Slashdot Mirror


US Sanctions Russians Over Military, Intelligence Hacking (reuters.com)

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on three Russian individuals and five companies on Monday, saying they had worked with Moscow's military and intelligence services on ways to conduct cyber attacks against the United States and its allies. From a report: "The United States is engaged in an ongoing effort to counter malicious actors working at the behest of the Russian Federation and its military and intelligence units to increase Russiaâ(TM)s offensive cyber capabilities," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement. "The entities designated today have directly contributed to improving Russia's cyber and underwater capabilities through their work with the FSB and therefore jeopardize the safety and security of the United States and our allies," Mnuchin said, using an acronym for Russia's Federal Security Service.

54 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. But isn't Trump working for Putin? by schwit1 · · Score: 1, Informative

    And he did the same last month
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

  2. Re:Collusion by Luthair · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unlikely given 2-days ago Trump was asking for Russia to be re-admitted to the G7

  3. Token anti-punishment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "three Russian individuals and five companies".

    Three individuals. Five companies.

    This is the new Republican standard operating procedure for progressing corruption in their favor.

    You do the worst things you can do, inflict as great cruelty as you can through intermediaries... then when punishment is incoming, you pick out a few token groups to slap on the wrist, then don't mention in a year when you dismiss exactly those punishments.

    It's basically organized crime tactics. The bosses use stooges, ideally across jurisdictions, to make all punishments possible ineffectual. As long as the crimes can be pay for the punishments, it's all a cruel form of accounting.

    It's also how limited liability company shell companies and white collar crime work.

    1. Re:Token anti-punishment. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So.. Muller is working for the republicans now?

      Wow, nobody is safe from getting rolled under that democrat impeachment bus... But all is fair in war and if you can nail Trump with something, the collateral damage is fine, even if Al Franken and WJ Clinton get tread marks on their backs...Muller better produce something, or under he goes too.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  4. Pot meets kettle by johanw · · Score: 1

    As if Snowden can't name a lot of people who can forsee Russian sanctions for doing the same and more.

  5. Sure seems like it. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But isn't Trump working for Putin?

    Honestly, we don't know for sure but he's "working overtime" to try and shut down the investigation that would allow us to find out.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Sure seems like it. by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How long do you suppose it would take to find out? Muller has pretty much a blank check and authorization to investigate pretty much any leads he finds into pretty much anything. He's been going over a year now and the FBI 9 months before that.

      Are you sure we don't already know enough to be reasonably sure? You cannot prove a negative, but if you cannot come up with some kind of prove of the positive after a year, it's starting to look like nothing happened. Of course, you can keep looking until you find something or the target leaves office... Historically, That's what special councils do anyway, but how much time does it take before we can assume there is no there there? A year, two years? Eight years?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Sure seems like it. by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      ...if you cannot come up with some kind of prove of the positive after a year, it's starting to look like nothing happened.

      20 people indicted and four guilty pleas so far. So much nothing.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    3. Re:Sure seems like it. by forgottenusername · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing happened?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      "Through June 2018, the Special Counsel has publicly initiated criminal proceedings against 20 peopleâ"five U.S. nationals, 14 Russian nationals, and one Dutch nationalâ"and three Russian organizations."

      This is just Russia, not even his other illegal doings like stuff Cohen is under investigation for. Quite the nothingburger.

      "They haven't proved anything about Trump!"

      No, just a bunch of his associates, including several directly involved with his administration and election campaign. I guess they all acted independently & committed crimes for teh lulz. If you believe the ultimate boss of a bunch of criminals isn't involved then you need your common sense meter checked.

      So tired of the "nothing has been found" false narrative. Many indictments have come down. There are so many moving pieces, and it's such a sensitive investigation, if it had wrapped up by now it'd mean Mueller was subverted ala House investigation. "No one showed up, no one answered our questions, the WH was in direct communication with interviewees. However based on available data we can say there was absolutely no collusion"

      Pretty easy to come to that conclusion when your investigation is a farce.

