• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NSA chief Rogers has not been told to confront Russian election meddling.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. The article I read about this had an interesting quote from the NSA Chief:

“I need a policy decision that indicates there is specific direction to do that. The president ultimately would make this decision in accordance with a recommendation from the secretary of defense.”

I'm kind of surprised that the NSA needs specific direction in order to try and counter a cyber attack. I would think they would have enough autonomy to be able to do that.
 
Chromagnus said:
Sorry, couldn't help myself. The article I read about this had an interesting quote from the NSA Chief:

“I need a policy decision that indicates there is specific direction to do that. The president ultimately would make this decision in accordance with a recommendation from the secretary of defense.”

I'm kind of surprised that the NSA needs specific direction in order to try and counter a cyber attack. I would think they would have enough autonomy to be able to do that.
Click to expand...
They would be targeting Russia. Not domestic actors. So to go after Russians in Russia, the troll farm etc... he needs the specific authority.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
They would be targeting Russia. Not domestic actors. So to go after Russians in Russia, the troll farm etc... he needs the specific authority.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, that makes a bit more sense. I was thinking it was counter, as in try and stop their attacks, versus a full on counter attack where we go after them.
 
It's absolutely insane that the White House is not actively coordinating investigation and counterintelligence response (at minimum) right now and insane that anyone in Congress is letting that pass.
 
DGwYuu3W0AAlpxd.jpg
 
FIVR said:
Is it possible for Trump to fire Mike Rogers?
Click to expand...
Yes Trump can and just might fire him. Rogers is waving a giant red flag for anyone who will listen.

Back during Bush admin when WH claimed before the war it would be over quickly and wouldn't cost much. There was a General named Shinsecki who said WH grossly underestimated the cost of the war. General was fired but he was correct.

Clear dereliction of duty by Trump
 
Last edited:
FIVR said:
Is it possible for Trump to fire Mike Rogers?
Click to expand...

That ship has sailed. He's an Obama appointee who's former bosses tried to have him fired for being incompetent. He managed to hang on and convince candidate Trump to keep him on if elected. There may be a legal requirement for someone at the White House to issue him specific orders to conduct offensive cyber operations but if he hasn't asked for them he's just as negligent as whoever is supposed to issue that order.
 
If Trump can fire him, then I expect there to soon be an announcement that Mike Rogers is "retiring" (a la Andre McCabe)

edit: lol of course it already happened. I should've figured that was why he is talking. We certainly can't have somebody who actually wants to keep his job and will publicly stand up to Trump.
 
interchange said:
It's absolutely insane that the White House is not actively coordinating investigation and counterintelligence response (at minimum) right now and insane that anyone in Congress is letting that pass.
Click to expand...

Not that insane Trump is guilty and Russia has kompromat on him.
 
IJTSSG said:
That ship has sailed. He's an Obama appointee who's former bosses tried to have him fired for being incompetent. He managed to hang on and convince candidate Trump to keep him on if elected. There may be a legal requirement for someone at the White House to issue him specific orders to conduct offensive cyber operations but if he hasn't asked for them he's just as negligent as whoever is supposed to issue that order.
Click to expand...
Did you listen to his testimony? He is literally crying for help with this. Is all on Trump.
 
Chromagnus said:
Sorry, couldn't help myself. The article I read about this had an interesting quote from the NSA Chief:

“I need a policy decision that indicates there is specific direction to do that. The president ultimately would make this decision in accordance with a recommendation from the secretary of defense.”

I'm kind of surprised that the NSA needs specific direction in order to try and counter a cyber attack. I would think they would have enough autonomy to be able to do that.
Click to expand...
I think thats code for "we've been told not to do anything".

Phokus said:
Not that insane Trump is guilty and Russia has kompromat on him.
Click to expand...
I think this is pretty obvious. This sort of shameless backbending to the russians is indicative that someone is compromised.
 
interchange said:
It's absolutely insane that the White House is not actively coordinating investigation and counterintelligence response (at minimum) right now and insane that anyone in Congress is letting that pass.
Click to expand...

So if the NSA requires the authority from POTUS to engage in civil defense regarding foreign attacks, and POTUS refuses to grant this authority....does that constitute a gross dereliction of duty and, quite frankly, refusal to act in defense of the USA, for its citizens, and so fundamentally violates the oath of office?

Interesting times.
 
IJTSSG said:
That ship has sailed. He's an Obama appointee who's former bosses tried to have him fired for being incompetent. He managed to hang on and convince candidate Trump to keep him on if elected. There may be a legal requirement for someone at the White House to issue him specific orders to conduct offensive cyber operations but if he hasn't asked for them he's just as negligent as whoever is supposed to issue that order.
Click to expand...

when in doubt: attack Obama.

Good job, little weasel.
 
zinfamous said:
when in doubt: attack Obama.

Good job, little weasel.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's not Trumps fault for keeping on such an incompetent person. Just like it wasn't his fault he hired Flynn to the shortest tenure in history as national Security Adviser after being told repeatedly not to by, who else, Obama. Everything is Obama's fault.
 
zinfamous said:
So if the NSA requires the authority from POTUS to engage in civil defense regarding foreign attacks, and POTUS refuses to grant this authority....does that constitute a gross dereliction of duty and, quite frankly, refusal to act in defense of the USA, for its citizens, and so fundamentally violates the oath of office?

Interesting times.
Click to expand...

As for not specifically authorizing the NSA to launch counter-attacks, the answer is no. That is one possible strategy for response, but not necessarily the best one. Other responses are things like economic sanctions, diplomatic relations, efforts to beef up our defense against future attacks, etc. However, to the extent any of those have been done, it has also been without direction or involvement from Trump in any way. The administration needs to have a clear understanding and strategy RE: Russian interference in past and future elections. Near as I can tell, no such understanding or strategy has even started to exist.

I think the cumulative lack of response very definitely and transparently does constitute gross dereliction of duty even without factoring in the things Trump has done which impede the investigation and response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top