White House Bans Use of Personal Devices From West Wing (cbsnews.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Bans Use of Personal Devices From West Wing (cbsnews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday January 4, 2018 @12:05PM from the policy-change dept.

In the wake of damaging reports of a chaotic Trump administration detailed in a new book from Michael Wolff, the White House is instituting new policies on the use of personal cellphones in the West Wing. CBS News reports: White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released the following statement on the policy change: "The security and integrity of the technology systems at the White House is a top priority for the Trump administration and therefore starting next week the use of all personal devices for both guests and staff will no longer be allowed in the West Wing. Staff will be able to conduct business on their government-issued devices and continue working hard on behalf of the American people."

Wolff reportedly gained access to the White House where he conducted numerous interviews with staffers on the inner-workings of the Trump campaign and West Wing operations. Sanders told reporters Wednesday that there were about "a dozen" interactions between Wolff and White House officials, which she said took place at Bannon's request. The White House swiftly slammed the book and those who cooperated with Wolff.

205 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

They're just doing this now??? by dlleigh · 2018-01-04 12:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sheesh!
1. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  No kidding, if there were ever a secure facility that shouldn't have hackable personal devices it's the White House. This should have been a thing decades ago.
2. Re:They're just doing this now??? by MightyMartian · 2018-01-04 12:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Government for the Idiots, by the Idiots, and of the Idiots.
  Whether 9/10s of what Wolff writes in his book is invention and exaggeration, the fact a guy with his long-established reputation was walking around the White House just baffles me. What the fuck is wrong with Trump's people? Are they all fucking idiots? At every turn, this is an Administration seemingly hell bent on fucking itself over.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Gavagai80 · 2018-01-04 12:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What do you expect when you appoint someone to a job for which they have zero relevant experience? It's like making the trash collector your new company CEO.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
4. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Pseudonym · 2018-01-04 12:37 · Score: 2
  
  It's often the case that there's no problem until there's a problem.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
5. Re:They're just doing this now??? by bigdavex · 2018-01-04 12:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Are they all fucking idiots?
  Yes.
  
  --
  -Dave
6. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't know, Dilbert as observational commentary about the real world is scary accurate. The smartest character in the strip is the garbage man.
7. Re:They're just doing this now??? by rogoshen1 · 2018-01-04 12:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  the garbage man actually does something, is probably more honest, definitely more empathetic. A company could do worse...
  elop, fiorina for example..
8. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 13:21 · Score: 0
  
  this is an Administration seemingly hell bent on fucking itself over.
  Are you kidding?! This is Apprentice and Real World and various others rolled into one. Anyone who thinks Trump isn't making the best of this is only fooling themselves. It will be the number one show of all time. That is a guarantee. This presidency is more fake than the moon landings. It was definitely made for TV.
9. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  Trump certainly has done one thing, expose the deep state and shadow government
  Watch it. I hear that MAGA koolaid has a sour aftertaste.
10. Re:They're just doing this now??? by sheramil · 2018-01-04 13:31 · Score: 2
  
  It will be the number one show of all time.
  I can only watch so much of Punch and Judy beating each other with sticks before I get bored.
11. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well, typically most of the presidents communication should be recorded, transcribed and made available so there haven't really been a need for it since anyone involved in classified meetings should have a secured phone anyway.
  The only thing that makes this necessary is that the white house tries to keep more secrets than it should.
  That they are doing it indicates malice. That they just got to it now indicates incompetence.
12. Re:They're just doing this now??? by fahrbot-bot · 2018-01-04 13:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What do you expect when you appoint someone to a job for which they have zero relevant experience? It's like making the trash collector your new company CEO.
  Or "elect" ...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
13. Re:They're just doing this now??? by MightyMartian · 2018-01-04 14:01 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Yeah, so that's why this new innovative version gives Punch the most technically advanced military in the world, so he can threaten weird Asian tyrants with his "bigger button".
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
14. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 14:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not only was dilvert scary accurate. Dilbert's artist is hell bent on promoting and pushing pointy and orange hair incompentant bosses onto the rest of us.
15. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 14:34 · Score: 0
  
  And the really sad thing is the fucking part. These idiots are indeed breeding. Idiots are much more tolerable than fucking idiots.
16. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Darinbob · 2018-01-04 16:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because in reality the white house doesn't have a lot of power independent of Congress. Deep state or not, the president needs to get Congress as an ally to get things done. Which surprises a lot of people who assume the executive can just dictate orders and have it done. And it's dismaying when every four years the general public is highly interested in who is going to be president but doesn't bother voting for congress, state elections, the mayor, or even dogcatcher.
17. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Arzaboa · 2018-01-04 18:50 · Score: 2
  
  What you are referring to is called "The government." The government really is by and of the people.
  The government is directed to do things by the laws that are created. "Tough on Crime" is just one example of the people demanding the laws be executed to the fullest extent. What many see as the "shadow government," is the mix of laws, and pressure to enforce them, in action. Its called "Weak on Crime" when one mentions re-thinking law's and their unintended consequences.
  Congress enacts our laws. The judiciary, and by extension, the investigative branches (FBI, CIA, NSA), obtain information on people breaking these laws, and then forward that information so that they can capture these criminals. What you are referring to in this case, are stings gone wrong. Stings with no end. Unintended consequences. One conspiracy theory that ends up being true, does not make every unintended consequence a conspiracy. Talk to your congressmen and the voters around you about reviewing these laws.
  Profits rule. Its not that corporations are bad, and people are bad. Its when this idea infects the people such that profit is always the ultimate goal in our courts and our people, you see that express itself crossed with the sense of what is right and you get things like the "war industrial complex." If they're bad and they need to enforce justice, sell em whatever they need is simply how it works. How many people are really protesting smaller tanks? Inaction is action.
  There are certainly people that use these natural rhythm's in life to ingratiate themselves, but they are the fewer. They aren't steering them. The undercurrents of the American culture will be the people X what they've chosen as influences and what they collectively are striving for. What they hear and who they listen to. This is a serious feedback loop.
  What you are seeing is an expression of what it is to be American, in this type of government system, crossed with a cultural psyche that is young. It takes may generations to sharpen an arrow.
  It would be nice to say that there is a person or people we could blame it on, because that would be easier if it wasn't us.
  --
  “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” - Flannery O'conner
18. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-04 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Dilbert's artist is hell bent on promoting and pushing pointy and orange hair incompentant bosses onto the rest of us.
  And he's very good at it. Much better than say, Fox News. He speaks rationally and calmly, and when he doesn't know something he says he doesn't know instead of BS. But still, it seems that no matter what Trump does he takes a positive view of it.
  He posts a short video several times a week. Even if you're 100% anti-Trump these are worth watching, if only to give your position a little more perspective and perhaps help fine-tune your own arguments.
19. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Kiuas · 2018-01-04 20:36 · Score: 2
  
  It's like making the trash collector your new company CEO.
  I'd say it's even worse. It's like walking out the door, going to the hobo with the sign that says the aliens are coming because they probed him and making him the CEO. I'm not american but I've been following the shitstorm that is Trump pretty closely and I thought I'd have gotten used to the stupidity by now, but the guy's a walking embodiment of the phrase: 'if you make something idiot proof, God makes a better idiot.' I mean honestly, the guy literally bragged about the size of his nuclear launch BUTTON. Not even the missiles (which would still be moronic) but the damn button used to launch them. Like this is above and beyond idiocracy-levels of insane, And this guy has the launch codes? Like, that's the truly scary thing here for those of us outside the US. The man's very likely suffering from an early onset of alzheimer's, if you look a the way he speaks. He's never been a master of rhetoric, but if you compare his speech now to clips from him from earlier daces, he's clearly degraded even from that. He can't speak, he can't write, and he lacks the basic understanding of how governments and diplomacy functions. I'm fairly certain if you asked him to name the three branches of government he'd be able to name himself, maybe the legislative and then change the topic 'cause he doesn't remember the third one. And this man is at the helm of the largest military machine ever developed by man? Every time I think about that it sends shivers down my spine, so I mostly just try not to think about it.
  The US presidency is a much more powerful position than most western presidencies, so if anything Trump illustrates that it would perhaps be a good thing to have the candidates go through a basic medical screening for obvious mental issues, because putting people like him into positions of power is a genuinely risky move. Not because they're evil, he's way too dumb to be intentionally evil but that makes it even worse. The silver lining here based on the quotes from the book is that apparently even his close circle recognizes that he's a baffoon, so at least they're vary of what kind of information he's given so as to not confuse/anger him too much.
  The US produces some of the smartest minds on the planet, but when a major chunk of the voters is by and large uneducated about basic civics this is what happens and that's truly sad. Please do something about that for your own sake more than anything, but also for the sake of global stability.
  