    4. Re:Sure seems like it. by SinGunner · · Score: 2

      This sort of large-scale case can take MANY YEARS to develop. I had some minor part in a large suit against the major US investment banks alleging some very nasty collusion. If you read the emails from discovery, you'd think it would have ended with everyone's head on a chopping block. You'd be wrong. Although a couple of the worst offenders did go under before they could face the courts due to their rampant illegal activities in the housing market (this was 2007~2008).

    5. Re:Sure seems like it. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Look close at what all the supposed "crimes" actually are... I think you will find they don't have anything close to the "Russian Collusion" that started the whole Special Council thing and by all appearances Muller is off chasing some obstruction idea now.

      Someday I'm going to make and post a list of these "crimes" so we can dispense with this "Well Muller charged some folks! Surely there was wrongdoing in the campaign!" canard that's a mis-representation of what's actually been happening here that gets twisted into something it's not.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Sure seems like it. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Nothing about what justified Muller's appointment has been found.

      Crimes from 10 years ago (before anybody including Trump knew he was running for president) for a guy that served on the campaign mean what? A conspirator in these crimes who DIDN'T participate in the campaign? Meaningless to the campaign...

      A couple of "Lying to the FBI" charges mean what to Muller exactly? Leverage maybe for Muller, but again, nothing a all to do with the campaign as all these happened AFTER the election was over.

      Charging Russian companies and foreign nationals with illegal election participation (for both parties candidates) means what? The Russians where meddling? And how's that have anything to do with Trump's campaign?

      I'm tired of the IMPLIED guilt here. Nothing that implicates the Trump Campaign has been found and disclosed, no crimes related to Trump's campaign have been charged. Even after a year...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Sure seems like it. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      How long do you suppose it would take to find out?

      Couldn't say for certain but given the results thus far, Mueller and his team have been moving at lightning speed.

      How long will it take was the question, not how fast you think Muller is going. How long do we give him? One year, two? Eight? Muller's been busy, but for all the looking we have what? Nothing that has any direct relation to crimes by the president's campaign has been disclosed yet....

      Muller has pretty much a blank check and authorization to investigate pretty much any leads he finds into pretty much anything.

      Well if you haven't noticed, there are a bunch of guilty pleas and a boatload of indictments. It's not like the investigation isn't going anywhere.

      Again, guilty pleas for crimes that happened when? AFTER the election and for what? Lying to the FBI? Give me a break...

      He's been going over a year now and the FBI 9 months before that.

      The Watergate investigation took longer. Also, I think "conservatives" have lost the right to complain after screaming about Benghazi in 17 investigations that found no wrongdoing over the span of four years.

      No wrongdoing found? Well.. I know you don't like it, but the Hillary E-mail thing was found (and that was evidence of a crime) though it and a whole bunch of lying to the US public was proven too. Was Susan Rice's "it was a video" Sunday show lies wrong? Well it wasn't a crime, but I thought it was wrong. As was Clinton's lying about the same thing, that was wrong too, just not illegal... But hey...

      Are you sure we don't already know enough to be reasonably sure?

      Mueller isn't one to waste time or resources. The president is refusing to be interviewed which is holding up the process.

      That is a convenient excuse and nothing more. If Muller has the goods, he doesn't need to interview Trump, just write the report and be done. If he doesn't, then why would Trump talk to Muller? There is zero upside for talking to Muller. How about this? Why doesn't Muller put his questions in writing and send them over the Whitehouse for answers? Yea, not going to happen. Hard to set a trap that way.

      You cannot prove a negative, but if you cannot come up with some kind of prove of the positive after a year, it's starting to look like nothing happened.

      The 20 people and three companies that have indicted prove that something happened.

