Patterico's Pontifications

10/24/2018

Trump’s Disdain for Security Has Our Enemies Listening to His Phone Calls

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:50 pm



Lock him up.

When President Trump calls old friends on one of his iPhones to gossip, gripe or solicit their latest take on how he is doing, American intelligence reports indicate that Chinese spies are often listening — and putting to use invaluable insights into how to best work the president and affect administration policy, current and former American officials said.

Mr. Trump’s aides have repeatedly warned him that his cellphone calls are not secure, and they have told him that Russian spies are routinely eavesdropping on the calls, as well. But aides say the voluble president, who has been pressured into using his secure White House landline more often these days, has still refused to give up his iPhones. White House officials say they can only hope he refrains from discussing classified information when he is on them.

American spy agencies, the officials said, had learned that China and Russia were eavesdropping on the president’s cellphone calls from human sources inside foreign governments and intercepting communications between foreign officials.

The officials said they have also determined that China is seeking to use what it is learning from the calls — how Mr. Trump thinks, what arguments tend to sway him and to whom he is inclined to listen — to keep a trade war with the United States from escalating further. In what amounts to a marriage of lobbying and espionage, the Chinese have pieced together a list of the people with whom Mr. Trump regularly speaks in hopes of using them to influence the president, the officials said.

Fortunately, he’s probably not spilling any classified information because he barely pays attention to that stuff.

Administration officials said Mr. Trump’s longtime paranoia about surveillance — well before coming to the White House he believed that his phone conversations were often being recorded — gave them some comfort that he was not disclosing classified information on the calls. They said they had further confidence he was not spilling secrets because he rarely digs into the details of the intelligence he is shown and is not well versed in the operational specifics of military or covert activities.

None of this is shocking. There is a dolt in the Oval Office, everyone knows he’s a dolt, and Americans are apparently fine with it. All you can do is shrug your shoulders.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

238 Responses to “Trump’s Disdain for Security Has Our Enemies Listening to His Phone Calls”

  1. Stupid.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Sounds as bad as a server in the house bathroom.

    AZ Bob (85c42b)

  3. How many gorilla channels are there, seeing as despite everything his nit willing to back down, on this point.

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. I have no doubt that every word that the NYT writes about Trump is 1024/1 true.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  5. Future historians will look back and wonder how the country survived (if the country survives…)

    Dave (9664fc)

  6. Because we’ve survived worse? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (db126f)

  7. President-elect Donald Trump told reporters on Saturday that messages “should be sent via courier like in the old days” to ensure security.

    “It’s very important, if you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old fashioned way because I’ll tell you what, no computer is safe,” Trump responded when asked about the importance of cybersecurity, according to pool reporters.

    “I don’t care what they say, no computer is safe. I have a boy who’s 10 years old, he can do anything with a computer. You want something to really go without detection, write it out and have it sent by courier,” Trump reiterated

    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/312334-trumps-solution-to-cyberattacks-write-it-down-and-send-it-by

    Imagine a world where a non-dolt suggested this secure form of communication and you can imagine a world where the same person, assuming the NYT unsecure phone story is true, would communicate false information to confuse his enemies.

    BuDuh (5ca4f0)

  8. The NY Times? Never mind.

    AZ Bob (85c42b)

  9. I so much want this to be not true.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. All you can do is shrug your shoulders.

    If you’re a Chinese or Russian spy, all you can do is laugh your @ss off.

    Dave (9664fc)

  11. So that’s what Glenn Simpson has been shoveling lately,

    Narciso (d1f714)

  12. Too bad it’s not possible to secure a cell phone call.

    Oh, wait.

    https://www.kryptall.com/

    Kevin M (a57144)

  13. Mr. Trump is supposed to swap out his two official phones every 30 days for new ones but rarely does, bristling at the inconvenience.”

    What a seriously stupid indulgence of selfish recklessness. Essentially, the President of the United States doesn’t like being inconvenienced by things like national security.

    I feel like I should be stunned. Instead, it’s more like, yep, that sounds right.

    Dana (023079)

  14. For those questioning the veracity of the story because it’s coming from the NYT, this subject was covered back in May by Politico:

    President Donald Trump uses a White House cellphone that isn’t equipped with sophisticated security features designed to shield his communications, according to two senior administration officials — a departure from the practice of his predecessors that potentially exposes him to hacking or surveillance.

    The president, who relies on cellphones to reach his friends and millions of Twitter followers, has rebuffed staff efforts to strengthen security around his phone use, according to the administration officials.

    While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was “too inconvenient,” the same administration official said.

    The president has gone as long as five months without having the phone checked by security experts. .

    Dana (023079)

  15. I feel like I should be stunned. Instead, it’s more like, yep, that sounds right.

    And we as a country have spent untold sums on technology, facilities and procedures to safeguard his communications.

    But the man-child can’t be bothered to use them.

    Dave (9664fc)

  16. Trust what the post and the times a d the journal have told by anonymous persons or perhaps what random press releases say.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  17. I’m just waiting to hear that he keeps Putin’s soccer ball with the micro-transmitter next to his desk in the Oval Office…

    Dave (9664fc)

  18. This is the kind of lazy crap that really ticks me off about Trump, personally, and a bunch of his folks that just don’t get it. Mattis and the IC folks must be pulling their hair out, although most of them are bald, Nielsen and Haspel probably have wigs now. The president does get his secure “blackberry”, not what it is, but he apparently doesn’t use it, just his new iPhones and old Samsung Galaxy before, both for voice calls and I’d guess twitter. What else does he install, Candycrush?

    This is the same crap that Clinton, and to a lesser extent all the SoS’s going back 3 admins. Telling their IT guys that having two phones was too much, just make it one, and their IT folks saying “sure, let me help you with that”, instead of “no, silly old person, that’s not how this shit works.”

    I get it, security is a pain in the ass, buck up Sparky you’re the freakin’ President, there are lots of nice perks, just chatting with folks whenever you want about whatever you want, ain’t one of them.

    In the way back time around 2001, I worked on integrating our coalition partners on SIPRNet, which in some ways lead to offloading some stuff to JWICS that doesn’t belong there, because the more you share the less secure it is by necessity. The logistical hoops we had to jump through to get a secure SAT SIPRNet link on a Canadian ship was ridiculous, and we liked the Canadians, and getting a forward deployed land link was logistical black magic hoodoo, on a horse, mule actually.

    Now you can do it on a mobile phone, yeah it’s not a cool new iPhone XS bigly, but dammit just tell him no, “you have to eat your meat if want to have any pudding.”

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (0504d8)

  19. And remember all of those rogue micro-cell sites last spring that were found all around DC?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (0504d8)

  20. But the man-child can’t be bothered to use them.

    Don’t worry. His “instincts” are spot-on (say his “intellectual” apologists). And his brain is very big and very great (says he).

    Radegunda (dcc663)

  21. I know that there actually are, among Trump fans, people who care about national security, and whose outrage over Hillary Clinton’s deliberate, repeated, contemptuous flouting of it.

    And I know there are Trump fans who will rationalize anything he does, which means they care about him more than they care about national security, and they are as hypocritical as he was in pretending he’d be anything other than her in this regard.

    I’m guessing that the people who fall in the first category will remain as lurkers on this post, rather than criticizing Trump for something that is absolutely, positively inexcusable. And I’m guessing the people in the second category will be very noisy — blah blah whadabout blah NPC cuck blah blah.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  22. Mea culpa: “whose outrage over Hillary Clinton’s … flouting of it was sincere,” I meant to have ended the first sentence in #20.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  23. @ Fred Z: There’ve been multiple prior reports of Trump refusing to use secure phones before the linked NYT piece. Do you have evidence which would make this report suspect? If so, link it. If not, admit that you don’t.

    I suggest that you’re deflecting, and you believe that this particular report is true, but you can’t think of anything better to say than to point out that the NYT is biased against Trump. Yes, they are; that doesn’t rebut this report, though. Prove me wrong: Link your counter evidence, please.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  24. Ah. I should have held fire until I got through more comments: Dana has industriously provided the link in her #14 to the prior report I recalled having seen elsewhere.

    But hey, Politico is biased against Trump too. So stipulated; but not dispositive. I repeat: Where’s your evidence, Fred Z, that these two reports are both wrong?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  25. Same challenge to you, AZ Bob, re your #8: Link your contrary evidence, or admit that you have none, please.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  26. To quote the Master of Lies himself, when pressed for evidence to support his lie about ISIS hiding in the Caravan of Doom:

    “There’s no proof of anything. There’s no proof of anything.” – Donald Trump

    (Good WaPo article about Trump’s escalating war on truth at the link)

    Dave (9664fc)

  27. Trump has taken to telling his cultist rallies that the opiod bill he recently signed into law passed with “very little Democrat support”.

    In fact, it passed the House on a 393-8 vote, and the Senate 98-1 (Mike Lee, the Republican, being the only “nay”).

    This one got a “Pants on Fire” rating from Politifact.

    Dave (9664fc)

  28. breaking news! republican candidate from madison wisconsin just arrested for purchasing lethal amount of radioactive material to make dirty bomb. its getting serious folks!

    lany (106c1e)

  29. Fish wrap and lining for a bird cage. The NY Times is #1

    mg (a05430)

  30. Please can be a very condescending word.

    mg (a05430)

  31. this absolutely stinks of new york times fake news plus the american “intelligence community” isn’t only corrupt it’s fundamentally ANTI-american

    therefore i give this nyt article ZERO credibility points

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  32. the dirty fascists at CAA told Megyn Kelly they don’t want her racist money

    but they take dirty filth-racist Jill Biden’s?

    this makes no sense

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  33. DT, phone home.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  34. what do you get when you cross Roseanne, NBC’s vicious racist on-air personality Megyn Kelly, Jack Dorsey’s self-loathing, 2 kit kat bars, a planet of the apes lunch box (vintage), 4 hoax CNN-style pipe bombs, and a hipster-approved uncopyrighted ukelele riff?

    good times

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  35. I’ve got your opioid crisis right here. “Opioid” is not even a word. The word is “opiate”. And there are a lot more people who suffer because the doctors do not give them enough analgesia than there are because the doctors give them too much. The real reason is that the slicked up verpy foopter boy drug companies cannot make money from opiates because the patents on them expired more than a century ago, and they want to push their new, proprietary, heart attack and stroke inducing crap with “x”s in their names.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Yes and Eric holder, was the one that sold the pitch, before The us supreme court no less.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  37. I’m guessing that the people who fall in the first category will remain as lurkers on this post, rather than criticizing Trump for something that is absolutely, positively inexcusable.

    I’ll break from expectations. This really is inexcusable. I can understand the need to talk to people on unsecured lines. The movie trope about calling in from a random phone and then taking a line secure is crap. So, I won’t get twisted up over him calling someone he can’t see in person on an unsecured line. When he does so he should assume the entire conversation is being recorded and open to the world.

    But not rotating phones on his end is just stupid. He has the resources and it should be easy to have at least a fresh phone daily. I don’t see why he can’t rotate through phones for each call. I get that he wants to be able to tweet without interruption but even that should be trivial. If he doesn’t have those resources and any of his minions read this blog I’d be more than happy to consult on that so just subpoena the IP info and track me down. I would be curious how he physically handles the phones but so far I haven’t read details. An aid should at least keep them in a faraday bag when they aren’t being used.

    If we had any facts about him releasing classified information, which we have for HRC, I would be more upset but I don’t think this lines up exactly with the exposed email server.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  38. i saw Megyn Kelly at Dunkin this morning

    she was wearing blackface and singing minstrel songs and i said hi Megyn how are you and she took a break from singing and we talked about mangoes – she’s a big mango fan cause she likes to make sure she gets a lot of good omega 3 essential fatty acids in her diet

    i said oh i used to have a special mango slicer but not sure what happened to it

    and she said oh I have one of those plus I’m a HUGE racist

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  39. 35. Those XR opiates/opioids should have never been approved by the FDA, as they were approved on false information about their addictive potential.

    Gryph (08c844)

  40. When a guy who thinks drinking a cup of tea is immoral (that would be Mike Lee) thinks that this is a bad law than you gotta stop and think too.

    nk (dbc370)

  41. than then

    nk (dbc370)

  42. Oh, its the MSM saying Trump did something wrong or stupid based on anonymous sources.

    Well, of course it MUST Be true.

    After all, why would the MSM Lie or exaggerate to hurt Trump?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  43. Too bad I wasn’t selling swamp land in Florida – because I already know how to find an easy mark.

    Just find a Never Trumper.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  44. If you want to tell the ChiComs something, just give it to Diane Fienstein.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  45. Well if it lists an anonymous source and it gives us a chance to bash Trump, it must be true!

    Shorty Gitlowe (b0f75b)

  46. Interesting.

    NonName (983b3a)

  47. Well that’s silly, but if you touch my bustelo (brand of expresso) then its Charlton Heston time.

    Narciso (a94ec7)

  48. Why are so many trying to conflate this with Hillary’s email server? Is there some sort of an agenda there? I mean, on the one hand, we have proof that classified material was placed on a non-secured server, and was likely compromised. On the other hand, we have none other than the NY Times (and their always reliable “anonymous sources close to the President”) emphatically saying that no non-secure information was being conveyed. So what purpose could be served by attempting to tie the two together?

