IG Horowitz report on Clinton email due soon

[Anastasis 23,483]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/donald-trump-cell-phone/index.html

Yes. He also has a WH issued cell phone that is secured and call enabled.  Is CNN trying to purposely mislead by referring to that device as a "personal cell phone"?  Perhaps. 

[Ragnarok 103]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

No you're right anastasis, both are absolutely the same. Obama definitely issued military directives and announced foreign policy through Twitter all the time. No reason to be concerned about a leader using an insecure method to announce policy. Especially when they already have been skirting the presidential records act. No reason to take issue with that at all. It's not like the trump admin routinely lies to the American people or anything anyways right?

This is a great point. What if his twitter messages were intercepted nanoseconds before being ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY?  This is almost exactly the same thing as having private classified information illegally on an insecure server.

[EastTexan 662]

41 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, it's totally different. 

Come on dude.

Apology accepted.

[EastTexan 662]

41 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, it's totally different. 

Come on dude.

Apology accepted.

[bernorange 8,365]

36 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, it's totally different. 

Come on dude.

I wasn't aware that POTUS was using Twitter to oversee operations of a pay to play Foundation slush fund or that his Twitter activity was contained on a private server for the purposes of firewalling communications from FOIA requests.

[Chuckie Finster 22,736]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yes. He also has a WH issued cell phone that is secured and call enabled.  Is CNN trying to purposely mislead by referring to that device as a "personal cell phone"?  Perhaps. 

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.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903

[Anastasis 23,483]

Since we're doing the selective quoting of the article thing.

The president uses at least two iPhones, according to one of the officials. The phones — one capable only of making calls, the other equipped only with the Twitter app and preloaded with a handful of news sites — are issued by White House Information Technology and the White House Communications Agency, an office staffed by military personnel that oversees White House telecommunications.

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 White House declined to comment for this story, but a senior West Wing official said the call-capable phones “are seamlessly swapped out on a regular basis through routine support operations. Because of the security controls of the Twitter phone and the Twitter account, it does not necessitate regular change-out.”

[Anastasis 23,483]

And maybe it's just my terminology, but I find the CNN piece misleading.  I have a secured work-issued iphone and my own iphone that I obtained outside of work.  I refer to one phone as my "work phone" and the other as my "personal phone". From time to time I will need to tell one of my coworkers to reach me via my "personal phone". I would never call my work phone my "personal phone", but maybe that's just me. It would have at least been more accurate to refer to it as his "government issued personal cell phone". Then maybe people like DD wouldn't get all worked up about the "illegal/unsanctioned/non-governmental tweet machine" that doesn't actually exist.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Anastasis

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

Whataboutism is strong in this thread.

Equating the POTUS use of twitter and potentially insecure phones to anything about anyone, such as hillary’s server or the Clinton Foundation, is classic whataboutism.

Whataboutism is a logical fallacy and sign of a weak argument or position.

FYI: whataboutism is a key component of Russian propaganda.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

The honest way to address the issue without the fallacy is to look at the last comments by Anastasis. He is addressing the issue and not trying to divert or equate with some other situation

[Chuckie Finster 22,736]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Since we're doing the selective quoting of the article thing.

The president uses at least two iPhones, according to one of the officials. The phones — one capable only of making calls, the other equipped only with the Twitter app and preloaded with a handful of news sites — are issued by White House Information Technology and the White House Communications Agency, an office staffed by military personnel that oversees White House telecommunications.

 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 White House declined to comment for this story, but a senior West Wing official said the call-capable phones “are seamlessly swapped out on a regular basis through routine support operations. Because of the security controls of the Twitter phone and the Twitter account, it does not necessitate regular change-out.”

I "selectively" quoted the first two paragraphs because they were a nice summary of the entire article, but thank you for copying over additional paragraphs that show that Trump is being extremely careless with his cell phone usage.

[Chuckie Finster 22,736]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And maybe it's just my terminology, but I find the CNN piece misleading.  I have a secured work-issued iphone and my own iphone that I obtained outside of work.  I refer to one phone as my "work phone" and the other as my "personal phone". From time to time I will need to tell one of my coworkers to reach me via my "personal phone". I would never call my work phone my "personal phone", but maybe that's just me. It would have at least been more accurate to refer to it as his "government issued personal cell phone". Then maybe people like DD wouldn't get all worked up about the "illegal/unsanctioned/non-governmental tweet machine" that doesn't actually exist.

