Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday July 23 2017, @02:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the voice-of-reason? dept.

A President Trump thought bubble about the U.S. and Russia collaborating on cybersecurity matters has been dismissed by National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers:

National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers on Saturday rebuffed the prospect for a U.S.-Russia cyber unit, a proposal which has been greeted with incredulity by several senior U.S. lawmakers and which President Donald Trump himself appeared to back down from after initially indicating interest.

U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by hacking Democrats' emails and distributing online propaganda to help Trump win the election over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

[...] Asked whether it was a good idea to set up a cyber security cell with the Russians, Rogers told the annual Aspen Security Forum: "I'm not a policy guy here. .... I would argue now is probably not the best time to be doing this."

But there's more:

In unusually passionate and stark terms, the head of the nation's top spy agency made clear on Saturday in Colorado that he will stand up to anyone -- even the president of the United States -- who asks him to use the U.S. intelligence community as a political prop. "We are not about particular viewpoints. We are not about particular parties. We just can't work that way," National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers said at the Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colorado.

[...] Although Rogers has refused to publicly discuss his private conversations with Trump, he has previously vowed to keep politics out of his agency's work. But his remarks today at the annual gathering of senior officials, reporters and others tied to the U.S. intelligence community were noteworthy in their intensity and passion. Punctuating each word -- one by one -- the U.S. Navy admiral said, "I will not violate the oath that I have taken in the 36 years as a commission officer." Rogers' face hardened and his voice cracked as he added: "I won't do that."


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday July 23 2017, @02:40PM (7 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @02:40PM (#543363)

    Its the country thats the problem, not politics or collaboration in general. See for example:

    http://www.jta.org/2016/12/20/news-opinion/politics/us-israel-cybersecurity-collaboration-legislation-signed-into-law [jta.org]

    "This must include a collaborative approach that allows us to work with our leading partners, like Israel, to develop new technologies for our cyber incident responders." etc etc

    Its hard to believe the cold war ended around 1990 and nearly 30 years later there are still dinosaurs who think Russia is going to go "Red Dawn" on us next week unless we heroically stop them. Its right there in the article "in the 36 years as a commission officer." That dumbass hasn't had a new thought since reading Tom Clancy "Red Storm Rising" book in the 80s.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @04:17PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @04:17PM (#543390)

      Well, there is the small matter of Georgia and Ukraine and the continued occupation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea... Oh, and there's the proxy oil war in Syria... But yeah, now that they're part of the WTO all that cold war stuff is water under the bridge.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:00PM (2 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:00PM (#543417) Journal
        "Well, there is the small matter of Georgia and Ukraine"

        Yes, I can see why you might think they'd bear some grudges after those matters.

        "the continued occupation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea"

        None of which are actually 'occupied' in the normal sense of the word. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are organized states that fought Georgia for their independence and russian troops are there as part of a CIS peacekeeper force agreed to years ago. Are all the nations with peacekeepers present under occupation or only these two, in your estimation?

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:30PM (1 child)

          by frojack (1554) on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:30PM (#543484) Journal

          Are all the nations with peacekeepers present under occupation or only these two, in your estimation?

          All the nations with CIS "peacekeepers" are pretty much occupied, and Russian law prevails. And its been this way for a Long Time. [rferl.org]

          No one is naive enough to believe it is unique to Russian forces. The British, French, and even the Americans tend to leave after a while. Sometimes Far too soon, as both Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated.
          Other times you have to wonder, why the hell do we still have bases or at least a presence in Japan and Brazil.

          With a maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, there's nothing equivalent to the level of Russian control in CIS "occupied countries" compared to those places where the US or France or Britain have significant troops in another country.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 4, Informative) by n1 on Sunday July 23 2017, @10:13PM

            by n1 (993) on Sunday July 23 2017, @10:13PM (#543500) Journal

            RFERL is hardly an independent media outlet, it's official purpose is to spread US propaganda. The source for the article is from the US National Defense university, funded by the Department of Defense, also unlikely to be an independent analysis of Russian influence outside it's borders. Both of these sources view things explicitly from a US influence perspective, so any Russian influence or cooperation is going to be bad by default.

            Worthy of note is RFERL's mission to bring news to countries where the free press is banned. Yet the only country in the middle east it attempts to do this is Iran. It has no concerns about repression and lack of free press in nations friendly to US interests, such as KSA or in more recent times, Turkey.