  --
  "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
20. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 21:02 · Score: 0
  
  this is an Administration seemingly hell bent on fucking itself over.
  Are you kidding?! This is Apprentice and Real World and various others rolled into one. Anyone who thinks Trump isn't making the best of this is only fooling themselves. It will be the number one show of all time. That is a guarantee. This presidency is more fake than the moon landings. It was definitely made for TV.
  Perhaps we deserve a fitting ending of nuclear war for the season finale, so we can nuke this idiot mentality back to the fucking stone age.
  Always knew that Greed would destroy humanity one day. Just didn't think it would quite be this narcissistic.
21. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 22:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "Which surprises a lot of people who assume the executive can just dictate orders and have it done."
  It might surprise you that this is just the case.
  They are called Executive Orders logically enough, a scalpel best used when Congressional action is unlikely to dull it. Trump railed against Obama for signing so many... during the same period he has issued nearly twice as many. (49 vs. 26 by October.) Only such a divided Congress could allow such an Executive Power Grab. Democrats don't have the votes to overturn them, and Republicans are just fine with this... as long it is a Republican Administration. But even Republicans couldn't muster enough collusion to overturn even one of Obama's Orders. (Boehner tried, for Obama not pursuing "Obamacare" as quickly and decisively as he could. This was provocation, not Legislation. Republicans were very much opposed to any implementation. Obama did not take the bait; he would not descend to Republican levels of modern Fascism.)
  Although not explicitly permitted in the Constitution, Executive Orders generally fall under the broad and loosely defined Powers of the Executive, and Lincoln is assigned Order #`1, (A dull thing regarding establishing a Court, and the Salary of the Judge.).
  They can be overturned by Legislation or Court; five of those by FDR were, and a sixth was overturned under Truman. But in general, Executive Orders can be revoked easiest by succeeding Presidents. Trump is trying just that, moving to revoke any Order that came from Obama, regardless of nature or worth.
  "Because in reality the white house doesn't have a lot of power independent of Congress."
  You are very naive. So are most Democrats. If this was a one-person one-vote Country, Democrats would overwhelmingly hold the House, and Clinton would be President. But it isn't; as Republicans like to smugly remind us when it suits them, the US is a Republic, and some votes have more value than others.
  It won't be the Democrats who oust Trump, it will be disgusted Republicans. Principled Republicans are what got Nixon to resign, so there is precedent. But the Republican Party of 1973 isn't the Republican Party of 2018. Every time one finds a possible Principled Republican, like McCain, turn him over and expose his belly to the Sun, and they _always_ end up showing their true cowardice, and end up voting the Party Line.
  That's what people don't quite grasp; there is a Deep State, its roots are deep and go right back to the writing of the Constitution, and its current Figurehead occupies the throne at 1600 Pennsylvania. When Trump & Co. divert suspicion away, it's very much like the kiddie-fiddler Minister preaching against Planned Parenthood. "Here's the Gasoline, there is the Clinic. I'll look after your Children while you do God's Work."
22. Re:They're just doing this now??? by gtall · 2018-01-04 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  "a major chunk of the voters is by and large uneducated about basic civics" ... close, it isn't just civics about which they are uneducated. Just look at American TV and see what Americans watch. It isn't far from the truth that a sizable minority decided to vote for someone just like what they see in their reality TV shows, and one who echoes back their own stupid prejudices. And it is obscene when a major political party decides it knows more about science than scientists. This will not end well for America.
23. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  "What the fuck is wrong with Trump's people? Are they all fucking idiots?"
  Bwahahaha! You have to ask this, really? Are you effing kidding me??
  This "president" and his staff are hands-down the most incompetent, insane turd eaters, raking the American people for everything they're worth. They were put in place by Russians who are laughing all the way to the bank on how easy it was/is to put one over on the stoopid Amerikanskie internet rubes. ,
  Only un-American fascist idiots with a 35 IQ actually still support this rube and his Hee Haw cohorts who are raping American for all its worth while they can.
  Let's hope there are at least a few half-intelligent (I know, right?) politicians left in DC who can keep this jabroni from touching off the world until this fall's elections, and then with a huge dose of luck, we'll be rid of him in 2020.
24. Re:They're just doing this now??? by kilfarsnar · 2018-01-05 02:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Government for the Idiots, by the Idiots, and of the Idiots.
  Whether 9/10s of what Wolff writes in his book is invention and exaggeration, the fact a guy with his long-established reputation was walking around the White House just baffles me. What the fuck is wrong with Trump's people? Are they all fucking idiots? At every turn, this is an Administration seemingly hell bent on fucking itself over.
  Um, you've been watching this administration for the past year or so, right? I'd say the answer is obvious. These people didn't even know they had to hire their own White House staff. https://www.washingtonpost.com... They are completely and profoundly unprepared to do this job.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
25. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Trump certainly has done one thing, expose the deep state and shadow government, pretty much in full public view now, most can see the corruption now. The war industrial complex, the entirely corrupt fourth estate main stream media, corporate control, the horror of hollywood and it's part in controlling feeding the corrupt, with the sexually exploitable.
  The Deep State was exposed on 9/11/01, for those with eyes to see. I fully expected them to go after Trump, and I have not been disappointed. Of course, Trump has made it easy for them, as it is looking more and more like he has been laundering Russian mob money for decades. That's a paddlin'.
26. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Ahahah rationally and calmly. He definately never uses hyperbole, childish nicknames, generalizations, etc...
27. Re:They're just doing this now??? by ArtemaOne · 2018-01-05 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  This administration criticized the previous administration on these things. Granted, they didn't leak SAP level classified material like Clinton, but if you have an unsecured area, you can guarantee that information is being accessed through at least several of the devices in there have been penetrated by foreign operations of various levels. Some allies, some enemies, and probably just a bunch of random hackers as well.
28. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  The most "hackable personal devices" are people's brains, and there is no way of spam filtering or securing them.
  The staff will just have to be morons somewhere else.
29. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  I know! Glad that we replaced that guy with #45.
30. Re:They're just doing this now??? by tbannist · 2018-01-05 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  These people didn't even know they had to hire their own White House staff.
  Well to be fair, they weren't expecting to have to do that for the practical reason that they had planned to lose the election. It was Trump's plan to actually lose the election, he was running for the fame and the followers and so he could use them to launch his own right wing news network. I don't know if they were going to try and call it the Trump News Network (TNN) but I'd bet they would have tried.
  It is darkly amusing that Trump managed to screw up losing the presidential election...
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
31. Re:They're just doing this now??? by daten · 2018-01-05 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  This may be a new policy for staff but it isn't new for visitors. During my last visit to the west wing I was instructed to keep my personal phone in my pocket at all times and that it would be confiscated if I removed it during any part of the visit, with the exception of the press room where personal devices and pictures are allowed. Most of the west wing isn't a SCIF, with the exception of the situation room, which isn't opened to uncleared visitors. Any outside electronic devices are likely prohibited from the SCIF. I can't speak to the polices of the oval office while the president is present.
32. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, I don't need to fine-tune arguments against a fucking Cheeto, it is beneath me
33. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Are they all fucking idiots?
  
