Slashdot Mirror
Michael Flynn Resigns As Trump's National Security Adviser (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: President Donald Trump's embattled national security adviser Michael Flynn, who faced questions about a call to the Russian ambassador prior to the inauguration, has resigned. Retired Army General Keith Kellogg was named acting national security adviser to replace Flynn. ABC News reported Monday that Flynn called Vice President Mike Pence on Friday to apologize for misleading him about his conversation with the ambassador in November. Flynn previously denied that he spoke about sanctions the U.S. imposed on Russia for its suspected interference in the 2016 election, a claim repeated by Pence in January. An administration official later claimed Pence was relying on information provided to him by Flynn. In his resignation later, Flynn cited the "fast pace of events" for "inadvertently" briefing "the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding [his] phone calls with the Russian Ambassador." You can view Flynn's full resignation letter, as provided by the White House, here.
Is everybody tired of winning yet?
General Michael Flynn's tenure as NSA adviser is the shortest in US history (24 days). The previous record-holder was 348 days (Reagan's first NSA director). And I guarantee that Reagan's NSA director didn't resign because he was too cozy with and taking money from the Russians.
So much for "extreme vetting", I guess.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It would be nice if the story had a tech angle. This one is moronic, for example, but at least it discusses encryption, which is better than nothing. The Pols are learning from their mistakes.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Nerds care about politics when it's this fucked up. Therefore political news is nerd news.
Trumped up alternative facts don't last long in the face of the truth. Deal with it.
Well, let's see. On the one hand, we had a known philanderer playing "hide the cigar" with his intern. It was the worst-kept secret in Washington; you can't blackmail someone with something everyone already knows. On the other hand, we have a National Security Adviser forced to resign because he himself is a threat to national security. This, after engaging in back-door negotiations with America's competing superpower, and leaving some actual kompromat in the wake of his Moscow visits.
Yes, totally equivalent situations. ::eyeroll::
I'd go on, but I really suppose I ought to leave the rest up to SNL.
I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons. I'm not for Trump, or for the Republican party. I'm for the US - I want good government.
So even though I agree with most of Trump's positions, I'm glad that the Democrats and the press point out the ways that Trump messes up, like selecting a national security adviser who can be blackmailed. We have to correct problems like that.
It was funny when there was talk of him being nominated for cabinet that he'd have to get permission from his probation officer.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There is no need to placate the Russians. They have a GDP lower than Italy and their military power is a shadow of what it used to be. Yes, they have nukes, but they, like all the other nuclear powers, have no intention to use them other than to maintain territorial integrity. So the real issue here is why Trump seems so keen to placate Russia, when the US's military and economic might literally dwarfs Russia's abilities.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I suppose if they're allowed to make up alternative facts, it's really easy to explain anything!
Remember when like 70% of slashdot thought that it was a good idea to put this buffoon in power because Hillary was too "establishment" and was a dumbass about classified emails?
Any regrets yet?
trump doesn't understand that or if he does then he thinks he can have an advantage of the situation, he was brought up during the cold war years and for that period there's like two powers in the world, usa and russia. his followers understand this much. makes it a lot easier for him to deal with china when he doesn't understand them too and they are "outside" of the power game(when they really aren't).
for Putin it suits well because Trump doesn't want Putin out of the office, trump doesn't care if Russia is democratic or not. if anything trump would want to have the same powers Putin has.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
So the real issue here is why Trump seems so keen to placate Russia, when the US's military and economic might literally dwarfs Russia's abilities.
That is a really backwards way of looking at it. We do indeed have all the power in the bilateral relationship, but how should we use that power? The Russians are a very paranoid people, who think the whole world is out to "get them". By trying to push them down, we are playing into their paranoia, and making them turn inward. But the end result will not be good. They are going to keep Crimea and Donbas no matter what. So should we accept that and move on to other issues? Or should we try to "punish" them, and end up with a frozen conflict and instability in Ukraine, and continued military tensions with Poland and the Baltic countries, while the war in Syria goes on and on, and more and more refugees pour into Turkey and Europe? The Russians have had a bad couple decades, and they feel like the West, and especially America, is bullying them. Treating them with some respect may go a long way. This is not a zero-sum relationship.