    I mean, SIPRNet and JWICS are highly classified networks used for, not surprisingly, classified information. You know what doesn’t go over those networks? Non-classified traffic. When you send an email from your .mil email address, it isn’t secure and can send emails to any valid email. Most military aircraft radio communication is done over non-encrypted radios. So why would they be brought up in an effort to paint Donald Trump’s use of a non-encrypted phone to make phone calls where no classified data is being discussed? It’s almost like some folks here are trying to one-up the NY Times by taking dubious information, conflating it with something important, and throwing in the word “Stupid” when talking about Trump.

    So here’s a question for the OP: If the person you wish to call does not have an encrypted phone, how do you make a secure call to them? And since the answer to that question is “You can’t.”, why would you call someone “Stupid” for using a non-encrypted phone to call someone outside of government to discuss non-classified topics?

    NonName (983b3a)

  49. Waiting for this report to appear in zero hedge or conservative treehouse before I believe it.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  50. Narciso, you fiend! I’ve actually wanted to try some Cafe Bustelo, but I tend to backslide to Nescafe Classico if they have it on special at Lewis Fresh Market (the “Armo”-operated fresh produce chain up in Waukegan).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  51. I think a secure line has end-to-end encryption that prevents hacking by outsiders. It protects the call even if the secure line is calling an unsecure line.

    DRJ (15874d)

  52. The NY Times wants Trump assasinated. Along with other high and mighty self appointed nitwits.

    mg (a05430)

  53. #48… EXACTLY.

    Rest of the thread… please stop conflating Clinton’s email server malfeasance to a “report” by adversarial media as gospel.

    Even *if* this is true, there’s a wide chasm between Trump’s cellphone usage to Clinton’s email shenanigans.

    whembly (b9d411)

  54. The only unhinged republicans are the neoconic rinos.

    mg (9e54f8)

  55. “Lock him up.”

    Except no serious prosecutor would take such a case, according to an anonymous former high ranking official we offered pie to.

    Munroe (27ff8e)

  56. @51 This is only a thing in the movies. There isn’t a way anyone can ring up my cell or home phone, an unsecured line, and “go secure” without extra equipment.

    There are ways to make encrypted voip calls, texts, emails, etc over regular cell phones but we’re assuming that isn’t happening here.

    It’s also interesting to juxtapose this narrative against the one where terrorists use Signal or iMessage to avoid intercepts and the FBI needs special back doors into devices. Terrorists (both known and random) are smart enough to avoid all of the western intelligence agencies combined but POTUS can’t use the same technology and be safe from the Russians and Chinese.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  57. This is primarily a bureaucratic failure of the security folks. They have a president who wants to use a cellphone to make private calls, yet instead of finding a way to accommodate him (and there are ways to do this securely), they insist on their standard devices and practices. If you read the article, even Obama complained publicly about it.

    For example, they won’t transfer over his contact list and this makes the “secure” phone unattractive. They could, even if it meant that someone had to type all the crap in if it’s really malware than concerns them. But they don’t, then PUBLICLY call the president a dolt for not accepting their lame excuses.

    There are lots of problems here, but they are best explained by countless Dilbert cartoons about how IT was primarily focused on preventing people from getting their work done. I’ve personally seen a company destroyed by an insane paranoia about “hackers” that made every engineering task take 3 times as long and deadlines set beforehand were impossible to meet.

    These security folks who cannot find a way to meet Trump’s clear needs — and who then dis him to the NYT — are the one’s whose feet the security issues should be laid at. Do they REALLY expect Trump to change? IF not, they need to find a way, and they don’t.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  58. Why are so many trying to conflate this with Hillary’s email server? Is there some sort of an agenda there? I mean, on the one hand, we have proof that classified material was placed on a non-secured server, and was likely compromised. On the other hand, we have none other than the NY Times (and their always reliable “anonymous sources close to the President”) emphatically saying that no non-secure information was being conveyed. So what purpose could be served by attempting to tie the two together?

    It’s because the problem Clinton was trying to solve, you know if you actually knew what the “email server” controversy was about, was the hassle of having to use a secure device for State Dept. Email, and a different one for her personal mail. Her doofus IT guy thought it would be OK to forward all her email to her personal email server via a script that filtered messages that had the Classified, TS, etc headers. There’s a small problem with that, not all classified or sensitive information had the headers, hence the problem. Powell and Rice did the same thing too, they used gmail and yahoo iirc. The correct answer when the IT bot was asked how to make simple on one device was “That’s not how this sh!t works!” It’s the same lazy crap that Trump is doing.

    I mean, SIPRNet and JWICS are highly classified networks used for, not surprisingly, classified information. You know what doesn’t go over those networks? Non-classified traffic. When you send an email from your .mil email address, it isn’t secure and can send emails to any valid email. Most military aircraft radio communication is done over non-encrypted radios. So why would they be brought up in an effort to paint Donald Trump’s use of a non-encrypted phone to make phone calls where no classified data is being discussed? It’s almost like some folks here are trying to one-up the NY Times by taking dubious information, conflating it with something important, and throwing in the word “Stupid” when talking about Trump.

    Yeah, that’s called NIPRNet, and even that is encrypted, and we have shared access with other partners via gateways for a long time. So the N-Nonsecure network exists, that means…?No idea, your point isn’t there.

    Most military aircraft radio communication is done over non-encrypted radios.

    You mean via the AN/ARC-210 or AN/ARC-231 radios installed on just about every aircraft in inventory since the late 1990’s, you know the encrypted radio for military communication. Or are you talking about a AN/ARC-164 radio used to talk to civilian and NATO controllers, it also has encrypted capabilities? They are all SINCGARS and HAVE QUICK enabled. There were a few drones that used a modified version of WiFi with a shared key, which isn’t secure even in civilian applications, maybe that was what you were talking about.

    So here’s a question for the OP: If the person you wish to call does not have an encrypted phone, how do you make a secure call to them? And since the answer to that question is “You can’t.”, why would you call someone “Stupid” for using a non-encrypted phone to call someone outside of government to discuss non-classified topics?

    You make the call with your secure phone, which connects to a secure gateway. It does interconnect with the civilian networks, but at least you know YOUR connection is secure. Your saying, “It’s hard out there for a p…president” Yeah, and get off your lazy a$$ and set up your calls like someone who actually cares about security. Plus, you’re giving Trump a level of thought, minimal though it is, that he’s shown no actual interest in it. It’s inconvenient, so he’s not going to do it, regardless of the issues.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (fabe52)

  59. 14 months- I never thought me-again would make it a year. But Bye Blondie, your toast.

    mg (9e54f8)

  60. It’s because the problem Clinton was trying to solve, you know if you actually knew what the “email server” controversy was about, was the hassle of having to use a secure device for State Dept.

    No… the main reason Clinton did this was to avoid FOIA actions, hide Foundation activities AND for convenience.

    Trump using an unsecured cell phone, when we don’t even know on what context, is NOT the same thing.

    For all we know, he’s just talking to his friends and friendly media folks (hi Hannity!) and still uses his secured cellphone for actual administration communications.

    Trump’s situation is probably more analogous to before there were cellphones, where you have one physical phone for the public and a different phone on the secured network.

    whembly (b9d411)

  61. racism’s wrong every time but most of all when you do blackface all up in it on NBC (offensive makeup)… and it’s utterly unacceptable when you have the virulent race-hatred as expressed by Megyn Kelly and don’t think people haven’t noticed (i learned about it on twitter)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  62. While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was “too inconvenient,” the same administration official said.

    Let me get this straight. The president has a phone used solely, or at least mainly, for Twitter.

    And what? They want his Tweets to be secure? They’re worried about someone eavesdropping on them? They’re worried about hackers inserting phony, embarrassing tweets?

    I must be missing something here.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  63. I mean, on the one hand, we have proof that classified material was placed on a non-secured server, and was likely compromised.

    Actually, the investigators said the opposite, that there is no evidence the material was compromised.

    You may be confused because Donald Trump lied to his cultists about this, as he does about so many things.

    Dave (9664fc)

  64. “No… the main reason Clinton did this was to avoid FOIA actions, hide Foundation activities AND for convenience.

    You mean she didn’t have it wiped and then lie about it just to protect recipes and photos of grandchildren?

    harkin (df6fc2)

  65. Another view, frosty48. It’s the network that makes the call secure.

    DRJ (15874d)

  66. No… the main reason Clinton did this was to avoid FOIA actions, hide Foundation activities AND for convenience.

    No, Platte River Networks had a 60 day retention policy applied, but they didn’t actually get ownership of her domain until years later, and when they received the PST export it included all prior messages as there was no retention policy on the Exchange server either in the basement, or when it was moved to a private data center years earlier. So, messages getting deleted happened, but that was years later, and not the central role in any of it. These are all the weird conspiracies from the fever swamp, it can be just a normal scandal, you don’t need vast conspiracies.

    The reason Clinton did it was that she didn’t want to have to use a different device, she wanted to use her Blackberry and the state.gov didn’t support a mobile messaging device.

    If you’re choosing between vast conspiracy or rank laziness, it’s probably lazy.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (fabe52)

  67. It’s because the problem Clinton was trying to solve, you know if you actually knew what the “email server” controversy was about, was the hassle of having to use a secure device for State Dept. Email, and a different one for her personal mail.

    Col:

    No, what Clinton was trying to do was to keep FOIA requests out of her e-mail, by keeping her e-mail out of the reach of the State Department servers. Trump, as you correctly point out, is just too heedless to care about who is listening to his calls. (I fear that those calls probably sound a lot like his rallies.)

    Appalled (96665e)

  68. Trump responds to the NYT article:

    The New York Times has a new Fake Story that now the Russians and Chinese (glad they finally added China) are listening to all of my calls on cellphones. Except that I rarely use a cellphone, & when I do it’s government authorized. I like Hard Lines. Just more made up Fake News!

    Dana (023079)

  69. I must be missing something here.

    You’re reading more into the article than I did.

    I read “his Twitter phone” as “the phone he uses for Twitter,” not “the phone he uses for Twitter and nothing else”. Since his personal convenience is more important to him than national security, why would he carry two different cell phones?

    Also, what if he’s in the middle of composing a tweet trashing one of his sex-worker girlfriends and Kanye calls to talk about prison reform, hydrogen-powered airplanes or the trap-door to the Unabomber? Making America great again requires multi-tasking!

    Dave (9664fc)

  70. When reading anything issued by the NYT, I consider the source… https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/25/nyt-trump-assassination-fiction/

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  71. Argh. Clinton had IT in the USDS forwarding email FROM dept servers, not bypassing them. Still hit the Exchange server and stored in her mailbox. Part of the USDS problem was they were using out of support MS Exchange, so was most of the government until most have moved to Office 365 on .gov, so they didn’t have access to the mobile products that were available in the commercial sector. Prior to Clinton, SoS’s used personal mail almost exclusively, Kerry was the first to use state.gov exclusively, of course, it could also be his predecessor got into some trouble.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (fabe52)

  72. Yes, appalled, but the end result was any security service from sepah pasdaran to Chinese state security had access to it.

    Anyways the follow up, was that Steven achwartzman among others were on that list.

    narciso (d1f714)

  73. “Making America great again requires multi-tasking!”

    Yes! Those who can, do. Those who can’t often teach for a living. Not always, but often.

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  74. @65 That’s not really a different view. It was my point. You can’t “go secure” on the PTSN or the cell networks without something extra, e.g secure terminals with encryption on both ends, encrypted voip, etc. It doesn’t matter whether you are sourcing the call from a secure net or not.

    The Obama blackberry vs his secure phone opens the discussion to different issues. But if Obama made a call using his magic phone to some random joe on an iPhone his magic phone doesn’t protect the conversation.

    frosty48 (dd1f9a)

  75. No… the main reason Clinton did this was to avoid FOIA actions, hide Foundation activities AND for convenience.

    No, Platte River Networks had a 60 day retention policy applied, but they didn’t actually get ownership of her domain until years later, and when they received the PST export it included all prior messages as there was no retention policy on the Exchange server either in the basement, or when it was moved to a private data center years earlier. So, messages getting deleted happened, but that was years later, and not the central role in any of it. These are all the weird conspiracies from the fever swamp, it can be just a normal scandal, you don’t need vast conspiracies.

    The reason Clinton did it was that she didn’t want to have to use a different device, she wanted to use her Blackberry and the state.gov didn’t support a mobile messaging device.

    If you’re choosing between vast conspiracy or rank laziness, it’s probably lazy.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (fabe52) — 10/25/2018 @ 10:02 am

    I reject the premise that she only did this for convenience. HRC and her staff were not wet-behind-the-ears new government employees who were ignorant of regulations and laws.

    “So, messages getting deleted happened, but that was years later, and not the central role in any of it. ”
    That’s a red herring… the mere fact that classified information on her unclas email server is the issue.

    There were clear, and concerted efforts to transcribe classified information that can only be accessed via SCIF (none of those, ‘hey, there weren’t classified at the time’) into HRC’s email server.

    She and her staff were trained on how to handle classified information and signed statements attesting to that.

    That right there…oodles of regulations and laws were broken by her staff.

