Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[YoUDeeMan]

Dennis Kucinich with a similar take on this and he's absolutely correct (even though the Comey part isn't quite that simple)

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-de ... ion-557987


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good article.

[Chizzang]

Dennis Kucinich with a similar take on this and he's absolutely correct (even though the Comey part isn't quite that simple)

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-de ... ion-557987

DENNIS KUCINICH wrote his high school political science paper on Saul Alynski

[Pwns]

DENNIS KUCINICH wrote his high school political science paper on Saul Alynski

At least he is consistent. You know a lot of donks and liberals wouldn't tolerate what the CIA is doing if Obama was in ofice.

[CID1990]

Dennis Kucinich with a similar take on this and he's absolutely correct (even though the Comey part isn't quite that simple)

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-de ... ion-557987

DENNIS KUCINICH wrote his high school political science paper on Saul Alynski

He's correct about this issue. Federal bureaucrats should either follow their oaths or resign. That isn't to say that they shouldn't do something about wrongdoing - but there's a process and leaking classified info to the media isn't it. I hope they are caught and prosecuted. Right alongside administration officials if warranted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Did you have a similar opinion when a whistleblower leaked information to break the Fast and Furious scandal, Benghazi, etc.? Or, no?




Leaks are a part of every administration. This one has been particularly leaky... but, there's quite a bit of leaking coming out of the White House itself. Its also probably not a good idea to call your intelligence agencies Nazis as soon as you get on the job.

Agreed, Trump did himself no favors by trolling the career folks in the intelligence community, but then again, when you tout yourself as a populist outsider you're going to annoy the folks that are entrenched in the government no matter who is in power.

With that said, I'm not ready to call anything yet. Every story I've read, somewhere deep into the article and away from the headlines, has said that it's not uncommon for political campaigns to have talked with representatives of foreign governments during campaigns. And of course, there's nothing illegal about doing that either. Flynn lying about having a conversation, especially saying it publicly or to the President, well that deserves what he got, but by itself it's not a scandal.

I'm waiting for the Russian communique that is translated and reads "hey comrade Donald, campaign in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, we think Hillary is missing the boat and is ignoring those states" before I'm convinced that talking led to anything of significance.

If he needs the Russians to tell him that then we have problems.

[CID1990]

“I know what's best for foreign policy and national security… And I'm going to act on that.”

Aldrich Ames (another unelected government worker)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

lol.

Aldrich Ames? Really?

Wasn't a whistleblower... His motivation was $$$, plain and simple. He didn't leak to the press. He leaked to the KGB.

Grasping for straws, Cid.

[CID1990]

lol.

Aldrich Ames? Really?

Wasn't a whistleblower... His motivation was $$$, plain and simple. He didn't leak to the press. He leaked to the KGB.

Grasping for straws, Cid.

Continue missing the point, Skelly.

Hint: I'm not talking about what he did - I'm talking about the mentality he used to justify his actions to himself. When the FBI catches these clowns I'll bet you 6 months' pay that they (and their legions of apologists) will say it was "for the good of the country".

Or are you saying these spooks currently leaking classified info are somehow purer because they aren't doing it for money?

I don't have to grasp at straws to point out felonious behavior.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

BTW I'll just add that you've twice now displayed the mentality that there are "degrees" of morality when it comes to intelligence and national security. You are basically using the same line of thinking that some bad cops use to exact "street justice" on criminals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Hint: I'm not talking about what he did - I'm talking about the mentality he used to justify his actions to himself.

And, the mentality he used to justify his actions was money. So, I'm not seeing the relevance unless the press paid for the information.

When the FBI catches these clowns I'll bet you 6 months' pay that they (and their legions of apologists) will say it was "for the good of the country".

Well, I don't disagree with you on this. Though, I don't think they will be caught unless they want to supoena reporters for their sources.

Or are you saying these spooks currently leaking classified info are somehow purer because they aren't doing it for money?

Well, whistleblower protection laws don't cover people for leaking information for money. So, not necessarily saying "purer" - but, they'd have a better legal defense than if they just leaked for a briefcase full of money.

[CID1990]

Hint: I'm not talking about what he did - I'm talking about the mentality he used to justify his actions to himself.

