otherwise we'd have that Obamacare replacement in hand
Re: (Score:1)
Are you one of the 43% of republicans that would defend the 2nd amendment to the death
No they wouldn't.
Their support for the 2nd amendment falters quickly when you ask if American citizens who are Muslims should be allowed to get guns.
They don't actually support the 2nd amendment. It is just that it currently works for their benefit.
If someone they don't like starts to stockpile guns then they will suddenly think that we need more gun control like they did when the Black Panthers started carrying guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you one of the 43% of republicans that would defend the 2nd amendment to the death, but would have no problem giving the POTUS the power to close down any news outlet arbitrarily (as long as they are liberal news outlets of course), knowning full well that this is a clear violation of the first amendment ?
Yep, we know which amendment almost half of republicans only care about. And all of Trump supporters.
Wow just what percent of internet statistics are made up on the spot ?
87.536%
"If we lose our majority (Score:2, Insightful)
Get ready for it.
Re:"If we lose our majority (Score:4, Insightful)
...its because the election was hacked."
Get ready for it.
Well... It's been the narrative for almost the last three years now, so Why not?
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't that the DNC platform they are running on already?
Re:"If we lose our majority (Score:5, Informative)
"If we lose our majority its because the election was hacked."
Get ready for it.
Get ready? What are you talking about, he's literally already written that! [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there will be a big enough blue wave to overcome gerrymandering in the House, and there are way more Democratic senators up for re-election than Republicans, which favors the Republicans. 26 of 35 seats up for grabs are held by Democrats, and they pretty much have to win all of them plus pick up another four. That's no longer in the realm of fantasy, but it is at best a 50/50 shot. There's even a possibility of a 50/50 split, which is a Republican "win" with Pence casting the tying vote.
So
Hacker (Score:5, Insightful)
Hacking voting systems is a distraction. It is pumping up dissent and rivalry and anger, by foreign governments trolling myriad sites, that is the real problem.
It's not so much free speech as it is speech by governments without them letting you know it is a government, much less which.
You don't think Russia or NK have dozens of innocent accounts with high karma ready to downmod stuff? Tout racial friction? Attempt to portray right wing as synonymous with neo Nazis? Not point out some are, but touting they are the same, while posting simultaneously messages that are Nazi-like as if by a Trump supporter? They play the roll of both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pumping up dissent and rivalry and anger, by foreign governments trolling myriad sites, that is the real problem.
This is like a rounding error on the actual problems, it's so small.
Tout racial friction? Attempt to portray right wing as synonymous with neo Nazis? Not point out some are, but touting they are the same, while posting simultaneously messages that are Nazi-like as if by a Trump supporter?
There are so many actual American democrats saying those things that any Russian influence is completely drowned out. Formerly respectable newspapers are playing the stuff [sacbee.com], it's beyond typical conspiracy theorists. To be fair, Americans also compared Bush to Hitler, and Obama to the antichrist. We just don't like our presidents.
The real problem is not Russian meddling, it's the willingness of people to demonize the other side rather than
No outside money (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean the intelligence services he says suck? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does he mean the 'intelligence agencies' that he says are lying about everything and are worthless?
I'll wait for your quote that shows that he says that.
Or has someone spoon-fed Trump enough that he's got it through his 5th grader mentality how things actually work?
Given your own 5th grader mentality here, you should look in the mirror and stop throwing stones.
The Russia hysteria is just that, hysteria, whipped [zerohedge.com] up by the DNC and a Deep State intent on keeping up the Trump/Russia collusion narrative.
Don't believe the article? Watch this testimony [youtu.be]. Any techie on Slashdot should be flabberghasted at this stunning admission.
Re: (Score:2)
That Trump
Re: (Score:2)
You have to think about the effects of the government declaring certain types of speech illegal.
Whether or not there was interference (there wasn't) in the voting process, the left has declared that posting on FaceBook in support of a particular candidate is "interference", now Trump is "doing something about it" which means - controlling speech.
Yes, THIS is what you asked for, now go eat your cake.
Member Berries (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anyone here old enough to remember Trump's big "voter fraud" commission? It was going to uncover the millions of illegal aliens that voted in the last election, giving Hillary the popular vote.
