Slashdot Mirror


President Trump Misses 90-Day Deadline To Appoint a Cybersecurity Team After Alleged Russian Hacking (politico.com)

From a report: President-elect Donald Trump was very clear: "I will appoint a team to give me a plan within 90 days of taking office," he said in January, after getting a U.S. intelligence assessment of Russian interference in last year's elections and promising to address cybersecurity. Thursday, Trump hits his 90-day mark. There is no team, there is no plan, and there is no clear answer from the White House on who would even be working on what. It's the latest deadline Trump's set and missed -- from the press conference he said his wife would hold last fall to answer questions about her original immigration process to the plan to defeat ISIS that he'd said would come within his first 30 days in office. Since his inauguration, Trump's issued a few tweets and promises to get to the bottom of Russian hacking -- and accusations of surveillance of Americans, himself included, by the Obama administration.

55 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. So... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess "the Cyber" is actually hard, huh? Kind of like Health Care, or North Korea?

    Who knew?

    1. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Or filling 500+ government positions with anyone who haven't said a negative thing about Trump since the dawn of time.

    2. Re:So... by ubermiester · · Score: 2

      If the headline was "President Doesn't Give a Shit About Cybersecurity or Russian Hacking", would that pass your test?

    3. Re:So... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think anyone who doesn't care, is uninterested in maintaining a rePUBLIC based on trust between the elites and the drones

      That's funny. Anyone who cared about "day one" promises from the last president was racist. Now it is good to care about promises.

      God, I wish /. could get back to the topics it was created for and stop being this political discussion hellhole.

    4. Re:So... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      What I don't get is why he hasn't done anything on infrastructure that he promised. This would more or less get bipartisan acceptance, generally it was one of his most popular promises. And for a real estate guy who like to build things, this should had been up his alley, to get his feet wet being a president. I am by no means a Trump supporter, but I live in the Trump Rust belt area, and I see in these areas that had voted for him, a rotting infrastructure, with post industrial cities that time had forgotten, because the states often have big modern cities a few hundred miles away propping up the economy numbers.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:So... by ausekilis · · Score: 2, Funny

      If only someone could explain to them it's a series of tubes...

    6. Re:So... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's funny. Anyone who cared about "day one" promises from the last president was racist.

      No they really weren't. Sure you could find a few loudmouths who say stupid shit on the internet and sometimes in print. So what? I can find literal Nazis who support Trump but that doesn't make all Trump voters literal Nazis.

      There was no general zeitgeist about expecting Obama to keep policies being racist. I remember considerable criticism here from back in the day when he didn't do anything about the PATRIOT act for example. You know what? People manage to use strong language without engaging in racial slurs and no one called them racist.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama had both houses of congress with a supermajority in the senate. So no, he lied.
      However, for some reason, no politician who is not a pathological liar seems to be successful in the US above the local level, so I guess we really do have the government we deserve.

    8. Re:So... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 2
      Find the Presidential candidate who wasn't 1%.

      There wasn't a non-elite option on the ballot.

    9. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama had both houses of congress with a supermajority in the senate. So no, he lied.

      And during that time he got things like healthcare done. He does still need cooperation from congress, just because they're dem doesn't mean they'll do whatever he says. See trump and his healthcare boondoggle.

    10. Re:So... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Donald Trump, unfortunately, satisfies a common desire among the populance to right things by means that won't actually right them. It's a desire to rid Washington of inaction by cleaning it out of the current folks who don't seem to get anything done: and then you find that the things they were working on are harder than you understood. It's the feeling that you can get things going right by having a manager who lights a fire under the responsible people: just the way that bank managers pressured employees to increase revenue or be fired until those employees started opening accounts fraudulently for customers who hadn't asked for them.

      What I am having a hard time with is how our country gets back out of this. I fear Humpty has had such a great fall that there is no peaceful recovery.

    11. Re:So... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Don't count on things getting fixed. Trump always wanted to change the tax code and to enter public-private partnership projects. So that means new toll roads and bridges are going to be built but old ones won't be fixed, lead water pipes won't be replaced, leaking pipes won't be sealed and anything else that doesn't make money won't get done.