And, the mentality he used to justify his actions was money. So, I'm not seeing the relevance unless the press paid for the information.

When the FBI catches these clowns I'll bet you 6 months' pay that they (and their legions of apologists) will say it was "for the good of the country".

Well, I don't disagree with you on this. Though, I don't think they will be caught unless they want to supoena reporters for their sources.

Or are you saying these spooks currently leaking classified info are somehow purer because they aren't doing it for money?

Well, whistleblower protection laws don't cover people for leaking information for money. So, not necessarily saying "purer" - but, they'd have a better legal defense than if they just leaked for a briefcase full of money.

You are still missing the point.

This isn't whistleblowing. TAKING THE INFO TO THE FBI (or Congress) - INSTEAD OF THE MEDIA - IS WHISTLEBLOWING. Criminal violations of the Espionage Act are not covered under whistleblower protections.

Of course Ames was motivated by money - but in his own words in many, many interviews he claimed that the idea that he knew the difference between what was important in foreign affairs and what was not enabled him to reason away what he was doing. That is EXACTLY what is going on with the people who are leaking info to the media- hubris. Their motivations were different but the ability to reason away criminal activity is precisely the same. IC employees don't get to decide for themselves whether or not classified info should be released to uncleared people.

I'm all for getting after Trump and Co. if there's criminal wrongdoing but these people are exposing capabilities and that is criminal. If they had no other outlet that might be another story. But you can't tell me that there aren't members of the House or Senate foreign relations committees that wouldn't LOVE to run with this. The media leaks were completely unnecessary and they were criminal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

This isn't whistleblowing. TAKING THE INFO TO THE FBI (or Congress) - INSTEAD OF THE MEDIA - IS WHISTLEBLOWING. Criminal violations of the Espionage Act are not covered under whistleblower protections.

I guess that is the source of our disconnect.

I would say both are whistleblowers - both those that leak to the press and those that take it to the FBI or Congress. External vs. Internal.

There have been several high profile external leakers of classified information. The Pentagon Papers for instance.

I guess you wouldn't consider Ellsberg to be a "whistleblower"... but just a criminal. I'd consider Ellsberg to be a whistleblower... and a hero.

We'll just have to agree to disagree... instead of parsing semantics on what a whistleblower is.

[YoUDeeMan]

This isn't whistleblowing. TAKING THE INFO TO THE FBI (or Congress) - INSTEAD OF THE MEDIA - IS WHISTLEBLOWING. Criminal violations of the Espionage Act are not covered under whistleblower protections.

I guess that is the source of our disconnect.

I would say both are whistleblowers - both those that leak to the press and those that take it to the FBI or Congress. External vs. Internal.

There have been several high profile external leakers of classified information. The Pentagon Papers for instance.

I guess you wouldn't consider Ellsberg to be a "whistleblower"... but just a criminal. I'd consider Ellsberg to be a whistleblower... and a hero.

We'll just have to agree to disagree... instead of parsing semantics on what a whistleblower is.

Is it really whistleblowing if the information is simply political fluff targeted to one side?

[GannonFan]

There have been several high profile external leakers of classified information. The Pentagon Papers for instance.

I guess you wouldn't consider Ellsberg to be a "whistleblower"... but just a criminal. I'd consider Ellsberg to be a whistleblower... and a hero.

We'll just have to agree to disagree... instead of parsing semantics on what a whistleblower is.

Well, what if Ellsberg had been in the position he had been in during the late 1930's and if he viewed FDR's public comments regarding America's participation in what was turning into WWII, as opposed to his private views and intentions, in the same prism that he viewed the Pentagon Papers versus multiple Presidential administration's actions? Would he have been justified in releasing on his own and at his own discretion, whatever information he felt showed a disconnect between stated US government policy and the messy and sometimes counter reality when put into practice?

IMO, there's a real danger when the unelected career folks who make up government decide that when they don't like something being done by their bosses that they can use their positions to leak any information they want to make political trouble for those bosses. Real illegal behavior is a different story, since that really does fall neatly into the whistleblower category and there should be near unanimous support for that kind of heroism. When you do the same because you either don't personally like the bosses upstairs or because your politics are different, or you just disagree with a policy, that's where you get into real murky waters.