Member?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Sure. Use Snopes, ran by someone that lied to try and get readers to donate to his divorce proceedings and factcheck.org, ran by a board of registered democrats and anti-conservativism scholars.
Completely valid sources for a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Go back and look again. That's not at all what happened. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite of what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Is anyone here old enough to remember Trump's big "voter fraud" commission?
Yes, I remember how the lack of cooperation for requested information doomed it from the start. Of course, that doesn't mean voter fraud doesn't exist. We know [nationalreview.com] it does:
"In 2015, one Kansas county began offering voter registration at naturalization ceremonies, as Hans A. von Spakovsky and I reported in January at Fox News. Election officials soon discovered about a dozen new Americans who were already registered â" and who had voted as non-citizens in multiple elections."
Re: (Score:1)
That National Review op-ed you linked to has been debunked many times over. It doesn't point to a single actual case of voter fraud that doesn't involve a Trump supporter trying to vote twice in 2016.
It points to the fact that there are registered voters who either a) don't vote, b) have died, or c) have moved. I can say that I'm a member of group "C", because I've moved across the country in the past three yea
Re: (Score:2)
That National Review op-ed you linked to has been debunked many times over.
Good, then it should be easy for you to reference such a debunking for the part I quoted.
It points to the fact that there are registered voters who either a) don't vote, b) have died, or c) have moved.
Oh, I see. You refuse to read [youtube.com]. Here it is again:
"In 2015, one Kansas county began offering voter registration at naturalization ceremonies, as Hans A. von Spakovsky and I reported in January at Fox News. Election officials soon discovered about a dozen new Americans who were already registered -- and who had voted as non-citizens in multiple elections."
Re: (Score:2)
I already did, elsewhere in this thread.
You'll notice that he doesn't offer any citation or evidence for this anecdo
Re: (Score:2)
I already did, elsewhere in this thread.
Then link to it.
You'll notice that he doesn't offer any citation or evidence for this anecdote. Just that it happened.
https://www.kansas.com/news/po... [kansas.com]
"Another 34 were identified by the Sedgwick County Election Office when staff attended naturalization ceremonies to register new citizens and discovered some were already registered."
Re: (Score:2)
If you read your link, you will notice that Kris Kobach, who is anything but a neutral observer, offers ZERO EVIDENCE that these things happened, but assures us that they did. Let's see...can we think of any other instances where Kobach lied or whether he had an incentive to do so?
Re: (Score:2)
If you read your link, you will notice that Kris Kobach, who is anything but a neutral observer, offers ZERO EVIDENCE that these things happened, but assures us that they did.
You mean like the conviction he got? From the link:
"Victor Garcia Bebek pleaded guilty to voter fraud in April for voting three times between 2012 and 2014.
Bebek became a naturalized citizen in early 2017, and it was then that election officials discovered he had previously voted."
And this is in Kansas, and only found because he registered to vote after becoming naturalized and he was already registered. Imagine if they seriously looked for cases of illegal immigrants voting in California. Of course, they w
Re: (Score:2)
So, in his own state, with all the records at his disposal because he was in charge of running the elections, as Secretary of State, he came up with one case of voter fraud? Kobach finally found a single immigrant he could convict of a voting-related crime? Hold the applause, please. Now let's see you get to the "three million" that Trump claims cost
Re: (Score:2)
So, in his own state, with all the records at his disposal because he was in charge of running the elections, as Secretary of State, he came up with one case of voter fraud?
Kansas enacted a law to require proof of citizenship years ago, though it's been held up in courts. Earlier cases could not be charged due to statue of limitations. They also had no means to check federal immigration status -- they basically stumbled across these cases when they became naturalized citizens.
But even with the heads-up scrutiny, in a low-immigration state, he still got a conviction. Now imagine the kind of shenanigans that are going on in California, which is an official "sanctuary" state.
Now let's see you get to the "three million" that Trump claims cost him the popular vote.
I do
Where have I heard that before (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
So are you saying that it shouldn't be a crime for foreign organizations to interfere with elections?
Thus the Mueller probe, based on similar existing laws, is by extension an unethical waste?
