Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)
President Barack Obama has ordered a full review of hacking activities aimed at disrupting last month's presidential election, media outlets reported Friday citing a top White House official. The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the office. From a report on Reuters: "The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
I wonder if the voting public are considered stakeholders.
He has not been ousted. His term is coming to an end.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
"The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the [sic] office".
Why? It would make better sense if the results were turned over to Mr Trump, who will be in a position to learn from them and take any appropriate action.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
As a sitting President, Obama has every right to do this. And he wasn't "ousted", he's leaving office after completing his second and final term. It's sad that people like you continue to de-legitimize his presidency.
1. Not ousted, merely at the end of his second and final term (and one wonders if the 22nd Amendment didn't exist if the election might have been rather different).
2. He's still the lawful and constitutional POTUS until January, so he has ever right to order such a review.
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you or any other politician cared about the potential for hacking, it would have started 16 years ago when bush won the vote based on hanging chad and an ominous declaration from evoting vendor Diebold.
the reason the 2016 vote was so unexpected is simple. Democrats ran a turd for a candidate with no policy other than 'i want to be a president.' Hillary ignored midwestern and rural voters at her peril, and in return they ignored her. Sure, benghazi wasnt her fault but one could scholastically argue that the benghazi trials werent about implicating her in a scandal but making sure the public understood she was willing to throw anyone and everyone under the bus during hearings. hillary rigged her own primary and in doing so significantly disenfranchised a number of Sanders voters, but republicans masterfully highlighted sanders curious inability to win delegates as evidence that Hillary was being rammed down constituents throats whether they enjoyed the candidate or not. She was implicated, and controversially exonerated, from a federal investigation into her handling of states secrets that despite her teams best efforts to spin, seemed hypocritical when compared to manning or snowden. Prosecutors even acquiesced that the reluctance to indict her on any charges would pose a nontrivial barrier in litigating future instances of such cases. hillary banked on Obamas strategy of youth votes while arrogantly assuming youth votes just meant do the harlem shake and mannequin challenge until people cast their fucking ballot.
but no, she lost because of a combination of fake news, 4chan meme magic and the infamous russian hackers. Keep it up DNC, because in 8 years if you havent figured out that running moderate republican plutocrats as "liberal" candidates doesnt work, im not sure Biden has much of a fucking chance...and god knows you're not about to let an underdog challenge the next "its time for me to win the presidency because i said so" candidate.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Don't pop a Republican's fantasy bubble. It's all they have.
They also have the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and a majority of State Governors and Legislatures. Not bad for a party living in la la land.
How is ordering a review the same as undermining democracy? A review, if conducted fairly and openly, bolsters faith in democracy by ensuring that processes are transparent and due diligence is done. The review may well put to rest rumours that the Russians rigged the election. The seeds of doubt are already there - sown deliberately by Mr. Trump among others. Reviews and recounts are the only way to properly address those concerns.
This isn't a Jill Stein or Hillary fanatic's fantasy scenario, where some "evil player" will be uncovered and the results could be overturned or changes.
This is just an honest review of what MAY have happened as a result of bad players trying to fiddle with the election. This is a really good idea to help ensure future presidential elections being trustworthy and valid.
Saying she won the popular vote (and only by a bit at that) misses the point. We have an electoral college just for situations like this. The majority of the country lives in a handful of states. The voters in those states should not be able to run roughshod over the country, hence why we have an electoral college that's based on the representatives each state gets. Otherwise, east and west coast states would dictate everything about this country.
A "power" then. Yes, a sitting President can order investigations on foreign powers attempting to influence domestic affairs.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Amendment, not Article. There is no Article 22 (not even an article 12 - the Constitution contains only seven articles). Amendment 22 sets a limit of two terms for the President. Amendment 12 specifies how the Electoral College works in selecting the President and Vice President and was added in reaction to the election of 1800 and was ratified in 1804, well after the original had been written.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
The most ironic part of the Trump election.
