"If you have a STU-III secure telephone, use it, but remember that even the STU-III depends upon strict telephone security discipline. A defector from one of the foreign intelligence services that monitor U.S. communications reports that STU-III encryption is fairly secure. However, he also advised that the chitchat that occurs before the STU-III is switched to secure mode and after it is switched off of secure mode is a bonanza of valuable information. Communications monitors can identify STU-III lines, so these phone numbers are obvious targets. Therefore, a STU-III line being used in non-secure mode may be more likely to be monitored than another line that never carries encrypted communications. Maintaining strict telephone security discipline is critical." (my emphasis added)
I'll also note that stopping these accidental leaks was part of the motivation for the Compartmented Mode Workstations that weren't secure enough at B1 class to stop well-funded attacks that B3 or A1 might. Risks ranged from cut/paste to classified docs making it onto unclassified networks. The systems' security kernels would look at the labels to catch that. The kinds of leaks they addressed still happen to both innocent users and criminals.
Yeah, in every field there are lots of cases where people end up saying this because professionals who should know better don't. Or cut corners because of resource constraints. Or, just screw up something they actually do know. Or...
They are just regular people. It's not a world of super spies. I am sure GRU is not that much different. Even the top folks eat corn flakes like everyone else.
People make mistakes all the time.
This might be bullshit but just saying so is hardly a compelling argument. I will wait for more evidence one way or another myself, with the obvious disclaimer that anything could be bullshit.
“We found an IP address in a log which lets us tie Guccifer 2.0 to a specific GRU agent” is laughable on the face of it. But with the absolute shitshow that the investigation has been to-date I personally am way past caring, and way past beleiving anything at all to do with the Russia narrative.
Indeed, Trump has already said something like that:
“Somebody did say if he did do it, you won’t have found out about it. Which is a very interesting point.”
Yes.
"He has cautioned in the past of a plan to create a North American Union with a single currency for the United States, Mexico and Canada, and a stealth United Nations campaign to confiscate civilian handguns. He has repeatedly referred to the “tyranny” of the federal government."
He's a strong libertarian which is, by definition, wackjob territory.
At this point, if you don't want to see to the myriad of evidence that the Trump campaign was either working with or willfully used by Russia its just because you don't want to see it.
http://time.com/5155810/russian-meddling-2018-elections/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/politics/russia-sees-m...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/intelligence-chiefs-...
Oh yeah, and from Facebook.
You know, reliable sources unlike the failing NYT and WaPo.
The only thing I know is this -- no one is right, no one is good, no one is clean, and there's enough corruption on all sides of this to make anyone sick. You can pick whichever specific aspects of it support one side or another, but I personally think the things we do have hard evidence of point to;
1) An incredibly fucked up situation at the top of the FBI and Justice Department
2) A media which has largely lost the ability to separate reporting from editorial
3) A little trolling by Russian during the election to stir the pot
4) A very close election which was won by the "wrong" person, and a large percentage of Americans who are desperate to unseat him by any means possible
And why he insists on breaking all protocols to do this, such as meeting without his own translator? For so many reasons this is a terrible idea.
Why would Trump meet with the Russian ambassador and tell him Comey is taken care of? And do this secretly? Why would Trump have an insult for every US ally and not a single bad word about Russia?
I challenge you right now to find me a single bad word Trump has said about Russia.
Anywho...
I'm tryin' hard not to roll my eyes as I write this, but here goes -
Like everything Trump does, his discussions with Russia are all about Trump. He's probably not just looking at the here and now, but also at his post-Presidency. He is a businessman after all. (Hell, Trump tried landing property deals in Russia BEFORE he'd ever considered running, sooo...)
I'm unsure that Trump told any Russian that 'Comey is taken care of,' but then, I'm skeptical of many things and, in this case, I consider this rabbit hole a waste of time.
For future reference, you'll need more than you've proffered here to convince me (and others) Trump deserves the outrage others have spilled onto this thread considering -
* Had the election gone for Clinton, no one would be tearing after her for all the good turns she did Russia in the Uranium One deal (and this is all-on-the-record-and-verifiable stuff,) and
* Russia ain't the only country trying to influence American elections. China? Israel? Saudi Arabia? The UK? Please name me a major country that ISN'T trying to influence American politics. You really think Russia had more influence this past election than an Australian owning Fox or a Mexican owning the New York Times? That Russian hackery was more influential than non-citizens voting in California? Piffle.
Considering the context, there is no there there, dude/tte.
> Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-...
You also found the exception that proves the rule. I can't believe you would honestly think Trump is not deferential to Russia if you did try to look for a bad thing he has said any only found that one
The pattern is clear for anyone who wants to look.
The fact remains Trump is much harder on our allies -- all of them -- then Russia. The Trump admin has also been slow to enact sanctions passed by Congress, as is their constitution duty. There is no reasonable explanation behind these actions and actions speak louder than words.
Finally, foreign countries try to influence our politics, but usually not in concert with a candidate and certainly not supplying said candidate with hacked info on their opponents. As more comes out, that may actually be some of the less scandalous ways Russian assets worked with the Trump campaign.
Let's not forget Trump's campaign insisting the RNC change their platform at the party convention to be soft on Russia re: Ukraine.
You are free to have your opinions about this but the facts speak for themselves.
> Diana Denman, a Republican delegate who supported arming U.S. allies in Ukraine, has told people that Trump aide J.D. Gordon said at the Republican Convention in 2016 that Trump directed him to support weakening that position in the official platform.
> Ultimately, the softer position was adopted.
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-t...
> It's hard to have discussion with someone who will not acknowledge basic facts.
Let me acknowledge the article as 100% factual, and further let me concede that the New York Times (NYT) didn't leave any pertinent information (context) out or editorialize the meeting. Fair 'nuff for discussion? My next response is, 'So what?' He's free as anyone to talk as he likes to anyone he likes. Unless Congress passed a law saying otherwise... is Congress free these days to negate the First Amendment?
Let's parse your earlier statements regarding the Russian ambassador -
> Why would Trump meet with the Russian ambassador and tell him Comey is taken care of?
Where does Trump say specifically Comey is 'taken care of'? I see no such quote. I see NYT quoted him as saying 'I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job.... I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off.... I'm not under investigation.' That's all of Trump's quotes in their entirety, the ones NYT thought fit to use.
As you have a hard time discussing things with people who won't accept basic facts, I have an equally hard time with people who spin so-called facts to mean there's only one plausible explanation. So to answer your question - Trump could have said what he's reported to have said because he genuinely hated Comey and was proud of getting rid of him. Or maybe he wanted to show off to the Russian officials and, like he often does, jokingly and in an off-handed way decided to state what he just did to show what a man he was. Who knows? Trump wouldn't be the first person happy to fire a guy.
Before I leave off this, take a look at what NYT itself wrote right after quoting Trump - 'The conversation... reinforces the NOTION that the president dismissed [Comey] primarily because of the bureau's investigation into possible collusion...' (Emphasis mine.) Notion. Not fact. Notion. Belief. Editorial. The fact is Trump dismissed Comey. The fact is Trump took no small amount of glee in it. The fact is, whatever Trump's feelings, as President he had every right to fire Comey. If he smiled when he told the Russians what he did, eh, again, so what? As far as I'm aware, that indicates Trump's a jerk, not that he's breaking a law or colluding with anyone.
Moving on -
> And do this secretly?
If the meeting was recorded and reported on, it's not much of a secret. Besides, I can give at least one good reason why he WOULD want to keep this meeting a secret - because there are folks who will interpret such a meeting in the worst. Possible. Light.
Ahem. Moving on -
> Why would Trump have an insult for every US ally and not a single bad word about Russia?
Mmm, as far as I know Trump's buddies with Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel's a US ally. I don't recall any insults, but I don't pay much attention to newspapers these days, so there's a chance one's slipped past me. Nor do I recall insults to the prime minsters of Japan and South Korea. But, again, newspapers.
You did ask for a single bad word about Russia, yes? And I provided, yes? I can't help that you move the goal posts.
Then again, I am told I have trouble with basic facts.
P.S. Downvote me, but please explain why.
No, he had the legal power to fire Comey. This is not in dispute (if it were, there would be a question of the validity of the firing, and whether Comey was, in fact, still lawfully the Director of the FBI.) It is also not a question of rights, but of powers vested in particular government officials under the law.
What is in question is whether that firing was an abuse of power (a misfeasance or malfeasance in office), as well as the overlapping question of whether Trump or others had previously committed other crimes (which the firing may have been intended to protect; note that had Trump wished to retroactively license such crimes, the power of the pardon would also be within his legal power, but that would still raise questions of abuse of power, and would be somewhat more overt in its purpose.)
What makes these indictments more political than every other time the FBI prosecuted alleged spies?
These are not amateurs. They should know better.