    Its MUCH harder to facilitate all of HRC’s SoS correspondences exclusively to her private unsecured email server, than to deal with having to deal with an official government email account and a private email account (where all you need to do is ensure ‘government’ correspondence goes to government email account and all other goes to your private accounts).

    Further, HRC and crew got bit by having their malfeasance exposed during Bill Clinton’s tenure… the rationale to do this was more than just wanting to only use one device.

    whembly (b9d411)

  76. this is already proven to be fake news – President Trump addressed it on twitter he said this is not even factual, this NYT report

    just like i predicted

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  77. @63

    I mean, on the one hand, we have proof that classified material was placed on a non-secured server, and was likely compromised.

    Actually, the investigators said the opposite, that there is no evidence the material was compromised.

    Those aren’t exactly opposite statements. We do know classified info was on the non-secured server. Investigators having no evidence it was compromised isn’t the same as it wasn’t compromised. It isn’t unreasonable that it could have been without leaving evidence that was discovered. There are also some questions around who investigated what which can add context to statements like no evidence of compromise.

    frosty48 (dd1f9a)

  78. Ok, frosty48. Then if he persists in using unsecure devices or calling on unsecure lines, should Trump have access to classified information? He used that as a reason to say Hillary should not be President or have access to classified information, whether or not any information was compromised.

    DRJ (15874d)

  79. Those who can’t often teach for a living. Not always, but often.

    And work on Nobel Prize winning experiments based on their PhD thesis, yes.

    Dave (9664fc)

  80. I remember reading an article about Obama not giving up his Blackberry. They made it sound like he had adopted a puppy. A cute, speckled, blue-tick puppy, with droopy ears, and soulful eyes, and a wet nose, that chewed his slippers, and climbed up on his lap when he sat on the couch, and begged for scraps at the dinner table, that only a heartless monster would abandon in the woods to be eaten by wolves and bears and badgers.

    Those people! You know ….

    nk (dbc370)

  81. @78 Yes he should. There’s been no indication that he’s actually releasing classified info via those channels. Once we have some evidence of that we can come back to this. Or we can game it out as a hypothetical.

    But if he can’t have regular conversations with people over unsecured com links can have have regular conversations with people in unsecured locations? Does he have to remain silent, not even giving an eye twitch, in any setting outside of a SCIF?

    If you’re trying to make the argument that he can’t be trusted with classified intel make it. But there isn’t any evidence for that. So far he’s kept the grays a secret and we still don’t have the truth about Area 51.

    We do have actual evidence that hrc was, at best, negligent in the handling of classified intel. So, different issue so far. I also think this is the fundamental misunderstanding around the email server. The argument isn’t that she had a personal email account and used it for regular emails. The problem is she used it for classified info, knowingly, and then lied about, tried to cover it up, continues to lie about, and her supporters play along.

    frosty48 (dd1f9a)

  82. @81 let me rephrase. There’s no evidence he has discussed anything classified via unsecure channels. Whether it was released or not was a valid point in your question.

    frosty48 (dd1f9a)

  83. He has done it in an insecure location. Is that not enough? If so, prove to me that Hillary discussed classified information on an insecure phone/line.

    DRJ (15874d)

  84. 79… yes, it’s easy to claim such magnificent feats behind a keyboard.

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  85. Sorry, I see you guys were ahead of me on the other thread.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. Creepy Prawn 🍤 Lawyer and teh Gang Rape Aficionado… yay!!!!!

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  87. @83 Did you read the article?

    Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, told reporters Monday that “no classified material” was shared at the table at Mar-a-Lago and that Trump had been briefed in a secure location both before and after dinner.

    Based on that article I’m going with no, that isn’t enough.

    I’m not sure why you want me to comment on hrc’s phone habits. But for her emails you can study up on the email controversy here: the wikipedia entry. I know everyone complains about wikipedia but it does include links to outside sources you can check and does say in part:

    On January 29, 2016, the State Department announced that 22 documents from Clinton’s email server would not be released because they contained highly classified information that was too sensitive for public consumption. At the same time, the State Department announced that it was initiating its own investigation into whether the server contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.[129]

    I don’t want to mischaracterize you’re comment but are you trying to argue that hrc has a better history with classified material than DJT?

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  88. We’re so lucky just to have President Trump being president for us. There were a lot of people that thought he’d never win but look at him he did it!

    And every single day I don’t know what else to do but thank God and to just be so so excited that He chose President Trump to be part of His Plan for America.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  89. 79… yes, it’s easy to claim such magnificent feats behind a keyboard.

    Shall we make a friendly little wager, then?

    (If he will agree) I will provide the evidence to Patterico. If I can prove what I said is true to his satisfaction, you will make a $1000 donation to a non-profit charity of his choice. If he is unconvinced, I will make a $1000 donation to a non-profit charity of his choice.

    If Patrick for any reason doesn’t wish to get involved, perhaps one of the other respected members of the community like DRJ or Beldar will agree to serve as referee.

    The evidence will consist of the following:

    1) The text of a Nobel Prize lecture posted on nobelprize.org, citing a 1991 paper in Physical Review Letters (based on my PhD thesis), first-authored by me, as the fourth reference.
    2) The text of the 1998 discovery papers for which that Nobel Prize was awarded, listing me and the Nobel recipient as co-authors on that work
    3) A link to the abstract of my 1990 PhD thesis on the University of Michigan library site, which mentions the earlier measurement cited in the Nobel lecture
    4) A scan of my passport and link to faculty directory at my University, proving that I am indeed the author

    Feeling charitable?

    Dave (9664fc)

  90. Dave…Michigan!:-( Grr…OH

    I’ll still be in Columbus in a month to keep the streak alive, but I’m kind of hoping for a retirement after this year for a better person, maybe a worse coach, and its time to move on. Urban was a GA for my freshman and sophomore years and I’ve chatted with him a few times since.

    BTW, all of my nerd word posts are getting moderated, is it Fishbowl…STU. I could just post all of the acronyms and see what gets flagged.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (0c7f53)

  91. Good Lord, this is important to you, Dave. But not to me.

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  92. Ok, frosty48. Then if he persists in using unsecure devices or calling on unsecure lines, should Trump have access to classified information? He used that as a reason to say Hillary should not be President or have access to classified information, whether or not any information was compromised.

    DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2018 @ 10:58 am

    How is it any different than Presidents prior to the invention of cellphones making calls on separate landlines? (red/black phones)??

    whembly (51f28e)

  93. It’s because the problem Clinton was trying to solve, you know if you actually knew what the “email server” controversy was about, was the hassle of having to use a secure device for State Dept. Email, and a different one for her personal mail

    Not even close. She was trying to avoid FOIA and archival requirements. And her “doufus IT guy” (it was a firm, but whatever) set up the server EXACTLY how she ordered it to be set up. There wasn’t even a pretext that it was properly secured. So, no. Nice try though.

    Yeah, that’s called NIPRNet, and even that is encrypted

    That’s not really saying anything at all, because every web browser is “encrypted”. NIPRNet is NOT secured, and it is NOT for classified information. Which was, exactly, my point. You are going on and on about highly secured networks, and then pretending that all communication done by the President requires the use of secured, encrypted phones. My point, which clearly went over your head, is that not all communication requires the same level of protection.

    Regarding military aircraft radio: Yes, they are all CAPABLE of secure communications (not the HFs, though, but I can understand why you overlooked them). However, in actual practice, the vast majority of communication is NOT secure. Sorry to burst your Wikipedia bubble, but it isn’t. And again, that was my point. Use clear signals when appropriate, use secured when it is appropriate. To pretend EVERYTHING must be secured is a fallacy, and one that is demonstrated every day by US forces in the field.

    Your saying, “It’s hard out there for a p…president”

    Putting aside your lax grammar, I said no such thing. If you wish to engage in a polite discussion, you will refrain from lying about and misrepresenting what I say.

    What I said, clearly and unambiguously, is that any attempt to conflate mishandling of classified data with simply using a non-secured phone for non-governmental personal use is, at best, an attempt to mislead. At worst, it is outright dishonest and trying to engage in low-grade rabble-rousing. So, I must ask, are you attempting to minimize Hillary’s clear violation of law and policy, or are you attempting to demonize Trump for doing absolutely noting wrong or illegal?

    NonName (983b3a)

  94. Friends and neighbors who’re contributing your technical expertise and knowledge of national security safeguards, thank you very much. I don’t mean to tamp down your discussion an iota.

    I respectfully submit, however, that whether you, or I, or this really brilliant guy who wrote a comment on namethatblog.com, believe Trump’s practices are a genuine security risk, the responsible U.S. government personnel for assessing all of these issues is asking Trump to do things which they believe are essential to safeguard our national security.

    To my friends and neighbors who argue that our stable genius POTUS, or any POTUS — or any SecState! — is capable of exercising prudence to avoid disclosing anything important, my reply is:

    (1) Bwah-hah-hah-hah! (2) The people whose job responsibility it is to assess that risk deem it unacceptable. And Trump is flagrantly, wilfully, petulantly, contemptuously disregarding their best advice.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  95. debbie does america. wasserman-schultz has been busy. no bombs to bernie sanders. sanders supporters hate debbie more then republicans do. bill clinton home alone I doubt it!

    lany (9a9c7f)

  96. Except for this whole story is fake news.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  97. You may be confused because Donald Trump lied to his cultists about this, as he does about so many things.

    I’m pretty sure calling me a cultist is against the new rules here that everyone keeps talking about. But, no, I just used common sense. If foreign governments will attempt to eavesdrop on personal, non-government business related phone calls of the president(which is what the NY Times article depends on), then it only stands to reason that they would target a completely unprotected mail server where every communication to and from the Secretary of State went through. But I wonder about the report YOU are basing your statement on. Did any law enforcement agency or intelligence agency actually examine the servers in question? Or are you basing your assertion on the report produced by a contractor paid for by the State Department at the direction of Hillary Clinton?

    NonName (983b3a)

  98. see if soros shorted the market this week. getting serious out there republican candidate jeremy ryan arrested in madison wisconsin for purchasing radioactive material to make dirty bomb.

    lany (9a9c7f)

  99. “What I said, clearly and unambiguously, is that any attempt to conflate mishandling of classified data with simply using a non-secured phone for non-governmental personal use is, at best, an attempt to mislead. At worst, it is outright dishonest and trying to engage in low-grade rabble-rousing. So, I must ask, are you attempting to minimize Hillary’s clear violation of law and policy, or are you attempting to demonize Trump for doing absolutely noting wrong or illegal?

    Uh, yeah, sure, you’re probably right, I probably don’t know what I’m talking about. Trump is absolutely following best practices, he’s the most securest bestest top secret keeping guy ever. It’s patently obvious. He never does anything wrong.

    You do understand that if Trump posted the most toppity tip top secret info on twitter, it would be legal, because that’s how the office of the President works.

    I’ll just leave this here

    According to linguist John Haiman at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, sarcasm is “practically the primary language” of modern society. Aside from the worrying implication that we might all be dicks, there’s another problem: Processing sarcasm uses up precious brainpower. When a stranger at the bus stop notices your orthopedic Keds and tells you, “Nice shoes,” your brain has to not only process the words themselves, but then factor in his tone of voice, the context, and his body language. If you’re not particularly quick on the uptake, by the time your brain finishes deciphering that puzzle and forms an appropriate response — namely, “Hey, fuck you, buddy” — you may find that the man has already left. Along with your bus. And most of your dignity.

    It may not be your fault, though. Researchers at the University of California at San Francisco discovered that people with frontotemporal dementia have a particularly hard time detecting sarcasm. Not only that, but other neurological conditions, such as autism, head injuries, brain lesions, schizophrenia, or even a stroke, could be behind your inability to understand teenagers. In other words, the fact that your mom keeps taking articles from The Onion literally may be indicative of a more serious problem than you thought.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (515b09)

  100. Ok, frosty48. Then if he persists in using unsecure devices or calling on unsecure lines, should Trump have access to classified information? He used that as a reason to say Hillary should not be President or have access to classified information, whether or not any information was compromised.

    Wrong and ignorant on so many levels. The issue with Hillary was the storage of classified materials on non-secured servers not located in a secure (SCIF) location. So no, the President using non-secured phones and networks to communicate with people without security clearances on subjects that are not classified is not a reasonable reason to deny access to classified materials. Such a claim is simply beyond ridiculous, so much so that you don’t even hear MSNBC saying it. That should tell you something, but it likely won’t.

    NonName (983b3a)

  101. Let’s suppose for a moment, for purposes of argument, that the Trump supporters are correct, and that Trump and those with whom he’s communicating using unsecured iPhones will successfully avoid disclosing any classified information.

    Suppose a hacker can get the iPhone version of a keyboard tracer onto one of the iPhones Trump uses to send his Tweets. Hey, nothing could be more public than Tweets, right?!? Therefore QED, no additional risk, MEGA!

    Except:

    How much would the Chinese like to know about the Tweets Trump composed, but then — after one of his minders managed to hear of it, and persuaded him otherwise — deleted?

    Every single thing, every single detail — and OMG every digital packet! — from the POTUS is by definition of keen interest to America’s enemies. That’s what foreign intelligence services deal with, and the more up-close and granular the detail, the better they like it.