            Russia may exert more direct control over CIS states, and any time it does happen we're going to hear about it thanks to our 'free press' ... NATO interests have a much wider array of options to put overt and covert pressure on the smaller states and their governments participating in the defense agreements. Those instances of lobbying and coercion are less likely to be reported and analyzed by the defense and security experts resident at the think-tanks and universities funded by the same interests putting pressure on NATO aligned states.

            Finally, there is still over officially 8000 US troops in Afghanistan. There are still thousands of troops in Iraq in various forms.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday July 24 2017, @06:32AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 24 2017, @06:32AM (#543585) Journal

        Oh, and there's the proxy oil war in Syria...

        Russia presence in Syria is not about oil. Both Crimea and Syria is about strategical presence of Russia's navy in the Mediterranean and Golf region: Crimea is the single Black Sea position suitable enough for a port able to host military ships (submarines included) and Syria is the point allowing the presence of Russia in the Mediterranean basin.

        The Ukraine troubles are generated by the fact US broke a promise made in the '90 about no NATO expansion in Eastern Europe [latimes.com] - a promise that made Russians allow Germany reunification go without troubles.
        Since then, the NATO expansion continued until there was almost no geo-space between Russia and NATO territory. With Ukraine signalling an approach to West Europe, the next move would have brought the two military powers in direct contact. As such, Putin decided to make sure the Black Sea exit is under Russia's control and the East Ukraine has enough troubles to prevent a Ukraine adhesion to NATO.

        And this is how the things will stay for long time: with Assad supported in Syria no matter what, East Ukraine with a separatist Russian presence and Crimea a Russian territory. I see no military power interested and strong enough to contest that.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by captain normal on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:26PM

      by captain normal (2205) on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:26PM (#543422)

      Wow...did not realize that VLM was a Russian agent provocateur. http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/agentsprovocateursfaux.html [mit.edu]
      Many members of Congress as well a our heads of national security groups (NSA, FBI an Joint Chiefs of Staff) seem to think there is reason to be concerned about Russian actions.
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40699751 [bbc.com]
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38966119 [bbc.com]

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:52PM (#543446)

      I'll take Roger's word over your word. What's Trump hiding? What does Putin have on Trump?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @02:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @02:51PM (#543367)

    Trump dismisses Mr Rogers

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:09PM (19 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:09PM (#543369)

    Reuters generally stays out of overt partisanship, but this reporting is clearly partisan and hopefully not an indicator of things to come. The simple addition of "U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by hacking Democrats' emails and distributing online propaganda to help Trump win the election over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton." is simple false. The closest to any sort of official assessment was in the 'leaked' intelligence report, but there too Russia's involvement was marked as as unconfirmed (green line vs yellow) information. And what as unconfirmed used the term "probably". And on top of all of that it was also stated that it was unknown if the unknown entities were able to successfully compromise any of the targeted entities. Outside of that it's increasingly deteriorating reporting from organizations like CNN with ever shifting goal posts supported almost in entirety by nothing but anonymous sources appealing to their own credibility which some might say is insufficient to justify said appeals.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:23PM (#543373)

      Okay, that's kind of disturbing. I just did some Googling on recent actions from Reuters. More brilliant reporting from them here [twitter.com]. Following Sean Spicers' (White House Press Secretary) announced resignation, Reuters decided to put a livestream up of his house for no apparent reason. That is paparazzi come Gawker come National Enquirer type behavior. Has this sort of behavior already become the new normal for Reuters? Really sad to see our media implode like this.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by fustakrakich on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:28PM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:28PM (#543375) Journal

      Your post should be modded up. It's a very accurate assessment.

      And here's a true quote inside a false story [washingtonpost.com] on "...the reliability of what anonymous sources describe in a wholly uncorroborated intelligence intercept that the Washington Post has not seen...". The people squealing the loudest about the Russians are the ones we should investigate. They should be answering some questions about their own activities [politico.com]. The money shot: "Now, it seems that a U.S. election may have been seen as a surrogate battle by those in Kiev and Moscow"...

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:43PM (7 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:43PM (#543380) Journal

      Like some other members here, I grew up during the Cold War, and later served in that same Cold War. (My elementary school had a huge fallout shelter under it, stocked with plastic drums of water, crackers, and a bunch of other stuff that I never got to investigate.)