Or is the autocracy supposed to be favorable like "It is good that they have these autocratic laws in place so that Trump can be convicted of something he would get away with in a more laissez faire democracy"
Or "Anti-democratic laws are bad unless they happen to catch my enemies then great"?
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying that it shouldn't be a crime for foreign organizations to interfere with elections?
No. I am saying that since there are already laws against anyone interfering with elections, there doesn't need to be a Executive Order by the president to bypass that process of law and just kick out people he doesn't like.
What? Cyber attacks? (Score:2)
So, if you *hack* something over the internet to try and influence the election AND you are a foreign national or company, we will add you to the naughty list and not let you do business with the USA?
Um... I'm just curious how this is going to help anything... It's not like you can stop foreign meddling. They still can attempt to lie to Facebook and buy "issue ads" or engage in troll farm activities from home. The only difference now is that IF we catch you AND we can identify who you are you get put on
Get VPN (Score:2)
Well that's one way to finally save the world from (Score:2)
America. Every country should post their own anti Trump ads on election day on social media. He can then put sanctions on every country.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, and... (Score:2)
Trump To Target Foreign Meddling In US Elections With Sanctions Order
... and in other news, OJ has not stopped looking for the real killer...
Well .... (Score:2)
Always projecting, he is (Score:2, Insightful)
He always projects his own crimes onto others.
Always.
Astroturfed Outrage!!!!!! (Score:1)
Emperor Xi's fifty cent army and the Soros-funded "Progressive" troll brigades are going to be outraged - just outraged! - by President Trump's attempt to prevent them from meddling in our elections.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (Score:2)
Trump To Target Foreign Meddling In US Elections With Sanctions Order
Does 'foreign' in this case mean democrats, libruls and brown people? Trump is a fucking traitor who is only in the White House because of Vladimir fucking Putin. Like fuck will he 'target foreign meddling'. He is the fucking direct result of foreign meddling. Can't take his tongue out of Vlad's arse for two fucking minutes.
Funny... (Score:2)
Approval rating (Score:1)
We all know why Trump is doing this: his approval rating is abysmal. He seemed more than happy to have Russia hack the U.S. to "steal Hillary's mail", so we know he has no scruples about that.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Biting the hand that others imagine feed you
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's the Russian Mob that keeps The Trump Organization afloat. The Russian government doesn't have the money.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the Russian Mob that keeps The Trump Organization afloat. The Russian government doesn't have the money.
There is a difference between the Russian Government and the Russian Mob?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, one owns a TV station dedicated to showing how much more awesome Putin is.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes there is a difference, one tells the other what to do.
Re: (Score:1)
He's just frustrated that his "victory" was tainted by Russian "interferance." Compounded by not winning the popular vote and thus failing to secure a "mandate."
Of course if he loses in 2020 he'll claim it was hacked again.
Heads he wins, we lose.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He's just frustrated that his "victory" was tainted by Russian "interferance." Compounded by not winning the popular vote and thus failing to secure a "mandate."
Of course if he loses in 2020 he'll claim it was hacked again.
Heads he wins, we lose.
You sure? Didn't Trump secure a man-date with Putin in Helsinki not that long ago?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks Ivan. Always good to get the view from sunny St. Petersburg.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What about Google, Facebook and Twitter? (Score:4, Interesting)
Will he be passing legislation to stop them bump search results or hiding content in order to manipulate the election result?
The elephant in the room really wants to know..
Re: (Score:2)
How dare anybody accuse Google of being non-partisan and interfering in elections. They would never [slashdot.org] do that. And neither would Twitter, the idea is preposterous [slashdot.org]!
And Facebook, what a bunch of angels [bbc.co.uk]!
Re: (Score:1)
But aren't the media supposed to be the ennemies of the state and the people ?
Oh... Only liberal media. I get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This should really include political contributions from the like of Halliburton et al.
Already done... If you are a foreign company, you cannot contribute to PAC's, parties or political campaigns given current campaign finance law. At least that's what I understand. For instance, the NRA (a 501c3 nonprofit) can accept foreign donations, but they cannot then turn around and give that money to a political organization, PAC or campaign. Direct Foreign money is simply illegal in political campaigns. Doesn't mean it never happens, only that the FEC will likely deal with such stuff severely when