    Letting the bad guys effectively have a full-time perch on Trump’s shoulder while he’s using his iPhone is a very bad idea, even if he’s chatting about the World Series.

    This is indefensible. I haven’t read anything remotely approaching a defense for it from any Trump supporter, just the same deflection and whataboutism and NYT!!!1!@1-ism.

    But I have read something very persuasive! And my hero for today is frostie48, who answered my earlier question thusly (#37):

    I’m guessing that the people who fall in the first category will remain as lurkers on this post, rather than criticizing Trump for something that is absolutely, positively inexcusable.

    I’ll break from expectations. This really is inexcusable. I can understand the need to talk to people on unsecured lines. The movie trope about calling in from a random phone and then taking a line secure is crap. So, I won’t get twisted up over him calling someone he can’t see in person on an unsecured line. When he does so he should assume the entire conversation is being recorded and open to the world.

    But not rotating phones on his end is just stupid. He has the resources and it should be easy to have at least a fresh phone daily. I don’t see why he can’t rotate through phones for each call. I get that he wants to be able to tweet without interruption but even that should be trivial. If he doesn’t have those resources and any of his minions read this blog I’d be more than happy to consult on that so just subpoena the IP info and track me down. I would be curious how he physically handles the phones but so far I haven’t read details. An aid should at least keep them in a faraday bag when they aren’t being used.

    If we had any facts about him releasing classified information, which we have for HRC, I would be more upset but I don’t think this lines up exactly with the exposed email server.

    Well put, and I agree, sir. If you should ever encounter me at a place where adult beverages are sold, approach and be recognized to claim your share of the first round on me.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  102. 21: Trump supporters are as suspicious of unelected government agents as they are of any foreign agents (much MORE suspicious, in fact, because their jobs are in a more clear and present danger from any swamp-draining philosophy, real or implied.

    This goes triple for when those agents leak to the New York Times.

    Those agents are being typical bureaucrats: unhelpful garrolous rat****ers who drag their feet on actual solutions and then complain secretly to outside parties when people start ignoring them.

    Speaking of ignoring:

    90:

    “The evidence will consist of the following:”

    No one (except you) cares if your real name got attached to a Nobel paper decades ago and you’re still trying to trade on that to cover for your lazy hateposts and utterly disengaged civic attitude decades later. If you want your name to mean something then make good posts under it.

    SPOILER: If your posts were naturally good and you cared about their reception among the audience then you wouldn’t care which name they were attached to.

    Currently, I (and, I suspect, many, many other commenters) don’t really care to correct or engage with you if you post something erroneous, inane or egregious, because your attitude is so terrible and you’ll just go on to posting something else instead of responding. And we’ll probably add a little prejudice to the stereotype bank entitled “Nobel Laureates and Nobel-adjacent people make the worst posters to engage with, since their attitude is ‘I already got mine and ain’t nobody can tell me any different'”

    Planeswalker (aa07d1)

  103. But not to me.

    I guess that’s why you raised the subject in a thinly-veiled insult, and then called me a liar when I politely corrected you, eh?

    Pretty clear who’s hiding behind their keyboard.

    Dave (9664fc)

  104. Officials like John. Brennan James clapper James cimey yes we can trust then, the latter like when they went after Stephen hatfill and Bruce ivins.

    narciso (d1f714)

  105. (You had me, frostie48, even before you got to “faraday bag.”)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  106. talking on the phone with President Trump!

    talking about jobs and prosperity i bet

    don’t let me interrupt i love the results of your good policies Mr. Trump

    the “US intelligence community” is trashy and wholly without integrity Mr. narciso

    this Gina chick’s about as corrupt and swampy as they come

    but

    it is what it is

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  107. The people whose job responsibility it is to assess that risk deem it unacceptable

    Wow, those unnamed, anonymous sources sure did get their jobs upgraded, didn’t they? They’ve gone from some unknown person who has talked to “aides”, to “people whose job responsibility it is to assess that risk”. Why do you insist on making stuff up out of thin air?

    NonName (983b3a)

  108. No one (except you) cares if your real name got attached to a Nobel paper decades ago and you’re still trying to trade on that to cover for your lazy hateposts and utterly disengaged civic attitude decades later. If you want your name to mean something then make good posts under it.

    As he likes to do, Col. Haiku posted a thinly veiled insult against teachers, because I am one and he can get away with it by making it anonymous. Notice that the subject of teaching or teachers appeared nowhere in this thread (and has nothing to do with anything discussed in this thread) until he introduced as a way of insulting me by way of my profession without breaking the letter of the commenting rules.

    I politely corrected him. He called me a liar. I offered him the opportunity to back up his baseless accusation, and he cravenly backed down.

    So, yeah, it’s totally my fault and my bad attitude that’s the problem here.

    Dave (9664fc)

  109. This story by the NYT reminds me so much of an earlier story that they put out. Remember the 5/27/18 post by Patterico concerning the meeting with the North Koreans, and how it was “impossible” for that meeting to take place – and how we had 800 plus posts by all the attorneys on this site dissecting whether the word “impossible” was actually used used by the NYT?

    Well in post #62 of that thread, our good friend shipwreckedcrew had it exactly right. The entire reason the NYT ran with the “impossible” story was to act as a hook to bootstrap their meme that Trump was out of touch with reality that, to quote SWC:

    ” BUT, that wouldn’t have let the NYT run the story with the POV it wanted to advance — that Trump and his staff weren’t on the same page — and MOST IMPORTANTLY, as another example of Trump not listening to his staff or simply being an all-purpose simpleton who doesn’t understand what is involved.”

    That is precisely what the NYT is doing here.

    Man I miss that guy !!

    bendover (eedbbe)

  110. I didn’t call you a liar, Dave. I said this was important to you.

    How many patents do you have?

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  111. I’m pretty sure calling me a cultist is against the new rules here that everyone keeps talking about.

    I never called you anything.

    Dave (9664fc)

  112. congratulations Mr. Dave that’s a good achieve

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  113. @ nk (#85): Thank you for that link about the referral from Chairman Grassley regarding Ms. Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti.

    I’ve mentioned here before that — either deviously or accidentally — that Avenatti’s drafting and distribution of Swetnick’s letter (via Avenatti’s Twitter account, rather than via, say, an email attachment from him to Grassley & Feinstein) gave rise to some potential defenses to a false statements charge.

    For one thing, I’d expect both Avenatti and his client to insist that gee golly gee whiz it never occurred to them that anyone would submit that letter, printed out from Twitter, into the Committee’s official record. Thus, for purposes of the false statement law’s requirement that the statement be made to a Congressional committee operating within its due course and scope, they’ll say, “This ain’t our ‘statement to Congress.’ It’s someone else’s republication of a statement we made for a different purpose (e.g., client’s book deal, lawyer’s POTUS aspirations).” I think that’s actually a winning defense, but I’m open to persuasion otherwise.

    For another, the very same — and certainly deliberate — drafting choices which were used to bridge the gaps in an evidentiary foundation for Swetnick’s factual claims, which I believe made them incompetent as even prima facie evidence of anything, also serve as an out for the criminal prosecution for false statement. In the letter, she said, regarding the spiked punch, that she “became aware of efforts.” Well, that’s not laying a foundation for personal knowledge; rather, that’s in fact a huge red flag that she’s about to relay something that she “became aware of efforts” through hearsay or speculation. So her defense now is, “Hey, I never said I saw him spike the punch. I said I became aware of efforts, I didn’t even say they were ever successful or how I became aware.” And she’s got a point.

    Avenatti has always had spectacular, iceberg-sized conflicts, some so large that one begins to doubt they could have been effectively disclosed and knowingly consented to. Sharing a criminal referral with his client isn’t just an iceberg, though, it’s the Antarctic ice sheet.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  114. I didn’t call you a liar, Dave. I said this was important to you.

    So you mean this:

    yes, it’s easy to claim such magnificent feats behind a keyboard.

    wasn’t calling into question the veracity of the post you quoted with it?

    Gaslight much?

    How many patents do you have?

    None, why?

    Dave (9664fc)

  115. One of my nephews teaches High School in SoCal. I told him wordlessly at my son’s wedding last Friday that I have both eyes on him.

    I keed, I keed…

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  116. 115… just wondering…

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  117. It was what they call an observation, Dave.

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  118. Well the intelligence community hasn’t been the sharpest knife say when Kennedy moved the landing from Trinidad to Fidel’s winter cottage, they should have told him no mister president that doesn’t make sense, the first is the base if the underground easily defended unlike say remagen.

    Then there’s that notorious aug 01, pdb which was thin onnspecifics after the last one 2 1/2 years earlier in fact it had fewer specifics. Meanwhile what didn’t the times the post or the journal touch the details on the parchin nuclear facility

    narciso (d1f714)

  119. I get the impression checking in at lunch that people are ignoring the “no ad hominem” policy. I do not have time to sort through it all so this will have to do for now:

    It stops now. No excuse making. No excuses. It stops.

    Penalties assessed tonight. Penalties far worse for those who ignore this clear warning.

    That is all.

    Patterico (8ab61f)

  120. Letting the bad guys effectively have a full-time perch on Trump’s shoulder while he’s using his iPhone is a very bad idea, even if he’s chatting about the World Series.

    And what you are claiming is clinically insane. You are outright claiming that THIS President (because you never advocated for this before, did you?) is not allowed to speak to anyone who is not using government issued secured phones. Not only that (since you seem free to fantasize about a key logger being installed on the phone), but you are claiming he can’t even speak to someone outside of secured spaces on any topic, because foreign agents have access to very sensitive microphones that allow them to eavesdrop on conversations from a great distance.

    This is indefensible. I haven’t read anything remotely approaching a defense for it from any Trump supporter, just the same deflection and whataboutism and NYT!!!1!@1-ism.

    You haven’t read it because you haven’t been reading. So I do it slowly so you can follow it.

    1) Not all communication done by government officials is classified. In fact, much of their communication is not.
    2) All that has been alleged (by the NYT’s anonymous source) is that the President uses a non-secure phone for non-classified conversations with people outside of government. Oh, and Twitter.

    Therefore there is nothing criminal involved. Nor is that any risk to national security. If hearing how the President talks to his friends about favorite restaurants or news coverage of current events is a threat, then that effectively means that you believe a President (and most high level appointees and military officers) should not be able to converse with anyone who is not a government employee with both clearance and access to secured devices and SCIFs, lest our enemies know all our secrets.

    Now, can you restrain yourself from erecting straw men and fantasy “what if” scenarios, and using only the information in the NYT, explain why the President is endangering national security?

    NonName (983b3a)

  121. Bow they had the fellow with the ‘speed boat’ scoop following the latest on the khashoggi kerfluffle,

    narciso (d1f714)

  122. And what? They want his Tweets to be secure? They’re worried about someone eavesdropping on them? They’re worried about hackers inserting phony, embarrassing tweets?

    Or dangerous ones? I’m sure they are worried about that, and good for them.

    Patterico (8ab61f)

  123. It just strikes me how trump has been rather consistent on china and Iran, yet the times who has been negligent on both tries to make that a shortcoming.

    narciso (d1f714)

  124. OT: This datum is unremarkable because it’s consistent with general reporting on early voting that I’ve read from many sources, but:

    I voted early today, at about 12:30pm. My early voting location, in a city park in the Sharpstown neighborhood of Houston, is part of Congressional District TX7, currently held by Rep. John Culberson (R), but considered by many to be “in play.” I deliberately waited until today to avoid the people who set alarms so that their votes could be cast on the first day of early voting. But I knew I’d be catching the tail-end lunch crowd, so I wasn’t surprised that the parking lot was busy and near-full. I spent probably 20 minutes in line, and when I left at about 1:00pm, the line was longer than when I’d joined it. The general enthusiasm level seemed comparable to when I voted early in the 2016 presidential election, but I couldn’t draw any more detailed conclusions about which side that favors. The Dem game plan for Texas, though, was to hope that the GOP turnout from 2016 (quite robust in both primary and general elections) wouldn’t carry over to these mid-terms. If, on a statewide basis, both sides are very energized, that’s bad news for the Dems in Texas.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  125. Wrong and ignorant on so many levels. The issue with Hillary was the storage of classified materials on non-secured servers not located in a secure (SCIF) location. So no, the President using non-secured phones and networks to communicate with people without security clearances on subjects that are not classified is not a reasonable reason to deny access to classified materials. Such a claim is simply beyond ridiculous, so much so that you don’t even hear MSNBC saying it. That should tell you something, but it likely won’t.

    Um, you don’t need to be in a SCIF to view classified information, and a secured data center is not a SCIF, we have secure data centers all over the country, including at Microsoft, Amazon, and Google data centers. That’s not how this works, and that’s not how security hygiene works.

    I get you don’t want to believe that he’d be that careless. I believe that it is way more likely that he keeps his personal cell phone with him all the time, regardless of the White House’s own rules, which have been articulated by the White House in the Jan 16 personal cell phone ban, in May of the disclosure that John Kelly’s cell phone was compromised for at least a month and still used within the oval office, and Septembers further personal device ban that reiterated the ban as doubled down on not doing the thing that you were not allowed to do after the mess with Omarosa recording John Kelly on her personal cell phone in a SCIF.