      The Democrats won't vote for any spending package because they don't want Trump to have any wins that might help the GOP before the next round of voting. The environment is so toxic in Washington you could probably call it a Superfund site.

    12. Re: So... by tipo159 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama had both houses of congress with a supermajority in the senate. So no, he lied.

      Obama had a supermajority for a month or so around July-August, 2009 (when Al Franken finally got confirmed to his seat) from Sep 2009 (when Ted Kennedy's replacement was sworn in) until Feb 2010 (when Scott Brown was sworn in to replace Kennedy's replacement).

  2. Anyone surprised? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump got into power by nothing but bluster. He isn't going to be able to deliver on more than 5% of what he promised on the campaign trail. With a Republican majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives he STILL couldn't repeal Obamacare. With the deck stacked entirely in his favor he still can't deliver.

    America, you've been had.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Anyone surprised? by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the deck stacked entirely in his favor he still can't deliver.

      About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.

      As to the original point about being "surprised" — no. After Obama's failing to close Guantanamo for eight years (two of them with that deck really stacked in his favor), Presidents failing to deliver on their core promises does not surprise me one bit...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Anyone surprised? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      With the deck stacked entirely in his favor he still can't deliver.

      I imagine many of his casino investors had the very same thought.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Anyone surprised? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After 8 years of promising to balance the Budget while tripling the national debt, REAGAN proved failing to deliver on core promises is irrelevant

    4. Re:Anyone surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump got in to office by being lucky enough to run against Hillary Clinton. A huge part of the GOP electorate would vote for a ticket of Kim Jong-Un with Mahmood Ahmedinejad just to keep someone named Clinton out of the white house. Any republican other than Trump would have wiped the floor with her; he was just such an atrociously awful example of a human being that there were people who had second thoughts or just simply stayed home.

      Now that said, any democrat who wasn't named Clinton would have wiped the floor with Trump. Sanders would have annihilated him - indeed he polls better with self-identified conservatives than does Trump - as would any of a number of other people. Hell Jimmy Carter could have beaten him if he could have been talked into running.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:Anyone surprised? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the deck stacked entirely in his favor he still can't deliver.

      About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.

      And why is that such a bad thing? In a responsible, reasonable government there should be collaboration between the ruling and opposition parties. How else do you expect to actually get things done that can actually last instead of just getting scrapped as soon as the next party comes into power? Sadly, in US politics these days if you are seen even eating in the same restaurant as someone from the other party you are vilified and torn down the next time you come up for re-election as a traitor to the party. It's pretty sad, really, how much American political parties operate like the Soviet Communist party did, where loyalty to the party supersedes everything else.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Anyone surprised? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hell Jimmy Carter could have beaten him if he could have been talked into running.

      Jimmy Carter's brain cancer would probably have beaten Trump

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Anyone surprised? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      The only reason Trump was nominated was the R establishment saw this as a losing year.

      If anyone but Hillary had been running, they would have just put up an establishment candidate, and almost certainly lost in the general.

      Of course the Ds will take the exact WRONG lesson from this and pivot left. Giving Trump eight years.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only reason Trump was nominated was the R establishment saw this as a losing year.

      If anyone but Hillary had been running, they would have just put up an establishment candidate, and almost certainly lost in the general.

      Of course the Ds will take the exact WRONG lesson from this and pivot left. Giving Trump eight years.

      So the Democrats can only win if they pivot right, essentially becoming establishment Republicans, which were trounced by Trump in the primary and who even you say would lose in the general to anyone but Hillary?

      Good thinkin'!

    9. Re:Anyone surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      Eight years? Yeah, right. Trump will be lucky to make two. If he doesn't force congress to impeach him, or resign on his own, his "incredible" health will certainly fail him. He makes Newt Gingrich look like Richard Simmons.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    10. Re:Anyone surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sanders has done orders of magnitude more volume of honest work than Trump. Trump was born with more than a silver spoon in his mouth, he had the whole fucking dining set. He didn't only benefit from the enormous loan that his father gave him, but also from his father's connections to the dodgiest lawyers in all of NYC - who were happy to defend him to the end for the right price.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    11. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The pattern is clear - Candidates make big promises but once they get in to office they quickly realize that the temporary insanity known as election season doesn't jive with reality. The President gets access to a whole lot of eye-opening cold hard reality and quickly finds that what they talked up on the trail is usually either impossible, a really terrible idea, or both.

