• 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!

Pentagon Keeps Trump in the Dark About its Cyber Attacks on Russia

j brown's body

j brown's body

"A Soros-backed animal"
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
54,293
Reaction score
50,861
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
On Saturday, the New York Times published an important story about how the United States military branches are attempting to thwart and combat Russian cyber attacks on American utility networks and interference in elections. But deeper into the article, an interesting and disturbing nugget has drawn attention: The Pentagon has gone out of its way to keep President Donald Trump ignorant of certain details about the operation because of “the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials.”

...“Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place ‘implants’ — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid. ...“Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister.”
Click to expand...

Pentagon Keeps Trump in the Dark About its Cyber Attacks on Russia – Rolling Stone

He can't be trusted.
 
j brown's body said:
Pentagon Keeps Trump in the Dark About its Cyber Attacks on Russia – Rolling Stone

He can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

Not that I don't trust the Rolling Stone not to be completely wrong about pitching a politically explosive story, but.....


I don't trust the Rolling Stone not to be completely wrong about pitching a politically explosive story.




I also don't doubt that

A) Implants aren't generally briefed to the President unless there is an immediate need for him to understand access in order to make a decision that only the President can make, and
B) It's nonetheless entirely possible that this sentiment exists in the Pentagon, which, while understandable, is nonetheless wrong. The President gets to decide foreign policy and classify or declassify information as he see's fit. Not bureaucrats.
 
I sure hope the people that voted for Trump because of Hilary's emails will no undoubtedly turn their eyes away from another article where the President of the United States is shown to be an active danger to National Security.
 
cpwill said:
. The President gets to decide foreign policy and classify or declassify information as he see's fit. Not bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

The latter part is not entirely true. Per E.O 13256, classification authority belongs to the President, VP, along with Agency Heads, and people delegated by those Agency Heads or the President/VP. So yeah, bureaucrats are capable of classifying information.

But that's all beside the point, because as it stands this NYT article stays consistent with everything we've heard about the Pentagon's trust in the President and that alone should be incredibly alarming.
 
It is, indeed, disturbing that the Pentagon may be keeping the President of the United States of America in the dark.

President Eisenhower was prescient when he warned about the dangers of the industrial-military complex.


Even Trump-hating liberals should be concerned about the power and influence of the military. Will they also keep a President Biden in the dark? I even remember reading that some military men tried to keep certain information from President Obama.
 
TheParser said:
It is, indeed, disturbing that the Pentagon may be keeping the President of the United States of America in the dark.

President Eisenhower was prescient when he warned about the dangers of the industrial-military complex.


Even Trump-hating liberals should be concerned about the power and influence of the military. Will they also keep a President Biden in the dark? I even remember reading that some military men tried to keep certain information from President Obama.
Click to expand...

The decision by the Pentagon is based on concern with Mr. Trump's personal qualities. A concern that apoears to be validated.

I hope we can all agree that a president who sides with a foreign adversary and against his own intellegence community brings unique problems for those who seek to protect us from foreign adversaries.
 
Both sides of the argument are valid. It's probably appropriate to keep the President out if the loop given his past indiscretions with military secrets, but it's probably bad that he can be legally sidelined. These are interesting times.
 
TheParser said:
It is, indeed, disturbing that the Pentagon may be keeping the President of the United States of America in the dark.

President Eisenhower was prescient when he warned about the dangers of the industrial-military complex.


Even Trump-hating liberals should be concerned about the power and influence of the military. Will they also keep a President Biden in the dark? I even remember reading that some military men tried to keep certain information from President Obama.
Click to expand...

Some argue that a silent coup has taken place by the Pentagon against Trump. I find that argument most plausible.

If this NYT article is true, that makes it even more plausible.
 
CMPancake said:
The latter part is not entirely true. Per E.O 13256, classification authority belongs to the President, VP, along with Agency Heads, and people delegated by those Agency Heads or the President/VP. So yeah, bureaucrats are capable of classifying information.

But that's all beside the point, because as it stands this NYT article stays consistent with everything we've heard about the Pentagon's trust in the President and that alone should be incredibly alarming.
Click to expand...

It is alarming, thst we have people in the Pentagon that prove the existance of the deep state.

