Russia is now forming an alliance with Syria and Iran, why allow Russia so much leeway to develop nuclear weapons when they could eventually end up in Syria and Iran? Isn't that why we feared Ahmadinejad?
Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.
Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.
I know the whole story. It's been rehashed in right wing circles for a few years, but again, there was nothing nefarious done by Clinton related to this sale. If you want to argue that:
A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is B. We should not have signed the START treaty C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner
Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.
I know the whole story. It's been rehashed in right wing circles for a few years, but again, there was nothing nefarious done by Clinton related to this sale. If you want to argue that:
A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is B. We should not have signed the START treaty C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner
Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
So its safe to say that Obama (and Hilliary if you want to include her) was played/fooled by Putin? If so the consequences could be dire, especially if uranium or nuclears end up in the hands of Assad Rhounahi or possibly ISIS.
Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.
I know the whole story. It's been rehashed in right wing circles for a few years, but again, there was nothing nefarious done by Clinton related to this sale. If you want to argue that:
A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is B. We should not have signed the START treaty C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner
Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
So its safe to say that Obama (and Hilliary if you want to include her) was played/fooled by Putin? If so the consequences could be dire, especially if uranium or nuclears end up in the hands of Assad Rhounahi or possibly ISIS.
I'm just not sure how the US could allow Russia access to US uranium. Either way the NYT article from last year is a good place to start if anyone is interested in how this could happen.
I'm just not sure how the US could allow Russia access to US uranium. Either way the NYT article from last year is a good place to start if anyone is interested in how this could happen.
Read the article I posted. We produce less than 2% of the world's uranium. Khazakistan is a much bigger supplier and right in Russia's sphere of influence. This was a non-event from a materiality perspective.
Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.
I know the whole story. It's been rehashed in right wing circles for a few years, but again, there was nothing nefarious done by Clinton related to this sale. If you want to argue that:
A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is B. We should not have signed the START treaty C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner
Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
So its safe to say that Obama (and Hilliary if you want to include her) was played/fooled by Putin? If so the consequences could be dire, especially if uranium or nuclears end up in the hands of Assad Rhounahi or possibly ISIS.
Fair point. The politifact isn't entirely accurate, it subjectively claims that "Trump suggests" not what he actually said which is this State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation." Did The State Dept approve the transfer of 20% of Americans uranium to Russia? Y/N and Did the CF receive $145M from nine related investors? Y/N Thats why people must be careful when relying on someone else to factcheck, or at least understand the distiction between what was said and what someone else thinks that person suggests.
Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.
I know the whole story. It's been rehashed in right wing circles for a few years, but again, there was nothing nefarious done by Clinton related to this sale. If you want to argue that:
A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is B. We should not have signed the START treaty C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner
Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
So its safe to say that Obama (and Hilliary if you want to include her) was played/fooled by Putin? If so the consequences could be dire, especially if uranium or nuclears end up in the hands of Assad Rhounahi or possibly ISIS.
Fair point. The politifact isn't entirely accurate, it subjectively claims that "Trump suggests" not what he actually said which is this State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation." Did The State Dept approve the transfer of 20% of Americans uranium to Russia? Y/N and Did the CF receive $145M from nine related investors? Y/N Thats why people must be careful when relying on someone else to factcheck, or at least understand the distiction between what was said and what someone else thinks that person suggests.
When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm.
The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe.
The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.”
In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”
When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm.
The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe.
The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.”
In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”
This is obviously sourced from somewhere and not your words, so please cite it. I'd like to read it.
And regardless of all this, this was a cabinet level decision that was ultimately Obama's decision. So if you want to say it was a bad call, fine. But that doesn't make it nefarious.
When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm.
The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe.
The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.”
In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”
This is obviously sourced from somewhere and not your words, so please cite it. I'd like to read it.
And regardless of all this, this was a cabinet level decision that was ultimately Obama's decision. So if you want to say it was a bad call, fine. But that doesn't make it nefarious.
NYT? I had a few pages open Google searched uranium one, I'll check.
If you watch this video and compare what is alleged in it to what's in the NYT article isn't it plausible to conclude Billiary has more ties to Russia than Trump?
If you watch this video and compare what is alleged in it to what's in the NYT article isn't it plausible to conclude Billiary has more ties to Russia than Trump?