      Juggling reality with pleasing your constituents is the Presidents job and it's a tough one. The average American believes some fantastically stupid shit. Even the most well educated still hold badly informed opinions on a whole swath of topics. (Slashdotters, for example, have an astonishingly poor grasp on even the basics of economics and regularly fall for pop-econ hacks)

      Trump differentiates himself from those that came before him Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama in that he's doing an astonishingly poor job at leadership. The administration is a barely functioning mess. There are essential positions left unfilled for.. Well, we don't know why because there's no stated reason. Trump doesn't lead. He simply cheerleads and shitposts on twitter and occasionally repeats things his advisers tell him.

      If anything, it's a credit to our system of government. We're essentially operating on 2 branches out of 3. How long we'll coast with a massive power vacuum in the executive is yet to be seen. Our counterparts across the globe have taken notice and will exploit the situation.

    12. Re:Anyone surprised? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 5, Informative

      About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.

      If this were the case the House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.

      They may not like Trump, but they hate the Democrats more, and if they were to start working with Democrats, they'd upset a good number of their voting base.

      After Obama's failing to close Guantanamo for eight years (two of them with that deck really stacked in his favor)

      He actually WAS working on closing it down, by transferring detainees out of Guantanamo. He was making pretty good progress until Republicans took over congress under his watch. The Republican congress refused to produce a bill for Obama to sign that didn't restrict funds being used to continue the shut-down of Guantanamo. He had vetoed a number of bills that included language that restricted his ability to close Guantanamo, but they continued to push it on nearly every spending bill that came his way. He either had to sign the bills reluctantly, or go without funding for our military or our government in general.

    13. Re:Anyone surprised? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      * Actually, there's no free HC lunch

      You're right! She charges $200,000 a plate.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    14. Re:Anyone surprised? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      All presidents break a sizable portion of their campaign promises. Some of them are promises they couldn't fulfill. Others are promises that they changed their mind on, or never had any will to fulfill.

      Trump was amusing, in that he broke a lot of his promises before he even took office (such as prosecuting Hillary). They're all the same though in one regards: Presidential candidates of all parties say what they think will get them elected moreso than they say what they really intend to do.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    15. Re:Anyone surprised? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      About half of Congressional Republicans hate him with passion — and would rather collude with the opposition than with him.

      If this were the case the House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.

      They may not like Trump, but they hate the Democrats more, and if they were to start working with Democrats, they'd upset a good number of their voting base.

      Many republicans may not like Trump, but they realize that they have to be careful in how they handle anything that might bring Trump down. Mid term elections and next general election will be impacted by Trump's approval ratings.

      High approval ratings for Trump will mean Republicans will have an advantage going into elections. Low approval ratings for Trump could mean many Republicans lose their seats.

      Right or wrong many people view the parties based upon how/what the president is doing. Trump may not be a traditional Republican (in fact he's more liberal than Hillary by some measures), but the people are going to judge the republican party based on what Trump does. If Trump gets solidly tied to Russia, many republicans will lose their seats, even if they are republicans that don't like Trump.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Found the guy who only learned "facts" about Sanders from their preferred news sources.

      From Wikipedia: After graduating from college, Sanders returned to New York City, where he initially worked at a variety of jobs, including Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide, and carpenter.[35] In 1968, Sanders moved to Vermont because he had been "captivated by rural life." After his arrival there he worked as a carpenter,[36] filmmaker, and writer[51] who created and sold "radical film strips" and other educational materials to schools.[52] He also wrote several articles for the alternative publication The Vermont Freeman

      There's a reason Vermonters go into the open primaries and ask to register for whatever party Bernie is running for - the man has a 30 year track record of decent, honest work.

      You make the political environment in this country worse with your ignorance.