Trump's not senile. He just never grew up and has been a whining trust fund baby his entire life.
To treat someone with respect, you must respect them. Placating the Russians for all their human rights abuses and invasions of several countries is only going to tell them they can get away with it again in the future, and encourages further violence.
Nerds care about politics when it's this fucked up. Therefore political news is nerd news.
If that were the standard then we would've surely had a post about the Berkely Riots.
Yeah I agree the problem is lying about it. He's the incoming national security advisor. He should have said "yeah, I talked to the Russian ambassador, and I'm preparing my recommendations and report for the President based on those discussions". Just blow it off as doing his job, albeit prematurely, before the inauguration.
In theory he might have violated the Logan Act, but in
200 years nobody has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act (one person has been indicted). As a member of the incoming administration's foreign policy team, it's not *that* weird that he would talk to diplomats from other nations and start getting to them and their positions.
Not that I'm saying it was hunky-dory to have those conversations at that time, but he certainly could have made it seem like no big deal, if he didn't lie about it.
Fake news had a very specific meaning, which is propaganda consisting of outright lies masquerading as real news to influence public opinion in a given way. We're not talking about traditional media (many people now believe the majority of the MSM are "fake news", which is in itself a triumph of fake news) We know most of it comes out of Eastern Europe, and is supporting Russian moves to destabilise and break apart the west. And it appears to be succeeding. You'll notice I've not mentioned Trump even once in that, because this story has been around for a couple of years *before* the US elections, and I've been following it. What the alt-right has done is taken the term "fake news" when applied correctly to articles supporting their cause, and turned it around to mean "any news I don't like", be it real or fake.
Jesus, you could pass for Chamberlain in a heart beat.
"So yeah, Germany has had it rough lately and isnt getting any respect (the The Treaty of Versailles was not kind to them). So what if they invaded a few countries? Let's just pretend we all didnt see it and know that nothing bad could possibly come from just letting Germany invade a little bit."
I'm sure anyone living in the Baltic states felt very reasured by your post.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
There is talk among Washington reporters that they actually wonder if Trump is in possession of his faculties.
If it were you or me that would be a forgone conclusion. However, the problem with claiming that Trump is mental is that his behavior is exactly why you'd expect from a spoiled brat billionaire grown old and cranky.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
D'ya suppose Trump'll pardon him?
Eh, he might, but I doubt he really gives a damn.
Loyalty means a lot to Trump. That is to say he expects other people to be fiercely loyal to him. He, on the other hand, seems to feel no obligation to be loyal to his followers.
It's a very bad idea to allow a country to annex large parts of another, independent country with only mild sanctions that get lifted a few years later already. On the contrary, the sanctions should stay in place until the Crimean Peninsula is returned.
You have to take into account that Russia is estimated to be able to invade and occupy any of the small baltic countries within about two days. Since without the US NATO forces in the region are way too fragile and slow to respond, the main factor that keeps Russia from doing that (in military terms, not politically) are currently the US forces that have been moved there, since US politicians would be essentially forced to reply if American soldiers were killed in a conflict. If Russia could easily grab any of those country by military force and would have to fear only a few years of extremely modest sanctions, what would keep them from doing it?
If you think such scenarios are unrealistic, think again. Take a look not just at Ukraine but also at Georgia and Transnistria - the latter is part of Moldovia far away from the Russian border which is 100% maintained and controlled by the Russians.