    In a statement Thursday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, “The security and integrity of the technology systems at the White House is a top priority for the Trump administration.”

    “Therefore, starting next week the use of all personal devices for both guests and staff will no longer be allowed in the West Wing,” she said. “Staff will be able to conduct business on their government-issued devices and continue working hard on behalf of the American people.”

    Press Secretary Sarah Sanders declined to answer NBC News’ question whether the new White House personal cell phone ban will apply to Trump’s personal devices. “As always we do not discuss specific security measures around the president,” she said.

    But sure, its probably not a problem, and the least diligent person in the White House is probably the following proper security hygiene.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  126. In 2016, Culberson got 56.2% of TX7’s voters, but Clinton carried it by +1.4, leading the Dems to believe it would be flippable with a strong candidate and better national party support. RCP rates it a “toss-up”; the last public polling, by the NYT/Sienna in mid-September, had Culberson up by 3 over Dem nominee Lizzy Fletcher.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  127. But all kidding aside, Dave, those are outstanding accomplishments.

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  128. Am I clinically insane? A slow reader? No, and no. None of the rest of what you wrote, NonName, seems worth my while to respond to in detail.

    Perhaps Trump’s next defense will be that nothing he sent or received on his iPhone was stamped “Classified.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  129. Just what cellphone? The article also says that Trump has two official secured iPhones – one that can only make calls, and one that can only use Twitter plus a personal standard iPhone that he uses to keep a contacts list and trump seems to bne saying he doesn’t use to make calls from.

    The only way his Twitter cellphone can go on the Internet (and Twitter) is by Wi-Fi and he almost never uses insecure Wi-Fi.

    Trump doesn’t want to use a White House landline to make personal/political calls, because people in the White House could know whom he talked to because there is a log kept of whom he talked to. Maybe he’s also afraid they could listen in on these calls.

    They’re complaining he doesn’t abide by all the security rigamarole, but a lot of it probably doesn’t make sense and only handicaps him.

    What I get out of it, is that the Chinese may listening in from the other end of a call.

    Using a secure White House landline wouldn’t help about that.

    Also, the Chinese etc may know to whom he is talking to even if they can’t get the contents of the conversation, and that is useful for them for they may try to influence the friends of the frinds.

    If they do get access to the content of a call, even if the subject is not classified, they may learn what kinds of arguments work with Trump.

    The Times’ sources are happy that Trump doesn’t text or email and his paranoia about being eavesdropped on probably keeps him cautious about what he says, and that he switched to an Apple phone (Androids are considered less secure)

    The two government phones – Trump has one for Twitter and one or two for Voice – are supposed to be swapped out every month but this doesn’t happen that often because the they need to be customized and none of the people involved can figure out a way to do that electronically without risking transferring any malware that might be there and doing it by hand is too much work.

    customized. They also apparently can’t disable an iPhone (or do they?) so that it can store telephone numbers but not make calls.

    Trump is supposed to swap out his two official phones every 30 days for new ones but rarely does, bristling at the inconvenience. White House staff members are supposed to set up the new phones exactly like the old ones, but the new iPhones cannot be restored from backups of his old phones because doing so would transfer over any malware.

    It was much simpler with Obama they said. He never used a cellphone in his second term to make calls. It didn’t take pictures, it didn’t record, it didn’t play music, and it didn’t even text because there was no way to save the texts for the purposes of the Presidential Records Act or nobody could figure out how.
    If Obama did want to make a cellphone call, he borrowed one from another official.

    He could get email on that iPhone but only from a secret address.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  130. Unless he is conducting secret or classified stuff off this phone the entire thread is drivel.

    But if he is Hillary Clinton, then he needs to up his game and put it on a server in a bathroom and have a $ubscription Service for the Chi-com and Putin to “hack” it.

    But yeah, yawn. Call me when he telling Putin he has flexibility over a hot mic or something.

    Bob the Builder (9af831)

  131. 130. A president cannot reveal classified information, because if a president reveals it, it is no longer classified. Or at least he can decide to tell someone.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  132. Open question to any Trump supporter:

    If changing out the iPhones on a short, regular schedule, is not worthwhile, then why do the people paid by the United States government to advise the POTUS on that subject keep asking him to do so?

    Theories invited, links preferred.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  133. the US government employs an uncommonly large number of morons

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  134. Chinese audio torture: listening to Trump phone calls.

    “Oh, the pain.” – Dr. Zachary Smith [Jonathan Harris] ‘Lost In Space’ CBS TV, 1965-68

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  135. Am I clinically insane? A slow reader? No, and no.

    I said neither of those two things. I DID say your claim that a President MUST only communicate via secured phones was insane. And I didn’t say you were a slow reader, I said you had refused to read said explanations, and pretend that they weren’t provided much earlier in this thread, by numerous people.

    But wonderful that you now refuse to engage, or explain WHY you think that a President must only use secured communications, because “even if he’s chatting about the World Series.” that provides some sort of actionable intel to our enemies. You simply expect everyone else to accept that, and then go along with your criticism of the President. I simply ask you to explain WHY you believe such a clearly outlandish thing. That you choose not to explain says a lot about how confident you are in your assertions.

    NonName (983b3a)

  136. “If changing out the iPhones on a short, regular schedule, is not worthwhile, then why do the people paid by the United States government to advise the POTUS on that subject keep asking him to do so?”

    Well, snarky answer that may be truer than I’d like: Something doesn’t have to actually be worth the effort for people to try to make themselves look important by saying it is, especially if they’re paid for stuff like that. (I personally don’t want to believe that of the POTUS-level security machine any more than anyone else does, but it is a bureaucracy.)

    Or, for a more neutral answer to the same thing: It is possible for rational people to reach differing conclusions to the same cost-benefit risk analysis without either being malicious or incompetent.

    It occurs to me that if President Trump changed out his phones on a weekly basis and this fact was leaked, the likelihood that the MSM would immediately release a bunch of articles with headlines like “OUR PARANOID PRESIDENT” and lead lines like, “Terrified that Chinese and Russian spies are eavesdropping on his lunch menu discussions with Melania, President Trump …”, etc. etc., strikes me as quite high.

    Which is not to say that willfully permitting a grave security weakness (if indeed that is what is happening here) is a good thing, far from it, but to note that when the media establishment is determined to spin anything to the maximum possible disadvantage of a sitting official it becomes very difficult to assess the actual risk.

    Stephen J. (f77922)

  137. Beldar (fa637a) — 10/25/2018 @ 1:47 pm

    If changing out the iPhones on a short, regular schedule, is not worthwhile, then why do the people paid by the United States government to advise the POTUS on that subject keep asking him to do so?

    Probably for the same reason they can search little old ladies at airports.

    General protocols.

    Trump doesn’t swap out his phones because nobody can figure out away to automate the customizing – or they think that doing so would obviate some of the purpose of swapping out the phone.

    Trump is supposed to swap out his two official phones every 30 days for new ones but rarely does, bristling at the inconvenience. White House staff members are supposed to set up the new phones exactly like the old ones, but the new iPhones cannot be restored from backups of his old phones because doing so would transfer over any malware.

    And doing it manually, of course, is too much work.

    It is pretty obvious to me that any eavesdropping probably comes from the other end of the phone call, and the only way to stop that is for Trump to stop talking to Stephen A. Schwarzman, Steve Wynn, Steve Bannon, Sean Hannity and others.

    It has nothing to do with his phone. It has to do with talking with them, period.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  138. 137. NonName (983b3a) — 10/25/2018 @ 2:00 pm

    I DID say your claim that a President MUST only communicate via secured phones was insane.

    I think the real complaint is that the people he talks to don’t use a secure phone.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  139. Therefore there is nothing criminal involved. Nor is that any risk to national security. If hearing how the President talks to his friends about favorite restaurants or news coverage of current events is a threat, then that effectively means that you believe a President (and most high level appointees and military officers) should not be able to converse with anyone who is not a government employee with both clearance and access to secured devices and SCIFs, lest our enemies know all our secrets.

    A) Policy discussions do not have to be classified to influence international relations, almost no general economic policy is classified.

    B) A President can release any classified information he chooses, it cannot be criminal, doesn’t make it right.

    C) You don’t need a SCIF to discuss classified information. That’s not what SCIFs are used for, there is a very small bit of information that is classified that rises to the level required for a SCIF. TS/SCI is just a category, and most information doesn’t rise to that level.

    Not only that (since you seem free to fantasize about a key logger being installed on the phone), but you are claiming he can’t even speak to someone outside of secured spaces on any topic, because foreign agents have access to very sensitive microphones that allow them to eavesdrop on conversations from a great distance

    Don’t see anyone saying that, but I see lots of folks saying its a distinct possibility, and you know the actual Secret Service finding rogue cell tower interception devices all over DC.

    1) Not all communication done by government officials is classified. In fact, much of their communication is not.

    But some is, and it’s not about chit-chatting with your friends, it’s about security hygiene, and his unwillingness to actually do it, swapping out your cell phone every month really shouldn’t be beyond the comprehension of the President of the United States.

    2) All that has been alleged (by the NYT’s anonymous source) is that the President uses a non-secure phone for non-classified conversations with people outside of government. Oh, and Twitter.

    Except it’s not just the NYT, it’s been reported dozens of times over the last 18 months.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  140. 135. happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/25/2018 @ 1:54 pm

    135.the US government employs an uncommonly large number of morons

    Who can’t figure out a secure way to copy the customization of an iPhone. Who think it is necessary to copy it. Who focus on his phone and not the phones of the people outside the government whom he regularly talks to (like Sean Hannity or people he knows from Mar A Lago.)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  141. @122, et.al. There seems to be several different unrelated issues floating around. One looks like whether POTUS can have regular conversations with people w/o a clearance and another looks like whether he’s being responsible with his use of commercial smart phones. Or maybe I’m just pretending they are different and unrelated because it looks like a lot of people want to conflate them.

    Ignoring the first argument and focusing on the second.

    The various things you can do to an iPhone or Android device with malware is not a fantasy “what if” scenario. Even assuming no malware makes it on the phone I can work through some reasonable scenarios that would allow someone to isolate and track the device he uses. It doesn’t seem like it would take much more after that to back into a guidance system. If I can work out a rough plan for that I’m guessing a team of people actually qualified to work for the NSA, or whatever the Chinese version of that is, would be able to sketch out a detailed plan in the shower before breakfast.

    Given everything that goes into the security around POTUS and that he is surrounded at all times by people who have literally dedicated their lives to his safety I don’t think it’s unreasonable for him to exercise some caution and put up with a little inconvenience.

    Should his tech people work harder to give him what he wants but is also secure? Probably. Should he be able to tweet? Yes. Should he be able to call up Hannity and chat? Sure. And I think there are a lot of things we aren’t told in most of the stories so far but it’s beyond reckless that any POTUS has a consumer grade smartphone so that he can tweet from the toilet. If the situation is that he’s sits around like a normal person with it on the table when he’s eating ice cream and watching the news, he plugs it by his bed when he goes to sleep, or he puts it into his pocket and hops on Marine One, then it’s inexcusable and indefensible. Is it impeachable? Not yet but it’s ridiculously stupid.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  142. I think the phone he uses to make phone calls with don’t use the Internet.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  143. the US government employs an uncommonly large number of morons

    This was apparently offered in answer to my question about why the people whose job it is to advise the POTUS keep giving him advice he then rejects and flouts.

    If the POTUS is employing people for that task who are morons, then the POTUS is a moron. Of course, it’s entirely possible that the people employed for that task — who, after all, were probably not hand-picked by the POTUS, but by his delegated agents for the task of picking such people — are fully competent, and that the POTUS is a moron for rejecting and flouting his advice.

    See how that kind of circles back around to prove that the POTUS is a moron?

    But let’s dispense with rhetoric. happyfeet, what evidence can you cite to show that the people trying to get Trump to stick to a change-out schedule for his iPhones are morons instead of competent professionals?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  144. Trump seems to have one commercial cell phone he uses to store telephone numbers on, and another modified cell phone that can’t store any information, even telephone numbers, that he uses to make the calls with.

    And a third phone that he uses only for Twitter and can only go on the Internet via Wi-Fi (which would almost always be a secure Wi-Fi – he’s never really in apublic area with free Wi-Fi.)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  145. Well take James clapper, and his mostly secular line about the brotherhood Paul pillars long standing reign of error, mike Hayden’s failure to have bin Al shibhs communication with the la crew of hijackers

    narciso (d1f714)

  146. 145. Beldar (fa637a) — 10/25/2018 @ 2:14 pm

    If the POTUS is employing people for that task who are morons, then the POTUS is a moron.

    He didn’t hire them. His predecessors did. He’s not firing them because he doesn’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    It’s the same thing with someone not listening to his doctor but at the same time not looking for another one. And that’s actually what patients ought to do.

    It could be argued that they must be morons if they are stymied by Trump’s request to preserve (and update) his customization of iPhones when they awap them out.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  147. Ah — now it must be “actionable intelligence.”

    Does anyone think the Chinese, or the Norks, or for that matter the Belgians, are only interested in “classified information”? Or only interested in “actionable intelligence”?

    The experts tell the POTUS that our enemies are listening in. The POTUS doesn’t care.

    That is wrong. That is ridiculous.

    *****

    Observation re the blog’s new rules: They include not just personal attacks, but also misstatements of another commenter’s prior comments. I have not written, and don’t believe, that it’s unlawful, for example, for the POTUS to use a non-secure phone. I’ve been accused of so arguing, and of course the accusation included no quotes or even close paraphrases of anything I’ve actually written. I do believe — based not on my own common sense alone, but on the technical advice given by professional security people, including those working for the U.S. government — that the POTUS should avoid using insecure means of communication as a preferred and regular practice, which is what we’re actually talking about here.

    If someone wants to engage me in conversation, they should start by quoting me, rather than making crap up and pretending I’ve said it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  148. 143. frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/25/2018 @ 2:10 pm

    Should he be able to call up Hannity and chat? Sure.

    And maybe they should offer to supply Hannity with a special secure phone. At least if he pays for it.

    And the other several dozen people Trump may talk to.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  149. “Controversial Trump Nominees Had Hearings This Month And Most Senators Didn’t Go” – Buzzfeed
    __ _

    Zoe Tillman
    @ZoeTillman
    Dems are upset Grassley went ahead with hearings during the recess, and none have showed up. I asked Feinstein’s office if there was any pact. Response: “Each Democratic member made their own decision about whether to attend the hearings”
    __ _

    Alan He
    @alanhe
    Last week Senator Booker didn’t make it to AM Judiciary hearing but did find the time to play PacMan with the WAPO later in the afternoon

    harkin (df6fc2)

  150. @ Stephen J., re your #138: Thanks for the civil response, clearly expressed. Yes, even for a POTUS there must be some cost-benefit analysis.

    But can we agree this POTUS is nevertheless disregarding, ignoring, and flouting the considered judgment of the intelligence professionals who are charged, by virtue of their job responsibilities, with making the appropriate judgment calls on how much diligence is due, even after considering such things as how valuable the POTUS’ time is?

    If we can so agree, then the question becomes: Why should any of us, or Trump, rely on Trump’s judgments about security, rather than those professionals’ judgments?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  151. @Beldar.

    Trump’s phone that he makes calls with is NOT insecure, even if doesn’t get swapped out once a month.

    It’s the calls themselves that are not so secure.

    Thepossible problem is downstream.

    [his phones are not completely impossible to hack but they’ve been altered by the National Security Agency] But the calls made from the phones are intercepted as they travel through the cell towers, cables and switches that make up national and international cellphone networks. Calls made from any cellphone — iPhone, Android, an old-school Samsung flip phone — are vulnerable.

    That’s the argument.

    That he’s making any non-fully landline telephone calls at all.

    That the other guy, or maybe the cell towers, cables and switches, are being eavesdropped on.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  152. If this is a problem, there’s much, much bigger problem than just POTUS taalking on a insecure connection

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  153. @145.

    If the POTUS is employing people for that task who are morons, then the POTUS is a moron.

    This is not a given. It’s possible this is coming from people who he can’t replace.

    I’m actually very curious about this entire process because

    Trump doesn’t swap out his phones because nobody can figure out away to automate the customizing

    is a very sad state of affairs if true. And if true the cast of morons is larger than Hamilton.

    The fact that there are articles from, what should be respectable outlets, with phrases like “worse case someone should just be able to type in all of his contacts again” tells me something is very wrong with this entire story.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  154. Beldar and frosty48,

    I see your points but I remain unconvinced. Government officials and Presidents can be mistaken or even lie, so I will continue to consider and discuss this subject as I wish.

    Specifically, our intelligence officials want no chance for hacking to occur, so they would probably recommend Presidents of either Party avoid cell phones — even if the technology promised a 99% security success rate. Thus, I don’t think their recommendation is dispositive. I also believe government officials can be partisan or willing to lie, so it has made me less willing to accept what I hear and read

    DRJ (15874d)

  155. Trump doesn’t swap out his phones because nobody can figure out away to automate the customizing

    frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/25/2018 @ 2:34 pm

    is a very sad state of affairs if true. And if true the cast of morons is larger than Hamilton.

    That’s waht the New York Times artivle says. Except it seems to imply nobody ever could figure out a way to do that.

    Or Trump should re-customize it himself.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  156. 156. DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2018 @ 2:37 pm

    Specifically, our intelligence officials want no chance for hacking to occur, so they would probably recommend Presidents of either Party avoid cell phones — even if the technology promised a 99% security success rate.

    But the problem isn’t really his cellphone. It’s the cellphone of the person whom he is talking to.

    They don’t seem to extend that concern to everyone else who works for the president.

    I guess they can be trusted never to discuss classified information.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  157. As for Sarah Huckabee Sander’s word that video of the North Korean missile launch in February 2017 was not classified …

    Remember when Trump’s press secretary assured us Trump’s inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama’s, and then they gave us edited photos to prove it?

    DRJ (15874d)

  158. 155. frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/25/2018 @ 2:34 pm

    The fact that there are articles from, what should be respectable outlets, with phrases like “worse case someone should just be able to type in all of his contacts again” tells me something is very wrong with this entire story.

    I don’t think it’s his contacts, becaue apparently Trump stoees them on a separate standard cellphone and if he eneeds to make a call and doesn’t remember the number he looks it up like in years past people would on a Rolodex.

    What they don’t seem to know how to do is how to transfer any customization that Trump might have made on his two secured cell phones.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  159. Trump seems to be saying the 3rd cellphone is not connected to anything at all.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  160. Trump may just be a Code Talker and there’s more Indian blood in him after all.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  161. For the record, I am not saying everyone lies or is wrong. I am saying I will always be skeptical about what government and the media tells me, and I will question what everyone says when I think it is called for.

    DRJ (15874d)

  162. @157 Which is a ridiculous statement on it’s face. Not your comment, but the NYT statement. Taking for granted that an icloud backup or a linked google account wouldn’t fly. There are apps that actually do this. For less than the cost of a hellfire missile there are probably several approved sources that could provide a solution to this problem (well, maybe not for less than a hellfire since google says those are only $115k per as this is government work).

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  163. The experts tell the POTUS that our enemies are listening in. The POTUS doesn’t care.

    That is wrong. That is ridiculous.

    They’ve been listening in to Trump for YEARS. Not necessarily state actors, but still, he has been a target for quite a while. And perhaps he feels that he is cognizant of the risks enough that he can avoid providing anything of real value. That a far cry from he “doesn’t care.”

    For you to say that ANY person, because you don’t like their politics, is no long allowed to converse with anyone, anywhere, by any means if there is any chance that someone may be monitoring it is what is ridiculous. Funny how some people never seemed to care about how any government official chose to communicate in their personal conversations, but NOW it is almost and impeachable offense that the President (and only the President) must use the most draconian measures to deal with the most mundane everyday things. For at least since the end of WWII, Presidential conversations (in person and over whatever technology was available at the time) have been monitored by foreign states. Every line is tapped, every embassy bugged, and spies are everywhere. Always have been, always will be. To use this as some sort of justification to remove this President is petty and exposes the sheer desperation of those who oppose him.

    NonName (983b3a)

  164. i’m so sleepy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  165. @157 Which is a ridiculous statement on it’s face. Not your comment, but the NYT statement. Taking for granted that an icloud backup or a linked google account wouldn’t fly. There are apps that actually do this. For less than the cost of a hellfire missile there are probably several approved sources that could provide a solution to this problem (well, maybe not for less than a hellfire since google says those are only $115k per as this is government work).

    All Fishbowl devices use a custom version of Android with a specific MDM solution as well as the NSA software encryption load. IOS devices are not on supported, by the NSA or anyone else. I think they are actually more secure in general, but not enough to be even casually in the pocket of the President, especially not multiple ones, and doubly not if they aren’t getting swept on a timely basis, like weekly, probably daily.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (4d83ed)

  166. For you to say that ANY person, because you don’t like their politics, is no long allowed to converse with anyone, anywhere, by any means if there is any chance that someone may be monitoring it is what is ridiculous. Funny how some people never seemed to care about how any government official chose to communicate in their personal conversations, but NOW it is almost and impeachable offense that the President (and only the President) must use the most draconian measures to deal with the most mundane everyday things.

    You’re the only one making this argument, a lot.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (4d83ed)

  167. @156 I’m not sure Beldar and I agree on exactly that point. I suspect the people making this recommendation are making the safest possible choice and I wouldn’t take NO as an absolute and final answer.

    His response should be to give them a list of things he needs to do and have them give him an acceptable way to do them. From a device security standpoint there are ways for him to keep a list of phone numbers, tweet, and make calls of a personal and unsecured nature.

    We can debate whether he should do any/all of those things. But I don’t accept that those are impossible for any POTUS.

    But it’s all of the words I’ve used before if he’s getting a NO and his response is fu guys I’m doing what I want.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  168. But all kidding aside, Dave, those are outstanding accomplishments.

    Thank you. I’ve been lucky to work with incredibly talented people, and nature has been very kind to us.

    Dave (9664fc)

  169. well the pdb could have been actionable intelligence if they included the phoenix memo, but marion bowman and Valerie caproni, explicitly excluded it, both would receive raises in spite of that poor judgement, Valerie would end up part of comey’s mutineers in march 04, and subsequently a judge, the second is a command directive, that would have made the information flow, more precise, and the first was an opinion that was designed to buttress a policy point the support of the brotherhood against Mubarak,

    narciso (d1f714)

  170. but note what the times somehow finds a way to cover with a pillow, the findings re the parchin nuclear facility, you would think a tangible thing, would matter more than gossip, but we know that isn’t true, take how Michael hastings rumors, were used to remove general mccrystal, from the battlefield, and hence the whole data based counterinsurgency movement was foreclosed, now we don’t know if it would have worked, but it was worth a decent interval, to prevent what we see eight years later, with the Taliban having taken the initiative, and grievously wounded a general just in the last week, instead the paste eating champion of Scranton, joe biden, was put in charge of afghan policy,

    narciso (d1f714)

  171. At least we can take comfort from our stable genius POTUS’ legendary keyboarding skills! There’s no way someone as careful as he is with his Twitter feed, for example, would ever make a mistake that might represent a deviation from the covfefe he was trying to communicate.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  172. CNN deserves all the derogation it gets… https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1055506315659935744

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  173. in other news of note, sarah carter’s reporting from the border, includes the findings of top military and intelligence officials, which indicate this is an organized movement, not the spontaneous outgrowth the narrative suggests,

    narciso (d1f714)

  174. hundreds that includes the journalist and the whole rizzotto tray lineup,

    narciso (d1f714)

  175. There are economic/fraud concerns about Trump’s tweets and hacking.

    DRJ (15874d)

  176. NonName wrote (#165), referring to me:

    For you to say that ANY person, because you don’t like their politics, is no long allowed to converse with anyone, anywhere, by any means if there is any chance that someone may be monitoring it is what is ridiculous.

    I’ve never said, nor implied, any such thing. You pulled that out of your ass.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  177. He’s the most conservative president we’ve ever had our whole life and he’s fiercely protective of our freedoms.

    Like a mama bear except where the bear doesn’t just look after cubs it looks after freedom for everybody in America!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  178. @ DRJ (#156): Whose expertise do you trust? And do you have any specific reason to distrust the expertise of the people who’ve made the recommendations that Trump has rejected? All I know about them is that they’re the people whose career paths and accomplishments have led them to be in a position to advise the President of the United States. I am drawing inferences from that, because I think it’s a significant fact. But certainly it’s not conclusive, so: Why should I mistrust them, or discount their advice? Is there any reason other than that they work for the government?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  179. “Strike that, your Honor, poorly phrased… sir, on the late afternoon of October 25, 2018, did you, or did you not, pull that from between your buttocks?”

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  180. ah Winston, do you wonder why you bothered, same could be said of Lloyd George,

    https://www.forces.net/news/university-southampton-student-union-leader-vows-paint-over-mural-white-men

    narciso (d1f714)

  181. I used to trust a lot of people in government, especially in law enforcement like the FBI. I used to trust Republicans. Now I don’t trust either unless they say something that makes sense to me.

    DRJ (15874d)

  182. the times and the post and the journal, seems preoccupied on what the president doesn’t say rather than what he does say and do, we leave out usa today, as for buzzfeed which castigates a publication of exiled Chinese dissidents, just because it can, and furthermore, they’ll have half the offices that gubarev doesn’t take

    narciso (d1f714)

  183. It seems to me the best reason to distrust them might be that they’ve allowed the POTUS to continue being reckless, rather than submitting their resignations in a public protest. (I don’t approve of the intermediate strategy of trying to shame the POTUS by leaking.) But I’m inclined to cut them slack for trying their best to eke some modest compliance out of him, if that’s indeed what they’re doing.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  184. President Trump’s been using his phone to single-handedly stop there from being a blue wave on America

    he’s making a powerful case for conservative representation

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  185. I know the fact he doesn’t have a degree isn’t determinative but yikes:

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2018/10/25/chuck-todd-bombs-could-be-russian-operation

    narciso (d1f714)

  186. it’s like working with three infiniti stones, Pikachu,

    narciso (d1f714)

  187. OMG… teh liberals will totes own Republicans with this strategy and imagery… https://twitter.com/Harlan/status/1055288450050678786

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  188. Just remember… some things canNOT be unseen!