  Thankfully. Imagine if one of them were competent.
34. Re:They're just doing this now??? by JackieBrown · 2018-01-05 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  If this was a one-person one-vote Country, Democrats would overwhelmingly hold the House, and Clinton would be President. But it isn't; as Republicans like to smugly remind us when it suits them, the US is a Republic, and some votes have more value than others
  I don't think you understand the point. It's so 2 or 3 populous states don't decide the president. If your system was in place, the south and fly over country would have no say in the presidential election.
  In the EU, items pass by the majority of countries voting on an item. I believe that is how it works in the UN (outside of the separate veto power)
35. Re:They're just doing this now??? by david_thornley · 2018-01-05 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  The points of the Electoral College when it was made appear to have been to give slave states more influence on the Presidential election and to keep people like Trump out of the White House. Any other reason is ex post facto.
  The Electoral College allows a coalition of large states to elect a President with absolutely no input from the small ones. In a popular vote contest, the candidates would pick up votes where they could, but with the EC there's absolutely no point in doing that.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
36. Re:They're just doing this now??? by painandgreed · 2018-01-05 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  The most "hackable personal devices" are people's brains, and there is no way of spam filtering or securing them.
  The staff will just have to be morons somewhere else.
  According to the book in question, the main leak is the guy in charge who keeps telling things to his corporate buddies but blaming his staff.
37. Re:They're just doing this now??? by painandgreed · 2018-01-05 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Deep state
  Is that the new catch phrase for people who can't spell Illuminati?
38. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Darinbob · 2018-01-05 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I think it is yes, it's the modern conspiracy theory that explains why nothing seems to change even though someone's favorite person gets elected.
39. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  There are no principled republicans. When Snowe, Murkowski, and McCain voted Yes on that shit hoagie of a tax bill, we found this out with glaring, resounding finality.
40. Re:They're just doing this now??? by JackieBrown · 2018-01-05 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Telling part of a story is not telling the story correctly. There was more than one state's rights issue back in the day my friend.
41. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  "There was more than one state's rights issue back in the day my friend."
  Name them. And this time, don't use sound-bites like "Flyover Country". You do know what year it was that the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk?
  Thornley is exactly right. The 3/5 Compromise, the makeup of the Upper House, called here the Senate, the Electoral College, and even the siting of the future Capital were all sops to the South just so that they wouldn't bolt and form yet another (Failed) Confederation, run by a Landed Aristocracy, with an economy founded upon a disenfranchised Class called Slaves.
  "It's so 2 or 3 populous states don't decide the president."
  There would have been more than 2 or 3 if Blacks, Women, and Indians were extended the Franchise, and if ownership of Land only by White Males weren't a requirement. (Note that ownership of sufficient Property was also an issue in some Northern States.)
  Even those that were disturbed, like Washington and Jefferson, by the concept of a Landed Aristocracy ruling the Country, as it was in England, were themselves Landed Aristocrats. My own opinions have evolved over the years; I admire Washington more and more, and Jefferson less and less. Washington did a very fine thing when, as a priority upon being elected, he set out to install a Federal Courts System; to make this a Country of Law, not of Men.
  Jefferson's prime achievement seems to be the Louisiana Purchase... which extended the influence of the Southern Landed Aristocracy even more. Many of those "Flyover States" were by intent meant to be Slave States, where Institutional Slavery had not previously existed. Jefferson seems to have the Augustinian Attitude: "Make Us Good... but not right now."
  Trump is really a throwback here; he inherited Wealth and Property, and set out to acquire even more Property. Trump's mindset is Property-Based; Property Rights. He is sympathetic towards Privatization of Federal Property; he just threw away by Executive Order four decades of Offshore Environmental Protection, he is cutting down on the amount of Interior Public Parkland and Preserves, and his own attitude toward Blacks and Real Estate is a matter of Public Record, and in the Court Judgments against him, his "Daddy Warbucks", and his Family regarding Discrimination in Housing.
  Even more disturbing is his insistence on Personal Loyalty; the People working under him aren't working for the United States, they are working for him, personally.
  And if he hasn't yet instituted an Oath of Fealty, it's just because he hasn't gotten around to it yet.
42. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  "And if he hasn't yet instituted an Oath of Fealty, it's just because he hasn't gotten around to it yet."
  I was mistaken; he has. It's called his "Non-Disclosure Agreement". Here is some pertinent wording:
  "2. No Disparagement. During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so."
  Everybody working for his Campaign, even Volunteers, had to sign it. It's obvious to us that an Oath Of Office administered to somebody who previously signed this supersedes such an agreement, but what is obvious may not yet be Case Law, and it may not be Case Law if it comes before one of Trump's Judicial lackeys.
  Where is our Republican Brutus to take on his Caesar?
43. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-05 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  If you're not willing to listen to the other side then you're making your own opinion less informed.
44. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-05 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not never, but less often. And he actually explains his thinking. You might disagree, and you might be right, but at least he's making his case instead of just bashing. Do you do that? And off-topic, but just a handy mnemonic: There's only a finite number of ways to spell definite.
45. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-06 00:14 · Score: 0
  
  "There are no principled republicans. "
  There are, or at least there were. McCloskey springs to mind, as does Stark and recently, DeSaulnier. And that's just locally.
  Fine, principled, small "r" republicans, who want Government kept out of their way as much as possible, while they go about making their World around them a little better, while securing for themselves a decent, but not outrageous, Profit. Even Barry Goldwater was leaning this way once again, towards his end. Goldwater became a Conservative Conservationist when his opinion no longer mattered; he was freed of big "R" complicity.
  I am at heart a Republican, as were my Grandfathers, who spent some leisure time as Guests of His Majesties Government.
  Republicanism is a fine ideal. One cannot spend the times of day judging the worth of every single matter of the Affairs of State; that is unbridled and ill-informed Democracy. For that we choose Representatives, and for deeper matters, these Representatives choose their own Representatives, and so it goes right to the Top. But the Top attracts the most vile of of characters. They skip the steps below, through utterly unscrupulously means, because those, naively, below believe in an honest Republican System, and think that this cannot happen. Surely, Ambition must be strangled on the way up. It isn't.
  The Russian Soviet System, as an experiment in Republican Philosophy, was about as pure as it could get. But it entirely depended on the Good Faith of those involved.
  Then came Stalin.
  And now comes Trump.
  Captcha: cuckoo
46. Re:They're just doing this now??? by david_thornley · 2018-01-08 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  There was, but I fail to see what any of the others have to do with the Electoral College. If you think others had influence, please post.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ban them! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:06 · Score: 0

They should ban them from the par 4 hole 8 so we don't get all those Tweets.
1. Re:Ban them! by bobbied · 2018-01-04 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  They should ban them from the par 4 hole 8 so we don't get all those Tweets.
  Dang, Tweeting wile golfing at 3AM? What does this guy not do except sleep?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Ban them! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  3am in your timezone is golf-o'clock in Moscow.
  Just sayin'.
A well tuned machine! by Lisandro · 2018-01-04 12:08 · Score: 1

Sheeze, couldn't with start 2018 without 17 breaking news from the WH a day?
1. Re:A well tuned machine! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  I just wish they'd go ahead and say "live it's saturday night" and end the skit. The joke has gone on long enough. It's old.
2. Re:A well tuned machine! by Lisandro · 2018-01-04 12:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I just wish they'd go ahead and say "live it's saturday night" and end the skit. The joke has gone on long enough. It's old.
  Seriously. The thing today where Trump videoconferenced into a WH press briefing when he literally sits 100 feet away from the room was surreal. I was expecting Alec Baldwin to show up at any moment.
Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by atrex · 2018-01-04 12:08 · Score: 1