Just to clarify, you want to sanction the USA until they return Texas and California to Mexico? Or maybe the UK until they return Gibraltar to Spain? Poland and Russia until they return East Prussia to Germany? Germany until we give Schleswig-Holstein back to Denmark? Shit, I can go on and on and on. You won't believe just how many countries have annexed parts of other countries in the past.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
shame on slashdot for letting it get this far
You should have a look at how the moderation system here works.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The difference is how recent the event is. And that's important. A major reason the last 50 years have been relatively peaceful is that post World War II a general norm has been established that taking territory based on revanchist claims is not acceptable. The events by Russia seriously undermine that norm.
...And, sorry, Obamacare actually *is* something to oppose. It's amazing how many of my friends lost their insurance and are now paying double or triple for less coverage. And this was all fully predictable to anyone paying attention....
I would think it would be prudent to wait to hear what the politicians who are cancelling it tell us what they are going to implement instead.
So far, it's a pig in a poke-- they're saying "we'll come up with something much much better, trust us, it will be great"-- but they don't seem to have any idea what this "better" system is going to be or how it will work.
Sorry, but I'm skeptical: I want to see some details before I'm convinced.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I'm pretty sure we don't need to worry about the Baltic states invading anyone.
As to why we should worry about someone (Russia or otherwise) invading the Baltic states, do I really need to explain why we believe that countries shouldn't be allowed to just invade other countries? That's the core reason WW2 was fought, and why the UN was created - to basically outlaw aggressive war. Yes, I realize that hasn't eliminated war entirely, but every conflict fought since then has at least made some sort of excuse of operating within the UN framework. We do not want to go back to the pre-1914 world order where might makes right.
Both items were passed off as "news" by seemingly legitimate news organizations. Both items are fake news - literally fake.
You seem to not understand the difference between "fake" and "incorrect/erroneous" If you hand a bouncer a "fake ID" at a bar, it doesn't mean you accidentally handed them someone else's ID or maybe accidentally handed credentials that were expired or otherwise unacceptable to get into a bar. A "fake ID" implies that you KNOWINGLY manufactured a false ID (or had someone do it for you) with intent to pass it off as real.
Do you have evidence that the reporters in question actually INTENTIONALLY passed along false information? If not, they were not "fake news" according to the standard definition of the English word "fake."
And they offered corrections. Here's the detailed account from Time about the MLK bust. The reporter corrected his tweets as soon as he had recognized an error. That's NOT what actual "fake news" sites do -- because fake news sites KNOW their information is false when they MAKE IT UP, so they don't offer corrections.
As for the other incident, it's yet another example of poor reporting, but only because the Olympian gave an interview that IMPLIED a connection with Trump's immigration policies and only FOUR DAYS LATER tweeted that actually the incident occurred in December. Again, we should be critical for poor reporting here that then made an EXPLICIT connection with Trump, it should have fact-checked when the event actually occurred, but the Olympian in question was vague in her original interview and implied it had happened recently.
So, who exactly is at fault here? The Olympian was expressing concern over current immigration policies and made a vague reference to detention, which was only later clarified. Was she part of some massive media "conspiracy" to hide the truth until four days later? Or did she just innocently make reference in an interview to an unpleasant experience that occurred to her in immigration recently -- and some media articles misinterpreted her vague timeline?
I'm NOT going to excuse those media reporters who implied a Trump connection -- they made a serious journalistic error by not doing appropriate fact-checking. We should condemn their actions and poor journalism.
But once more detailed information became available, they corrected their stories -- once again, that's NOT the practice of "fake news."
There are various bad journalistic practices in the world. And we should condemn them, and even fire journalists sometimes for making truly egregious errors or showing unreasonable bias or whatever. BUT UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS ARE NOT "FAKE NEWS." Fake news is a separate problem -- and a serious one that we ignore by misusing the English word "fake" or redefining it to dilute its meaning.
Glad we agree. Then Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for mishandling classified information through negligence.
Ah, one of the hundreds of "but Hillary used email" people in this place.
So how do you feel about Trump's Country Club security breach fuckup?