US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7769

On June 06 2017 23:48 Doodsmack wrote:
Thought this was a good one...

The White House’s Russia investigation “war room” may have been killed before the battle.

Just days before former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony about his firing, President Donald Trump decided that all inquiries related to the scandals engulfing his administration should be handled by his outside lawyer in New York instead of by a team based inside the White House, according to four advisers close to Trump.

The so-called war room, similar to a Clinton administration crisis operation created to deal with Monica Lewinsky-related inquiries, was taking shape as of last week, with plans for two former campaign aides to take over rapid response on Russia questions, according to a person with knowledge of the conversations.

Former deputy campaign manager David Bossie was being considered to join the West Wing in a senior position. Corey Lewandowski, a former campaign manager who was fired in June 2016, was scouting office space in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building last week for a White House team.

The president decided that Bossie and Lewandowski would be “more valuable on the outside than on the inside fighting back against the Russia narrative specifically,” said a person with knowledge of the conversations.

One White House official said no final decision had been made, while a second said that the administration will have no direct involvement in responding to the Russia investigation.

“I am not going to comment on a bunch of stories based [sic] rumors,” deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

Bossie and Lewandowski did not respond to requests for comment.

While the Clinton White House integrated lawyers into a larger rapid-response operation, the Trump team has so far relegated all inquiries related to the Russia scandal to Trump’s longtime attorney in New York Marc Kasowitz.

There’s still debate over whether Kasowitz will be aided by an outside public relations team to handle media inquiries. Bossie and Lewandowski may assist in that effort to defend the president from the outside, according to the person with knowledge of the conversations.

The president’s senior aides — and the president himself — were never able to reach an agreement on how a war room would function and who Bossie and Lewandowski would report to inside the White House. Trump senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who moved his own press aide into the White House last month and has worked with Trump communications adviser Hope Hicks for years, objected to outsourcing media inquiries to anybody else, according to a White House adviser.

One of the White House officials raised concerns about both Bossie’s and Lewandowski’s strong personalities and their ability to work cohesively with a larger team. Chief strategist Steve Bannon reached out to a handful of the president’s outside allies to ask whether they would be able to work, in particular, with Lewandowski, a divisive figure during the campaign.

On June 06 2017 13:44 GreenHorizons wrote:


While she didn't seem to have the most basic understanding of how to leak if she wanted to, it's not looking good for whoever at The Intercept who couldn't have done much more if their intention was to out their source.

The Intercept has to come out soon with an explanation or they'll never get a leak again (and that's pretty much their bread and butter).

On June 07 2017 00:42 Logo wrote:


I'm sort of confused here at how much The Intercept actually did wrong. I doubt Reality was like, "Oh hey by the way only 6 people have printed this document" (or that she knew) so the second The Intercept goes public with the leak or shows it to someone to verify it's pretty easy to put the pieces together.

On June 07 2017 00:46 Plansix wrote:

I’m also not sure. What they did seems deeply stupid at face value, but I don’t know how reporters confirm leaked information is legit. Maybe they have to turn over reporting numbers or other information. And without knowing the content of the email on her work PC, but that part seems deeply stupid and easily avoided.

On June 07 2017 00:48 Logo wrote:


This was the most detailed part of it I could find where The Intercept made an avoidable mistake: http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-reality-winner.html

But yeah again they knew 6 people printed the document only and that's a pretty small space to explore.

Basically though it seems like they should have manually typed up a copy of the document then provided that for verification or something? But in this day and age it's a tough call, people are so skeptical of anonymous sources you really need to show something concrete.

On June 07 2017 00:55 ZeromuS wrote:
Honestly, if she sent a classified document out from her work email address directly to the media source ... thats probably way easier to find.

Also just because someone prints a document doesn't mean they're the ones who leaked it. All they have to do is shred it, then say "yeah boss I have it right he -- omg its gone! Where'd it go!? FUCK!"

Then sure you might get in trouble or fired for mishandling a document, but they can't prove a legal case against you to put you in jail for 10 years.

On June 07 2017 00:48 Logo wrote:


This was the most detailed part of it I could find where The Intercept made an avoidable mistake: http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-reality-winner.html

But yeah again they knew 6 people printed the document only and that's a pretty small space to explore.

Basically though it seems like they should have manually typed up a copy of the document then provided that for verification or something? But in this day and age it's a tough call, people are so skeptical of anonymous sources you really need to show something concrete.

On June 07 2017 01:02 Grumbels wrote:

Isn't it just a document regardless of what you do with it? There is no way to verify it except to compare it with the original on the NSA server. What does it matter if you print it out or not?

On June 07 2017 01:03 Logo wrote:


The printer applied a microdot code specifying what printer it came from and when it was printed. If you scan that document to a pdf and share that then the microdots are still there.

On June 07 2017 01:07 Nevuk wrote:
My impression is that she would have been caught within the week or so due to her incompetence with using her work computer. Being caught within the day was definitely the intercept's fault.

On June 07 2017 01:07 Nevuk wrote:
My impression is that she would have been caught within the week or so due to her incompetence with using her work computer. Being caught within the day was definitely the intercept's fault.

On June 07 2017 01:10 Logo wrote:


Yeah mine too, which is still a big misstep for the Intercept but I feel like everyone saying, "Oh no one is going to leak to the Intercept again!" are overblowing it and/or have ulterior motives (like Wikileaks probably being mad they didn't get the leak).

On June 06 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
Trump, breaking down divisions between the parties through sheer force of fear and instability.

On June 07 2017 01:19 LegalLord wrote:

I would generally assume that a XXX@nsa.gov email that isn't spoofed is from a legitimate employee, at the very least.

The story to get busted for, just isn't particularly interesting. The fuck was she thinking?