Trump Move to Loosen U.S. Use of Cyberweapons Prompts Intrigue

The Trump administration’s move to loosen rules of engagement for U.S. cyberattacks has prompted questions about how the military will carry out offensive digital strikes, and whether hostilities with foreign adversaries will rapidly escalate.

Cybersecurity experts and former officials said it was impossible to determine whether President Trump’s move was a step in the right direction or a mistake because the details of such policies are classified.

“The devil is in the details,” said Tom Bossert, who as Mr. Trump’s homeland security adviser counseled him on cybersecurity, until he was forced out of his job in April by John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser.

Mr. Trump on Wednesday reversed an Obama-era set of classified rules dictating an elaborate interagency process that must be followed before cyberweapons can be deployed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-move-to-loosen-u-s-use-of-cyber-weapons-prompts-intrigue-1534456712

https://archive.is/Lp9AZ

Boston Globe receives threat after anti-Trump editorial

The Boston Globe today received a threatening telephone call that is being taken seriously by local and federal authorities, according to an email sent by a facilities manager to other tenants at the newspaper's headquarters.

Big picture: The Boston Globe today published an editorial pushing back against President Trump's claims that ~~some in the media are an~~ FAKE NEWS IS THE "enemy of the people," and also helped coordinate similar editorials in 300 other papers.

https://www.axios.com/boston-globe-threat-editorial-trump-07a46bf9-9c6a-4266-a4b2-c90f8c15d03c.html

>>2637620

WEAPONIZED AUTISM

Concord Management and Consulting, a company allegedly involved in a Russian troll farm scheme, lost its challenge of Mueller’s authority this week.

“The Special Counsel may investigate the Russian government’s interference ‘efforts,’ which involved non-governmental third parties,” the Trump-appointed Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ruled. “Concord’s alleged actions are therefore within the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.”

The court then dismissed Concord’s motion to dismiss the indictment. What it means: Every single person who has challenged Mueller’s authority has lost.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/every-single-person-whos-challenged-muellers-authority-has-lost/

Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 58 Filed 08/15/18 Page 40 & 41

Authority to Prosecute Concord

Concord also contends that the Special Counsel exceeded his authority under the

appointment order by investigating and prosecuting Concord. Concord Mem. at 61–62. The

appointment order authorizes the Special Counsel “to conduct the investigation confirmed by

then-FBI Director James B. Comey,” i.e., the investigation of “the Russian government’s efforts

to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” Appointment Order (introduction); see also supra

note 1. And the authorized investigation “includ[es] any links and/or coordination between the

Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”

and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” Appointment Order ¶

(b)(i), (ii).

Concord faults the indictment for lacking allegations regarding the Russian government,

President Trump’s campaign, links or coordination between Concord and the Russian

government or President Trump’s campaign, or interference by Concord with the Special

Counsel’s investigation. See Concord Mem. at 61. The appointment order, however, does not

limit the Special Counsel to investigating individuals and entities that are part of the Russian

government. Rather, the Special Counsel may investigate the Russian government’s interference

“efforts,” which involved non-governmental third parties. See Opp’n at 57 (citing Intelligence

Community Assessment, Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections at

2 (Jan. 6, 2017)). Concord’s alleged actions are therefore within the scope of the Special

Counsel’s investigation. Because the investigation of Concord was authorized, so was the

prosecution. See Appointment Order ¶ (c) (authorizing the Special Counsel “to prosecute federal

crimes arising from the investigation”); Manafort, 2018 WL 3126380, at *8. Therefore, by

investigating and prosecuting Concord, the Special Counsel did not exceed his authority.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Concord’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment

Based on the Special Counsel’s Appointment and Authority. Dkt. 36. A separate order

consistent with this decision accompanies this memorandum opinion.