  3. This is funny as hell! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You really expected these people to keep their promises? Does everybody vote for them just so they can have something to complain about? Don't expect to be taken seriously when you consistently reelect over 95% of them. You reward them for lying, so I hope you don't expect them to stop doing so.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. I knew it! by ShipIt · · Score: 5, Funny

    At last, we finally have undeniable proof that Donald J. Trump is a deep cover Russian agent sent here decades ago to hand the U.S. over to Russia! And to think, they called us all delusional, hysterical crackpots, with zero critical thinking skills, all throwing childish temper tantrums because our candidate lost a close election. The fools! Vindication is now ours!

    1. Re: I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh good! Looks like everyone was the winner then! Since you only cared about your candidate winning the popular vote and Trump supporters only cared about winning the election everybody wins! Guess Trump was right about winning so much you'd get tired of winning. Sounds like you are already tired and salty since you know, you won.

    2. Re:I knew it! by bit+trollent · · Score: 2

      Considering that many Trump advisers are under FBI investigation for collusion, that Trump owes tons of money to Russian banks, and that Donald Trump still can't speak a hurtful word about his puppet master Vladimir Putin, maybe you should examine your own critical thinking skills.

      The FBI considers the Pee-Tape dossier to be a credible document, as they have corroborated several parts of that document.

      Also attorney general Jeff Sessions lied under oath about his collusion with Russia.

      But sure.. it's funny to pretend that your government isn't controlled by a hostile foreign adversary. It's not accurate, but it's funny.

  5. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I say you're probably a troll.

    For every dollar spent investigating a corrupt oligarch-led culture that has successfully compromised the integrity of the world's most powerful nation we buy a small semblance of continuity with the ideals to which we should adhere whether a con-man usurper has taken the highest seat in the land or someone who merely sent emails.

  6. 640 pages oughtta be enough for any bill by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When T proclaimed, "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated", I could hear the sound of 100-million face-palms. Foreheads all over had finger marks the next day.

  7. Re: Why waste money... by LiENUS · · Score: 5, Funny

    I say for every dollar wasted on this whole Russia BS, two dollars get used for obummer and Hitlery investigation of corruption.

    So considering all the money spent investigating Hillary (Benghazi, email, et. al) We should only need to spend another 2 billion or so by your math investigating trump.

  8. Okay... by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Show of hands, who's actually shocked by this news?

    Trump is full of all talk, little action, and most of that is misguided. He doesn't seem to have the first clue as to what he's doing, and his administration is either following that lead, or following Trump's only other plan, which is loot as much as possible before leaving office.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  9. The Obama administration? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    The guy is no longer president, what administration are they talking about? To the best of my knowledge, since leaving office, Barack Obama seems to be taking a bit of a breather from politics for at least the time being. Sounds like baseless finger-pointing, if you ask me.

  10. All He Had To Do Was Appoint People by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

    Trump wouldn't have needed Congressional approval, Senate confirmation, even a budget hearing. Just ask his Chief of Staff to hire some people. That's it. Done. Simple, promise kept, cross it off the list (uhh, is there a list?) Instead, he tweeted a lot of nonesense, rubber-stamped a bunch of stuff from Ryan and the Generals, and played golf at his estate on weekends at taxpayer expense.

    Ok, I get it that some people just hate Dems, foam at the mouth and all. But this guy is doing a lot of nothing, all the while his hotels and other properties mop up the bucks (STAY at the "official" Hotel of the Prez-Z-Dent!!! Sweet Deal! Get a Free Hat if you book the PrezeeDential Suite!) while he gives his entourage free miles on Air Force One (plus secret service details). I guess none of that counts, as long as you keep hating Dems?

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    1. Re:All He Had To Do Was Appoint People by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      He's making tons of money off of all this. I kind of wonder if that wasn't the entire idea (plus some ego-stroking) to begin with.

      For instance, we, the taxpayers, are paying for things like the Secret Service to use space at the Trump properties he's spending time at (not to mention his wife and son). His kids are using the status and access to improve their business dealings (which also benefit him). He never divested any of his holdings - he just handed direct control of the operations to his son, while retaining full ownership. He put it in a trust, but it's entirely revocable, meaning that he can take the whole thing back at any time he feels like it.

      And yet we've gotten to a point where politics is so ridiculously polarized that none of the Republicans care about him looting the public treasury and taking bribes from anyone and everyone, as long as he's not a Democrat.

  11. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're using words that no one outside of extremist websites use in real life. That leads us to a couple possible conclusions, neither of which speak very highly of your character.