Security? How about that personal iPhone Trump runs around tweeting with. Take that away too.
1. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by bobbied · 2018-01-04 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Security? How about that personal iPhone Trump runs around tweeting with. Take that away too.
  How do you know it's not an Android?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Security? How about that personal iPhone Trump runs around tweeting with. Take that away too.
  It is correct to ban the devices. Of course it would also be correct to get his impeachment underway, but republicans care less about the good of the country, than they do about the good of their donors. The obstruction continues as they look for ways not to get to the truth, but to suppress it.
  As far as Trump ignoring the rules, well is anyone surprised? I'd laugh my arse off if someone managed to own his iPhone and publish a few weeks of audio on the internet, provided it didn't hurt the country too much.
  Simply put, Trump keeping an iPhone like this is worse than at the time Hillary having her own server. The reason it is worse is the threat environment is worse now and Trump is a far more appealing target.
  Hillary should have known better. Trump _does_ know better. He spent the entire election bitching about it. Security is a real thing. The curious thing is Hillary's server didn't get owned as near as we can tell, while the department server did. It is probably the case of a simple installation run by a non idiot with nothing special being sometimes more secure than an installation used by so many. The private server probably just had a smaller attack surface. That doesn't make it a good idea, since part of it not getting owned is likely luck.
  Still Trump has no excuse. He values his ability to tweet instantly more than he values the security of the country. Every tweet he makes should be verified by a couple of lawyers and probably some major staff member just to make sure it doesn't make matters worse, such as his latest tweets saying his "button" was bigger than the other guys and Hillary's aid should be jailed...
3. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:35 · Score: 0
  
  The only way to know for sure is to ask Vladimir Putin which phone he is allowing Trump to use.
4. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Twitter will show you the client used to post the tweet.
  The insane ones come from Android.
  The ones from a staffer come from iPhone.
5. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by slaker · 2018-01-04 12:45 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Cheeto himself carries a Samsung phone. He mostly tweets in the relatively early morning and late in the evening. During the day, a staffer with an iphone does his tweeting, which is why those tweets tend to be better composed but also sometimes get contradicted by later statements. Most of the media seems to only consider his late night/early morning tweets as significant.
  When Obama took office, he was described as a Blackberry addict but was ultimately given a specially secured Android phone that had been vetted by appropriate agencies. As far as I'm aware, his Orangeness has never given up his personal phone.
  
  --
  -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
6. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  Trump has an Android, and it supposedly doesn't have a web browser on it for security purposes. I know, I know- internally, the twitter app is a browser. But still.
7. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by CohibaVancouver · 2018-01-04 16:55 · Score: 2
  
  Up until recently it was a Samsung Galaxy S3 running Android 4.3.
8. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by admin7087 · 2018-01-04 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  This has nothing to do with security, it's all about hiding nefarious plots and preventing more of Trump's idiocy from leaking outside. (Not that this would make any sense, given that he writes patently stuopid tweets on a daily basis.)
9. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by gtall · 2018-01-04 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  His head would explode.
Wolff's book is a solid work... by RedK · 2018-01-04 12:10 · Score: 0, Troll

... of fan fiction. Seriously, how anyone can quote anything from that book with all the very obvious factual errors in it is beyond me. If he can't even get the Trump/Boehner when there are numerous tweets, public pictures, how can you take anything seriously in that thing ?

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
1. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  Um, don't read it then?
2. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't, the book hasn't been published yet. But he's got to practice his lines so he'll be ready when the time comes.
3. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Pseudonym · 2018-01-04 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  "Fan fiction"? No, "fiction" implies that he made it up. True, he has form for that, but in this case it's probably more like an extended gossip column than outright fabrication.
  Mind you, that in itself is valuable. It may not portray Trump accurately, but it probably portrays what people close to Trump think about Trump accurately.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
4. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  He has audio and video. You're a moron.
5. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by gravewax · 2018-01-04 12:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If it was all fiction Trump would not be so desperate to get it discredited and blocked from sale. I am sure their will be plenty of bullshit in it, but can't be anyworse than the bullshit Trump makes up on a daily basis.
6. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Lisandro · 2018-01-04 12:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, it mustn't be that far off if its mere announcement managed to detonate all ties between Trump and Bannon and have the WH sending cease-and-desist letters over the span of a single day.
  And the thing is not even out yet. We'll see in a week.
7. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by h33t+l4x0r · 2018-01-04 12:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Exactly. This new policy is Trump shutting the barn door after the horse bolted. Wolfe was allowed to record conversations in the White House, which only becomes a problem when your entire staff thinks you're a retard.
8. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by RedK · 2018-01-04 13:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because if I made up stuff about you that was blatantly false, you wouldn't ask me to quit it ? Really ?
  I mean, I guess Slander and libel are fine with you.
  
  --
  "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
  Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
9. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  I take you have read an unpublished book then?
10. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Lisandro · 2018-01-04 13:05 · Score: 2
  
  Judging by the amount of "fake news" Trump denounces every chance he gets it is kinda suspicious this book triggered him enough to file lawsuits...
11. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by AmiMoJo · 2018-01-04 13:32 · Score: 2
  
  A book by Bannon would have been largely ignored if it wasn't for Trump's tweets and the lawsuit. The way you deal with these kinds of exposÃ©s is to ignore them, not give then credibility.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
12. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  *throws bible at your head*
13. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Lisandro · 2018-01-04 13:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I sort of agree. The POTUS released an official statement about Bannon shortly after the book was announced, for Pete's sake.
  Guess there's more truth to it than the WH cares to admit: https://twitter.com/janicemin/...
14. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Obfuscant · 2018-01-04 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  If it was all fiction Trump would not be so desperate to get it discredited and blocked from sale.
  If someone wrote a book of fiction about you, you wouldn't try to discredit it and block it from sale, because doing that would mean it is true? I think your logic is flawed.
15. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  Keep up the good work, comrade. #MAGA
16. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 13:51 · Score: 0
  
  Oh for fuck's sake, do you really think that we can't tell that you're a Trump shill by the simple fact that you're commenting on the content of a book that you can't possibly have read because it's not even published yet ?
  Is there, or has there even been, any tiny little shred of basic human decency in you Trump supporters ?
17. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by RedK · 2018-01-04 13:57 · Score: 2
  
  So with all the fake news he denounces, you're surprised he would denounce more fake news ?
  *puzzled*.
  
  --
  "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
  Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
18. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Lisandro · 2018-01-04 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  No. I'm surprised he decided to release an official POTUS statement and cease-and-desist letter over this very particular piece of "fake" news though.
  Makes you wonder.
19. Re: Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  If it was either of those then that would be the case Trumps lawyers would go for.
  That they don't pretty much verifies the book as accurate.
20. Re: Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  The simpler solution is that he's not willing to use his office to attack the media even when they make libelous fabrications, but isn't so restrained against a book author.
21. Re: Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 14:09 · Score: 0
  
  No. That is not the SIMPLER solution, you moron.
22. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Ogive17 · 2018-01-04 14:11 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Can we ask Trump to quit for all the blatantly false things he has said?
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
23. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by PmanAce · 2018-01-04 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Why is he suing? Why is he banning devices that can record stuff?
  
  --
  Tired of my customary (Score:1)
24. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Obfuscant · 2018-01-04 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Can we ask Trump to quit for all the blatantly false things he has said?
  You can ask Trump to quit for any reason you desire, or for no reason at all. You can ask him to quit because you don't like the color of his hair, even. Just don't expect him to do it.
25. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by AmiMoJo · 2018-01-04 14:28 · Score: 2
  
  My senior policy advisor? I had nothing to do with him.
  My campaign chairman? Only with me for a short time.
  My national security advisor? A liar.
  My foreign policy advisor? He was just a coffee boy.
  Don Jr? Fake news!
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
26. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Lisandro · 2018-01-04 14:44 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's even worse; Bannon was officially part of the National Security Council.
  Which means he had a security clearance.
  Which means he very likely lied to the FBI during vetoing about the Don Jr. / Russia meeting he now acknowledges.
27. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by AmiMoJo · 2018-01-04 14:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Bannon was on the national security council and had TOP-SECRET clearance. Now Trump says he has lost his mind. Bad judgement.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
28. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  trump does that on a daily basis.
29. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by h33t+l4x0r · 2018-01-04 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the cease and desist letters could be automatic. There's probably someone on the payroll whose job it is to send legal threats to anyone who says something negative about Trump. And I'm sure that guy is busier than handicapped parking at the special olympics.
30. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by gravewax · 2018-01-04 21:24 · Score: 2
  
  If someone wrote a book of fiction about you, you wouldn't try to discredit it and block it from sale, because doing that would mean it is true? I think your logic is flawed.
  ummm no, I would be thrilled, give it a half hearted discredit and then later sue their arses off for a large payday. Now if it was embaressing and true, then hell yeah I would do my best to block it.
31. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by tehcyder · 2018-01-05 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  I take you have read an unpublished book then?
  No, but I'm sure his handlers have.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
32. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  As if Bannon hadn't lost his mind many, many years ago...
33. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  I know what fiction means. It is outright fabricated in some parts.
  Citation Needed
34. Re: Wolff's book is a solid work... by sound+vision · 2018-01-05 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  What's going to be interesting... Or maybe just vomit-inducing is the "response" book that comes out. Portraits of Courage and Principle in the White House or something. You know it's already been commissioned. They need to have an alternative narrative.
35. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by bigdavex · 2018-01-05 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Right, if the Wolfe book is pure fiction, it makes no sense to disparage Bannon based on its contents.
  
  --
  -Dave
36. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by tbannist · 2018-01-05 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  Well considering that virtually none of the "Fake News" that Trump denounces is actually, in any way, fake, no I'm not surprised any more when Trump declares something fake news. However, I am surprised that Trump would file suite against Steve Bannon for violating an NDA by talking about what happened during the Trump campaign over what was written in a supposedly "fake news" book.
  It should make you wonder why, if the book is fake, Trump is threatening the people who supposedly didn't talk to the author? And why he's threatening to sue them about things they supposedly didn't tell Wolff. I mean if Wollf made it all up, the Trump should only be angry with Wolff, right? So why is he calling for Steve Bannon's head on a platter?
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
37. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Obfuscant · 2018-01-05 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  ummm no, I would be thrilled,
  You're odd, to say the least. Most people would want lies stopped before they are sold, since it is impossible to retract a book once it is in the hands of the public. Unless it's a Kindle edition, but that's a different issue.
  
  and then later sue their arses off for a large payday.
  You can still sue their asses off after trying to stop the sale. What you will never be able to stop, if you don't stop the sale, is that book showing up in a used bookstore and another group of people reading lies about you that they don't know you got paid for.
38. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  No he is actually quite representative, behaves somewhat like trump where he thinks about long term benefits to him. only people that are whinny bitches that care more about what others think think the way you do as most peoples friends and family don't make decisions about you based on a book someone made up, after that who gives a shit!. The largest payout will always be after the lies are more widespread.
39. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  you are the one that is odd, or perhaps more just you are of the millennial generation where you think social position, twitter, facebook etc is the world and what they think of you is all that matters.
40. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  pots and kettles
41. Re: Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 19:09 · Score: 0
  
  It's simpler than coming up with a plausible explanation.
42. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-06 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  There's already some things being exposed as lies, but it is unlikely that a libel case would ever win. Why?
  Well, Wolff himself admits that his book is nonsense.
  http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-wolff-note-says-he-doesnt-know-if-trump-book-is-all-true-2018-1
  "Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.
  "Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."
  That's right- he has stated at the start of the book that the book is bullshit, made up. Of course there will be plenty of true things in the book- the entire point of the book is to attack the presidency, and if every single thing in the book was made up, then it wouldn't occupy many news cycles. You write a book like this in the hopes that many of the lies will be confused with truth indefinitely. After all, even after a lie is disproven (which takes up to thousands of times the effort of just making something up), there will still be idiots who refuse to accept the truth, and there will be many more uninformed people who heard the accusation but never the retraction.
  "Fan fiction" is putting it too nicely- this is a bunch of vicious slander and lies, wrapped in a package that will make the lies live on far longer than any other package could allow them to.
43. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-06 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  > ummm no, I would be thrilled, give it a half hearted discredit and then later sue their arses off for a large payday.
  But you'd lose because the author himself doesn't claim the book is true in any way. He would simply claim it was satire, based on his OWN words, in the book:
  http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-wolff-note-says-he-doesnt-know-if-trump-book-is-all-true-2018-1
  "Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.
44. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by RockDoctor · 2018-01-06 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Why is he banning devices that can record stuff?
  Why is he only banning one class of recording devices? There are whole companies dedicated to producing (for an example) audio recording devices buried inside a (working) pen or fag lighter. Nothing suspicious about carrying one, and with the density of flash storage these days, you'd switch it on as you leave your office and use it as a pen (fag lighter) while recording the President's self-incrimination.
  Or maybe the senior White House staff (what do the Americans call it - the "executive branch"?) is populated by fucking morons without two brain cells to rub together between the lot of them. And their professional permanent support staff (civil servants, or whatever the EN_US term is) are passing them rope with well-tied knots in it and letting them attach it to the gallows themselves.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
45. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-06 18:42 · Score: 0
  
  he is not claiming it was satire, merely that it was information given to him by others and hence he can't say with certainty one way or the other if it is true. This is a common problem when dealing with second hand information, regardless it is not a legal protection against slander.
46. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by gravewax · 2018-01-06 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  that is not actually a protection from slander, neither is claiming it was Satire as the bar to call it satire is set as "no reasonable person upon reading the information would consider it true".
We're going to need a bigger popcorn bucket by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:11 · Score: 1

This doesn't keep us from eating the popcorn. This move, itself, is part of the show. The problem, you see, is that you can't use your stupidity and paranoia to HIDE your stupidity and paranoia. Hiding doesn't work like that.
1. Re:We're going to need a bigger popcorn bucket by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  How can you sit back and enjoy your popcorn when TRUMP IS KILLING EVERYONE EVERY SINGLE DAY???
2. Re:We're going to need a bigger popcorn bucket by bobbied · 2018-01-04 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  How can you sit back and enjoy your popcorn when TRUMP IS KILLING EVERYONE EVERY SINGLE DAY???
  Just remember... Corn is what they feed animals to fatten them up for slaughter. Let him eat that popcorn so he's ready when Trump gets to him!
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Grammar by bitchtits · 2018-01-04 12:12 · Score: 0

This isn't grammatically correct.
Only phones?! by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2018-01-04 12:12 · Score: 1

The policy talks about personal phones, but what about things like smart watches?
Granted, my Pebble Time would be pretty safe, but an iWatch with cellular access can record and broadcast conversations.
1. Re:Only phones?! by networkBoy · 2018-01-04 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  the policy talks about "All personal devices" not just phones.
  So... Nope, ditch the watch too.
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
2. Re:Only phones?! by presidenteloco · 2018-01-04 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  What about small pads of paper and pens?
  
  --
  
  Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
3. Re: Only phones?! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  Don't know if they use those.
  The thinking hats were banned since he got elected.
4. Re:Only phones?! by sheramil · 2018-01-04 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  What about people with good memories?
  Okay, that was a dumb question.
5. Re:Only phones?! by Patent+Lover · 2018-01-04 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  There goes Sarah Huckabee Sanders' vibrator.
Tweets by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:13 · Score: 1

Will this lead to less tweets??
1. Re:Tweets by bobbied · 2018-01-04 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  SO you are figuring that the President is in the west wing Tweeting at 3:00 AM then?
  Does this guy ever stop working and sleep? Seriously...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Tweets by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  That really depends on your definition of "working"...
3. Re: Tweets by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 18:22 · Score: 0
  
  Less tweets? Thought the number of characters increased not decreased.
  You probably mean *fewer* tweets.
  Grammer Nazi
4. Re: Tweets by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  Probably he meant "lesser" tweets. Tweets that are not as magnificent as the "greater" tweets that we have become accustomed to seeing emanate from the current Presidential office.
Mud slinging? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:14 · Score: 0

Is BeauHD just mud slinging, or is there some (poorly related) connection between the Bannon tiff and the cell phone policy?
1. Re:Mud slinging? by Lisandro · 2018-01-04 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Both were triggered by the announcement of Wolff's book.
2. Re:Mud slinging? by findoutmoretoday · 2018-01-04 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Unrelated, one is all lies and the other is about recorded conversations
3. Re:Mud slinging? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 19:26 · Score: 0
  
  You're claiming that they are lying about the ban on personal devices? Interesting. You may be right.
Good idea, but instituted for the wrong reasons by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:16 · Score: 1