[kalm]

There have been several high profile external leakers of classified information. The Pentagon Papers for instance.

I guess you wouldn't consider Ellsberg to be a "whistleblower"... but just a criminal. I'd consider Ellsberg to be a whistleblower... and a hero.

We'll just have to agree to disagree... instead of parsing semantics on what a whistleblower is.

Well, what if Ellsberg had been in the position he had been in during the late 1930's and if he viewed FDR's public comments regarding America's participation in what was turning into WWII, as opposed to his private views and intentions, in the same prism that he viewed the Pentagon Papers versus multiple Presidential administration's actions? Would he have been justified in releasing on his own and at his own discretion, whatever information he felt showed a disconnect between stated US government policy and the messy and sometimes counter reality when put into practice?

IMO, there's a real danger when the unelected career folks who make up government decide that when they don't like something being done by their bosses that they can use their positions to leak any information they want to make political trouble for those bosses. Real illegal behavior is a different story, since that really does fall neatly into the whistleblower category and there should be near unanimous support for that kind of heroism. When you do the same because you either don't personally like the bosses upstairs or because your politics are different, or you just disagree with a policy, that's where you get into real murky waters.

That's why I think Snowden is a hero. Americans had a right to know the extent to which their government was spying on them.

[Skjellyfetti]

Is it really whistleblowing if the information is simply political fluff targeted to one side?

Also, are the reports really using classified sourcing if they're also "fake news" with no basis in truth?

[Ibanez]

Well, what if Ellsberg had been in the position he had been in during the late 1930's and if he viewed FDR's public comments regarding America's participation in what was turning into WWII, as opposed to his private views and intentions, in the same prism that he viewed the Pentagon Papers versus multiple Presidential administration's actions? Would he have been justified in releasing on his own and at his own discretion, whatever information he felt showed a disconnect between stated US government policy and the messy and sometimes counter reality when put into practice?

IMO, there's a real danger when the unelected career folks who make up government decide that when they don't like something being done by their bosses that they can use their positions to leak any information they want to make political trouble for those bosses. Real illegal behavior is a different story, since that really does fall neatly into the whistleblower category and there should be near unanimous support for that kind of heroism. When you do the same because you either don't personally like the bosses upstairs or because your politics are different, or you just disagree with a policy, that's where you get into real murky waters.

That's why I think Snowden is a hero. Americans had a right to know the extent to which their government was spying on them.

Snowden failed to go through the proper channels. Possibly b/c he feared he'd be ignored, but there are levels you go through. What I find interesting is that all the focus was on Snowden but not on the people that had to have helped him. There's no way, short of a massive hack, that he was able to access so much information that's on a need to know basis.

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, Snowden claimed he raised concerns over 10 times internally and was ignored.

The NSA always denied this.

Then internal NSA documents were obtained by FOIA request. And, now we know that he was telling the truth.

https://news.vice.com/story/exclusive-s ... s-concerns

[CID1990]

That's why I think Snowden is a hero. Americans had a right to know the extent to which their government was spying on them.

Snowden failed to go through the proper channels. Possibly b/c he feared he'd be ignored, but there are levels you go through. What I find interesting is that all the focus was on Snowden but not on the people that had to have helped him. There's no way, short of a massive hack, that he was able to access so much information that's on a need to know basis.

All he had to do was take it to Rand Paul, who is on the Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Govt Affairs, or Justin Amash who is on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Both are perfectly placed, and they damn well would have triggered hearings.

But Snowden wanted to release a bunch of stuff that wasn't germane to anything related to domestic snooping. Gigabytes of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Well, Snowden claimed he raised concerns over 10 times internally and was ignored.

The NSA always denied this.

Then internal NSA documents were obtained by FOIA request. And, now we know that he was telling the truth.

https://news.vice.com/story/exclusive-s ... s-concerns

Speaking as a former Booz Allen employee, who was employed before, during and after Snowden's employment, Booz Allen instructs anyone to go through all company and government channels. You are free to go through Legal, compliance, the IG, etc... You are free to escalate if you feel you are being ignored. They suggest getting your Congressperson involved if it's a matter of national security. To me, he stopped short. He didn't exhaust all the avenues for whistle-blowing prior to go to the Press.