  12. News for nerds? by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    More like news for people who aren't paying attention.

    The administration is way behind on filling much more important positions than this. Last month suddenly reversed themselves on the US attorneys staying on until there are replacements... fine, but as of today there aren't any nominees for any of the 93 prosecutor positions, because they haven't filled the undersecretary level positions that do that. Justice is also missing a number of key appointees for national security positions.

    There's the same story at state, where over half of the high level appointees have yet to be named, including officials to oversee the Middle East or nuclear anti-proliferation.

    The confusing situation with the USS Vinson might well have something to do with the fact that a number of important second and third tier DoD positions haven't been filled, and the same at the Executive Office of the President. A lot of what those people a teir or two below the top do is make sure the right hand knows what the left is doing.

    Cybersecurity is an important issue, but the administration doesn't have the people in place to set up and run such a team yet.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  13. Re:PLEASE! KEEP _ALL_ POLITICS OFF SLASHDOT! by whipslash · · Score: 2

    This is technology news. It's not vitriol.

  14. You had me by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Funny

    right up until "Deep Cover". Nobody in Deep Cover would be this obvious about it. My 4 year old could hide stolen cookies better than Trump hides his Russian ties.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  15. Re: series of tubes by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That (a series or network of tubes) was actually a pretty good analogy to describe internet and its data flow to lay people.

    Bandwidth, latency etc can be well understood with this analogy.

    I think the people who laughed at this description of the Internet are severely imagination-deficient. And no, I have no idea what political side the guy who described the net thus is on, so I have no axe to grind either way.

    Explaining by good analogy is actually an intellectual skill and a gift. Kind of like a box of chocolates...

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  16. can you do the job? by epine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Republicans only care about money. Can you do the job? Good. Get to work.

    Cutting red tape to ribbons is an intrinsically easier job than building up effective layers of regulation that prevent the public interest being bent over a barrel, while the longest of all possible rubber gloves rummages around for the better part of a trillion dollars.

    Evidently, no money was harmed in the operation.

    The job, as I see it, is a little harder to accomplish, once you concede that there is such a thing as effective regulation, though it's yet far from a science; science also being a discipline where time after time ones best efforts fall short, and yet one perseveres.

    In the best case scenario, even after regulation becomes more of science, it will still be double hard: hard to do and hard on the ego.

    Kind of makes a guy want to double down on only caring about money, setting oneself up on a lavish private beach, and watching the glorious Egos soar.

  17. 90 working days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well there were a few holidays, weekends and trips to Mar-a-lago in there, so maybe it was 90 working days.

  18. Re: series of tubes by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, "series of tubes" wasn't a a bad analogy in itself, but there were many terrible analogies and hilarious falsehoods in the rest of the infamous rant surrounding it.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  19. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... They had moles in the FBI, DoJ as well as the White House. Hence the meet between Clinton & Lynch on the airport tarmac when the two don't even know each other. Coincidence? Not likely. Rigging/payoff...

    I think Comey's sudden announcement of more Emails to investigate nearly on the eve of the election, on a Friday Afternoon, seems way more influential and suspicious than the crap fake news you quoted. You could see a 10 point swing in the polling numbers after that.

  20. Heh by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well the team and the evidence exist in the same state.

    i.e. they don't

  21. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're right about the SoS. But the current head of Exxon is asking the former head of Exxon for a waiver of sanctions so they can make money with Russian oil companies.

    But I'm sure you don't think that is corruption. Unless it was Hillary, then ITS THE WORST!

  22. 90 days isn't up yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Trump meant 90 _working_ days. Once you take off weekends, Mar-a-largo holidays, golf days and campaigning for 2020 days he is up to about day 12 now.

    You will see that in his first 100 days (working days) he will have done more than any President has done in their whole term. Of course he may never get to 100 days if he isn't re-elected in 2020.

  23. Re:PLEASE! KEEP _ALL_ POLITICS OFF SLASHDOT! by narcc · · Score: 2

    I thought the relentless negativity had chased you off!

    Any word on unicode support?

  24. Re: Why waste money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's funny to think that in 50 years trolls are still going to be shouting that while their eyes whirl around in their heads.