I bet they're sho-nuff pissed off that their little secret got leaked to the public. Or, it's bull**** and the Pentagon really isn't keeping the president in the dark and the media created this story to try and embarress the president. Either way, they're sorry esxcuses for Americans.
 
People seem to forget one thing: people keeping stuff from Trump swore an oath to the Constitution, not the president. So their motives should be guided by that.

Trump seriously is our largest security threat. Only Trump cultists believe otherwise.
 
The Mark said:
If I were involved in intelligence, for damned sure I wouldn't brief anyone in the Trump administration, especially if the information would put my assets at risk - unless there was good reason to expect they'd keep quiet about whatever they were briefed on - which Trump is incapable of doing.

Not to mention the sieve-like nature of his staff.
Click to expand...

But you would brief the Rolling Stone?
 
Airyaman said:
People seem to forget one thing: people keeping stuff from Trump swore an oath to the Constitution, not the president. So their motives should be guided by that.

Trump seriously is our largest security threat. Only Trump cultists believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

And The Constitution says the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces.
 
apdst said:
And The Constitution says the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces.
Click to expand...

Sure. But the oath to the Constitution comes before that.
 
Airyaman said:
Sure. But the oath to the Constitution comes before that.
Click to expand...

The oath says they will "uphold and defend The Constitution". The Constitution says the military answers to the commander in chief, i.e. the president.
 
apdst said:
The oath says they will "uphold and defend The Constitution". The Constitution says the military answers to the commander in chief, i.e. the president.
Click to expand...

And? No orders were violated.
 
TheParser said:
It is, indeed, disturbing that the Pentagon may be keeping the President of the United States of America in the dark.
President Eisenhower was prescient when he warned about the dangers of the industrial-military complex.
Even Trump-hating liberals should be concerned about the power and influence of the military. Will they also keep a President Biden in the dark? I even remember reading that some military men tried to keep certain information from President Obama.
Click to expand...

Should we be at all concerned about why the Pentagon wants to keep Trump in th dark?
That seems like a good place to start our concerning.
The guy's campaign raised a bunch of counter-intelligence red flags.

Are we going to have to assume that the US military has joined the US diplomatic corp, The US Department of Justice, and the US Intelligence Community as a part of wicked Hussein Obama's Deep State™ conspiracy one stop shopping?
 
This is a story which one hopes isn't true, but fears it is ... and understands.

One question is why, after choosing to keep the president in the dark, people in the know would then be leaked in a way which would be sure to set the president off on the kind of downward spiraling tirade which is part of why so much of our government (including his own staff) and so much of the rest of the western world feels a need to keep this dangerous person in the dark.

Was the need for secrecy over because the cyber mission had been completed? Why leak it now?
 
Last edited:
Airyaman said:
And? No orders were violated.
Click to expand...

Operating independently, outside of the chain of command is considered to be insubordination. Keeping the commander in chief out of the loop is mutiny.
 
Amelia said:
This is a story which one hopes isn't true, but fears it is ... and understands.

One question is why, after choosing to keep the president in the dark, people in the know would then be leaked in a way which would be sure to set the president off on the kind of tirade which is part of why so much of our government (including his own staff) and so much of the rest of the western world feels a need to keep this dangerous person in the dark.

Was the need for secrecy over because the cyber mission had been completed? Why leak it now?
Click to expand...

That's why I didn't leave out the possibility that this is a disinformation story designed to hurt the president.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Should we be at all concerned about why the Pentagon wants to keep Trump in th dark?
That seems like a good place to start our concerning.
The guy's campaign raised a bunch of counter-intelligence red flags.

Are we going to have to assume that the US military has joined the US diplomatic corp, The US Department of Justice, and the US Intelligence Community as a part of wicked Hussein Obama's Deep State™ conspiracy one stop shopping?
Click to expand...

We should absolutely be concerned that there is a rogue element within the Pentagon.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Both sides of the argument are valid. It's probably appropriate to keep the President out if the loop given his past indiscretions with military secrets, but it's probably bad that he can be legally sidelined. These are interesting times.
Click to expand...

So it's probably a bad idea for the military to tell the president about these programs but it's wholly appropriate to leak the program to the media and have the media tell everyone, including the president, about the program.

Personally, I don't think that makes much sense but I'm just a poor, uneducated white guy who voted for Trump because I like red hats so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom