[Lord Dave]

aaaannnd...

He's now officially under investigation.

Congrats Trump, all you had to do was keep your mouth shut but nope.  You just had to tweet.  Now you're fucked.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

aaaannnd...

He's not officially under investigation.

Congrats Trump, all you had to do was keep your mouth shut but nope.  You just had to tweet.  Now you're fucked.

Obstruction of justice for obstructing an investigation that doesn't even exist. You can't make this shit up.

[Lord Dave]

aaaannnd...

He's not officially under investigation.

Congrats Trump, all you had to do was keep your mouth shut but nope.  You just had to tweet.  Now you're fucked.

Obstruction of justice for obstructing an investigation that doesn't even exist. You can't make this shit up.

Obstruction of justice for an investigation that totally did exist.  You know, the whole Michael Flynn one?  The one that Trump FIRED him over?  That one?

Oh and firing Comey. 
The FBI director.
Whose neutral.

Cause when someone's investigating your team, best fire him, right?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Comey is fucking neutral? Where did you ever get that impression?

I swear you really do think if you just say something it makes it true.

Comey said HIMSELF, under oath, that Trump's comments about Flynn DID NOT QUALIFY Obstruction of Justice.

[Lord Dave]

Comey is fucking neutral? Where did you ever get that impression?

I swear you really do think if you just say something it makes it true.

Comey said HIMSELF, under oath, that Trump's comments about Flynn DID NOT QUALIFY Obstruction of Justice.

So?
Comey is not the FBI director anymore and thus did not bring these charges up.

Trump's replacement pick did.

[honk]

Comey is fucking neutral? Where did you ever get that impression?

I swear you really do think if you just say something it makes it true.

Comey said HIMSELF, under oath, that Trump's comments about Flynn DID NOT QUALIFY Obstruction of Justice.

Okay, but the investigation into Flynn does still exist.

[DuckDodgers]

Comey is fucking neutral? Where did you ever get that impression?

I swear you really do think if you just say something it makes it true.

Comey said HIMSELF, under oath, that Trump's comments about Flynn DID NOT QUALIFY Obstruction of Justice.

Didn't he say that he wouldn't comment on whether it would constitute obstruction of justice, and would instead let the special prosecutor make that decision?

[Roundy]

"I don't know, that's for Bob Mueller to sort out."

Those were the words. I imagine Fox is somehow twisting that to be a denial of guilt, and while that's clearly a denial of reality, their legion of followers like TTIOH don't have the cognitive ability to recognize it; what little such ability they have is generally focused on mindlessly parroting their talking points, a la Rush Limbaugh and his proud army of dittoheads (Rush's term, and in a weird way you kind of have to stand in queasy awe of a man able to hold on to such a following while simultaneously showing that following so much contempt) that codified the behavior.

[Lord Dave]

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/533965746/trump-i-did-not-make-and-do-not-have-recordings-of-comey

Well... if this isn't misdirection, I don't fucking know what is.

Also, he's a terrible bluffer.  I'd love to play poker with him, I'd win every time.  And I fucking suck at poker.

[honk]

He was a good enough bluffer to trick the American people into electing him president, despite literally every indication that he was an awful person who would prove to be an awful president.

[Roundy]

And he continues to con his supporters into thinking he's working for them despite all the evidence to the contrary. He's a downright modern-day PT Barnum this one is.

[Lord Dave]

He was a good enough bluffer to trick the American people into electing him president, despite literally every indication that he was an awful person who would prove to be an awful president.

And he continues to con his supporters into thinking he's working for them despite all the evidence to the contrary. He's a downright modern-day PT Barnum this one is.

Telling people what they want to hear isn't a bluff, it's a con.

People also have a tendency to want something they don't understand.

[Lord Dave]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533977417/trump-sued-for-allegedly-violating-presidential-records-act

Remember when Republicans (and Trump) were screeching about this very thing with Hillary's e-mail server?

[Pete Svarrior]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533977417/trump-sued-for-allegedly-violating-presidential-records-act

Remember when Republicans (and Trump) were screeching about this very thing with Hillary's e-mail server?

Frankly, I don't. I remember the outrage over woefully insufficient security measures combined with attempts at obstruction of justice. Not good security measures potentially* getting in the way of transparency.

* - n.b. not necessarily

[Lord Dave]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533977417/trump-sued-for-allegedly-violating-presidential-records-act

Remember when Republicans (and Trump) were screeching about this very thing with Hillary's e-mail server?

Frankly, I don't. I remember the outrage over woefully insufficient security measures combined with attempts at obstruction of justice. Not good security measures potentially* getting in the way of transparency.

* - n.b. not necessarily, as the article rightly points out

Oh no, I mean the whole "OMG!  Clinton deleted e-mails!" part.  Where it was "She deleted e-mails that should have been archived!"

Tons of people kept quoting some records act that said she had to keep all her e-mails.

[Pete Svarrior]

Right, but the use of an end-to-end encryption solution does not inherently prevent archival. It might be the case that these messages are currently not being archived appropriately, but we have yet to see whether or not that's the case.

This sounds like part of the recent assault on end-to-end encryption, in which a few seemingly tyrannical groups are trying to spread distrust around the subject of cybersecurity. It's a bit scary tbh

[Lord Dave]

Right, but the use of an end-to-end encryption solution does not inherently prevent archival. It might be the case that these messages are currently not being archived appropriately, but we have yet to see whether or not that's the case.

This sounds like part of the recent assault on end-to-end encryption, in which a few seemingly tyrannical groups are trying to spread distrust around the subject of cybersecurity. It's a bit scary tbh

No, but software that encrypts then deletes messages automatically does.

[Rama Set]

Right, but the use of an end-to-end encryption solution does not inherently prevent archival. It might be the case that these messages are currently not being archived appropriately, but we have yet to see whether or not that's the case.

This sounds like part of the recent assault on end-to-end encryption, in which a few seemingly tyrannical groups are trying to spread distrust around the subject of cybersecurity. It's a bit scary tbh

I can see an argument for POTUS not using end-to-end encryption but I am not sure how far down the chain of his staff that transparency must go. It seems that Trump isn't specifically being targeted but rather his staff. Shit, maybe his staff uses encryption to protect themselves from their boss. I can imagine they don't feel super comfortable venting their frustrations in Trump's employ.

[Pete Svarrior]

No, but software that encrypts then deletes messages automatically does.

That's completely incorrect. Any client could trivially archive messages.

[Lord Dave]

No, but software that encrypts then deletes messages automatically does.

That's completely incorrect. Any client could trivially archive messages.

Sure, if said client supports it.

One of the programs listed is Confide.
Here's the FAQ:

https://getconfide.com/faq

How does it work? It's really simple. Receive messages from your friends and colleagues, "wand" over the words with your finger or mouse to read them, and watch them disappear without a trace when you're done. They're gone for good — no forwarding, no printing and no archiving.
 How secure is this and do messages really disappear? We employ end-to-end encryption to ensure conversations remain confidential and are private to you. Even we at Confide cannot decrypt or see any messages. Yes, after messages are read once they disappear.

So yes, they could write an "archive" feature in but from the looks of it, said feature is not currently in the app.