US To Halt Offensive Cyber Operations Against Russia (techcrunch.com) 390
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The United States has suspended its offensive cyber operations against Russia, according to reports, amid efforts by the Trump administration to grant Moscow concessions to end the war in Ukraine. The reported order to halt U.S.-launched hacking operations against Russia was authorized by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to The Record. The new guidance affects operations carried out by U.S. Cyber Command, a division of the Department of Defense focused on hacking and operations in cyberspace, but does not apply to espionage operations conducted by the National Security Agency. The reported order has since been confirmed by The New York Times and The Washington Post.
The order was handed down before Friday's Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, according to the reports. The New York Times said that the instruction came as part of a broader effort to draw Russian President Vladimir Putin into talks about the country's ongoing war in Ukraine. The Guardian also reports that the Trump administration has signaled it no longer views Russian hackers as a cybersecurity threat, and reportedly ordered U.S. cybersecurity agency CISA to no longer report on Russian threats. The newspaper cites a recent memo that set out new priorities for CISA, including threats faced by China and protecting local systems, but the memo did not mention Russia. CISA employees were reportedly informed verbally that they were to pause any work on Russian cyber threats.
The order was handed down before Friday's Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, according to the reports. The New York Times said that the instruction came as part of a broader effort to draw Russian President Vladimir Putin into talks about the country's ongoing war in Ukraine. The Guardian also reports that the Trump administration has signaled it no longer views Russian hackers as a cybersecurity threat, and reportedly ordered U.S. cybersecurity agency CISA to no longer report on Russian threats. The newspaper cites a recent memo that set out new priorities for CISA, including threats faced by China and protecting local systems, but the memo did not mention Russia. CISA employees were reportedly informed verbally that they were to pause any work on Russian cyber threats.
deeply troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
I can slightly understand the motivation for "halt U.S.-launched hacking operations against Russia" if there is a diplomatic effort underway, but I would condition it on a similar cessation of Russian attacks. No sign that this was done?
"reportedly ordered U.S. cybersecurity agency CISA to no longer report on Russian threats"
"CISA employees were reportedly informed verbally that they were to pause any work on Russian cyber threats"
This is way, way out there. This is deep trouble. For all of us.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: deeply troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
Putin and Trump are friends, at least sort of.
Putin only uses Trump but Trump lacks the insight that he's used. Meanwhile Trump thinks he can profit from this friendship.
Re: deeply troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile Trump thinks he can profit from this friendship.
Trump personally has profited and is profiting from this friendship. It's costing all of us, but Trump is doing well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Putin and Trump are the same in two ways that matter most. They practice far right tactics, and they want an oligarchy. Putin has succeeded in installing himself as president for life, and he and a few loyal oligarchs own Russia. Trump admires that and is working towards the same goals.
The only major difference is that Putin is very capable and intelligent, where was Trump is incompetent at best.
It all adds up to Putin being able to control Trump rather easily.
Re: (Score:3)
This is deep trouble. For all of us.
Tell that to Donald after they clean his bank accounts out.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL, donold have been on their payroll since the 80s.
Re: (Score:3)
It helps to have a puppet government who is led by a collaborator. They had one of those in Ukraine too, but Ukrainians were smart enough to toss the collaborators out on their ass and democratically elect someone interested in resisting.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
This is completely insane. It easily meets the constitutional definition of treason. Russia is actively involved in cyberattacks against the US, and Trump is ordering the government to stop defending against them and pretend they don't exist. He's sold us out to Putin.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
This is completely insane. It easily meets the constitutional definition of treason. Russia is actively involved in cyberattacks against the US, and Trump is ordering the government to stop defending against them and pretend they don't exist. He's sold us out to Putin.
Episode #2431 in Trump pulling weird inexplicable shit for the benefit of Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
Like, "wow - that's fucked up... and completely unsurprising."
Re:deeply troubling (Score:4, Informative)
It's hardly inexplicable. Putin and Trump are colluding. They both get something out of this - and end to attacks on Russia, and dirt on Trump's political rivals.
Meanwhile Trump has already appointed loyalists to key law enforcement positions, so there is zero chance it will be investigated.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Informative)
If Russia stopped operations against us they would announce it and Western media would pick up on it. That's substantial news and Western media definitely keeps tabs on announcements from the Kremlin. So far, nothing.
Furthermore, they're still bombing the shit out of Ukraine. Why just hand them a cessation to cyber activities without getting anything in return? If Russia agreed to also halt offensive cyber activities against us why has neither government announced that?
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Informative)
They're not shutting down defense. They're stopping any action that could be considered offensive and you can be absolutely sure that Putin and Trump or their negotiators mentioned that in their peace negotiations, meaning the Russian side will PROBABLY shut down their offensive actions against the US as well.
This is not true, the order was not limited to offensive operations. From original article in the record:
"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions, according to three people familiar with the matter. "
If you think the US shouldn't stop offensive action against Russia, you must explain how and why the US is at war with Russia. Because it isn't. Ukraine is at war with Russia and Ukraine is not a US state and not allied with them, either.
This is naive, Russia has been actively waging hybrid warfare against us for decades.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree it's insane. And it's bad. And it certainly looks like Trump is selling the USA out to Putin.
But constitutionally it's not treason, because the constitution specifies treason as aiding or giving comfort to enemies. Yeah, I don't like Russia either, but they're not formally an enemy because the USA is not at war with them, nor has declared such.
Believe me, I wish it were treason, because then it could be grounds for impeachment.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
Believe me, I wish it were treason, because then it could be grounds for impeachment.
The grounds for impeachment are purposefully ambiguous.
Judges have been impeached because Congress didn't like their decorum.
So, since the "grounds for impeachment" are subjectively decided by the party in power, I assert that there is literally nothing under the sun that doesn't directly attack a majority of the Republican party directly, that are currently grounds for impeachment for Trump.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
That doesn't seem "purposefully ambiguous."
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If I assert that I can punch you in the face for: A) punching me, B) punching my wife, or C) literally any rule I have the power to decide on, would you not call that ambiguous?
Re: (Score:3)
Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison wrote at length indicating that the meaning of that particular phrase was the meaning used at the time, which included being "obnoxious", and "perfidy".
Re: (Score:3)
If Congress makes it illegal to shit on the White House lawn, and then Trump does it- he can be impeached. Or not, if the party in power decides it doesn't want to.
Even if he directly commits treason (which, let's be clear- he has not) there's nothing forcing Congress to impeach him, but at least at that point, you can't argue that its not an impeachable offense.
To quite H
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your replies. You seem well read-up on this.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it should be required for every single person in this country, so that each person forms their own opinions about the intents of the authors of their ancient documents.
Instead, we tend to argue based on an evolving mythology of what "The Founding Fathers Would Roll In Their Grave Over" that we each spin according to our own political beliefs.
When you read the actual words, instead of some manipulative asshole's cliff notes on them, I think they can serve much better to inform your opinion of what's good, and what needs to change, and what has recently been grossly misread by bad judges.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with "our own opinion" is that it is shaped by the world we grew up in. The question is not what your founding fathers wanted for the country, but what they would want for the country in 2025. Those answer may be very different.
The problem with pontificating about the past and holding it up as a gold standard set in stone unable to be changed is that you wouldn't have something like free speech or a right to bear arms. Remember those are "amendments", and a legal foundation, especially one truly
Re: (Score:3)
Many years back, I decided to pull my boots up and read the entirety of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention debate notes.
I think it should be required for every single person in this country, so that each person forms their own opinions about the intents of the authors of their ancient documents.
Instead, we tend to argue based on an evolving mythology of what "The Founding Fathers Would Roll In Their Grave Over" that we each spin according to our own political beliefs.
When you read the actual words, instead of some manipulative asshole's cliff notes on them, I think they can serve much better to inform your opinion of what's good, and what needs to change, and what has recently been grossly misread by bad judges.
The problem with doing that is you get an idea of what someone 150 odd years ago was thinking about what happened 150 years ago.
Times and technologies change. What is abundantly clear is that 150 odd years ago they never thought we'd get someone who has been bought and paid for by a foreign nation in a position of supreme authority, backed up by a court that has been completely corrupted and this was done in the open, not in secret. The problem the US has now was clearly never envisaged by it's founding
Re: (Score:2)
Oh fuck off. Nobody said anything about constitutional definitions. Refusing to protect the US against attacks from a foreign, hostile, nation because you're in fucking bed and admire their fascist leader with them meets any reasonable dictionary definition of treason.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Informative)
It is the President's purview to decide what to respond to and how, and that includes refusing to.
It would definitely be grounds for impeachment considerations from a less partisan Congress, though, under dereliction of duty- but that's why that decision is up to the Congress, and not you.
You seem to think that the President doesn't have the power to change the direction of foreign policy- in this case- some kind of fucked up world-shithead-club with Russia.
The President does in fact, have that power. It is up to you, the voter, to make sure they can or cannot assert it.
And fun fact- this fucker won the popular vote this time. You just can't argue with sacrificing every bit of intellectual honesty that you have that what he is doing doesn't represent the system operating precisely as expected.
Re: (Score:3)
Then, there aren't.
Wrong.
There aren't by your standards. But you're on the other side of the democracy right now.
I couldn't care less about their theoretical existence, if they can't be applied. Much like monopole magnets.
The checks and balances are designed to be fuzzy.
The check still exists, because if Trump does something that the Congress doesn't like, they can remove his ass.
You're pissed off that they're not exercising that power where you draw the line.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Interesting)
He's already committed impeachable offenses in violating numerous laws including the Impoundment Control Act [wikipedia.org] that was passed in 1974 directly as a response to Nixon trying to do the same shit:
Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation.
It doesn't seem like he's requesting. And I have a feeling that the funds will not "be made available for obligation" anywhere in the same vicinity of 45 days after his not-requests.
By the way, this is also a piece of why Trump was impeached the first time. Congress passed a law saying that $X will be spent on ${THING}. He is not upholding that law, and is in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 if he continues to hold congressional appropriated funds longer than 45 days from his "request" of rescission.
Unfortunately, impeachment is completely at the hands of Congress and their Title I oversight responsibilities that they are absolutely uninterested in fulfilling. Vote accordingly (if given a chance).
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that you equate the two parties as morally the same is the problem. When the Democrats have a convicted felon in office who very much seems to be just up and ignoring the judicial branch get back to me.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
Where did you get the idea that "enemy" is defined solely as a declared war? See Article III, section 3 of the Constitution. It doesn't say anything of the sort.
By your definition, the US has never had a single enemy since 1945. Not in Korea or Vietnam. Not through the whole cold war. Not the Taliban or ISIS or Al-Qaeda or any other groups that actively attacked American soldiers and civilians. Not a single one of them was an enemy, according to you. But that's just your definition, not anything found in the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
It easily meets the constitutional definition of treason.
No, it does not.
As fucked up as this is, misuse of the word treason is arguably as bad, because it has destroyed any meaning of the fucking word, like fascist.
Donald Trump is not levying war against the United States (though arguments that he is are certainly fun to engage in- this here is real life)
Donald Trump is not adhering to, or giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.
He is engaging in Foreign Policy. Your reading of that would make it treason to sue for peace, which is the red
Re: (Score:2)
This is not engaging in foreign policy. He literally ordered the government not to defend against attacks by a country that is actively engaged in attacks against us. That is giving aid and comfort to an enemy. It isn't even an ambiguous case.
Foreign policy would be things like holding meetings and negotiating treaties. That isn't what we're talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not engaging in foreign policy.
Yes, it is.
He literally ordered the government not to defend against attacks by a country that is actively engaged in attacks against us.
Do you think the President does not have the authority to issue a unilateral ceasefire? He is the only person with the authority to do so for the United States.
That is giving aid and comfort to an enemy.
No, it is not.
It isn't even an ambiguous case.
You don't like the guy- we get it.
Foreign policy would be things like holding meetings and negotiating treaties.
That is part of Foreign Policy- yes.
That isn't what we're talking about.
You don't like him. You don't like this. These are both reason sentiments that I agree with.
However, in your dislike of him, you have ejected your brain from your skull and tried to think the left over neurotransmitters that control your anger. This isn't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever since that meeting last week I've been calling him a traitor, because he is. If we lived in a just world he would be hanging from a rope by now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it does not meet the constitutional definition of treason. We are not at war with Russia. Malfeasance in office I'll grant, but that's a different crime.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
"CISA employees were reportedly informed verbally that they were to pause any work on Russian cyber threats"
This is clearly treason. What part of this don't you understand?
Re: (Score:3)
People are given orders verbally when their superiors want deniability that they gave the order.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
So appeasement of the guy who rattles the nuclear war sabre.
I don't think that's going to work out the way you think it will. Give Neville Chamberlain a wikipedia lookup for why.
Re: (Score:3)
I read an interesting article a while back about how Chamberlin wasn't the naive failure he's usually portrayed as, but was running a tactic he knew would eventually fail in order to buy as much time as possible to prepare for war. He was a deep believer in the RAF and during his tenure in senior roles massively increased it to the point where it surpassed even the much loved Navy.
He was accused by Churchill of appeasement in 1934, though between 1933 and 1939 he increased the budget from 16 to 105 million
Re: (Score:3)
I've always thought Chamberlain has been poorly treated by history. He tried hard to avoid the war while doing his best to prepare for it, sane actions in my book.
Re: (Score:3)
In 1937, it was the opinion of the Nazi brass that Germany could not take on Britain and France.
By 1940, they were quite confident they could win. And frankly, they could have.
If the US and Russia had not entered the war, Britain could have won a war in 1937. By 1940, their loss was guaranteed.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:4, Interesting)
Equally troubling is that no one in the Republican caucus seems to see this action as a problem. Or at least no backbone to speak up. Goodness.
For anyone who has ever been on the internet, this statement is bats--t crazy: "...the Trump administration has signaled it no longer views Russian hackers as a cybersecurity threat " If not the #1 threat they are a close #2 to China.
Majority Members: Select Committee on Intelligence
Cotton, Tom (AR), Chairman
Risch, James E. (ID)
Collins, Susan M. (ME)
Cornyn, John (TX)
Moran, Jerry (KS)
Lankford, James (OK)
Rounds, Mike (SD)
Young, Todd (IN)
Budd, Ted (NC)
Thune, John (SD), Ex Officio
Wicker, Roger F. (MS), Ex Officio
Re: (Score:2)
People do a very good job ignoring things when it is in their best interest not to see them, such as when a sociopathic leader with a tendency to viciously attack anyone who disagrees with him also knows where the skeletons are buried.
Re:deeply troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they're cowards, all of them. Elmo has promised to fund the opponent of anyone who fails to fall in line. https://thehill.com/policy/tec... [thehill.com]
This is fucking terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to remake this cartoon [senate.gov] with just a big fat Elon looming over the Senate. Or perhaps a big bottle of "Musk" as a thinly-veiled metaphor, with stench fumes choking everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
I do. You probably do. They are free not to- and they are in power.
This is one of those pesky "consequences of an election".
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with a backbone was primaried out years ago. Dissent will not be tolerated from the official narrative, no matter how little intersection with easily observed reality.
Re:deeply troubling fake news (Score:3)
I can slightly understand the motivation for "halt U.S.-launched hacking operations against Russia" if there is a diplomatic effort underway, but I would condition it on a similar cessation of Russian attacks. No sign that this was done?
"reportedly ordered U.S. cybersecurity agency CISA to no longer report on Russian threats"
"CISA employees were reportedly informed verbally that they were to pause any work on Russian cyber threats"
This is way, way out there. This is deep trouble. For all of us.
It would be, if it were not fake news.
If you read eve the TFS, it goes on to say that there is no evidence that CISA was so directed. It says The Guardian cites a memo, but that the citation is bogus: the memo doesn't say that at all, and it's not even about Russia.
Meanwhile, DHS and CISA also say it's fake news, and that their posture towards Russia has not changed. CISA is still tracking and reporting on Russian cyber threats as always. A quick search will find you plenty of accurate reports on this.
Given
In Soviet America, (Score:3)
So don't bother calling the FBI, just think of it as a funny shaped tariff.
West Wing (Score:3, Insightful)
Even Trump isn't such a bad negotiator that he'd be handing over the concessions before the deal is made.
Clearly the West Wing's full title is now the "West Wing of the Kremlin"?
Re:West Wing (Score:5, Interesting)
Even Trump isn't such a bad negotiator that he'd be handing over the concessions before the deal is made.
He really is. He loves to style himself as a great deal maker. What he is apparently good at is conning other grifters into making a deal then screwing them over: see how many people thought they could get rich off Trump and never even got paid for their services. This is not a general purpose skill, it only works on the self selecting group of desperate people who come and find you.
He doesn't have a damned clue about how to negotiate with someone that isn't trying to enrich themselves. This also says a lot about the Republican party and how it's fallen into line...
Re: (Score:3)
Even Trump isn't such a bad negotiator that he'd be handing over the concessions before the deal is made.
He really is. He loves to style himself as a great deal maker. What he is apparently good at is conning other grifters into making a deal then screwing them over: see how many people thought they could get rich off Trump and never even got paid for their services. This is not a general purpose skill, it only works on the self selecting group of desperate people who come and find you.
He doesn't have a damned clue about how to negotiate with someone that isn't trying to enrich themselves. This also says a lot about the Republican party and how it's fallen into line...
One thing that reminds me of what an absolutely incompetent buffoon he is at business and politics is in his last 9 months between Boris Johnson being elected prime minister of the UK and Joe Biden being elected president of the US, at any point Trump could have reached across the Atlantic, offered Johnson the most lopsided, US favouring deal and Johnson would have jumped on it no matter how much damage it would have done to the UK because any deal with the US, even a completely toxic one where Trump gets t
It's Russia (Score:4, Funny)
The most critical infrastructure Russia likely has connected to the internet are a few Tuya smart bulbs in Putin's bedroom. I'm sure he's pleased to know that we'll finally stop hacking them to flash red white and blue. It was really starting to get on his nerves.
Re:It's Russia (Score:4, Interesting)
Red, White, and Blue are their colors too.
Re: (Score:2)
Red, White, and Blue are their colors too.
White, blue, and red. Mind the order or you're likely to fall from a window, comrade.
Ostrich strategy strikes again (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah yes, the orange idiotâ€(TM)s Covid strategy. Worked out so well last time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This administration is so insane and so corrupt and so terrifying I don't even know where to begin listing out all the problems and horrors. We will be lucky if we just have a deep deep deep recession. It's entirely possible we're up going into a great depression and we might never come out of it.
And it's painfully obvious they don't intend to allow any of us
Re: (Score:3)
I hear that a lot, and I could believe it. But I also heard about the Russians and Hunter Biden from the other time which was just plain BS. You'll have to do better than just use innuendo. If you're going to make an accusation against gabbard like that, you need to back it up.
Otherwise I agree with you entirely.
Re:Ostrich strategy strikes again (Score:5, Informative)
I hear that a lot, and I could believe it. But I also heard about the Russians and Hunter Biden from the other time which was just plain BS. You'll have to do better than just use innuendo. If you're going to make an accusation against gabbard like that, you need to back it up.
"Tulsi Gabbard’s history with Russia is even more concerning than you think" [independent.co.uk]
Of course, that isn't proof that she's a Russian agent. Never attribute to malice and all that.
Re:Ostrich strategy strikes again (Score:5, Informative)
If you're going to make an accusation against gabbard like that, you need to back it up.
Otherwise I agree with you entirely.
This Rolling Stone article details her love of Russian Propaganda. https://archive.ph/QdNXl [archive.ph]
Facts don't matter to these people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
rsilvergun, generally I'm on your side and I respect you. However, it really would help all of us if you could share the links to articles that brought you to your conclusion, so that we're all examining the same evidence in this discussion. Otherwise we could just wind up confusing each other by finding articles online that don't match the ones you claim are out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure he even knows how to use ChatGPT. In previous political discussions he'd still been repeating the same old song and dance about how we're in this mess because the voters are afraid of trans folks (although thankfully, he seemed to refrain from it finally in this discussion).
Most voters are relatively low information. They see high grocery and gas prices and take it out on the administration in power at the time. If most people truly followed along with the issues, we wouldn't have a presiden
Re: (Score:2)
You know nothing about what I feel or think about all of this. You just assumed you did. And you got it very wrong. Where did I say everything is fine? In fact did you even read what I wrote or did you get lost after I asked you to prove your accusation?
I know as well as anyone she's unqualified for the job and with her lanky are destroying the FBI from the inside. But you never said any of that. I'm also well aware that Trump has destroyed the country and sold the US to putin, and I strongly doubt the
Re: (Score:2)
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
This Rolling Stone article explains it pretty well. https://archive.ph/QdNXl [archive.ph]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The head of the CIA, Tulsi gabbard, is literally a Russian plant. That's not an exaggeration.