I do agree with this.  Without the Politico piece to provide context, the CNN article definitely makes it sound like Trump is using a non-government issued device. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[Tuco 5,077]

I don't think the articles are very clear on what exactly happens on each of the phones, but they certainly seem clear that Trump is not following the recommendations of the security personnel regarding the phones.  Does anyone disagree with that interpretation?  Does anyone disagree that we would be six months into a Clinton investigation by now if she had been doing the same?

[Anastasis 23,483]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

I "selectively" quoted the first two paragraphs because they were a nice summary of the entire article, but thank you for copying over additional paragraphs that show that Trump is being extremely careless with his cell phone usage.

At least we've made it past the illegal/unsanctioned/non-governmental tweet machine thing... 

[lemonlime 5,503]

33 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

This is a great point. What if his twitter messages were intercepted nanoseconds before being ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY?  This is almost exactly the same thing as having private classified information illegally on an insecure server.

Or what if the hacker tweeted "official WH statements" on, oh, foreign policy, wars, nuclear bombs incoming, Dotus resigning....

[bernorange 8,365]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Whataboutism is strong in this thread.

Equating the POTUS use of twitter and potentially insecure phones to anything about anyone, such as hillary’s server or the Clinton Foundation, is classic whataboutism.

Whataboutism is a logical fallacy and sign of a weak argument or position.

FYI: whataboutism is a key component of Russian propaganda.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

The honest way to address the issue without the fallacy is to look at the last comments by Anastasis. He is addressing the issue and not trying to divert or equate with some other situation

Lulz.  The last post by Anastasis is addressing the Trump whataboutism to the original topic of this thread, which is the investigation of the Hillary server (and potentially the Foundation).

[Anastasis 23,483]

8 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I don't think the articles are very clear on what exactly happens on each of the phones, but they certainly seem clear that Trump is not following the recommendations of the security personnel regarding the phones.  Does anyone disagree with that interpretation?  Does anyone disagree that we would be six months into a Clinton investigation by now if she had been doing the same?

I generally agree that cellphones, and even secured devices represent a vulnerability. But I would like to see some actual quotes and details and people inside the administration or one of these security personnel on the record.  Give us some details on exactly what recommendations are not being followed.  From the article it appears that the primary recommendation that is being marginalized is to swap the twitter phone more regularly.  The  quote from an administration official suggests that it is not necessary to swap as frequently as the call-enabled phone because of how crippled it is with security measures.  Its not clear exactly what "sophisticated security measures" mentioned in the part Chuckie quoted are missing from the devices. The article mentions that there are operational camera and microphones on the call-enabled phones, which is swapped frequently and which is addressed in the only other actual quote from an administration official. Is turning off the camera the "sophisticated security measure" that is missing.  OK, I could buy that. They should turn off the camera.

 

And if there was a Democratic house, I agree, we would be six months into an investigation of Trumps government issued phones.  

Edited June 7, 2018 by Anastasis

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 minute ago, bernorange said:

Lulz.  The last post by Anastasis is addressing the Trump whataboutism to the original topic of this thread, which is the investigation of the Hillary server (and potentially the Foundation).

Yes, I suggest you learn from Anastasis. 

Whataboutism is a sign of weakness and a fallacy. 

[Anastasis 23,483]

14 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Whataboutism is strong in this thread.

Equating the POTUS use of twitter and potentially insecure phones to anything about anyone, such as hillary’s server or the Clinton Foundation, is classic whataboutism.

Whataboutism is a logical fallacy and sign of a weak argument or position.

FYI: whataboutism is a key component of Russian propaganda.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

The honest way to address the issue without the fallacy is to look at the last comments by Anastasis. He is addressing the issue and not trying to divert or equate with some other situation

No, no, no.  Whataboutism isn't deployed by #bothsides. You must be confused. 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

Just now, Anastasis said:

No, no, no.  Whataboutism isn't deployed by #bothsides. You must be confused. 

Never said it wasn’t both sides. 