But hey, I only worked in the same industry, for the same company, took the same training he did.

That still doesn't explain why the people that helped him aren't part of the discussion. TS-SCI isn't an all access pass. Even on your project. If you don't need to know about "X & Y" then you don't have access. He, with help, accessed information then illegally downloaded it (and probably did some hacking to get around a data loss prevention control).


Maybe I am just forgetting, but were the other companies/agencies he worked for scrutinized? He was with Booz Allen for 3 weeks, 1 of those weeks is a week long orientation in McLean, Va. He was with Dell, in Hawaii, for over a year.

[Ibanez]

Snowden failed to go through the proper channels. Possibly b/c he feared he'd be ignored, but there are levels you go through. What I find interesting is that all the focus was on Snowden but not on the people that had to have helped him. There's no way, short of a massive hack, that he was able to access so much information that's on a need to know basis.

All he had to do was take it to Rand Paul, who is on the Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Govt Affairs, or Justin Amash who is on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Both are perfectly placed, and they damn well would have triggered hearings.

But Snowden wanted to release a bunch of stuff that wasn't germane to anything related to domestic snooping. Gigabytes of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You don't have to convince me. To me, it's common sense, you go through all the way to Congress before going to the Press. Just like anything, you go all the way to the top and after that fails, you go the alternate route.

[Skjellyfetti]

That still doesn't explain why the people that helped him aren't part of the discussion. TS-SCI isn't an all access pass. Even on your project. If you don't need to know about "X & Y" then you don't have access. He, with help, accessed information then illegally downloaded it (and probably did some hacking to get around a data loss prevention control).

Well, the NSA says that he duped other employees for their passwords.

I mean, I'm sure the NSA investigated pretty thoroughly to see if he had any willing accomplices. And, I don't believe any were found.

Apparently the Hawaii office he was working hadn't upgraded their data loss prevention control. If he did the same thing at Ft. Meade... he would have been caught pretty fast.

[Ibanez]

That still doesn't explain why the people that helped him aren't part of the discussion. TS-SCI isn't an all access pass. Even on your project. If you don't need to know about "X & Y" then you don't have access. He, with help, accessed information then illegally downloaded it (and probably did some hacking to get around a data loss prevention control).

Well, the NSA says that he duped other employees for their passwords.

I mean, I'm sure the NSA investigated pretty thoroughly to see if he had any willing accomplices. And, I don't believe any were found.

Apparently the Hawaii office he was working hadn't upgraded their data loss prevention control. If he did the same thing at Ft. Meade... he would have been caught pretty fast.

His history shows that he knows his way around computer security. Btw, he lived in the Ft. Meade area, but I don't think he ever worked there.

Passwords only get you so far, you often need a CAC as well. And it's rarely 1 password. If he did dupe those employees, then they are accomplices. (But he says he didn't.) That's the first rule of security - you don't give out your password. I just find the whole thing suspicious that he's the subject and not him and everyone else. I can see poor DLP controls at one location, especially if it's just coming on line, but more than 1? That tells me
1) Controls aren't in place; and/or
2) Controls are inadequate
3) Snowden had help
4) Snowden successfully hacked a computer system - and that I would keep secret if I were the NSA. If he did, then he was able to disable/disarm intruder detection systems.

From what I remember, he was essentially acting as an ethical hacker. On a red team. Which I found hilarious, considering what he did.

One of the first things most govt agencies due is block USB ports for any sort of removable media, including discs. And if there's an exception, most of the time, that activity is heavily monitored by some protection software. Shit, in the kinds of places he was working in, USBs, CDs/DVDs, phones, etc... aren't allowed. CDs will be in the lab or SCIFF, but controlled by the lab manager. They know how many they have blank, how many have been used and what's on them.

I guess what I'm saying is....from my experience...I have serious doubts.

[kalm]

Wouldn't Snowden have been influenced by what happened to Thomas Drake?

How easy is it for a low level private contractor to gain access to a Senator?

[CID1990]

Wouldn't Snowden have been influenced by what happened to Thomas Drake?

How easy is it for a low level private contractor to gain access to a Senator?

It's this very complex process called an email.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk