WH officials fear colleagues are wearing a wire for Mueller: report

[endicom]

Investigation established by and scope defined by Trump appointee, Rob Rosenberg.  As he told Chris Wallace last month:  "Bob Mueller understands and I understand the specific scope of the investigation, and so no, it's not a fishing expedition."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rod-rosenstein-mueller-needs-to-come-to-me-if-he-wants-to-chase-any-crime-outside-scope-of-russia-probe/article/2630745

Rod Rosenstein.

[endicom]

I'm just laughing at the whole paranoid bottom feeding bunch of trash.

How do you know the story is true?

[Concerned]

Rod Rosenstein.

@endicom:

Thanks for the correction!  I'll fix my original post.

 

[skeeter]

The purpose of this is to sow discord and mistrust in the Administration.   Maybe get something they can use against him but its all an effort to bring down Trump.

IM paranoid O the purpose would be to obtain material for leaking to the press.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be anything related at all to the investigation.

[kevindavis007]

Someone is a bit paranoid.

[driftdiver]

Someone is a bit paranoid.

Doesn't mean they aren't doing it.

At this point it would be foolish to think they aren't trying to do stuff like this.

[kevindavis007]

Doesn't mean they aren't doing it.

At this point it would be foolish to think they aren't trying to do stuff like this.

Do they have proof?

[driftdiver]

Do they have proof?

@kevindavis
They have proof of a lot of leaks.   Detailed phone discussions between the President and foreign leaders are leaked within hours of the conversation.

When dealing with issues of national security you frequently don't have proof nor do you expect to ever have conclusive proof.   Tens of billions of dollars are spent and lives are lost based on best guesses.

That you even ask the question speaks loudly.

[kevindavis007]

@kevindavis
They have proof of a lot of leaks.   Detailed phone discussions between the President and foreign leaders are leaked within hours of the conversation.

When dealing with issues of national security you frequently don't have proof nor do you expect to ever have conclusive proof.   Tens of billions of dollars are spent and lives are lost based on best guesses.

That you even ask the question speaks loudly.

Sorry, I have so many wacky conspiracies to last me a lifetime. This sounds like Alex Jones.

[Smokin Joe]

Apparently there are no limits to this *investigation*

Another trawler in the Tidal Basin...

[Smokin Joe]

Because the Republicans want Trump overthrown and they'd even be ok with a democrat replacing him.

Pence better watch his back.

Pence must be pretty squeaky clean or they'd have Spiro Agnew'ed him already.

Maybe that's what they are looking for? 

[Smokin Joe]

I'm just laughing at the whole paranoid bottom feeding bunch of trash.

Yeah, but the definition of paranoid is unjustifiable feelings of persecution or that someone is 'out to get you'. In this instance hostility is a given, but the question remains of who is on which side, and for the whole lot.

[Smokin Joe]

For nat'l security issues alone, there should be no wires in the White House. That's part of the supposed reason for this investigation, is giving info and theoretically intel to the Russians.

Seems a little contradictory to risk sensitive intel when you're trying to prosecute something similar.

So don't. But a bit here and a bit there, and see where what goes can be informative, even if the data isn't particularly so.

[driftdiver]

Sorry, I have so many wacky conspiracies to last me a lifetime. This sounds like Alex Jones.

After all thats happened these last 10 years I find that amazing.

[Smokin Joe]

After all thats happened these last 10 years I find that amazing.

I thought the prime defense during the last administration was to engage in criminal activities so convoluted and well entrenched they sounded to the uninformed ear like "conspiracy theories". What better way to get away with some of the crap pulled on America?

[kevindavis007]

I thought the prime defense during the last administration was to engage in criminal activities so convoluted and well entrenched they sounded to the uninformed ear like "conspiracy theories". What better way to get away with some of the crap pulled on America?

Like the NAU and the Amero?? Or the y2k crash that the UN was going to take over America?

[ABX]

Why would he need a warrant?  He has the consent of the person wearing the wire, and that's sufficient.

Not in DC. They are "two-party consent". If both parties are not aware, a warrant is required.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/washington/washington-recording-law

[DCPatriot]

Not in DC. They are "two-party consent". If both parties are not aware, a warrant is required.

NOTE:  The marijuana law in DC says it's okay to possess and even grow in your home.  But Federal Law says it's a crime to smoke it on and/or near Federal Government property/buildings.

Just thinking perhaps something similar applies here?   D.C.'s law gets superseded?   

[Smokin Joe]

Like the NAU and the Amero?? Or the y2k crash that the UN was going to take over America?

Like Agenda 21 and ICLEI?

Y2K: My father, who started with computers when you used plastic tongs to take the moths out of the relays, made a grundle getting mainframe systems ready to do the y2K transition without having problems. That the billions spent and innumerable man-hours used to avert disaster worked, did not mean one would not have happened otherwise. A huge number of those legacy systems were on government computers.
I have no idea what clearances my Father has, we have a rule in our family that we just don't ask some things. I do know that when he and the programmers who worked under him wanted to twist off and write canned software packages for business in the early 70s, for things like word processing, spreadsheets, right on up the ladder, the U.S. Government just said "No". I can only speculate what the systems he worked with involved, so I won't, but apparently the system/programming architecture was sensitive enough they would not allow it.

The Amero: cute concept, but why bother? Instead build NAFTA Highways. Move factories, ignore borders.http://www.willistonherald.com/news/president-trump-s-visit-may-give-boost-to-port-to/article_38cd2216-92a0-11e7-a496-c39fe879908c.html 

Part of the NAFTA Highway system and it goes through my county.
http://sfppr.org/2016/02/congress-quietly-moves-nafta-superhighway-corridors-forward-in-fast-act/ 
Now, that stuff might be suspect, just coming from some blog, but when local Chambers of Commerce are using the same rhetoric and phraseology to describe what they think is a good thing, there is something to it.  http://humanevents.com/2006/06/12/bush-administration-quietly-plans-nafta-super-highway/

Besides, everyone uses a form of dollar, anyway (enough have been sent to Mexico).

So, as far as conspiracies, call them what you will, but dismissing these plans as the babblings of a few folks out to instill fear and capitalize on that fear is an egregious error, especially in the face of various agendae moving forward, not just on some late night radio show, but with the full blessings and admiration of the local Chambers of Commerce..

[Smokin Joe]

Like the NAU and the Amero?? Or the y2k crash that the UN was going to take over America?

In that post I was referring to the last administration. Who would think that the US Government would make available incredible funding for production (not research) of 'alternative energy' that would be granted to companies that were on the verge of going into receivership, and that funding would later appear in places like the Democrat Party coffers? Or that the US Secretary of State might be involved with arms deals which were funneling arms into the hands of our enemies using consular facilities in Libya, even to the point of sacrificing embassy personnel to keep the operation a secret? Or that Madeline Albright might lose an unencrypted laptop full of humint data for the middle east in eastern Europe and then announce the loss on a global news feed. Shortly after, those little lights in the darkness started going out all over. Or that the Governor of Arkansas was aware and likely profiting from cocaine trade being conducted through the Airport in Mena, AR, in at least partial cahoots with the CIA? (That Governor later became president, and some of his former bodyguards showed up dead at a place in Texas with identical wounds.) Or any of a long trail of bodies including a Commerce Secretary who died when his plane flew into a mountain in excellent visibility conditions with a .45 caliber hole in his head?
Or that the US DOJ would run guns to Cartels in Mexico and to gangs in the midwest US by permitting untraceable straw purchases of quantities of guns, ordering complicity of gun dealers, in order to pump up crime statistics of guns traceable to legitimate sales and try to use that data to further infringe on the RKBA of law abiding Americans? Or that AG would resign and be replaced by his wife's sorority sister from college?

Sh*t, Washington DC is awash with conspiracies, you might say it is Rich ground for people waking up dead in the morning, tied tenouously to something officially down played. After all, until the verdict comes in, it's just a theory, not a "conspiracy".

Why is it that treason never prospers? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Y2K: ... That the billions spent and innumerable man-hours used to avert disaster worked, did not mean one would not have happened otherwise.

Interesting thing, Y2K was a large part of the dotcom boom and bust being as large as it was.

Normally, companies replace their computer systems every three to five years.  They do this because systems get faster, but also because they get more power efficient (which then leads to savings on A/C and UPS).  And because vendors start to charge more for support (both because older parts become harder to get over time, but mainly IMO to drive you to buy new).

In later 1998 and into 1999, many companies spent money that they normally wouldn't have spent until 2000/2001 to buy extra hardware for testing and redundancy.  So that "extra" (it wasn't really extra, just timed differently) spending in 1999 made the boom bigger than it would have been if it didn't just happen to coincide with Y2K, and the "reduced" spending in 2000 made the bust bigger.

I'm not saying Y2K CAUSED the boom/bust, that was going to happen anyway.  It just made them more pronounced.

Coincidentally, I was at the Census Bureau right about the time the dotcom wheels fell off.  The decennial (that thing they do every 10 years which is actually justified by the Constitution) also happened to occur at just the wrong time (people think of the "2000" census, but the actual work and particularly the purchasing of computing resources occurs in earlier years).

That doesn't have much to do with SJ's comment, but it was an excuse to post some info people not involved might not be aware of, and which I believe to be interesting.

[Smokin Joe]

Interesting thing, Y2K was a large part of the dotcom boom and bust being as large as it was.

Normally, companies replace their computer systems every three to five years.  They do this because systems get faster, but also because they get more power efficient (which then leads to savings on A/C and UPS).  And because vendors start to charge more for support (both because older parts become harder to get over time, but mainly IMO to drive you to buy new).

In later 1998 and into 1999, many companies spent money that they normally wouldn't have spent until 2000/2001 to buy extra hardware for testing and redundancy.  So that "extra" (it wasn't really extra, just timed differently) spending in 1999 made the boom bigger than it would have been if it didn't just happen to coincide with Y2K, and the "reduced" spending in 2000 made the bust bigger.

I'm not saying Y2K CAUSED the boom/bust, that was going to happen anyway.  It just made them more pronounced.

Coincidentally, I was at the Census Bureau right about the time the dotcom wheels fell off.  The decennial (that thing they do every 10 years which is actually justified by the Constitution) also happened to occur at just the wrong time (people think of the "2000" census, but the actual work and particularly the purchasing of computing resources occurs in earlier years).

That doesn't have much to do with SJ's comment, but it was an excuse to post some info people not involved might not be aware of, and which I believe to be interesting.

It is interesting, in that I hadn't thought of the effect the PC market had on the mainframe market (and for services/time on mainframes). Because a bunch of mainframes were running legacy systems vulnerable to Y2K, might the jump to newer smaller and inexpensive (relatively speaking), but completely adequate, hardware have spelled a shift in the entire hardware market landscape to the PC for business? Or do you think the types of businesses and institutions running mainframes would continue to do so anyway and the .com add on market was just a new market opening up, not so much a shift?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

It is interesting, in that I hadn't thought of the effect the PC market had on the mainframe market (and for services/time on mainframes). Because a bunch of mainframes were running legacy systems vulnerable to Y2K, might the jump to newer smaller and inexpensive (relatively speaking), but completely adequate, hardware have spelled a shift in the entire hardware market landscape to the PC for business? Or do you think the types of businesses and institutions running mainframes would continue to do so anyway and the .com add on market was just a new market opening up, not so much a shift?

I worked in the Unix market.  At the time of Y2K, PCs were very much a niche in the server arena.  Most of dotcom was Unix.  It was very much less vulnerable to Y2K than mainframe, but still potentially susceptible, so the testing was required.  A lot of the "danger" was that companies simply don't really understand what their systems do, there's a ton of legacy code out there that no one even remembers who wrote it and therefore they are afraid to touch.

The big shops, who ran mainframes and/or high end HPUX/AIX systems continue to do so today.  Some of the workload is migrating, but I'd go with "new market opening up, not so much a shift".

Disclaimer:  I've been out the past couple years.  Maybe things have turned sharply, but I doubt it.