      It is ironic that today, Russian news is at least as reliable as our own news "services". Every news story, ours and theirs, needs to be evaluated. How much of the story is truth, how much is simple propaganda, and how does it compare to similar stories published in China, India, Israel, and the UK? If you haven't sized the story up, and compared it to at least two or three other sources, you really have no idea how true it is.

      And, at the same time, at least one man I know personally (and otherwise respect) openly admits that he gets all of his news from one source - CNN. He simply doesn't believe anything published by anyone else, and declares that NOTHING on the internet can be trusted.

      As bad as the McCarthy days were, I'd kinda like to see a modern day McCarthy take our news organizations to task.

      • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:29PM (6 children)

        by Lagg (105) on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:29PM (#543437) Homepage Journal

        It continues to boggle the mind that people don't scrutinize articles now as a matter of course. This is an unprecedented era of spin and it's more important than ever to check sources. Especially the fancy graphs that prove a suspicion in too clean of a way which seem to a real fad right now on twitter to copy and paste. I don't know about you but I can simply not trust the spin in any capacity anymore one way or the other. Nor is it reasonable to me that people can then have a "favorite outlet".

        Yet you're going to have people that see what you said about CNN and go "yeah you're right!" but then if you replace it with Fox, MSNBC, BBC and so on and so forth the assumption will immediately be that you favor one. Height of stupidity to associate a news outlet with someone's character or one's own identity. In short, I assume this is also why russian news is "at least" as reliable at this point. Even though to me it's about as reliable as buzzfeed.

        I am feeling less guilty for being vastly underexposed to the news outlets themselves during this election and what has ensued all the time. And less embarrassed for getting my presidential statements from goddamned twitter.

        --
        http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @08:15PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @08:15PM (#543453)

          I think the fact that you can get your presidential statements from Twitter is, in large part, why the media is starting to go crazy. The media's only real purpose, previously, was to deliver information. Press access to the president, for example, was something that was mutually beneficial. The press needed information to encourage people to buy their newspapers. Politicians needed a way to get their message out to their constituents and encourage support for their other ideas. It was perfectly symbiotic. But now a days the entire world is connected. You can view the president's own words, just seconds after he writes them - from anywhere in the world, for free. Breaking news and events are covered on social media with people giving personal accounts and interactively discussing their experience and what's going on. The media there constantly asking for permission to reprint or reproduce what the first hand accounts are providing is becoming just increasingly quaint - and the market that needs this sort of media 'exposition' is continuing to shrink.

          So what is the purpose of the media now a days? This is why I think that interjected opinion, bias, political pandering (or smearing), clickbaiting, and so on are becoming more the rule than the exception. The media, in its traditional form, has become increasingly obsolete. And I don't think people entirely grasp incredibly revolutionary a change this is. The media had, literally for centuries, a rock solid monopoly on information. And this monopoly enabled them to have an effectively endless fountain of money. And in a period of less than 20 years - this was all completely destroyed. There are families that have been profiting off of this system on time scales that start to get into the centuries. For instance the Ochs-Sulzberger has owned the New York Times since 1896 and still own about 88% of the shares that determine operational control (arbitrarily labeled class b in the case of the NYT).

          This change to the information space is literally destroying dynasties. I think sometimes people just view things in terms of the worker or corporate employee - without realizing that the real ownership and control goes to the people behind the scenes. And these people are most benefited in times of surplus but also most negatively affected by times like today. And that, I think, is why the media is going down more like a decapitated chicken than with anything resembling grace and dignity. These aren't just regular businesses slowly going under. These businesses represent entire dynasties. And those dynasties are dying.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:07PM (4 children)

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:07PM (#543513) Homepage

            Trump loves to troll. Everytime he releases an inane statement on Twitter or otherwise, it's as if he's saying "jump," and when he does the mainstream media says, "how high?"

            Either way, he wins. When he tweets his fans get hyped and admire his bravery and honesty, as well as his spitting in the face of the status-quo. If he stops tweeting, that's less ammo for his detractors to use and they will have to go back to their tired phoney-baloney Muh Russia narrative instead of actually reporting on real news.

            Remember, those yellow-journalist snake bastards were all saying that Trump was finished, and that 90% of Americans were going to vote for Hillary. They went all-in betting everything they had and lost spectacularly, and from that point there was nowhere else to go but down. Might as well make as much noise as possible while doing so. And good for them. The more shit they spout, the more they push more and more mainstream news consumers into independent media.

            Thanks, fellas!

            • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:31PM (3 children)

              by Lagg (105) on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:31PM (#543520) Homepage Journal

              The way you guys stroke your dicks for Trump makes me think a different Trump besides the one I know got elected. This [pinimg.com] is the Trump I know. Real non-status quo and brave. But keep strokin'

              --
              http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
              • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:49PM (2 children)

                by Lagg (105) on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:49PM (#543523) Homepage Journal

                My god I'm tired of this site. I really don't know who's worse now. The cocksuckers who I can practically hear the slurping from, or the ones who think it's less shameful than the people begging for Obama to come back or the ones that call Clinton "madame president" on twitter.. You're all pathetic. And here I thought it was ambivalent trolling.

                --
                http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:51PM (8 children)

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:51PM (#543416) Journal

      Why does Russia always get a free pass on the Intertubes these days? Ever since that nice Mr Putin's selfless and heroic patriotic troops liberated Crimea from Neo-Nazi insurgents while on a foreign holiday in Ukraine in 2014 there are hoards of ACs (as well as non-anonymous assertive types) waiting to sing the praises of the great enlightened democracy that is modern Russia and its magnanimous, humanitarian, egalitarian, progressive president.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:22PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:22PM (#543434)

        Think about what you wrote.

          - 'This reporting, from one of the most reputable media organizations in the US, makes a false statement immediately following the lede.'
          - 'Why does Russia always get a free pass?'

        I think finding the introspection to see why you think what you wrote is a reasonable response, could perhaps also help you simultaneously answer your own question.

        • (Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday July 23 2017, @08:20PM (5 children)

          by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @08:20PM (#543454) Journal

          No. I'm not buying it. There are a lot of really fishy things going on in high places these days. The Trump supporters (and those who went along with Farage too) are going to have an awful lot of egg on their faces one day.

          • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:15PM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:15PM (#543517) Homepage

            Most of us Americans grew up being taught that McCarthy and his message were among the darkest chapters in modern American government. Those days were taught as being a Reign of Terror lite, with much hysteria but far fewer deaths compared to its French counterpart.

            Combine that with the fact that Americans don't think highly of their government, and this is what you get. Who knows, maybe McCarthy was right? Hell, former CIA director John Brennan voted for the Communist Party candidate [freebeacon.com] in '76, a fact he admitted to when undergoing his polygraph examination with the CIA 4 years later.

            Now, there is no inherent problem with socialism -- it worked rather well in the example of Nordic countries before their migrant invasions -- when populations are White, not too large, educated, and mostly obey the rule of law. Socialism in America would be a complete disaster, because America is too large and too culturally diverse.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:21PM (3 children)

            by digitalaudiorock (688) on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:21PM (#543519) Journal

            The comments on this one are just bizarre. The heads of the security agencies have talked on camera about Russian involvement, yet everyone here seems to be buying this "there's nothing happening here but leaks" bullshit that Trump's feeding the pubic...especially today. WTF?

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @05:59AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @05:59AM (#543580)

              Here [dni.gov] is the only relevant nonleaked report. The only assessment it makes is that Putin likely ordered an "influence campaign." The alleged goal was described as, "Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." The "influence campaign" was primarily relegated to RT (a Russian state news organization) giving negative coverage to Clinton. The report assigns financing (and implicitly control) of so-called "professional trolls" to the Internet Research Agency, which is a private organization within Russia.

              The only direct assessment of Russian hacking [anything] was in the 'leaked' report published on The Intercept. This [theintercept.com] is the image that was leaked. Note the legend at the bottom. Only green lines and circles are confirmed information. Yellow is speculation. The entire involvement of Russia is framed within yellow. And as I mentioned what is unconfirmed is labeled was a "probably within." You're looking at the speculative possibility of a possibility.

              This is all a complete non issue. Other countries are under no obligation to give favorable, or even fair, coverage to one candidate or another. And why would they in this case? Clinton overtly wanted a war with Russia, or at the minimum a substantial escalation of tension. Trump showed no such interest and instead mostly wanted to focus on America first. Let's flip this around. Imagine there were two candidates in Russia, Mikhail and Boris. Mikhail had a history of supporting Russian war. He rallied support for a previous invasion from Russia, and had recently begun to speak increasingly aggressively about the United States seeking to begin to engage in more direct confrontation with us. Boris on the other hand was mostly a Russian nationalist. He wanted to increase the military strength of Russia but simultaneously stop their militarism come imperialism. He had expressed respect, and some would even say a degree of reverence, towards the United States and its leader. He even began alluding towards a new era of cooperation with the United States against the new enemies of the world including Islamic extremism and terrorism. Who do you think we would support? Do you think our news agencies, all of who do indeed have extremely close ties to our government and intelligence agencies, would be giving fair coverage to Mikhail? Do you think our president would passively stand by if it appeared that Mikhail was increasingly likely to be elected? We've overthrown numerous countries for offenses that were magnitudes less severe than potential war with our nation. We're trying to hold a rather backwards country to a standard that leagues ahead of that to which we hold ourselves. This is absurd.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Monday July 24 2017, @09:44AM

                by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 24 2017, @09:44AM (#543621) Journal

                Almost believable, but Putin has been trolling the West since long before Hilary was a candidate. Putin only cares about Putin. Trump only cares about Trump but Putin is Trump's intellectual superior by a mile and he's playing him like a fiddle.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @11:21AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @11:21AM (#543633)

                Yeah, imagine ... Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, LOL!

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @08:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @08:09AM (#543604)
        Russia is one of the very few countries that isn't under the thumb of the world bank and imf. (ie... tptb)

        And russia is the ONLY one of them that isn't a complete shithole.
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:16PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:16PM (#543401) Journal

    But his remarks today at the annual gathering of senior officials, reporters and others tied to the U.S. intelligence community were noteworthy in their intensity and passion. Punctuating each word -- one by one -- the U.S. Navy admiral said, "I will not violate the oath that I have taken in the 36 years as a commission officer." Rogers' face hardened and his voice cracked as he added: "I won't do that."

    Any video of this?

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:27PM (1 child)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:27PM (#543483) Homepage Journal

    These are the same people who wiretapped every American. You call your mistress, they're listening. Call your bookie, they listen. Call for hookers, listening. They listen, I'm told, through the TV. That's right, folks, the CIA is in TV sets, in the TV cyber. Listening. But they keep screwing up, big time. These are the same people who said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. If you look at the weapons of mass destruction, that was a disaster and they were wrong. If you think about it, folks, if we kept the oil, you probably wouldn't have ISIS because that's where they made their money in the first place, so we should have kept the oil. But, OK, maybe we'll have another chance. I had a great meeting with President Putin at the G20. A couple of great meetings. Fantastic guy, very smart but he doesn't speak English at all, I mean, not "hello". Amazing! So he uses an interpreter. And we discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit to get to the bottom of election hacking and stop it. A unit that would guard America and Russia from a lot of negative cyber. I've learned one thing since I've become a politician: elections are a big, big problem. And they can be hacked. I think it was Russia and I think it was other people in other countries who also interfere, nobody really knows for sure what happened. I won't be specific, but I think a lot of people interfere. It could be somebody sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds. Look at the CIA. The CIA gave Obama a report in August. Now, the election was in November. That's a lot of time. He did nothing about it. They say he choked. I don't think he choked. I think what happened is he thought Hillary Clinton - who colluded with Russia - was going to win the election, and he chose not to do anything about it. If he thought I was going to win, he would have done something about it. So we don't have the Cyber Security unit with Russia. But believe me, we are guarding our cyber. We've got a beautiful, beautiful new aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford. Which I commissioned just yesterday. On Saturday. I'll tell you, the Ford has the best cyber, very modern. It's my 100,000 ton message to the world: don't fuck with us because you'll lose. Big league. And we've got Anthony Scaramucci in the White House. Terrific guy. And he's promised me drastic action to stop the leaks. I know you're very concerned about what's been happening in the White House. Very concerned about those leaks. And Anthony, I'm sure, is going to get to the bottom of the leaking and stop that. When it comes to cyber, you call the Russians. They're the best at it. When someone has a big mouth that needs shutting up, you call the Italians. They're the best at that. And Anthony is Italian. It's gonna be great. Why would you settle for less than the best? If you settle, you're a loser. Never settle is my motto. My great, great American people didn't settle. You chose the best. By a huge majority, you chose me, Donald J. Trump, Senior. To fix America. Part of which is fixing the White House. And Anthony is my fixer. He gets things done. #WINNING 🇺🇸

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @09:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @09:31PM (#543885)

      Why is this rater Funny? Everything he said is true. Everything he said is TRUE. This is the little guy fighting back against the Man (liberal, gay black man) who's been repressing us.

(1)