'Stick it to the elites!' by putting them in positions of power everywhere in government. Especially those who have given him millions.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Unless there is a retirement or death, the supreme court will be back where it started since the vacancy is from a conservative.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
Hillary lost because of real news about how she was a terrible candidate, not because of fake news or hate speech or the Russians or any other conspiracy theory.
The other day, Jordan Klepper (The Daily Show) interviewed a Trump supporter about Trump picking insiders and banking executives for the various Cabinet and agency positions (with regard to his promise to "drain the swamp") and the guy being interviewed said, (paraphrasing) "Well, you want the best qualified people for the jobs, even if they have questionable things in their past." Jordan replied, "I think that was Hillary Clinton's entire platform."
Hillary might not have been a great candidate or universally likable, but don't pretend that there wasn't (and isn't) any fake news and/or hate speech about her being circulated by conservatives and Republicans or that those things didn't have any affect on people's opinions and election decisions.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump, but yes, this is true. The popular vote is actually not even an official thing at all. It's a media invention. The states vote. They vote with electors. How they apportion their electors is up to them. Adding California voters to Florida voters as a big total is actually an apples to oranges mistake.
Speak for yourself.
While the count is still going on, she's already won the popular vote by more than anyone except Obama in 2008. It's more than 2,7000,000 people voted for Hillary over Trump.
I'm going to assume you mean by actual number of votes and not the percentage. Either way that's simply not true.
By the actual margin:
1972 Nixon won the popular vote by almost 18 million votes
1984 Reagan won popular vote by almost 17 million votes
1964 Johnson popular vote by almost 16 million
GWB is in 19th place, for the most popular votes, in the 2004 election by getting just over 3 million votes more than Kerry. .
If you want to look at the percentage, she's at 1.95%. Which is way down on the list. Harding, Coolidge, FDR, Nixon and LBJ all beat their opponents by over 20% of the popular vote. Grover Cleveland won election in 1892 with a 3% margin of the popular vote.
Trump won by electoral votes but lost the popular vote by 1.95%. Rutherford Hayes (-3%) and John Quincy Adams (-10.44%) both won the electoral votes but lost the popular vote by a larger percentage than Trump did.
'What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?'
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
"She didn't "win" a damned thing! Thanks to the wisdom of the founders, we have the electoral college so that the "more people" in California and New York don't get to rule the rest of the country."
Haha, yeah, because screw elections right? That's absolutely NOT why the founders created the EC. The EC was created so that a candidate who might be able to win on popularity contest (which is what elections essentially are), but are otherwise unfit to rule a nation not make it into the White House. This election is an entirely different situation where the "winner" was really a loser in all regards who only "won" because of a Constitutional Loophole. The EC should act more like a confirmation system where the POPULAR VOTE winner gets to be confirmed.
Let's see, they forced me to buy ridiculously expensive health insurance I don't want. If I was a speaker on a college campus they don't agree with, yes. And certainly their fascism makes me second guess everything I say in public and at family gatherings. Yes, they restrict the sales of my product, and yes they like to tear down my campaign signs.
so no, no chance there. He's pushing 80 for God's sake.
.com bust, housing bust. Over and over and over again.
And you're forgetting how many 'Blue Dog' and social liberals there are. The Republicans have a much stronger position because they have two basic issues: Low taxes and no regulation for the wealthy and right wing evangelicalism for the bible thumpers (with all the guns, none of the Gays or Abortions). It's real easy to keep those groups together.
Dems have to balance our economic regressive/social liberals with socialists, environmentalists and civil rights activists. We're a much, much looser coalition. That's why Hilary couldn't get the vote out. She was walking too fine a line and tripped over it.
The sad thing is things are probably going to have to go to shit for 80% of the population before we start seeing progress again. It's been like this since I was a kid. Republicans deregulation and wreck the economy, Dems move in and fix it up, folks get complacent and want the Republicans back because instead of slow steady growth they promise the world. Lather, rinse, repeat. Savings and Loan,
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.
That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.
The Senate was making a mockery of their role.
This had nothing to do with whether they approved of the justice, rather they were claiming that the President didn't have the mandate to carry out his role in nominating one.
I stole this Sig