I watched it. What's your point, or what's the context of your butt-hurt statement?
It seems that some don't take too kindly of truth, especially when it's not in plain English.
Huh? Are you speaking in PJFan language?
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
I watched it. What's your point, or what's the context of your butt-hurt statement?
It seems that some don't take too kindly of truth, especially when it's not in plain English.
Huh? Are you speaking in PJFan language?
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
I don't disagree, but, the only reason we aren't and haven't been at real war with Russia is because of nukes. If Russia didn't have nukes we would have turned it upside down 30 years ago, like we did in Vietnam Kosovo Afghanistan Iraq and like were doing now in Syria following isis around.
I watched it. What's your point, or what's the context of your butt-hurt statement?
It seems that some don't take too kindly of truth, especially when it's not in plain English.
Huh? Are you speaking in PJFan language?
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
I don't disagree, but, the only reason we aren't and haven't been at real war with Russia is because of nukes. If Russia didn't have nukes we would have turned it upside down 30 years ago, like we did in Vietnam Kosovo Afghanistan Iraq and like were doing now in Syria following isis around.
You mean if Russia didn't have nukes and we did? I would argue that Russia would not have provoked us if they didn't have nukes. There would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis or anything remotely like we dealt with for 50 years. On the other hand, if neither of us had nukes, we sure as hell would not have invaded Russia. I would hope our military leaders learned something from Napoleon and Hitler.... you can't take Mother Russia. She cannot be conquered by a ground army.
I watched it. What's your point, or what's the context of your butt-hurt statement?
It seems that some don't take too kindly of truth, especially when it's not in plain English.
Huh? Are you speaking in PJFan language?
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
I don't disagree, but, the only reason we aren't and haven't been at real war with Russia is because of nukes. If Russia didn't have nukes we would have turned it upside down 30 years ago, like we did in Vietnam Kosovo Afghanistan Iraq and like were doing now in Syria following isis around.
You mean if Russia didn't have nukes and we did? I would argue that Russia would not have provoked us if they didn't have nukes. There would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis or anything remotely like we dealt with for 50 years. On the other hand, if neither of us had nukes, we sure as hell would not have invaded Russia. I would hope our military leaders learned something from Napoleon and Hitler.... you can't take Mother Russia. She cannot be conquered by a ground army.
Yes, sorry I meant Russian not having nukes and us having nukes, like the other countries we turned upside down when they or their leaders didn't bow to our empirical hegemony. Nukes give power and a platform for leaders like Putin to stand up to or as you say provoke the US.
I watched it. What's your point, or what's the context of your butt-hurt statement?
It seems that some don't take too kindly of truth, especially when it's not in plain English.
Huh? Are you speaking in PJFan language?
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
I don't disagree, but, the only reason we aren't and haven't been at real war with Russia is because of nukes. If Russia didn't have nukes we would have turned it upside down 30 years ago, like we did in Vietnam Kosovo Afghanistan Iraq and like were doing now in Syria following isis around.
You mean if Russia didn't have nukes and we did? I would argue that Russia would not have provoked us if they didn't have nukes. There would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis or anything remotely like we dealt with for 50 years. On the other hand, if neither of us had nukes, we sure as hell would not have invaded Russia. I would hope our military leaders learned something from Napoleon and Hitler.... you can't take Mother Russia. She cannot be conquered by a ground army.
Yes, sorry I meant Russian not having nukes and us having nukes, like the other countries we turned upside down when they or their leaders didn't bow to our empirical hegemony. Nukes give power and a platform for leaders like Putin to stand up to or as you say provoke the US.
We would have never tried to invade Russia. That is the height of foolishness. How many foreign soldiers have died in the Russian winter over the centuries? Western Russia is littered with bodies in the ground and the Russians have never been afraid to send their soldiers to die, no matter the odds.
I watched it. What's your point, or what's the context of your butt-hurt statement?
It seems that some don't take too kindly of truth, especially when it's not in plain English.
Huh? Are you speaking in PJFan language?