The Trump White House is doing this to prevent leaks, limit access, and restrict the flow of politically damaging information. These are poor reasons to implement such a policy, and fit with the pattern of behavior from the Trump White House. However, it is very logical to prevent people from bringing in personal devices that may contain malware into a secured area. I'm surprised these restrictions haven't been implemented previously, because it is a logical security measure. It's a shame the Trump White House is doing this for the wrong reasons.
1. Re:Good idea, but instituted for the wrong reasons by bobbied · 2018-01-04 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  This is ridiculous conclusion here. I don't see anybody actually involved in the decision saying this was to stop leaking, but for security... Besides, the leaking was largely from now fired Bannon. Things have calmed down a LOT on the leak front since he got the boot. Bannon was and is about getting attention for himself, as the last few days clearly show.
  It's also OLD news.... I heard this weeks ago and I'm almost positive we discussed the banning of privately owned devices from the West Wing on Slashdot back then.
  So, read the fine article and realize that this move is not designed to stop leaks by staff.... It couldn't do that anyway. It's designed to provide security and ensure that privileged communications don't happen in ways that can be intercepted or monitored by people who should not be privy to such information.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I don't think this is the problem by mspohr · 2018-01-04 12:25 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Probably a good idea to ban personal devices when you have so much to hide.
However, I doubt that this measure will have much effect. There are many much more serious problems in the WH than personal phones. It will be impossible to keep all this shit buried under the rug.
I am rather enjoying the show of two senile old white guys brawling in public. Trying to prove who is more paranoid, delusional, hateful, racist and all around jerk.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Please tell me that includes "personal" devices by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:25 · Score: 0

like certain compact "massagers", cigars, certain rings, straps, mice, etc. Just the thought that they might be in use there is nauseating.
Guests?? by TooTechy · 2018-01-04 12:28 · Score: 1

Does this include the press?
1. Re:Guests?? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  No, they are termed "enemies"
Until you block Trump from Twitter... by geekmux · 2018-01-04 12:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

...this is as much security theatre as the TSA.
And you fucking know it is.
1. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Lisandro · 2018-01-04 13:00 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  A better question is why Twitter hasn't shut down Trump's account over TOC violations yet.
  (yeah, the obvious answer is that Twitter is hemorrhaging money and will cling at anything to say relevant in the eyes of their VCs).
2. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  I haven't read one tweet from him that violates their terms of service. There is far worse stuff on twitter that is still around.
  And it would be historically relevant. Sure they are doing it from a business perspective, but were they to close his account the blowback would be worse even from the media. Can you say massive IRS audit, SEC investigations, etc.
  They have bigger problems anyway - no real business model and no way to grow their business as it is today. Social media is a dead end.
3. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 15:04 · Score: 0
  
  The nuclear button tweet alone clearly violates Twitter rules regarding making threats of violence "against an individual or group of people".
  Jack Dorsey has already explained they will never ban Trump though, so the entire point is moot.
4. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  Oh bullshit. That was hyperbole mocking NK's tweet and you know it.
5. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  Oh bullshit. That was hyperbole mocking NK's tweet and you know it.
  Ah, so "hyperbole" is now a valid defense for threatening tweets. Thanks for the legal precedent, Mr. President.
6. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  I don't. There's people in Asia genuinely terrified about these STATEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
7. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  You seriously underestimate what such tweets mean for someone who lives in Seoul, for instance.
8. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Lisandro · 2018-01-05 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  https://blog.twitter.com/offic...
9. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 19:31 · Score: 0
  
  They obviously have no sense of humor.
10. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2018-01-05 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  Quoting from the Twitter policy - it applies only to "Elected world leaders". Not to monarchs or dictators who have been forcibly empowered?
It's way too late by TimHunter · 2018-01-04 12:41 · Score: 1

The barn is back there. The horse is wayyyy over there.
That's the way... by guygo · 2018-01-04 12:52 · Score: 2, Funny

your hard-core Commie works. A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice.
They've been monitoring us for a long time, Mandrake. All cell phones must be crushed. All must learn to play the piano.
1. Re:That's the way... by Nethead · 2018-01-05 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  So General Jack D. Ripper is now Chief of Staff?
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
Haven't the leaks happened already? by ErichTheRed · 2018-01-04 13:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

You know what would be very interesting? Given Trump's paranoid tendencies, and his previous experience as a businessman in the very shady real estate industry, he might be recording all his conversations, Nixon-style. _Those_ would make for some very interesting listening. Business executives record their conversations all the time...they're used to being double-crossed.
Banning personal devices might limit recording, but every staffer he fires is going to get a book deal just based on their experience. One of the biggest leaks is the personal use of Twitter. Conversations like, "Mr. President, can you please refrain from telegraphing our foreign policy positions and your disposition to adversaries?" must be hard to have, especially when ignored.
1. Re:Haven't the leaks happened already? by Lisandro · 2018-01-04 13:27 · Score: 2
  
  Didn't Trump himself suggest he recorded his conversations with Comey, like, 75 years ago?
2. Re:Haven't the leaks happened already? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 14:33 · Score: 0
  
  Everything in the Oval Office has been recorded (by default, unless the President chooses to turn it off) since the Kennedy administration - that wasn't Nixon's innovation.
  The tricky part is getting the White House to publish those recordings. I imagine Trump, being Trump, is planning to merchandise them somehow.
3. Re:Haven't the leaks happened already? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 14:35 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, he did - and when Comey didn't back down, Trump had to eventually admit he was blowing smoke.
  He really is basically the stereotypical school-yard bully.
4. Re:Haven't the leaks happened already? by caseih · 2018-01-04 16:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yes he sure did. However when Comey called for Trump to release these recordings, he said, oh wait nevermind. There aren't any recordings after all. So either he was blowing smoke (read: lying) with his boast, or the recordings bear out Comey's side of the story. Either possibility is equally probable.
5. Re:Haven't the leaks happened already? by houghi · 2018-01-04 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well, he already told Putin some top secret details about spies and told the public that he was allowed to do so. So he confirmed that he did it.
  I doubt anything would be a real scandal.
  He would just say "I fucking telegraph the fuck I like, now fuck off."
  We are beyond people denying what they did to safe face. Even the NSA and CIA and FBI tell you they do what we think they are doing and don't care.
  As long as there are no consequences, why lie? "Yes mommy, I took a cookie when you told me not to." If mommy doesn't do anything, I will take as many as I like.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
6. Re:Haven't the leaks happened already? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  except Trump lies all the time as a matter of course, so chances are extremely high he was lying at the time, which precludes the existence any actual recordings unfortunately.
YAY!!! by NEDHead · 2018-01-04 13:23 · Score: 1

No More Tweets! No More Tweets!
so are they taking the tv remote from the idiot in by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 13:32 · Score: 0

chief Donald then?
A few of the many stories about Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 13:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Links about Trump
Trump's lies:
In 298 days, President Trump has made 1,628 false and misleading claims (Nov. 13, 2017, Washington Post)
In a 30-minute interview, President Trump made 24 false or misleading claims. (Dec. 29, 2017, Washington Post)
President Trump's Lies, the Definitive List (Dec. 14, 2017, The New York Times)
10 Falsehoods From Trump's Interview With The Times (Dec. 29, 2017, New York Times)
Trump takes credit for zero aviation deaths worldwide. (Jan. 2, 2018, Trump's Twitter account)
Replies:
"I'm gonna take credit for puppies being cute..."
"Guess who's responsible for designing the cute kangaroo pouches that keep little Joeys safe? That right, it was Me. ME. ME!"
"That's a job well done, thank you, but don't forget I gave dolphins their blowholes! Without me, they would've drowned!"
Sexual abuse:
The 19 Women Who Accused President Trump of Sexual Misconduct (Dec. 7, 2017, The Atlantic.com)
Mental instability:
Incoherent, authoritarian, uninformed: Trump's New York Times interview is a scary read. (Dec. 30, CNBC) Quotes:
"President Donald Trump tells a string of falsehoods in his recent New York Times interview that make it difficult to tell whether he is lying or delusional."
"Trump appears to suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, which holds that the least competent people often believe they are the most competent."
"Trump's comments are, by turns, incoherent, incorrect, conspiratorial, delusional, self-aggrandizing, and underinformed."

