• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ambassador’s call to Trump from Kyiv restaurant was a stunning breach of security

W_Heisenberg

W_Heisenberg

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
21,686
Reaction score
19,711
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
W_Heisenberg said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d75752-0641-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html
A U.S. ambassador’s cellphone call to President Trump from a restaurant in the capital of Ukraine this summer was a stunning breach of security, exposing the conversation to surveillance by foreign intelligence services, including Russia’s, former U.S. officials said.
--
But but but but her e-mails!
Click to expand...

Trump gets to decide when his personal convenience outweighs security concerns.
That what we elected him to do.
Elections have consequences.
Sometimes the consequences are that the President decides not to fully staff the intel agency which track nuclear material around the world. Big whoop.
This time, the consequences are that the PotUS has decided his calls should not be as secure as the Deep State™ operatives want them to be.
Trump decided that the security protocols were unnecessary at that time.
It's not illegal when the President does it.
Deal with it.


</sarcasm>
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Trump gets to decide when his personal convenience outweighs security concerns.
That what we elected him to do.
Elections have consequences.
Sometimes the consequences are that the President decides not to fully staff the intel agency which track nuclear material around the world. Big whoop.
This time, the consequences are that the PotUS has decided his calls should not be as secure as the Deep State™ operatives want them to be.
Trump decided that the security protocols were unnecessary at that time.
It's not illegal when the President does it.
Deal with it.


</sarcasm>
Click to expand...

Note that Trump wasn't the one in the restaurant... the Ambassador was. He should have called the president back from a more secure location.
 
dcsports said:
Note that Trump wasn't the one in the restaurant... the Ambassador was. He should have called the president back from a more secure location.
Click to expand...

Didn’t open the link? Sondlund originated the call according to the link. :shrug:
 
Rexedgar said:
Didn’t open the link? Sondlund originated the call according to the link. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not clear on the distinction there. 'He should have called the president from a more secure location.' Better?
 
dcsports said:
Not clear on the distinction there. 'He should have called the president from a more secure location.' Better?
Click to expand...

You haven’t been keeping up with the US Ambassador to the EU. The bolded is not his style.....
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Trump gets to decide when his personal convenience outweighs security concerns.
That what we elected him to do.
Elections have consequences.
Sometimes the consequences are that the President decides not to fully staff the intel agency which track nuclear material around the world. Big whoop.
This time, the consequences are that the PotUS has decided his calls should not be as secure as the Deep State™ operatives want them to be.
Trump decided that the security protocols were unnecessary at that time.
It's not illegal when the President does it.
Deal with it.
</sarcasm>
Click to expand...

I think you've accurately summed up contemporary Republican political ideology.
 
dcsports said:
Note that Trump wasn't the one in the restaurant... the Ambassador was. He should have called the president back from a more secure location.
Click to expand...
Is that the proper security protocol?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d75752-0641-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

A U.S. ambassador’s cellphone call to President Trump from a restaurant in the capital of Ukraine this summer was a stunning breach of security, exposing the conversation to surveillance by foreign intelligence services, including Russia’s, former U.S. officials said.

--

But but but but her e-mails!
Click to expand...


Jordan and Nunes will have to change their strategy. There are now 4-5 witnesses with first hand knowledge.
There is now a 2nd one that heard that Trump call from the restaurant:

AP source: 2nd US official heard Trump call with Sondland

AP source: 2nd US official heard Trump call with Sondland - WPTA
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Is that the proper security protocol?
Click to expand...

I don't know the security protocol. Do you?

It falls into the category of common sense that a call to the president to discuss diplomatic negotiations shouldn't be done from a place where it's likely to be overheard. Technically though, we don't know the specific circumstances, or what standard practice is. For example, the phone is likely as secure as they can make it, and a random restaurant could be a safer place to call than a potentially bugged hotel room or office.

However, I don't think the President is responsible for the Ambassador calling from where he did. That's on the ambassador.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d75752-0641-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

A U.S. ambassador’s cellphone call to President Trump from a restaurant in the capital of Ukraine this summer was a stunning breach of security, exposing the conversation to surveillance by foreign intelligence services, including Russia’s, former U.S. officials said.

--

But but but but her e-mails!
Click to expand...

If you knew that you thread was hypocritical ****, why did you post it? I suppose you just wanted to parade Democrat hypocrisy in front of the DP denizens. You needn't worry, we are very much aware of the Democrat hypocrisy.
 
dcsports said:
I don't know the security protocol.
Click to expand...
Then perhaps there was a different solution to the issue than what you posited.
Maybe they needed to use secured phone in a secured location instead of Sondland's cell phone.
idk

You offered a solution to the matter.
So I thought maybe you had some relevant experience and that was how you knew what the solution should have been.

dcsports said:
Do you?
Click to expand...
nah

dcsports said:
It falls into the category of common sense that a call to the president to discuss diplomatic negotiations shouldn't be done from a place where it's likely to be overheard. Technically though, we don't know the specific circumstances, or what standard practice is. For example, the phone is likely as secure as they can make it, and a random restaurant could be a safer place to call than a potentially bugged hotel room or office.
However, I don't think the President is responsible for the Ambassador calling from where he did. That's on the ambassador.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you're not supposed to use your cell phone to contact the PotUS w/o regard to the location.
Maybe Trump was too cheap to get caller ID on his phone.
So, Trump had no idea who was calling and just took the call even though he otherwise would have known it was security breach and declined the call?
idk
Why do you suppose Trump took the call?



eta more from linked source

It is also dangerous for a president to take an off-the-books call like that, Pfeiffer said. That is why call logs are kept, he said. Without them, someone could assert that the president said something on a call, and a log “protects the president’s ability to deny something happened,” he said. “Good bureaucratic record-keeping is a protection for someone in the position of the president.”

This is not the first time questions have arisen over Trump’s unorthodox phone use. He has been known to give his personal cellphone number to other world leaders, despite aides’ warnings that his cellphone calls are not secure. Russia and China in particular have targeted his personal cellphone calls, the New York Times reported.​

In Trump's judgment convenience trumps security in these instances I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
Then perhaps there was a different solution to the issue than what you posited.
Maybe they needed to use secured phone in a secured location instead of Sondland's cell phone.
idk

You offered a solution to the matter.
So I thought maybe you had some relevant experience and that was how you knew what the solution should have been.


nah


Apparently, you're not supposed to use your cell phone to contact the PotUS w/o regard to the location.
Maybe Trump was too cheap to get caller ID on his phone.
So, Trump had no idea who was calling and just took the call even though he otherwise would have known it was security breach and declined the call?
idk
Why do you suppose Trump took the call?
Click to expand...

Goodness. That's a bit defensive. We're all a part of a community, right?

No, I don't know the specific protocol, but as I said, it would make sense to make a call to discuss diplomatic issues from a more secure location. Not sure why that's so crazy. I certainly wasn't offering that as a complete solution.

Government officials - current and former - communicate by cell phone all the time. They must have a procedure for doing that. We don't know if it's an 'open' cell phone, or a secure variant. I'd only put so much weight on a 'former official' trying to make a name for himself as an 'expert'.

I'm sure that the WH screens calls before passing them through. My point is that it's not Trump's (or any president's) responsibility to ensure that people are calling from a secure location.
 
dcsports said:
I'm sure that the WH screens calls before passing them through. My point is that it's not Trump's (or any president's) responsibility to ensure that people are calling from a secure location.
Click to expand...
I am unsure that the WH screens calls to Trump's phone.

I suspect they screen calls to a WH phone though.

My point was that there are likely security obligations on both ends of the line — weakest ink and all that.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d75752-0641-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

A U.S. ambassador’s cellphone call to President Trump from a restaurant in the capital of Ukraine this summer was a stunning breach of security, exposing the conversation to surveillance by foreign intelligence services, including Russia’s, former U.S. officials said.

--

But but but but her e-mails!
Click to expand...

5984
 
dcsports said:
I don't know the security protocol. Do you?

It falls into the category of common sense that a call to the president to discuss diplomatic negotiations shouldn't be done from a place where it's likely to be overheard. Technically though, we don't know the specific circumstances, or what standard practice is. For example, the phone is likely as secure as they can make it, and a random restaurant could be a safer place to call than a potentially bugged hotel room or office.

However, I don't think the President is responsible for the Ambassador calling from where he did. That's on the ambassador.
Click to expand...

I know the security protocol because I've wired that kind of infrastructure, and assisted in setting up both Marconi Test and full service cell sites in the past.
Mobile secure voice comm is being designed to center around Embedded Secure Elements (eSIM, eSE) and voice and data encryption.
Fixed station secure voice comm relies on both secure voice and data cable installations and encrypted voice and data.

And believe it or not, after several years on the losing side of federal security certification, Blackberry is reentering the market.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I am unsure that the WH screens calls to Trump's phone.

I suspect they screen calls to a WH phone though.

My point was that there are likely security obligations on both ends of the line — weakest ink and all that.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure there are responsibilities at both ends. :) The president certainly should know (or be informed) if the line itself is secure, and act accordingly in his discussion. (Not all things are classified).

If the outrage here is about the ambassador placing the call on a cell phone from a restaurant - then that outrage should be directed toward the ambassador.
 
dcsports said:
Yes, I'm sure there are responsibilities at both ends. :) The president certainly should know (or be informed) if the line itself is secure, and act accordingly in his discussion. (Not all things are classified).
If the outrage here is about the ambassador placing the call on a cell phone from a restaurant - then that outrage should be directed toward the ambassador.
Click to expand...
You say that Trump's end of the phone line bore some responsibility for security?
And you say that only Sondland should be held responsible?

Can you help reconcile these things?

'Cause if Trump bears responsibility, why shouldn't he be held responsible as well?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You say that Trump's end of the phone line bore some responsibility for security?
And you say that only Sondland should be held responsible?

Can you help reconcile these things?

'Cause if Trump bears responsibility, why shouldn't he be held responsible as well?
Click to expand...

because he has security experts responsible for that. do you think the president sets up the technology for secure calls himself? that the calls aren't made secure ahead of time?
 
Hypothetical said:
because he has security experts responsible for that. do you think the president sets up the technology for secure calls himself? that the calls aren't made secure ahead of time?
Click to expand...
Trump answered a phone call.

Having a secure call set up for you and Trump answering a phone call both involve phones. I can give you that.
But, I am unsure of the relevance otherwise.
Can you explain?
 
dcsports said:
Yes, I'm sure there are responsibilities at both ends. :) The president certainly should know (or be informed) if the line itself is secure, and act accordingly in his discussion. (Not all things are classified).

If the outrage here is about the ambassador placing the call on a cell phone from a restaurant - then that outrage should be directed toward the ambassador.
Click to expand...

Calling protocols are a side issue. The important substance is what was overheard by at least two staffers. Puts Trump in the cross hairs. I have no doubt that articles of impeachnebt will be filed, just as I have little doubt that the sycophantic senate republicans will, again, give Trump a pass.
 
Hypothetical said:
because he has security experts responsible for that. do you think the president sets up the technology for secure calls himself? that the calls aren't made secure ahead of time?
Click to expand...

You're probably correct, but it's no more than a push of a button to secure the connection.
 
yankintx said:
The strategy is:

but...but...Hillary...deep State...email server...

Whaaaa stop looking at Trump, look over here !!
Click to expand...

Interesting how it was okay for her, but not okay for him. Hypocrisy much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom