Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on 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.

116 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. They're just doing this now??? by dlleigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sheesh!

    1. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are they all fucking idiots?

      Yes.

      --
      -Dave
    6. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 sheramil · · 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.

    9. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re:They're just doing this now??? by fahrbot-bot · · 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. . . .
    11. Re:They're just doing this now??? by MightyMartian · · 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.
    12. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    13. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Darinbob · · 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.

    14. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Arzaboa · · 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

    15. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Paradise+Pete · · 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.

    16. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Kiuas · · 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
    17. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Anonymous Coward · · 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."

    18. Re:They're just doing this now??? by gtall · · 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.

    19. Re:They're just doing this now??? by kilfarsnar · · 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)
    20. Re:They're just doing this now??? by ArtemaOne · · 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.

    21. Re:They're just doing this now??? by tbannist · · 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
    22. Re:They're just doing this now??? by daten · · 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.

    23. Re:They're just doing this now??? by JackieBrown · · 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)

    24. Re:They're just doing this now??? by david_thornley · · 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
    25. Re:They're just doing this now??? by painandgreed · · 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.

    26. Re:They're just doing this now??? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Deep state

      Is that the new catch phrase for people who can't spell Illuminati?

    27. Re:They're just doing this now??? by Darinbob · · 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.

    28. Re:They're just doing this now??? by JackieBrown · · 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.

    29. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      If you're not willing to listen to the other side then you're making your own opinion less informed.

    30. Re: They're just doing this now??? by Paradise+Pete · · 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.

    31. Re:They're just doing this now??? by david_thornley · · 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
  2. A well tuned machine! by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    Sheeze, couldn't with start 2018 without 17 breaking news from the WH a day?

    1. Re:A well tuned machine! by Lisandro · · 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.

  3. Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by atrex · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

    4. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by slaker · · 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
    5. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Up until recently it was a Samsung Galaxy S3 running Android 4.3.

    7. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by admin7087 · · 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.)

    8. Re:Does this include Trump's iphone? of course not by gtall · · Score: 1

      His head would explode.

  4. We're going to need a bigger popcorn bucket by Anonymous Coward · · 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 bobbied · · 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
  5. Only phones?! by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 sheramil · · Score: 1

      What about people with good memories?

      Okay, that was a dumb question.

    4. Re:Only phones?! by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      There goes Sarah Huckabee Sanders' vibrator.

  6. Tweets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Will this lead to less tweets??

    1. Re:Tweets by bobbied · · 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
  7. Good idea, but instituted for the wrong reasons by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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
  8. Re:Ban them! by bobbied · · 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
  9. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  10. I don't think this is the problem by mspohr · · 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?
  11. Guests?? by TooTechy · · Score: 1

    Does this include the press?

  12. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Pseudonym · · 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});
  13. Until you block Trump from Twitter... by geekmux · · 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 · · Score: 1

      https://blog.twitter.com/offic...

    2. Re:Until you block Trump from Twitter... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Quoting from the Twitter policy - it applies only to "Elected world leaders". Not to monarchs or dictators who have been forcibly empowered?

  14. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by gravewax · · 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.

  15. It's way too late by TimHunter · · Score: 1

    The barn is back there. The horse is wayyyy over there.

  16. That's the way... by guygo · · 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 · · Score: 1

      So General Jack D. Ripper is now Chief of Staff?

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  17. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Lisandro · · 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.

  18. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by h33t+l4x0r · · 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.

  19. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by RedK · · 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
  20. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Lisandro · · 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...

  21. Re:Mud slinging? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    Both were triggered by the announcement of Wolff's book.

  22. Haven't the leaks happened already? by ErichTheRed · · 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 · · 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 caseih · · 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.

    3. Re:Haven't the leaks happened already? by houghi · · 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.
  23. YAY!!! by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    No More Tweets! No More Tweets!

  24. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by AmiMoJo · · 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 exposés 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
  25. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Lisandro · · 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/...

  26. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Obfuscant · · 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.

  27. A few of the many stories about Trump by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 gtall · · 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.

    3. Re:A few of the many stories about Trump by david_thornley · · 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
  28. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by RedK · · 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
  29. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Lisandro · · 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.

  30. Face the facts. by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 kilfarsnar · · 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)
    3. Re:Face the facts. by kilfarsnar · · 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)
    4. Re:Face the facts. by mjwx · · 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.
    5. Re:Face the facts. by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Shhhh! The lizard people will hear you!

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  31. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Ogive17 · · 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."
  32. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by PmanAce · · Score: 1

    Really? Why is he suing? Why is he banning devices that can record stuff?

    --
    Tired of my customary (Score:1)
  33. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Obfuscant · · 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.

  34. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by AmiMoJo · · 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
  35. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Lisandro · · 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.

  36. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by AmiMoJo · · 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
  37. Surprised they were not banned earlier by CraigCruden · · 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.

  38. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by h33t+l4x0r · · 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.

  39. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by gravewax · · 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.

  40. Re:Mud slinging? by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

    Unrelated, one is all lies and the other is about recorded conversations

  41. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by tehcyder · · 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
  42. This had nothing to do with Wolff, why mention? by sabbede · · 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.

  43. Meanwhile by Maritz · · 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.
  44. Re:Next level hit again by Maritz · · 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.
  45. Re:And personal email servers... by Maritz · · 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.
  46. Much less than half the people. by spineboy · · 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.
  47. Re: Wolff's book is a solid work... by sound+vision · · 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.

  48. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by bigdavex · · Score: 1

    Right, if the Wolfe book is pure fiction, it makes no sense to disparage Bannon based on its contents.

    --
    -Dave
  49. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by tbannist · · 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
  50. Michael "Deathwish" Wolf by RobotRunAmok · · 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 RobotRunAmok · · 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.

  51. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by Obfuscant · · 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.

  52. Re: Does this include Trump's iphone? of course no by Reverend+Green · · 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?

  53. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by RockDoctor · · 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"
  54. Re:Wolff's book is a solid work... by gravewax · · 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".