      Twenty charges? Oh yea, foreign nationals and companies who never where directly involved in either campaign. Folks who will never stand trial unless they are stupid enough to travel though the USA and get arrested because they are Russians who are not on US soil anyway. Twenty trials for which Muller doesn't have to prove one blooming thing because they will never go to court and 20 Russians for which we have zero evidence of contact with Trump's campaign, much less Trump, but SOMETHING happened. Yea, go with that.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Sure seems like it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Special prosecutor investigations always take a long time. Out of 9 previous prosecutors, only two wound up in less than 2 years, and Mueller has already produced more charges than both of them put together. The only other investigations of comparable public profile to this, Iran-Contra and Whitewater, both lasted around 7 years.

      A handy comparison chart here

    9. Re:Sure seems like it. by Straif · · Score: 1

      Almost all American indictments have been for process crimes or crimes that had nothing to do with the Trump campaign or even the 2016 election. Their highest profile conviction, Flynn, is falling apart even after he confessed as it's been shown that the original FBI agents reported no sign of perjury (a report hidden from the defense) and the primary driver of the confession was a threat to pursue and potentially bankrupt his son on similar 'made up' charges (made up in the manner that the FBI can effectively charge anyone with lying to them as it's almost impossible to be 100% accurate when making a statement about anything you are not currently doing).

      The majority of the indictments are Russian and were so poorly backed that when some of the named companies actually sent lawyers to court (something no one, especially Mueller expected) Mueller's team couldn't actually proceed and had to ask for a continuance. The funniest part was the motion to delay based on not properly handling the summons. Usually this is a defense tactic to say they weren't properly served so therefore should be given more time or special considerations but in this case it was the prosecutors claiming they weren't able to properly send out the summons while the defense lawyers were in court saying we don't care if the summons wasn't properly processed because of mistakes on the special councils part, they were ready to go and would waive any rights this mistake may have granted them.

      He was effectively padding his numbers by including charges he had no legal means to follow up on but was called on it and didn't know what to do. Adding to that, because the Russians showed up, they now have legal rights to all of the evidence against them which could include details about highly classified intelligence sources. All in all a very bad move on the Special Councils part. Even if they get a conviction the Russians win as they'll get a lot of juicy data and there's no legal recourse to penalize those companies anyway except preventing a few Russians from being able to go to Disneyworld or catch Hamilton on Broadway. If they lose the Russians still get the data plus they can fly on over to Kansas to visit the world's largest ball of twine if they so choose to.

      As for Manafort, the closet thing to what most people think of as a criminal case, all of his charges stem from dealings that had nothing to do his short time at the Trump campaign and more to do with his very slippery business practices dating back several years. I don't think anyone from either side of the aisle will shed a tear if Manafort is convicted of something but those crimes should really be outside of the scope of this special councils mandate.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    10. Re:Sure seems like it. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      How long will it take was the question, not how fast you think Muller is going. How long do we give him? One year, two? Eight?

      We give him all the time he needs. We don't let criminals off the hook just because you think it takes too long to route them out.

      Muller's been busy, but for all the looking we have what? Nothing that has any direct relation to crimes by the president's campaign has been disclosed yet....

      What we have is an ongoing investigation. The details aren't public just like all other FBI investigations. Why do you think that's a bad thing?

      Again, guilty pleas for crimes that happened when? AFTER the election and for what? Lying to the FBI? Give me a break...

      * What happened to being the party of "law and order"?
      * Lying to the FBI is no small thing.
      * Rick Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States.

      No wrongdoing found?

      Correct.

      Well.. I know you don't like it, but the Hillary E-mail thing was found (and that was evidence of a crime) though

      Seems like you didn't pay attention because they charge criminals with crimes when they find them.

      and a whole bunch of lying to the US public was proven too.

      Oh man... if that was a crime then Trump would already be behind bars!

      That is a convenient excuse and nothing more. If Muller has the goods, he doesn't need to interview Trump, just write the report and be done. If he doesn't, then why would Trump talk to Muller?