Whataboutism is strong in this thread. It’s a fallacy that should be frowned upon

[bernorange 8,365]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

Yes, I suggest you learn from Anastasis. 

Whataboutism is a sign of weakness and a fallacy. 

What exactly is it that I need to learn?  I didn't employ a whataboutism to deflect from the original topic.  I responded to one that was attempting to do so.  Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

3 minutes ago, bernorange said:

What exactly is it that I need to learn?  I didn't employ a whataboutism to deflect from the original topic.  I responded to one that was attempting to do so.  Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.

Again, whataboutism is strong in this thread. Responding to whataboutism (trump twitter/phone) with your own whataboutism (Clinton foundation) has driven this thread off the rails

[bernorange 8,365]

Sure, because every post after my first mention of it has addressed that topic.  You are on fire today.

[Anastasis 23,483]

And now we are totally off the rails. 

[bernorange 8,365]

Sorry.  I'll bow out.

[Sawbonz 27,589]

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Again, whataboutism is strong in this thread. Responding to whataboutism (trump twitter/phone) with your own whataboutism (Clinton foundation) has driven this thread off the rails

You need to be careful labeling all analogies and comparisons whataboutism 

 

they are not always fallacious 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,587]

Whether Trump's phone use poses a security threat is nothing two years of Congressional investigations can't figure out and nothing a Joint Cyber Security Task Force with Russia can help to prevent.

 

 

 

 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

You need to be careful labeling all analogies and comparisons whataboutism 

 

they are not always fallacious 

 

Yes, I agree. I think in the cases of the last page of this thread they would be though.

Analogies are great when used for clarification or explanation but not when used to distract or justify.

[Brian Fantana 6,690]

What even is this thread hello?

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

We are supposedly gonna find out how the fbi potentially took missteps around the Hillary email investigation that may have helped trump win

[Tennesseehorn 101]

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

I wasn't aware that POTUS was using Twitter to oversee operations of a pay to play Foundation slush fund or that his Twitter activity was contained on a private server for the purposes of firewalling communications from FOIA requests.

Well then get with the program, MISTER!

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,587]

It's the decision crossroads to determine whether we reheat Uranium One or move on to Mueller Meddling In The Mid-terms-gate. Unless Hillary has an actual pussy riot with Pussy Riot.

[Sawbonz 27,589]

3 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Yes, I agree. I think in the cases of the last page of this thread they would be though.

Analogies are great when used for clarification or explanation but not when used to distract or justify.

They absolutely are appropriate to use to justify. The concept is foundational to deductive reasoning 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

They absolutely are appropriate to use to justify. The concept is foundational to deductive reasoning 

In some cases it could be used to justify but not in these.

Russian response to accusations of human rights violations, “and you are all lynching negros.” 

Left response to accusation that Hillary had an insecure server, “and Trump uses twitter on an insecure phone.”

Right response to accusation that trump used twitter on an insecure phone, “and he wasn’t using twitter to make pay-for-play with the Clinton foundation.”

[Tuco 5,077]

10 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Left response to accusation that Hillary had an insecure server, “and Trump uses twitter on an insecure phone.”

 

This thread is about the appropriateness of the FBI investigation into Hillary's email issue, which was driven by Congress.  You don't think the context of what is considered normal/acceptable/uninvestigated etc. when it comes to the current President's communications is a logical extension of that discussion?

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

I wasn't aware that POTUS was using Twitter to oversee operations of a pay to play Foundation slush fund or that his Twitter activity was contained on a private server for the purposes of firewalling communications from FOIA requests.

Have you never, at your place of business, had a customer who paid you $150 million until I gave them whatever company resource they were asking for, then the payments stopped? I mean, that's totally normal.

[RomaVicta 30,019]

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

This thread is about the appropriateness of the FBI investigation into Hillary's email issue, which was driven by Congress.  You don't think the context of what is considered normal/acceptable/uninvestigated etc. when it comes to the current President's communications is a logical extension of that discussion?

Possibly, thpugh I thought the thread was about how the fbi may have mishandled portions of the investigation and potentially may have influenced the election. I don’t think it’s about whether the email server was good/bad or whether it should or shouldn’t have been investigated.