    Colonel Haiku (f2f14e)

  189. @186. Ting-a-ling; a Russian ringer, eh, Mr. Feet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  190. I trust you coronello, but it’s teh horror, teh horror, isn’t it,

    narciso (d1f714)

  191. @190 lesson learned. I was thinking self, surely the colonel is just joking and it can’t literally be something I don’t want to see. Now I’m thinking self, take the colonel seriously next time. But now I’m thinking self, now that the colonel knows I won’t look surely he’ll link to something I want to see next time.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  192. @ frostee48, who wrote (#169):

    I suspect the people making this recommendation are making the safest possible choice ….

    “Safest” would be no communications. “Safest reasonably practicable” is the standard I’d look for, on a sliding scale, for which the POTUS’ own communications ought be at one extreme.

    … and I wouldn’t take NO as an absolute and final answer.

    When the security guys say “No,” the POTUS is certainly entitled to ask why, and to solicit competing advice and new ideas. But if he’s insisting on “Yes” as the final answer, the POTUS better have a damned good reason for it — something far better, something qualitatively different, than “It’s more convenient for me to do it my way.”

    That’s the breathtaking arrogance, the above-the-law entitlement, the sneering immaturity, common to both Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  193. I’ve never said, nor implied, any such thing. You pulled that out of your ass.

    That’s funny, because I could swear these are things you have said in this thread: [with my comments in brackets]

    The experts tell the POTUS that our enemies are listening in. The POTUS doesn’t care. That is wrong. That is ridiculous. [They are always listening in, by a variety of methods. The only way to have them not hear anything is not to speak]

    And Trump is flagrantly, wilfully, petulantly, contemptuously disregarding their best advice. [Which is to use only secure encrypted phones to communicate]

    Every single thing, every single detail — and OMG every digital packet! — from the POTUS is by definition of keen interest to America’s enemies.

    Letting the bad guys effectively have a full-time perch on Trump’s shoulder while he’s using his iPhone is a very bad idea, even if he’s chatting about the World Series. [Yes, even the score of the World Series is critical information that must be protected]

    Since every analog or digital transmission, every spoken word, and every body gesture conveys information, and you have adjudged that ANY interception of that information by a foreign government is a distinct threat to the security of the US, it naturally follows that you believe that to expose ANY of that information is worth of your scorn. Even if it is just a call to a friend to discuss the latest sports scores, that must be stopped, or at least done in a manner that would allow NO interception or explotation. You further feel that if a President allows this to happen, in any way, then that President is not fit to serve. While most of your “points” have dealt with electronic communication, there is no reason that your strictures should reasonably be limited to only cell phone use. Surveillance is surveillance, and information is information, and intelligence was gathered long before cell phones were invented. The only solution that will actually prevent the interception of information is the use of secure and encrypted communication channels, and all face-to-face meetings must be conducted in places where no eavesdropping or other surveillance is possible. In a world where there is no real privacy, there is no other way to avoid falling afoul of the Beldar Standard. Which not surprisingly, Beldar has just made up and applied only to Trump.

    As you can see, every single thing here actually came from your mouth (or fingers, if you prefer). While I can see how you might confuse your own mouth with my ass, I still think that accusing me of making up something when I am only using your own words is unseemly, at best.

    But let’s be honest. You never gave the normal non-classified conversations of a President any thought before now. And if the NYT had not published this, you would have instead glommed onto whatever poorly sourced thinly veiled op-ed piece the NYT published in its stead to feed your daily two-minute Trump hate. You have no real knowledge of technology, OPSEC, or the proper handling of classified information, yet you are more than willing to proclaim that you are absolutely certain that Trump is because the NYT told you he was. this is not a principled stance, simply an expedient one based on the current headline.

    NonName (983b3a)

  194. But let’s be honest. You never gave the normal non-classified conversations of a President any thought before now. And if the NYT had not published this, you would have instead glommed onto whatever poorly sourced thinly veiled op-ed piece the NYT published in its stead to feed your daily two-minute Trump hate. You have no real knowledge of technology, OPSEC, or the proper handling of classified information, yet you are more than willing to proclaim that you are absolutely certain that Trump is because the NYT told you he was. this is not a principled stance, simply an expedient one based on the current headline

    Let me parahrase: “Nuhuh, you’re stupid”

    Snore, it’s you again, another day, another username.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (0daa14)

  195. OT, but further to nk’s #85 and my #115, and because source documents rock, here’s the Grassley criminal referral, as redacted for public release via the Senate Judiciary Committee’s website. It’s a very detailed referral letter, with footnotes and attachments. On page 2 of the referral letter, Grassley asserts:

    That same day, September 26, 2018, Mr. Avenatti submitted a sworn statement to the Committee purportedly written and signed by Ms. Swetnick, in which she accused Judge Kavanaugh of repeatedly drugging women and/or spiking their punch with alcohol in order to render them inebriated and disoriented so that groups of boys, including Judge Kavanaugh, could gang rape them.[9]

    Footnote 9 in turn reads:

    Swetnick Sworn Statement, dated Sept. 25, 2018 and received on Sept. 26, 2018, enclosed below.

    The “enclosed below” materials do indeed include an email trail between Avenatti and a Committee investigator on September 23. But the email chain doesn’t demonstrate that it ever included, as an attachment, Resnick’s sworn statement (which makes sense, since it is dated September 25), nor does Avenatti reference such a statement in the text of his emails.

    In other words, the attachment doesn’t quite do what the footnote promises it would do — that is, demonstrate that “Avenatti submitted [the] sworn statement to the Committee.” And the referral letter says the Committee didn’t receive the statement until September 26, without accounting for the delay between September 25 and 26. So, what: Did it show up in the mail? Was it hand delivered? Or instead did someone at the Committee print it out on the 26th from Avenatti’s Tweet (which attached the statement) on that same day? It read:

    Below is my correspondence to Mr. Davis of moments ago, together with a sworn declaration from my client. We demand an immediate FBI investigation into the allegations. Under no circumstances should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed absent a full and complete investigation. pic.twitter.com/QHbHBbbfbE— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) September 26, 2018

    This looks to me like an attempted comb-over of a glaring bald spot: Received from whom, and how?

    Note well: Because it was made to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 1746 and included its magic language about “under penalty of perjury,” the [technically unsworn but as good as sworn] statement has “like force and effect” as if it had been sworn to before a notary or court clerk or other official authorized to administer oaths. This potentially puts Swetnick on the hook for plain old perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621(2). But that doesn’t put Avenatti in jeopardy for perjury himself. At most he might have some jeopardy under 18 U.S.C. § 1622 for suborning (encouraging) perjury, which is a much harder thing to prove (Avenatti being able to claim that he was taken in by her lies, rather than their author).

    But for either of them to have jeopardy for false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the statement has to have come from one or both of them into the Committee’s hands, as I read that statute.

    *****

    Most of the referral letter is, of course, directed to the truth or falsity of Swetnick’s claims, as are most of the attachments (comprising letters from the various boyfriends Swetnick’s managed to terrify over the years), and it’s all a fun read on that topic.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  196. @ NonName: None of the language of mine that you quoted in #195 supports what you pulled out of your ass, which was:

    For you to say that ANY person, because you don’t like their politics, is no long allowed to converse with anyone, anywhere, by any means if there is any chance that someone may be monitoring it is what is ridiculous.

    The language of mine that you quoted referred specifically to the POTUS, not to “anyone, anywhere, by any means.”

    You’ve then doubled down with a new paragraph full of fantasies that you impute to me, even though some of them are contrary to what I’ve written, and none of them remotely describes anything I’ve written (boldface mine, to highlight particular attributions to me that come from your ass instead of my words):

    Since every analog or digital transmission, every spoken word, and every body gesture conveys information, and you have adjudged that ANY interception of that information by a foreign government is a distinct threat to the security of the US, it naturally follows that you believe that to expose ANY of that information is worth [sic] of your scorn. Even if it is just a call to a friend to discuss the latest sports scores, that must be stopped, or at least done in a manner that would allow NO interception or explotation [sic]. You further feel that if a President allows this to happen, in any way, then that President is not fit to serve. While most of your “points” have dealt with electronic communication, there is no reason that your strictures should reasonably be limited to only cell phone use. Surveillance is surveillance, and information is information, and intelligence was gathered long before cell phones were invented. The only solution that will actually prevent the interception of information is the use of secure and encrypted communication channels, and all face-to-face meetings must be conducted in places where no eavesdropping or other surveillance is possible. In a world where there is no real privacy, there is no other way to avoid falling afoul of the Beldar Standard. Which not surprisingly, Beldar has just made up and applied only to Trump.

    You’re not a mind-reader. You don’t speak for me. When you say I’ve “adjudged” something, for example, but it’s actually something you just pulled out of your ass, you’re lying about me. When you write about something you say that I “feel,” when it’s actually something you just pulled out of your ass, you’re lying about me.

    I protest.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  197. Too much talk of asspulls here lately…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  198. “There is a dolt in the Oval Office, everyone knows he’s a dolt, and Americans are apparently fine with it.”

    Dolt is not the right term. A dolt is someone too stupid to understand. That is not the case here, IMO.

    Rather, we have a self-absorbed narcissist who just does not care if he endangers national security.

    It’s not stupidity. It’s callous disregard.

    Bored Lawyer (8ea02a)

  199. From 2009, President Obama gets to keep his Blackberry:

    Barack Obama gets to keep his beloved BlackBerry with him in the White House for personal use, a victory for the man considered the country’s first high-tech president.

    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said today that “a pretty small group of people” — some senior staffers and personal friends — will be permitted to have the e-mail address that reaches Obama’s smartphone.

    The president has been adamant about continuing to use a BlackBerry, which has Internet and e-mail access, despite concerns that likely have made the National Security Agency as nervous as the Secret Service on Inauguration Day when Obama left his presidential limo twice to walk and wave to crowds along Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Gibbs said Obama’s use of the BlackBerry will be limited and security will be enhanced, most likely with heavy encryption to deter information from winding up in the hands of hackers or others who would want to see harm come to him or to the United States.

    He also said that the president reached a compromise to keep his cherished gadget, according to The Associated Press, although Gibbs didn’t say with whom a compromise had been reached.

    Gibbs said it is presumed that e-mails will be subject to the Presidential Records Act, a law that requires the National Archives to preserve presidential records.

    ….

    Former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did not use e-mail while in office. Before taking office for his first term, Bush e-mailed friends and relatives about why he would no longer be using electronic mail.

    “Since I do not want my private conversations looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond in cyberspace,” he wrote to them.

    Bush understood self-discipline imposed for the good of the country at the expense of his personal convenience. His successors rejected that concept, Trump even more than Obama. As much as Hillary? That remains to be seen, but Magic 8-Ball says, “Signs point to yes.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  200. My template regarding things from asses.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  201. BREAKING:

    Chris Cillizza at CNN, faced with the fact that Michael Avenatti is a shameless, lying slime ball, says they may need to slow their ‘roll’ on him just a tad…..lol.

    CNN
    @CNN
    Can we slow our roll on Michael Avenatti? | Analysis by
    @CillizzaCNN

    https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/1055607701198327809
    __ _

    Stephen Miller
    @redsteeze
    65 appearances on CNN including 20 from Anderson Cooper, 12 from CNN’s New Day and 8 from Don Lemon.
    __ _

    Alex Griswold, but Halloween-themed I guess
    @HashtagGriswold
    Wish Chris Cillizza was around in January 1942 to warn us about the Japanese

    harkin (ad4321)

  202. With the enormous caveat that a sitting president is veritably untouchable, I would be absolutely fine with DJT being made to sit in the dock after he leaves office to answer for using insecure and private means of communication while POTUS.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  203. What price endurance? B-b-but Gorsuch. And Kavanaugh; court costs.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  204. “ I would be absolutely fine with DJT being made to sit in the dock”

    Watching the tide roll away…..wasting time?

    harkin (ad4321)

  205. @152: “But can we agree this POTUS is nevertheless disregarding, ignoring, and flouting the considered judgment of the intelligence professionals who are charged, by virtue of their job responsibilities, with making the appropriate judgment calls on how much diligence is due, even after considering such things as how valuable the POTUS’ time is?”

    We can agree that according to the New York Times anonymous American officials claim he does. If trusting people’s judgement is the issue I can’t say the Times has earned much more trust from me than the President.

    Which, again, is not to say I think President Trump cannot make foolish decisions or incur unnecessary risks, or that he may not have done so here. (Apologies if the constant hedging annoys, I’m a terminal fence-sitter by nature.) I simply make it a habit to take anything the media says about *anything* with more than a few grains of salt, and have seldom regretted that practice — though I do reserve a grain or two for White House announcements as well.