Lawyers 'Telling Trump What He Wants To Hear' So He Won't Fire Mueller (Dec. 31, 2017, Huffingtonpost.com) Quote:
"The president of the United States, in their view, is out of control a good deal of the time..." People who work for Trump have to adjust to his instability.
8 of the Sleaziest Things Donald Trump Has Said (June 16, 2015, 2 1/2 years ago, RollingStone.com)
Choosing weak people to be leaders:
Trump's FCC Chairman pick Ajit Pai heralds a weaker, meeker Commission (Jan. 23, 2017, TechCrunch.com, almost one year ago)
Ajit Pai's FCC is still editing the net neutrality repeal order (Jan 2, 2018, ArsTechnica.com)
Trump picks ghost hunter to be federal judge (Nov. 15 2017, BBC News) Quote:
"The appointment of Brett Talley, 36, for a lifetime post as an Alabama federal judge is raising eyebrows because he has never tried a case."
Profiting personally:
Trump has now spe
1. Re:A few of the many stories about Trump by CohibaVancouver · 2018-01-04 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  and the puppetmasters behind the scenes
  "Puppetmasters?"
  
  Are these 'puppetmasters' drunk idiots, Anonymous Coward? If these guys dreamed up by conspiracy theorists actually exists, they must be dumb as a bag of hammers.
  
  My son could run a better 'deep-state,' and he's a Lego-obsessed seven-year-old.
2. Re:A few of the many stories about Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 17:04 · Score: 0
  
  Do the wheels drive the car because they touch the road, or is it the engine quietly humming under the hood? This whole circus is for your benefit, and for their monetary and managerial advantage.
3. Re:A few of the many stories about Trump by gtall · 2018-01-04 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sanders and Paul were not much better than el Presidente Tweetie. The political parties have degenerated to the point where the only people who rise far enough to be considered candidates have the least ability. Case in point: Biden.
4. Re:A few of the many stories about Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  The American electorate chose.
  They decided they would rather have a clown POTUS than endorse a Clinton dynasty. There was wisdom in this.
  In time, the damage will be healed, the example will remain, and perhaps one day the parties will present us with more suitable candidates.
  In the interim, we endure patiently and do the best we can. Tracking the antics of a buffoon does nothing to assist us in our tasks.
5. Re:A few of the many stories about Trump by david_thornley · 2018-01-05 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  The American People chose Clinton over Trump. The Electoral College made some votes worth less, and so we got Trump.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
6. Re:A few of the many stories about Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  That's always been my thought. If there really IS a shadow government running the world, they are incompetent as *shit*.
And the Central and East wings? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 13:56 · Score: 0

And the Central and East wings?
Hate to say this, but all govt facilities containing classified data should have this security mandate. White house & Capitol buildings are just the start.
Plus, no cameras.
Yes, I've worked in places where cameras, phones and audio recording devices where not allowed. Yes, it can be a hassle and cause less efficient time use. But that is part of the cost for having a little more security.
1. Re: And the Central and East wings? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 16:16 · Score: 0
  
  And personal email servers at home????
Face the facts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 14:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Every government on Earth is composed entirely of humans. There is no God or Aliens or any kind of higher power that is in any way involved at all.
That means that human nature is the dominating force. All our concepts of justice and what-not are only as good as our implementation of them, because there is no magical force ensuring their strength.
And...human nature is still primarily composed of inclinations towards selfishness, domination, and exploitation. We evolved this nature because we needed it to survive in a violent world. The world has changed a bit, but our instincts have not.
What does this mean? Every single government, without exception, is corrupt. Always has been, always will be. It is *impossible* to purge the corruption, because it is the direct manifestation of our basic instincts.
This does not mean that anarchy is preferable. Governance remains a necessary evil. But the necessity does not in any way mitigate the evil.
The shadow government you speak of doesn't actually lurk in the shadows. It has always been operating in plain daylight. Many people don't know about it just because they don't bother paying attention to such goings-on as industry lobbyists making campaign contributions, industry moguls becoming politicians themselves, politicians being promised lucrative positions once their term is up (inciting them to favor specific industry interests) etc. Our sloth, and our inclination to delude ourselves with optimism about human nature, prompt us to ignore such behavior. So, they don't have to hide it. They get away with it, despite brazen public displays.
You can't take money out of politics. You can't purge the government of corruption. The only thing you can do is keep as bright a spotlight on their behaviors as possible, as that will influence the public's receptivity to their dictates, and hence the level of power they actually hold.
Public accountability is *all we've got*, all we ever will have, and it will never be perfect.
Those are the facts. Now, adapt to them.
1. Re:Face the facts. by arth1 · 2018-01-04 15:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Every government on Earth is composed entirely of humans.
  Most state leaders have pets, usually at least a dog, which presumably helps calm the humans and reduces the risk of rash decisions.
  (Trump is the first US president in over a century that doesn't have a pooch. He hates them, like he hates anyone smarter than he is.)
2. Re:Face the facts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 19:58 · Score: 0
  
  and a smart feminine wife (Melania).
  Smart enough to keep her mouth shut and enjoy the luxurious living despite the obvious downsides.
3. Re:Face the facts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 20:56 · Score: 0
  
  Trump has both a young child (son Baron) and a smart feminine wife (Melania).
  Has, or owns?
  His wife and son held the job of sitting hostage in one of his most expensive hotels as a source of considerable (taxpayer) revenue for the better part of last year. That's not exactly what I would call a "traditional" family unit that benefits from quality time together. When it comes to using tools, he gets out his fucking golf clubs more often than he does his mute wife.
  
  He also has his pet of a private business empire...
  Greed is not a pet, it's a disease that often comes between the infected and those who can provide actual emotional support.
  
  ...and support of half the American people.
  His support makes bitcoin look like a rock-solid investment.
4. Re:Face the facts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  One of the best comments ever put to keyboard :)
5. Re:Face the facts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Having support of over 50% of the less than half of the eligible population that voted is not necessarily 50% of America. By your logic, you should have been shutting up for the last 8 years even though the president was someone you (and this is a wild guess here) despised. Did you? No? Why should others when it's now someone you support instead of despise?
6. Re:Face the facts. by kilfarsnar · 2018-01-05 02:51 · Score: 2
  
  Trump has both a young child (son Baron) and a smart feminine wife (Melania). He also has his pet of a private business empire, and support of half the American people.
  What do you have? Impotent anger and bitter delusions of Trump Nazi Russia?
  Half of the American people? Not even close, junior. He's polling in the low 30's. http://www.newsweek.com/trumps...
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
7. Re:Face the facts. by kilfarsnar · 2018-01-05 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  and a smart feminine wife (Melania).
  Smart enough to keep her mouth shut and enjoy the luxurious living despite the obvious downsides.
  She is enjoying nothing. That woman is obviously miserable. I'd feel bad for her, but she made her bed.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
8. Re:Face the facts. by mjwx · 2018-01-05 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Every government on Earth is composed entirely of humans.
  Most state leaders have pets, usually at least a dog, which presumably helps calm the humans and reduces the risk of rash decisions.
  For example, the UK's current leader Arlene Foster has a white haired terrier called Theresa May.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
9. Re:Face the facts. by lactose99 · 2018-01-05 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Shhhh! The lizard people will hear you!
  