[Brisketexan 105,340]

Everyone who does shitty things that jeopardize our national security should be called on the carpet and should face legal consequences if they do so.  That has always been true, and remains true.  If Hillary illegally used unsecured devices, she always should have faced appropriate consequences for that.  I've certainly never said otherwise.

I would like consistent treatment.  Hell, I'd be happy with even 25% of the same amount of alarm being raised with respect to a POTUS -- not a cabinet member, but the actual POTUS -- using openly and shamelessly using an unsecure device.  But I won't get that.

Because rules and norms don't matter.  Only teams.

Ether be pissed about ALL of it, or STFU and be pissed about none of it.  Giving Trump passes for all of this bullshit....wait till Bernie Sanders or worse is in office.  And the precedent will have been set.

Which is why I have repeatedly noted that we are irrevocably committed to destroying the Republic.  There are no norms, there are no rules, there are no laws.  Only teams.

[bernorange 8,365]

I know I said I'd bow out, but if GW is going to refer to me, I would appreciate it if he at least got the facts correct.

17 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

...

Right response to accusation that trump used twitter on an insecure phone, “and he wasn’t using twitter to make pay-for-play with the Clinton foundation.”

1. I am not "the right".  You might be new to our community, or you might be an old timer hiding behind a new username, but I've been vocal in this community since HF before the Shag or Surly were born.  My politics are known to anyone who has been reading my posts over the last decade plus.

2. My response that mentioned the Foundation was not "to an accusation that trump used twitter on an insecure phone".  That's a disingenuous characterization of the post I was responding to.  DD's assertion was that Trump's use of twitter was equivalent - the exact same thing - as HRC's use of the private server/emails.  It was an absurd whataboutism and deserved the sarcastic ridicule it got.

Once again, you are not engaging a topic with honesty because you are too focused on pushing your agenda (in this case, an attempt to discredit me). 

[Sawbonz 27,589]

28 minutes ago, Tuco said:

This thread is about the appropriateness of the FBI investigation into Hillary's email issue, which was driven by Congress.  You don't think the context of what is considered normal/acceptable/uninvestigated etc. when it comes to the current President's communications is a logical extension of that discussion?

This

 

13 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I know I said I'd bow out, but if GW is going to refer to me, I would appreciate it if he at least got the facts correct.

1. I am not "the right".  You might be new to our community, or you might be an old timer hiding behind a new username, but I've been vocal in this community since HF before the Shag or Surly were born.  My politics are known to anyone who has been reading my posts over the last decade plus.

2. My response that mentioned the Foundation was not "to an accusation that trump used twitter on an insecure phone".  That's a disingenuous characterization of the post I was responding to.  DD's assertion was that Trump's use of twitter was equivalent - the exact same thing - as HRC's use of the private server/emails.  It was an absurd whataboutism and deserved the sarcastic ridicule it got.

Once again, you are not engaging a topic with honesty because you are too focused on pushing your agenda (in this case, an attempt to discredit me). 

And this

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 Is CNN trying to purposely mislead by referring to that device as a "personal cell phone"?  Perhaps. 

OH THAT'S craaaaazzzzzeee talk !!!  CNN would neeeeeeever mislead the public..... un-intenionally at least....

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Everyone who does shitty things that jeopardize our national security should be called on the carpet and should face legal consequences if they do so.  That has always been true, and remains true.  If Hillary illegally used unsecured devices, she always should have faced appropriate consequences for that.  I've certainly never said otherwise.

I would like consistent treatment.  Hell, I'd be happy with even 25% of the same amount of alarm being raised with respect to a POTUS -- not a cabinet member, but the actual POTUS -- using openly and shamelessly using an unsecure device.  But I won't get that.

Because rules and norms don't matter.  Only teams.

Ether be pissed about ALL of it, or STFU and be pissed about none of it.  Giving Trump passes for all of this bullshit....wait till Bernie Sanders or worse is in office.  And the precedent will have been set.

Which is why I have repeatedly noted that we are irrevocably committed to destroying the Republic.  There are no norms, there are no rules, there are no laws.  Only teams.

But we need those norms, rules, and laws. And we need to do away with the idea of team-only politics, tribalism, identity politics, and nationalism. There are hard steps we can take to change our direction. I wouldn’t give up

[Brisketexan 105,340]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

But we need those norms, rules, and laws. And we need to do away with the idea of team-only politics, tribalism, identity politics, and nationalism. There are hard steps we can take to change our direction. I wouldn’t give up

I'm not giving up.  I'm still playing as hard as I can, and fighting as hard as I can.

But the scoreboard reads 66-3, and there's not much time left on the clock.  Barring a miracle that transcends any possibility we can even conceive of, we know how  this ends.  I can both fight AND call it like I see it.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

41 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Everyone who does shitty things that jeopardize our national security should be called on the carpet and should face legal consequences if they do so.  That has always been true, and remains true.  If Hillary illegally used unsecured devices, she always should have faced appropriate consequences for that.  I've certainly never said otherwise.

I would like consistent treatment.  Hell, I'd be happy with even 25% of the same amount of alarm being raised with respect to a POTUS -- not a cabinet member, but the actual POTUS -- using openly and shamelessly using an unsecure device.  But I won't get that.

Because rules and norms don't matter.  Only teams.

Ether be pissed about ALL of it, or STFU and be pissed about none of it.  Giving Trump passes for all of this bullshit....wait till Bernie Sanders or worse is in office.  And the precedent will have been set.

Which is why I have repeatedly noted that we are irrevocably committed to destroying the Republic.  There are no norms, there are no rules, there are no laws.  Only teams.

You're the biggest "team" guy on this board. You are consistently in agreement with the worst, craziest posters here. All of you scream racism as the reason for every problem and the universal explanation for everything. And thus there is no conversation.

The "we come in peace, shoot to kill" strategy is effective for a short time.  But in the end most people recognize poo flinging for what it is. It is disgusting behavior by despicable people. And it is not an argument.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[David Dennison 18,947]

 

2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

You're the biggest "team" guy on this board. You are consistently in agreement with the worst, craziest posters here. All of you scream racism as the reason for every problem and the universal explanation for everything. And thus there is no conversation.

The "we come in peace, shoot to kill" strategy is effective for a short time.  But in the end most people recognize poo flinging for what it is. It is disgusting behavior by despicable people. And it is not an argument.

One question: did you vote for Donald Trump?

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm not giving up.  I'm still playing as hard as I can, and fighting as hard as I can.

But the scoreboard reads 66-3, and there's not much time left on the clock.  Barring a miracle that transcends any possibility we can even conceive of, we know how  this ends.  I can both fight AND call it like I see it.

I’m more optimistic then you.

At the federal level, we’ve got the senate intelligence committee, rosenstein, and mueller preparing to show the world who are bad apples and how this all occurred. Unfortunately this takes time.

Fixing dark money and addressing media/socialmedia’s bias/propaganda will be a big undertaking, but doable with a change in leadership.

We do need to clean up discourse on an individual level. We do need to point out us vs them identity politics when it is obvious. We do need to point out when logic/science are replaced with feelings. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm not giving up.  I'm still playing as hard as I can, and fighting as hard as I can.

But the scoreboard reads 66-3, and there's not much time left on the clock.  Barring a miracle that transcends any possibility we can even conceive of, we know how  this ends.  I can both fight AND call it like I see it.

If you wind the tin foil a biiiiit tighter, and double roll lock your seams, I'll bet a whoooole lot of the voices you're hearing would cease.

[David Dennison 18,947]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

If you wind the tin foil a biiiiit tighter, and double roll lock your seams, I'll bet a whoooole lot of the voices you're hearing would cease.

Says the Hillary conspiracy theorist without a hint of irony.

[Brisketexan 105,340]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

If you wind the tin foil a biiiiit tighter, and double roll lock your seams, I'll bet a whoooole lot of the voices you're hearing would cease.

Says the man who is watching his team normalize literally every single thing he said would be a danger under Hillary, and is hunky-dory with it.

You spent years warning about crookedness, corruption, lying, naked pursuit of political enemies......and now wallow around in the same telling us how great it is.  You are EXACTLY the problem.

[BurntOrange&White 40,015]

Oh you've got at least 10 fingers on one hand ?

Name them then

Hugo is the only one I can think of.