      Mueller already stated that Trump isn't the target of the investigation.

      There is zero upside for talking to Muller.

      We cannot know that for certain until he is interviewed.

      How about this? Why doesn't Muller put his questions in writing and send them over the Whitehouse for answers? Yea, not going to happen. Hard to set a trap that way.

      If Trump did nothing wrong then there is no trap to be had. All he has to do is answer some questions truthfully. Hillary Clinton was deposed for 11 hours and was never "trapped" because she told the truth and had committed no crimes.

      Twenty charges?

      Actually, there are 100+ charges but there are 20+ indictments.

      Oh yea, foreign nationals and companies who never where directly involved in either campaign.

      Paul Manifort and Michael Cohen are not foreign nationals.

      Folks who will never stand trial unless they are stupid enough to travel though the USA and get arrested because they are Russians who are not on US soil anyway.

      They need only leave Russia and they will be scooped up.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    11. Re:Sure seems like it. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      You know.. I have one question.... What is Muller looking for? What was the reason for his appointment?

      To investigate any contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign and any crimes that are uncovered in the process of investigating.

      This was supposed to be a slam dunk, 6 moths at most.

      Whoever told you that is an idiot.

      we still don't have any evidence that implicates anybody in Trump's campaign with anything approaching a crime during the campaign....

      Paul Manifort wasn't part of the Trump campaign? Also, we have no idea what treasures have been uncovered from the documents from Michael Cohen.

      Muller will retire after this.

      Mueller is retired, you idiot. He was pulled out of retirement specifically for this.

      We will get a report, but it's going to say Trump's campaign didn't do anything wrong, even though individuals involved in the campaign got caught in unrelated crimes.

      That might be the case but current indications are that it's not. I mean, Trump acts like the guiltiest man on the planet.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    12. Re:Sure seems like it. by Zamphatta · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. I really have nothing to add to what you said besides that. I had to say something though, 'cause I went to moderate your comment up as "Insightful" but the cursor accidentally landed on the wrong thing & moderated it as "redundant". So I need to make a comment, to undo the mistake.

    13. Re:Sure seems like it. by jon3k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even after a year...

      It's been an awfully busy year and it has gone down a number of rabbit holes which have led to numerous arrests and convictions. Turns out it's a pretty complex process and it's ONLY been a year. How many years did we investigate Benghazi? Four?

    14. Re:Sure seems like it. by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what he said. As a legal professional, I've actually been amazed at how FAST this case has proceeded. People just don't understand that. This thing is a rocket ship. I'd love to get an idea of how they're processing things this quickly on the IT/discovery side. I could handle it more efficiently, of course ;)

    15. Re:Sure seems like it. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      He is waiting to interview Trump. He doesn't want to finish without that.

      He's dragging on Manafort because he wants a flip.

      For the record Trump didn't want to win so he didn't collude. But he did obstruct. And Mueller will get him on that. Trump's flunkies wanted to open the door for business deals and tried to collude. Whether they did or not is the question

      How long will it take? Till he can get Trump on record.

    16. Re:Sure seems like it. by pots · · Score: 4, Informative

      How long do you suppose it would take to find out?

      If you want a real answer, it looks like four years is about average for this type of investigation.

    17. Re:Sure seems like it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does the word Whitewater mean anything to you?

      Ken Starr was appointed in August 1994 to investigate a failed real estate investment. Starr issued his report in September 1998 and Whitewater was barely mentioned. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy)

      Clinton's impeachment had nothing to do with real estate.

      If it takes 4 years to find out if Trump is guilty of treason, money laundering and/or obstruction, so be it.

    18. Re:Sure seems like it. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The great click bait war. What a joke, it's so fucking stupid, they do not even have a record of what the click bait actually clicked to. Sure the click bait was targeted but that is the whole idea, nothing about selling anything, just getting people to click the ad, which directs them to a paying ad. Here is how the scam works, what you do is go to an internet advertising group and find out how much they charge for clicks. Then you hunt around to find how much companies will pay for clicks. Then once you find a company that charges less, than what you can charge, your advertise on their site with click bait. The user clicks the paid for ad, which takes them to another ad which the click baiting firm gets paid, more than they paid. The US government knows this, everyone in the industry knows, this. So straight up flagrant lies and disingenuous deceit by the US government in nothing by criminally corrupt justice practices, so completely and totally and utterly full of shit.

      So now if you work for American defence industries expect to be targeted for sanctions but of course the US government does not give a crap about your inconvenience. This sanction game is going to come back and bite the US on the ass really, really hard.

      Is there a way you can apply for a US sanction for free (I wouldn't bother to pay for it, not that funny, well not much anyhow), I wouldn't mind one, especially if it came with a frame able document with a wax seal of validity. Anyone know a relatively safe way to by sanctioned by the insane US state department. Is there like a specific SJW nutburger you can insult or something. How about applying for a job with a sanctioned Russian company, will that help?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re:Sure seems like it. by jebrick · · Score: 1

      Of course, you can keep looking until you find something or the target leaves office... Historically, That's what special councils do anyway, but how much time does it take before we can assume there is no there there? A year, two years? Eight years?

      Actually, only Ken Star did that because Congress wanted something on Clinton. All other special prosecutors have stayed within their mandate given by the Justice department. There is no proof that Muller has gone outside that mandate. When he did have evidence of a crime outside his mandate he passed it off to the local federal prosecutors.

    20. Re:Sure seems like it. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I have to ask.. How did Trump obstruct?

      If you think it was firing the FBI director, you are crazy. Firing the FBI director didn't stop anything did it and it's totally within the rights of the president to let the director of the FBI go if he wants. If you think it was the "let the Flynn thing go" comment, again you are nuts. This statement started with "I hope you can..." which means it was an expression of a wish not an order. Comey felt free to not obey this request, and Flynn was NOT let go. You may wish to claim "Attempted obstruction" but Trump merely claims it wasn't an order, Comey cannot prove it was an order, so your case falls apart as there is no proof.

      Do you Have something, ANYTHING else?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    21. Re:Sure seems like it. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, you thought Star was doing right by Clinton the whole time?

      I'd like to point out that it is the excesses of the past that caused congress to revise the laws regarding Special Councils to make them much more targeted and less open ended. This investigation shouldn't last nearly as long as Star's... Personally, I think Star knew the basic facts within a year and could have wrapped up the whole process in two. I also think the Lewinsky affair was a huge mistake by all involved, including Star and that Clinton should have never been impeached for perjury.

      But my question remains... How long is reasonable? Is a year, two years, eight? What's reasonable here from your perspective?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    22. Re:Sure seems like it. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "This sanction game is going to come back and bite the US on the ass really, really hard. "

      How do you suppose that's going to happen? Do you think Russia hasn't already been doing whatever it can to undermine the US?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    23. Re:Sure seems like it. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Really? He just passes off stuff to local authorities if they are outside his mandate?

      So, if his mandate has "Russian collusion in the 2016 campaign" at it's core, why in God's name is Manafort facing tax evasion charges for stuff that happened 10 years ago, long before 2016 election season got started and well before his short stint as Trump's campaign manager? Then there is Flynn, who didn't have a conversation with the Russians until after the election, as heir apparent to his National security adviser position... How's that related to the original mandate?

      I'm just guessing, but it does seem Muller is pushing an obstruction of justice angle for stuff that happened AFTER the campaign was over, which *might* be within his mandate, but only if he actually found crimes within his mandate and could prove an effort to cover them up.