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
I hope you're right but I am not so certain about this. Russia along with China are ramping up their military posture right now. They are also clearly testing/using their cyber warfare capabilities at the same time. They are positioning themselves for conflict and whether they have intentions for conflict or not we just don't know. Both of those countries have strategic interests and territories that they want to put under their control. If I were them and I had the intention to make a move then I would make it at some point between now and the turnover to the next administration whoever that might be. The US and the west as a whole are divided on so many issues and a strategic strike by Russia/China in the next couple of months would be very hard to defend especially under the leadership of an exiting President who hasn't demonstrated the willingness to enforce redlines and who appears non-commital on treaty obligations. This isn't on Obama alone either...the leader of the GOP at the moment also appears non-commital on treaty obligations. I am not saying a strike by Russia/China will happen and people can accuse me of being a "blowhard" but there is a window of opportunity emerging for both of those countries that west should be prepared to deal with.
Edit - adding a link with respect to cyberattacks and how it could affect election day
^^ Let me ask a few clarifying questions. What is the target that you think China and or Russia would strike militarily? I assume you are talking about some US territory or some territory that the US is specifically obligated to protect (Poland, Hungary, etc.). And which treaty has Obama not shown a willingness to defend, or publicly questioned the usefulness of said treaty? That seems to be a trait of Trump, not Clinton or Obama.
I watched it. What's your point, or what's the context of your butt-hurt statement?
It seems that some don't take too kindly of truth, especially when it's not in plain English.
Huh? Are you speaking in PJFan language?
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is goino. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
I hope you're right but I am not so certain about this. Russia along with China are ramping up their military posture right now. They are also clearly testing/using their cyber warfare capabilities at the same time. They are positioning themselves for conflict and whether they have intentions for conflict or not we just don't know. Both of those countries have strategic interests and territories that they want to put under their control. If I were them and I had the intention to make a move then I would make it at some point between now and the turnover to the next administration whoever that might be. The US and the west as a whole are divided on so many issues and a strategic strike by Russia/China in the next couple of months would be very hard to defend especially under the leadership of an exiting President who hasn't demonstrated the willingness to enforce redlines and who appears non-commital on treaty obligations. This isn't on Obama alone either...the leader of the GOP at the moment also appears non-commital on treaty obligations. I am not saying a strike by Russia/China will happen and people can accuse me of being a "blowhard" but there is a window of opportunity emerging for both of those countries that west should be prepared to deal with.
Edit - adding a link with respect to cyberattacks and how it could affect election day
I watched it. What's your point, or what's the context of your butt-hurt statement?
It seems that some don't take too kindly of truth, especially when it's not in plain English.
Huh? Are you speaking in PJFan language?
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is goino. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
I hope you're right but I am not so certain about this. Russia along with China are ramping up their military posture right now. They are also clearly testing/using their cyber warfare capabilities at the same time. They are positioning themselves for conflict and whether they have intentions for conflict or not we just don't know. Both of those countries have strategic interests and territories that they want to put under their control. If I were them and I had the intention to make a move then I would make it at some point between now and the turnover to the next administration whoever that might be. The US and the west as a whole are divided on so many issues and a strategic strike by Russia/China in the next couple of months would be very hard to defend especially under the leadership of an exiting President who hasn't demonstrated the willingness to enforce redlines and who appears non-commital on treaty obligations. This isn't on Obama alone either...the leader of the GOP at the moment also appears non-commital on treaty obligations. I am not saying a strike by Russia/China will happen and people can accuse me of being a "blowhard" but there is a window of opportunity emerging for both of those countries that west should be prepared to deal with.
Edit - adding a link with respect to cyberattacks and how it could affect election day
Comments
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html
Russia is now forming an alliance with Syria and Iran, why allow Russia so much leeway to develop nuclear weapons when they could eventually end up in Syria and Iran? Isn't that why we feared Ahmadinejad?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is
B. We should not have signed the START treaty
C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power
D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner
Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
The politifact isn't entirely accurate, it subjectively claims that "Trump suggests" not what he actually said which is this State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."
Did The State Dept approve the transfer of 20% of Americans uranium to Russia? Y/N
and
Did the CF receive $145M from nine related investors? Y/N
Thats why people must be careful when relying on someone else to factcheck, or at least understand the distiction between what was said and what someone else thinks that person suggests.
The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe.
The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.”
In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”
And regardless of all this, this was a cabinet level decision that was ultimately Obama's decision. So if you want to say it was a bad call, fine. But that doesn't make it nefarious.
Ah no... I don't think it's plausible at all.
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
Edit - adding a link with respect to cyberattacks and how it could affect election day
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87926