It absolutely is. Hillary Clinton hallucinated that accusation without a shred of evidence. Just like Clinton Campaign fabricated [cnn.com] Russian collusion dossier against Trump.
You should know better. For shame spreading hoaxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton repeated a claim that's been made for many years before she said it. I recall the photos of Gabbard with Putin circulating long before Clinton said anything.
The Steele Dossier was originally commissioned by a Republican anti-Trump group, and then the funding was taken over by the Democrats. The story you link to speaks nothing of the credibility of the dossier (the CNN article reports it was improperly funded as "legal services" rather than "opposition research"), which for the most part was
Re: (Score:2)
Fantastic investment (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia's investment in Trump is paying off beyond their wildest dreams.
Re:Fantastic investment (Score:5, Insightful)
As explained in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
This article is 4 years old, by the way and the books by Craig Unger are written now.
Re: (Score:2)
New republican mantra Better red than liberal!
Appeasement (Score:5, Interesting)
This is obviously the right way to get nationalist dictators to stop attacking their neighbors.
Donald “Kompromat” Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A third possibility: it's a simple marriage of convenience. Trump (and his inner circle) are OK with cyberattacks as long as the cyberattackers promise to help them get re-elected.
Bizarre. (Score:4, Insightful)
On an almost daily basis I have to check to see if somebody has mistaken an Onion article for a serious one.
Trump is Putin's Cabana Boy (Score:5, Insightful)
WE have joined the axis of evil. (Score:4, Interesting)
To use a G.W. Bush expression, we have joined the axis of evil. So we are allied with Russia. And what's left of the free world is our enemy. Or rather, we are their enemy now. Trust in the U.SA. is plummeting and soon everything that depends on that trust will go down like for example my U.S. dollars.
Meme from a friend regarding the MAGA crowd (Score:5, Interesting)
"Russia was able to take over 50% of America in a fraction of the time it took to take over 20% of Ukraine."
Re:Meme from a friend regarding the MAGA crowd (Score:4, Insightful)
It's weird because I'd thought we'd made a lot of progress in the area of tolerance towards LGBTQ+ folks, but then the MAGA movement started and suddenly all the legislative attacks were dialed up to 11. Then you look at how homophobic Russia is and how they used the exact same fucking playbook and you can't help but think Russia had a hand in influencing all this.
Funny thing is, no amount of punching down at minorities has made Russia any less of a shithole. Republicans going along with this should take note of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I had a real "this shit is BACK?" moment a little while ago now.
Don't get me wrong, I know it was still around on some level but it wasnt anywhere near as brazen as this for a while.
So, in a nutshell (Score:2)
- CISA's reports are now essentially worthless.
- Once again, Trump's behavior seems to indicate that, for all its flaws, the Steele Dossier is fundamentally accurate.
There is no doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
Donald Trump is a Russian asset. Anyone who says otherwise is either a Russian apologist or willfully blind. He repeats Russian talking points [kyivpost.com] on Ukraine such as it was Ukraine's fault for starting the war, berates a man whose country has been invaded, and is now stopping all aid to Ukraine [reuters.com], while at the same time on the verge of lifting sanctions on Russia [newsweek.com].
There can be no doubt Trump has been compromised since his 1987 trip to Moscow and is working directly with Putin to undermine this country.
Re:There is no doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
You can do the scientific thing, and attack your hypothesis as hard as you can. How will you test it? Or, you can do the conspiracy theory thing and just assume you are right. That's more comfortable.
Re:There is no doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
You can do the scientific thing, and attack your hypothesis as hard as you can. How will you test it? Or, you can do the conspiracy theory thing and just assume you are right. That's more comfortable.
Doing "the scientific" (or, more precisely in this context, "the congressional investigator") thing is only necessary if we need proof to a very high standard, but we really don't. If we required proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal trial standard) or the higher scientific standard to decide how to act politically, we could never act. In politics, you act on the best evidence and information you have. Even Congress doesn't need strong proof to impeach and convict, it's a political process.
That said, a preponderance of evidence (the civil trial standard) does indicate that Trump is at least a Russian stooge and ally. I, personally, wouldn't yet say "asset"... but the circumstantial support for that position is building rapidly.