      I'm afraid that Muller has obviously pushed the boundaries of his initial mandate and It sure doesn't seem justified from up here in the cheep seats.... But Rosenstein will have to justify this eventually and I look forward to that bit of spin...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  6. Re:Collusion by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So.... You are saying Trump, who is supposed to be the stupidest man to ever serve as president, is smart enough to actually arrange for this kind of diversionary tactic, but the American public is stupid enough to fall for it, but the press is willing to overlook it? (Not likely, perhaps, no way in HE double tooth picks.)

    Who's off in the weeds here?

    Could it just possibly be the government working as it is currently implmented? That the Russians have been hacking and we are dealing with it in the standard bureaucratic way and the administration has little to do with this?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  7. Sanctions for how long by PraiseBob · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I expect Trump to step in personally, and reverse these sanctions, just like he did to all previous anti-Russian actions. He is Vladimirs stooge. The only way the sanctions would remain in place is if these oligarchs are political enemies of Putin.

  8. Re:Collusion by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Trumpo could cure cancer

    But he chooses not to. He's playing 53-dimensional chess with cancer.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  9. Re:Trump will have impeachment after election by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Because the republicans turn on him or because the democrats intend to commit suicide if they manage to eek out control of the house?

    The last time a president was impeached and not convicted over things that where not "high crimes and misdemeanors" it didn't go well for the party that let it happen. There is not a chance the senate convicts and less of a chance Trump choses to resign. So what will you accomplish?

    But by all means, keep talking about it. It can only increase republican turn out when you do.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  10. Disconnect: G7, Sanctions by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    So on one hand Trump tells the G7 that Russia should be allowed back in the club, while on the other hand congress is approving sanctions against Russia. Maybe he doesn't seem to understand the contradictions or is so far out of his depth he wasn't sure what the G7 club was about?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  11. Russiaâ(TM)s by jgrimard · · Score: 1

    Jesus Christ! Even the editors can't control their smart quotes! Get it together man!

    1. Re: Russiaâ(TM)s by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      They would not need to if /. had its character encoding sorted out. Page reports as supporting UTF-8, but then something goes screwy backend.

      Is Slashcode open source anymore?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  12. Okay... by theM_xl · · Score: 1

    So... it'd be okay now if Russia and China sanctioned say, Microsoft and Oracle for improving the capabilities of the CIA/NSA?

  13. Let's get this clear by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    That's Military, Comma, Intelligence --two words with a comma in between! said the White House press agent. That ought to reduce the "fake news" by a third. One-third, got it?

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  14. Re:Collusion by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of what Trump says is just meant to make the press go crazy and distract them from something else. They're like cats chasing the red dot of a laser pointer. I swear sometimes he just does it for entertainment purposes. You can take the Reality TV star off his series but you can't get him to stop playing Reality Star. It's like we have the Apprentice 2.0, DC Whitehouse Version.

  15. Re:Collusion by bobbied · · Score: 1

    That may be true, and I like you laser pointer illustration.. But do you actually THINK that some investigative reporter wouldn't love to expose Trump if they could? Or do you think they are all just too busy chasing their tails to miss a real live story hitting them in the face?

    Trump may be enjoying the attention from the press, but you really have to think the press is stupid enough to just ignore a story that could scuttle a guy they obviously loath? Yea, I'm not buying that idea. The press isn't that stupid. They play along with the president because it's good for ratings, they chase that red dot because they know it sells advertising. I don't think they would give up the ratings bonanza that covering a story that legitimately made Trump look bad and either not see it or willingly ignore it. I think they'd jump at the chance to obliterate Trump, if they could...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  16. Re:Collusion by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    So if Trump does something to hurt Russia, it's a smokescreen and if he does something to help Russia it's proof of collusion?

  17. Re:Collusion by jittles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I won't be either the first or the last to point this out, but this looks like staged chaff to distract the feeble-minded American public away from the new psy-ops operations now gearing up for the next election cycle.

    So easy to think: "Ha. If Trump was colluding with the Russians would he allow this!" (stupid libs.)

    Obvious answer: No.

    Correct answer: Not so fast.