    Stephen J. (c5f80e)

  206. Thank you for the link to the actual referral, Beldar. It’s interesting reading, and by “interesting” I mean I hope Swetnick tells the FBI that Avenatti told her to say everything she said about Kavanaugh. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  207. @ Stephen J: Thanks for the courteous follow-up (#208). I never fault anyone for being skeptical, and your point regarding anonymous sources is a very fair one. But can’t we further agree:

    It’s not just the NYT, but the NYT and Politico so reporting, right? And it’s not just any old “anonymous American officials,” but rather, according to those publications, anonymous American officials who are charged, by virtue of their job responsibilities, with making the appropriate judgement calls on how much diligence is due, right?

    If so, we’re practically on the same page altogether.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  208. @ nk: Re suborning perjury, this might be worth some follow-up in connection with the referral, although it’s about one of Avenatti’s anonymous (except to the press) clients, not Swetnick: New questions raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh: “I do not like that he twisted my words,” one woman says of lawyer Michael Avenatti:

    Shortly after tweeting out the woman’s allegations on Oct. 2, Avenatti confirmed to NBC News that it was the same woman interviewed by phone on Sept. 30. But when questioned on Oct. 3 about the discrepancies between what she said in the phone interview and the serious allegations in the sworn declaration, Avenatti said he was “disgusted” with NBC News. At one point, in an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process, he added in the phone call, “How about this, on background, it’s not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?”

    After NBC News received text messages from the woman refuting some of the claims in the declaration, NBC reached out again to Avenatti, who defended the declaration.

    “I have no idea what you are talking about,” he said in a text. “I have a signed declaration that states otherwise together with multiple audio recordings where she stated exactly what is in the declaration. There were also multiple witnesses to our discussions.”

    He sent a follow-up message moments later: “I just confirmed with her yet again that everything in the declaration is true and correct,” Avenatti said. “She must have been confused by your question.”

    Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally-worded text backing Avenatti. “Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue,” the text read.

    But when reached by phone minutes later, the woman again insisted that she never saw Kavanaugh spike punch or act inappropriately toward women. She said she’s “been consistent in what she’s told Michael.”

    In a subsequent text on Oct. 5, she wrote, “I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words.”

    Woof. Special Agent Smith might want to ask the mystery woman, if he can locate her: “Did your own lawyer threaten you with perjury jeopardy if you didn’t send NBC News that text-message saying everything in the declaration was true and not to contact you again?”

    Ross Ice Shelf-level conflicts of interest here! And a client who doesn’t like her lawyer threatening her and telling her to shut up, I’m betting.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  209. 209, that’s an instant S & M skit on SNL.

    That’s bad for the MSMs that 2 electionologist pundits are starting throw shade.

    urbanleftbehind (eed4d5)

  210. Bobby McFerrin, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”, with a couple of guest stars worth half the show.

    nk (dbc370)

  211. Also off topic, but just too good to ignore:

    As I was driving from lunch to my early-voting polling place today, listening to the Sirius XM feed from, I think, the Fox News channel, I heard ad pitching a “first-of-its-kind nationwide event,” the upcoming American Cannabis Summit: Countdown to Legalization, “featuring former Speaker of the House John Boehner,” and sponsored by “The National Institute for Cannabis Investors.”

    Boehner’s letting them use his name, his tan, and his gravelly voice from his two-packs-a-day of Camel Extra Lights (pah — might as well smoke Virginia Slims), just to pitch penny stocks in the cannabis industry. Watch your stocks go higher as you get higher too!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  212. That guy cried too much, wonder if he got told to STFOOO this cycle.

    urbanleftbehind (eed4d5)

  213. I respectfully submit, however, that whether you, or I, or this really brilliant guy who wrote a comment on namethatblog.com, believe Trump’s practices are a genuine security risk, the responsible U.S. government personnel for assessing all of these issues is asking Trump to do things which they believe are essential to safeguard our national security.

    BEldar,

    My basic premise is that Trump is not the first fool to become president, and he won’t be the last (he may be the most obvious one). But he IS president. It is not his job to jump through the IT staff’s hoops, it’s their job to jump through his. And they are refusing — what he’s asking for is NOT impossible, although it may require a bunch of other people to do a bunch of things they’d rather not.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  214. @210: “It’s not just the NYT, but the NYT and Politico so reporting, right?”

    I don’t read Politico much, but the general impression I get is that they are not much better than the NYT when it comes to being either fair to President Trump or accurate for sake of that fairness. Correction welcomed if this is an unjust calumny.

    “And it’s not just any old ‘anonymous American officials,’ but rather … officials who are charged … with making the appropriate judgement calls on how much diligence is due, right?”

    Well, to be honest, as long as they’re anonymous they might as *well* be “any old ‘anonymous American officials'”; we don’t *know* what they’re charged with or how much trust those judgements deserve. This story could be dead accurate, it could be complete B.S., it could be a real but minor problem being partisanly exaggerated to generate an October surprise effect…. I know which way I bet, myself, but that’s no more than a bet, for anyone I think.

    (As always, let it be noted that as a Canadian I can afford a certain detachment in the matter. Those with more at stake may reasonably feel it’s not my place to opine further on the issue.)

    Stephen J. (c5f80e)

  215. BTW, in the discussion of the CoC (Code of Conduct), it would be remiss to overlook the CoC being imposed on all users of SQLite (including, I suspect, this blog):

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/tech-community-outraged-after-sqlite-founder-adopts-christian-code-of-conduct/

    In response to pressure from clients who were demanding a CoC before they would do business with him, Richard Hipp, the founder of the widely used SQLite database engine, adopted the Rule of St. Benedict as the guiding principles for his community. The move angered many in the tech community — but was applauded by others who are fed up with the distractions CoCs have caused in recent years. The rules encourage users to love God and their neighbors and to forsake overeating, laziness, and grumbling, among other things.

    WIkipedia’s summary of the rule can be found here. It’s a bit long.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  216. Rulings and penalties:

    I mean, on the one hand, we have proof that classified material was placed on a non-secured server, and was likely compromised.

    Actually, the investigators said the opposite, that there is no evidence the material was compromised.

    You may be confused because Donald Trump lied to his cultists about this, as he does about so many things.

    Not a direct attack on the commenter. No flag. Trump could have lied to his cultists and thereby misled others.

    79… yes, it’s easy to claim such magnificent feats behind a keyboard.

    This is an implicit attack, but I’ll let it go because it entertained me to see it so thoroughly and convincingly refuted.

    @83 Did you read the article?

    Could be nicer but no flag.

    Good Lord, this is important to you, Dave. But not to me.

    Again: making it personal, but Haiku got thumped enough to make any further penalty superfluous.

    Then we have NonName at 12:30:

    You are going on and on about highly secured networks, and then pretending that all communication done by the President requires the use of secured, encrypted phones. My point, which clearly went over your head, is that not all communication requires the same level of protection.

    “Pretending” is an accusation of dishonesty. “clearly went over your head” is personal. More:

    To pretend EVERYTHING must be secured is a fallacy, and one that is demonstrated every day by US forces in the field. . . .
    Putting aside your lax grammar, I said no such thing. If you wish to engage in a polite discussion, you will refrain from lying about and misrepresenting what I say.

    “pretend” and shots at grammar and accusations of lying are personal. Moving on:

    What I said, clearly and unambiguously, is that any attempt to conflate mishandling of classified data with simply using a non-secured phone for non-governmental personal use is, at best, an attempt to mislead. At worst, it is outright dishonest and trying to engage in low-grade rabble-rousing.

    Again, you must continue accusations of deliberate attempts to mislead. I’ll moderate you for a week. Calm down. You’re trying to make substantive points, but you’re getting too personal. Spend the week reflecting on it.

    No one (except you) cares if your real name got attached to a Nobel paper decades ago and you’re still trying to trade on that to cover for your lazy hateposts and utterly disengaged civic attitude decades later. . . . . SPOILER: If your posts were naturally good . . .

    Currently, I (and, I suspect, many, many other commenters) don’t really care to correct or engage with you if you post something erroneous, inane or egregious, because your attitude is so terrible

    Personal attacks. Penalty on the play. One week suspension.

    Pretty clear who’s hiding behind their keyboard.

    Don’t respond to goading. I’m letting Haiku slide on this one so I’ll let you slide but you both need to do better or there will be penalties.

    Why do you insist on making stuff up out of thin air?

    Confirming my decision to moderate NonName for a week.

    But all kidding aside, Dave, those are outstanding accomplishments.

    Confirming my decison not to moderate Haiku.

    So that’s two one-week moderations. Work on it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  217. It is not his job to jump through the IT staff’s hoops, it’s their job to jump through his. And they are refusing — what he’s asking for is NOT impossible, although it may require a bunch of other people to do a bunch of things they’d rather not.

    No, that just makes him a terrible boss, terrible executive, and really not very bright. But I’m sure Trump’s deep interest and skill set in technology will win the day.

    Let’s see, business requirement, technology requirement, risk analysis, project scoping and budget, skills analysis, gap analysis, architecture design, go/no go, initial build, POC, education planning, support and maintenance planning, refine, go/no go, pilot testing, support and maintenance staffing and education, refinement, go/no go, roll out and education, refinement, ongoing evolution, check. Of course, if he’s really skilled in using an agile methodology framework and can coach the project, I’m sure the NSA, DoD, and the office of the CTO will be happy for the help. I’m sure he’s got it all covered. He’s got all the makings of a successful recently unemployed manager.

    Or it’s “I want it, I want it, I want it, gimme, gimme, gimme.”…”But Donnie, you have to eat your meat if ou want any pudding.”

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  218. @ Stephen J (#218): Canadian?!? Aha! That explains the cheerful discussion, perhaps.

    Politico is indeed systematically biased, in favor of progressive ideas and politicians, and against anything conservative, and also against Trump. That doesn’t mean, though, that these reports are wrong, or presumptively wrong. It means simply that there has been additional corroboration for the original reporting. Ideally one would like more corroboration, and from sources less habitually biased, or (in the case of Fox News) counter-biased. Ideally one would like names and job titles, given at the press conference called to announce the resignation of the officials who’ve instead been leaking and/or speaking anonymously (and presumptively without authorization, given how unflattering this all is to Trump). I question everything I read; but I don’t know of any specific reason to question these particular stories, and if they were false — if, for example, Trump really has been switching out iPhones as requested by his security people and otherwise complying with the protocols they’ve created, I’d certainly expect Sarah Sanders to be out pointing fingers and issuing categorical denials. That hasn’t happened, nor has their been any reporting of information contrary to that in these reports.

    All things considered, then, this time, I’m inclined to believe these reports, at least provisionally. YMMV, since y’all use liters and kilometers and all that. 😀

    Beldar (fa637a)

  219. *nor has there been any reporting. Yikes. Homonym control gets harder with age.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  220. What evidence that they are right?

    Narciso (d1f714)

  221. Avennati makes lawyers look like…

    mg (a05430)

  222. Avenatti

    mg (a05430)

  223. I’ve covered that, Narciso (#224).

    You can choose to disbelieve today’s New York Times when it says at the top of today’s edition, “October 25, 2018,” because you think the NYT can’t even be trusted to tell the truth about what day it is. Me, I’m willing to check some other sources, and if they likewise agree that it’s October 25, 2018, even though I know them all to be biased against Donald Trump, I am inclined to believe it’s October 25.

    Have you linked NYT and Politico pieces here? I seem to recall that you have. Can we agree that you’ve rely on them when it suits you to?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  224. Yikes. Homonym control gets harder with age.

    And Apple’s newish keyboards, I’m not sure how, but they actually effect grammar, it’s so hard having to…concentrate…on…each…key. I’m going back to a Lenovo, but a $2k boat anchor that still works as an anchor after 18 months isn’t something I’m willing to toss…over…what…now…

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (0daa14)

  225. I won’t support a rag – in the case the NYT – that pushes fictional crap like the assassination of President Trump by a Secret Service agent. In their wettest dream.

    They can all take a flying roger at a rolling donut.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  226. For that alone they can take a long walk off a short pier.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  227. worms love the N.Y. Times
    They eat it up

    mg (a05430)

  228. The times has been known to distort electronic records through omission so has ABC news so has NBC news, so imagine when there is no record, btw shouldn’t farrow get hit with a large halibut for enabling this fraud?

    Narciso (d1f714)

  229. @227: “Me, I’m willing to check some other sources, and if they likewise agree that it’s October 25, 2018, even though I know them all to be biased against Donald Trump, I am inclined to believe it’s October 25.”

    Agreed; but a topic as easily objectively confirmable as a date is one thing. When the *only* evidence for a claim is the testimony of a witness, the witness’s character is relevant. As the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings showed.

    Personally I find it perfectly reasonable for someone to be just as skeptical of what Trump says of the NYT as of what the NYT says of the President. My opinion of the media is far lower than it is of Trump, so my own inclination should be clear, but I think there should be room for people to say, “I think you’re wrong” or “If true this was a foolish decision” without impugning the wits or character of those who disagree.

    Stephen J. (c5f80e)

  230. You mean like the day 2008 when Liz Trotter, the Washington Times editor, started joking about assassinating Obama on Fox?

    Sure the NYT books section needs a bit of a management shake up. But it’s not like they’re the first. See the last 3 days of pages on http://www.patterico.com. Yabutwhatabout isn’t really a great argument.

    None of this is new, there were dozens of reports about this, in 2017.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (0daa14)

  231. This thread is drivel.

    Bob (9af831)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6466 secs.