To be fair (Score:2)
We did spend a lot of money and have had literally no measurable success in reducing the amount of incidents from CIS-based individuals and outfits.
What offensive operations? (Score:2)
What have we been doing to attack Russian assets, and how was CISA involved?
Re: (Score:2)
Russian crime-gangs (Score:2)
No, Trump wants to do business in countries where they don't claim political donations are different to bribes. So the US departments that stop that, have to stop.
The US has suspended all operations against Russian criminals, including stealing boats from crime-gang bosses.
Is American president a Russian asset? (Score:4, Insightful)
I never took these accusations very seriously before. But, the amount of circumstantial evidence continues to build up. If true, he may already have appointed Russian agents in positions of power and transferred state secrets through them to Russia including blueprints for F-35. I fear that we have fallen to Russia without a fight. I hope that Europeans can stand tall and fight the necessary fight and save our asses.
Rachel Maddow had a bit about Trump's various pro-Russia moves a couple of days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And all that was before today's big moves from Trump favoring Russia. We are cooked.
Re: (Score:3)
And you reckon a bunch of people with AR-15s will be able do to anything about it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This gets trotted out but just imagine if every household had an AR-15. The government doesn't have the resources to stop that many people. Not to mention, the military would also have many defectors.
So yes, I really do think tens of millions of civilians with AR-15s is a huge problem for a government wanting to take over.
Re:See Democrats... (Score:4, Insightful)
This gets trotted out but just imagine if every household had an AR-15. The government doesn't have the resources to stop that many people. Not to mention, the military would also have many defectors.
So yes, I really do think tens of millions of civilians with AR-15s is a huge problem for a government wanting to take over.
It might pose something of a problem for "a government taking over", if you're talking about a ground invasion by a hostile foreign power. It has no relevance at all for the situation we are facing-- which is a bunch of democratically elected leaders doing very bad things. (Trump is the figurehead but he's not acting alone). What do you expect all those people are going to *do* with their millions of AR-15s, anyway? March on Washington? In the (incredibly unlikely) event that they prevail by sheer force, what are they going to do next?
Also-- as someone who enjoys the odd Tom Clancy novel, and someone who enjoys talking about farfetched what-if scenarios-- I think you vastly overestimate the power of a bunch of assault rifles. Let's say that an armed militia forms and tries to stage a coup with "millions of AR15s". Every identifiable member of that militia would be charged with multiple felonies, their bank accounts would be frozen, and they would be subject to arrest every time they get in their car and drive down the street. I also would imagine that one or two divisions of the National Guard would out-gun them by a couple of orders of magnitude.
The idea you are promoting, that your hunting rifle can potentially "protect us from tyranny", is the purest fantasy.
Re:See Democrats... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now imagine that, like most fascist regimes, or tyrannies in general, instead of going after most people, which is logistically impractical even if most people aren't armed, the regime simply targets unpopular but blameless minorities - you know, like jews, blacks, LGBT, etc.
Do you think those groups are actually going to be able to arm themselves knowing the tyranny will be backed by 30%+ of the rest of the population, with 30% not caring, and the other 30% not directly provoked and uncertain whether they want to really die to protect someone else?
The second amendment didn't seem to help pre-Civil Rights blacks in the Deep South. And contrary to the propaganda, gun ownership increased in Nazi Germany.
Re: (Score:3)
If every household had an AR-15, we'd probably see multiple school shootings per day plus a crapload of other mayhem. If 0.1% of the population committed violent crimes (this is likely an under-estimate) you'd be giving about 350,000 violent criminals access to AR-15s. What could possibly go wrong?
At that point, the government would indeed be the least of your worries, so I guess there's that.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless a large group of people with AR-15's are in league with government to enforce whatever the gov. wants. This is the dream of the private militias that support that asshole. And why that asshole supports the private militias.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that American have this silly idea that owning guns protect them from a dictatorship.
The reality is that some people just like playing with guns. Those folks have a grab bag list of reasons they call upon which sound more mature and legitimate than "I like to pretend play soldier." Potheads do exactly the same thing, listing all the wonderful reasons why marijuana is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the truth is they really don't care about weaving hemp baskets, they just want to get high.
Most of us who own guns but aren't obsessed with them have absolutely no delusions that the