  --
  Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
10. Re:Face the facts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  You seem like a reasonable guy with a frank opinion. Let me respond to you in kind.
  I didn't despise Obama, but I was extremely worried early on. In fact, I was shit-scared of him in 08 prior to the election. Literally planning for the apocalypse...
  Later on I calmed down. I saw the country was overall going in the wrong direction, but slowly. It could have been way way worse: civil war and such. As such, Obama was not so extremely bad, and on occasion could actually do something useful, e.g. competently acting to save the economy from the financial meltdown in 09.
  To be sure, my initial Obama freakout had nothing to do with the bullshit things like his Islamist stepfather, unamerican preacher, transgender wife, or his anti-colonialist father. Hell, even if these were all true, I myself was a Chomsky fan in college, and I know that any smart boy can outgrow radicalism. And Obama is definitely smart.
  To me, it were more sinister things that triggered my paranoia:
  1) Senator Obama voting to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms for the bulk warrantless spying. This was one of the few times he actually voted Yes/No.
  2) Personally, it was also the fact that, when in the late 2008 I posted a comment about it, my account went from +2 to -1 overnight through systematic downmod of all of my 2-week old comments.
  3) I don't believe in fairytales. When I see an unknown community organizer rise to power and gain support this quickly, I naturally assume some very powerful forces behind. Forces that apparently liked to stay hidden.
  4) I saw my friends turn into literal Obama zombies. Yes, the guy was an inspirational role model, but come on. Nothing justified this kind of a blind adoration, so to me something bad was going on.
  4) The level of cyber-organizing Obama had was unprecedented. As somebody who worked in the IT logistics area, to me this was like seeing a guy that showed up with a nuke to a gun fight. Apparently, we later learned that the Silly Valley companies went out for him, for completely unclear reasons. Still, I never saw this kind of cyber "magic" until the rise of ISIS. (And yes, in my professional opinion, I now find credible the conspiracy theory about Obama instructing the Deep State to provide logistics support to ISIS. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I'd put about $10k down on 1:1 odds of this being true).
  Given my past experience with Obama, I now empathize with the "Trump Nazi Russia" crowd. But come on guys, it's been a year, and time to open up your eyes and wake up. Some actual Nazi/Russia stuff would have come out by now. Move on already.
  I think that it's not helping that Trump turns out to be right time and again. The guy lies about and screws up the small stuff. Then he freaking wins on everything else. This too probably feeds someone's paranoia.
11. Re:Face the facts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  To be fair, this probably includes people like my friend who disapproves because "he's not making us great again fast enough; he should accomplish in 3 months what took him the entire year."
  You decide whether this is a real disapproval. That's like the difference between saying "No, don't, stop!" and "no, don't stop!"
  For the record, that same friend was approving of Dubbya because, while "the guy did f*ck up both the economy and Iraq, at least he is trying his best." And you don't even want to head why she was approving of O'bama.
12. Re:Face the facts. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-06 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  She is enjoying nothing. That woman is obviously miserable. I'd feel bad for her, but she made her bed.
  OK, maybe. But she is also providing for her family back home. If she's really miserable she can get a divorce. Now's the time to turn up the heat if she wants to. She'll never have more leverage.
And personal email servers... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 16:11 · Score: 0

Just saying ... lol
1. Re:And personal email servers... by Maritz · 2018-01-05 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Wow you're all still obsessed with Hillary. Weird.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Surprised they were not banned earlier by CraigCruden · 2018-01-04 16:28 · Score: 1

There are areas of all Canadian Embassies where ALL phones (both personal and government) are banned and must be dropped off. All visitors cannot bring personal electronics in. Government officials that are not based at that embassy are not permitted to bring electronics in. If it is just now that the West Wing is implementing it -- then the US government is more lax about security than I thought.
"Working So Hard Today, Bigly!" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-04 17:25 · Score: 0

... Tweets the Big Giant Orange Head from the golf course!
This had nothing to do with Wolff, why mention? by sabbede · 2018-01-05 01:00 · Score: 2

The administration has been talking about banning personal devices in the White House since at least November. Well before Wolff's book was finished. Mentioning Wolff's wholly unrelated book is at best innapropriate and superfluous, at worst it's politically motivated deception.
Next level hit again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 02:06 · Score: 0

I keep being amazed in all the ways a total lack of competence keeps being showed day after day of this presidency.
This is now below the level of shit show.
Is there even a name for this deep a level ?
1. Re:Next level hit again by Maritz · 2018-01-05 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  No. The scale ran out of names quite some time ago.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Meanwhile by Maritz · 2018-01-05 02:22 · Score: 1

You have a handbag designer 'advising' the president. LOL. Apparently she's going to be president some day too. Wouldn't surprise me.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Much less than half the people. by spineboy · 2018-01-05 04:09 · Score: 1

Current favorability polls have him at the lowest of any tracked modern president.
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
This is from a right leaning website
https://www.realclearpolitics....
His behaviour is a clear aberration compared to any other president. Certainly the chaotic, unprepared, unprofessional behaviour should not belong in the White House.

--
..........FULL STOP.
1. Re:Much less than half the people. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  You certainly didn't complain about decorum when George Bush was in office.
  If you now think that Dubbya was less chaotic, unprepared, or unprofessional compared to Trump, I have some worrying opinion about YOUR mental capacity.
Michael "Deathwish" Wolf by RobotRunAmok · 2018-01-05 06:26 · Score: 1

Out-Of-Towners may not know that NYC gossip columnist Michael Wolff has a bit of a deathwish when it comes to choosing his battles. He took on (in a weirdly, clearly fixated way) Rupert Murdoch with a previous "biographical" tell-all, seeming to have forgotten that Rupie owns the town's biggest tabloid The NY Post. THEN he began diddling one of his interns at Newser, escorting her about to all the city's hottest and most popular spots, because: Michael Wolff. (Those were the days when diddling an intern didn't get you automatically rejected from The Club.) The Post pilloried Wolff, whose columns for various publications always trended deeply into holier-than-thou moralizing. Even more suicidally, Wolff's wife at the time was the -- wait for it! -- preeminent NYC divorce lawyer! She took him -- and likely everyone within 2 square blocks of him -- to the cleaners.
His work has always been sloppy -- by his own admission he is not a "real" journalist. He's like the masochist who is always picking fights, just for the attention. Is it any wonder that he would -- loudly, grandly, with much fanfare -- try slapping around the world stage's biggest bully?
1. Re:Michael "Deathwish" Wolf by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  So what? He's doing the needful.
2. Re:Michael "Deathwish" Wolf by RobotRunAmok · 2018-01-05 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  No. The problem is that Wolfe was the wrong guy. He's a Gossip Columnist who is most famous for lobbing bombs over the transom to see what he can shake up. To that end he will do or say anything. "The Most Loathed Man in Media," even CNN -- hardly a right-wing pillar -- describes him as "pugnacious" and "arrogant." If you were really looking for someone to lay into Trump and credibly dig up the goods to bring him down, Wolff was ABSOLUTELY THE LAST writer you would call. He's a self-absorbed gadfly party-boy more interested in making the news than reporting it. The cause would have been better served had he taken his notes and given them to a real journalist to byline. Whatever important stuff Wolff may have unearthed during his time as "a fly on the wall" at the White House is going to be buried beneath the inevitable exaggerations, un-truths, half-truths, mis-quotes and overall carnival atmosphere that permeates all his work to date.
"Cried Wolff"? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 08:03 · Score: 0

The parable of the president who cried Wolff?
Re: Does this include Trump's iphone? of course no by Reverend+Green · 2018-01-05 16:04 · Score: 1

Actually, I wonder if this move is really about security. Or is it about the praetorian guard trying to isolate Trump from his base of support among the plebs?
Re: Does this include Trump's iphone? of course no by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 16:07 · Score: 0

You tell 'em, Comrade Li Feng!
Ever Hear of ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-06 07:23 · Score: 0

... the Streisand Effect? Or, the lady doth protest too much, methinks?
Dear Child-in-Chief, your actions in response to this book have pretty much confirmed its veracity.
If the book is all lies, why did you denounce Bannon? Why change office policy if the author didn't have access to the White House and didn't conduct hundreds of interviews with your staff. Why send all your surrogates out to talk to the MSM fake news channels to defend your honor?
The one defense the surrogates have offered is to dispute the passage in which the author claims that The Donald didn't know who former speaker Boehner was, even though the two had played golf together previously. Yeah, but have you heard The Donald lately? The guy is a mess, intellectually. I wouldn't be surprised if he forgets his own name on a regular basis.
FFS Republicans, you too know this book is true. The Trumps are a national disgrace; a shit-stain on the very fabric of society. Flush this stinking bowl of turds before the White House becomes forever known as the Out House.