    More likely it’s just the Trump administration working out a ‘legal’ way to initiate a funds transfer into the Trump Organization. After all, we hit ZTE with sacntions and what happens literally days later? Chinese government authorizes a $500M loan to Trump and all of the sudden we are costing the Chinese people too many jobs. So he’s just sticking his hand out asking for another check.

  18. Down the list by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    "cyber and underwater capabilities"
    What happened under water? Some optical got tapped into? "Tracking?"

    The list has NotPetya. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    The original of the code was something from EternalBlue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

    "U.S. energy grid and on internet routers and switches".
    Finally something in the USA?
    Back to "underwater capabilities".
    Then a jump to "nuclear facilities"?

    So Russian now has "design, manufacture and supply" of " professional diving equipment"? Sanctions.
    EternalBlue lost to the wild of the internet? Sanctions.
    Something cyber something nuclear facilities? Sanctions.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  19. Re:Collusion by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Bannon is a traitor to his country, to freedom, to democracy, and to people of good will everywhere.

    (All these wanna-be Nazis and RaHoWa types marching to the tune of a man who's stated quite clearly that he seeks to emulate Vladimir Lenin. Oh, the irony.)

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  20. Re:Collusion by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    What a waste.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  21. Re:Collusion by ath1901 · · Score: 1

    Insulting your allies and saying dictators are "great guys" just to distract the press? If he's playing stupid as a strategy then it is a very stupid strategy.

  22. Re:Collusion by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    There are still some good reporters out there looking for real stories instead of focusing on the ridiculous crap that Trump rips off the top of his head at every opportunity. They just seem to get lost in the howls of outrage.

  23. Re:Collusion by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    It's working though. Instead of his numbers dropping they have been steadily rising over the last few months.

  24. Re:Collusion by BoFo · · Score: 1

    Look, as an American I must point out the US/Israel leads the world in hacking for information gathering and for sabotage. Can't forget the stuxnet virus, used to destroy uranium centrifuges in Iran and a derivative of the same used to hack into Proximus in Belgium to eavesdrop on GSMs in Europe. The WikiLeaks Vault 7 release showed us that the NSA had developed and deployed hacks that would leave false clues leading to blaming third parties. The sanctions, on the other hand, are acts of war designed to weaken a foreign country. If the same sanctions were declared against the US, the post 9/11 laws would lead the US military to attack those responsible. All of this based on hacking incidents where no objective proof has ever been put forward.

  25. Re:Collusion by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Don't kid yourself. I remember in the 1980s when I visited the journalism building, don't remember why. Anyhow, Reagan was President and all they could talk about was how terrible he was. You would have thought he was grinding up baby cats in the WH basement or something. I remember one Prof actually saying Reagan killed a baby on camera. I asked when was that and he got very vague. I said it never happened, did it. After about 5 minutes of back peddling he admitted he made it all up. That's what they teach - lies.

    There could be a good honest reporter out there, however if they are one they're going to be a conservative reporter. Certainly not a liberal one because they can't stop drinking the cool aid (ok, probably the pot cigarette) long enough to think. Trump trolls them well and like the cat & laser bit he plays them well and gets things done.

  26. Re:Collusion by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    You don't seem to understand, his number among "voters" are going up. It's easy enough to see, virtually every poll shows climbing approval numbers.

  27. Re:Collusion by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    There are reporters that don't let their biases control what they report. It's just very few are part of any major news outlet. Those are all agenda driven.

  28. Quick Donnie by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Roll those sanctions back before Vlad gets annoyed at you, Donnie. Traitorous scumbag that you are.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  29. Re:Collusion by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    "sanctions, on the other hand, are acts of war "

    Um, where have sanctions ever been considered an act of war? Clue: they haven't...they're different from embargos, which can be considered as such. And no proof is required to implement them, it's totally up to Congress and the Executive branch to decide if they want to impose sanctions.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise