People starting to retire from the FBI

[HSFBfan]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-top-fbi-cybersecurity-officials-to-retire-1532036330

I guess its drain the swamp time

[Horsefly]

16 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-top-fbi-cybersecurity-officials-to-retire-1532036330

I guess its drain the swamp time

Congrats to them all!

God Bless them and thanks for their service to the country.  

Now they can go enjoy their lucrative retirement!

[HSFBfan]

1 minute ago, GardenStateBaller said:

Them haters can't imaging living another 61/2 years with our great Prexy at the helm. New blood at the FBI will only help the organization long-term. When the going gets tough, the cowardly crawl up into a ball and take early retirement! LOL #winning

Article said that 3 have retired and there are more coming......what a great start to a friday 

[Hardcore Troubador]

40 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-top-fbi-cybersecurity-officials-to-retire-1532036330

I guess its drain the swamp time

 

18 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

Article said that 3 have retired and there are more coming......what a great start to a friday 

This is just stupid.  Do you know anything about these guys?  What were their politics?  What expertise did they bring to the FBI?  How do you know they weren’t Trump supporters?  How do you know their replacements won’t be voting for a Democrat in 2018 and 2020?  

Serious question - if you’re willing to make these kind of inane blanket statements, then why not just disband the entire FBI?  Fire everyone.  Hire all new people from the Director to the mailroom guy?

 

[Horsefly]

1 minute ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

 

This is just stupid.  Do you know anything about these guys?  What were their politics?  What expertise did they bring to the FBI?  How do you know they weren’t Trump supporters?  How do you know their replacements won’t be voting for a Democrat in 2018 and 2020?  

Serious question - if you’re willing to make these kind of inane blanket statements, then why not just disband the entire FBI?  Fire everyone.  Hire all new people from the Director to the mailroom guy?

 

That's the key he doesn't understand like he doesn't on much anything else.  The FBI is going to hire from within and they will be strong supporters of the agency.  

[Hardcore Troubador]

Just now, Horsefly said:

That's the key he doesn't understand like he doesn't on much anything else.  The FBI is going to hire from within and they will be strong supporters of the agency.  

What these Branch Trumpidians want is a politicized organization that does what Trump wants, i.e. investigates “Pizzagate” and the “DNC murder” of Seth Rich, or whatever other stupid “drain the swamp” conspiracy cooked up by Hannity, Alex Jones, etc.

Fighting real crime?  Keeping our country safe against actual threats, who needs that?

[HSFBfan]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

 

This is just stupid.  Do you know anything about these guys?  What were their politics?  What expertise did they bring to the FBI?  How do you know they weren’t Trump supporters?  How do you know their replacements won’t be voting for a Democrat in 2018 and 2020?  

Serious question - if you’re willing to make these kind of inane blanket statements, then why not just disband the entire FBI?  Fire everyone.  Hire all new people from the Director to the mailroom guy?

 

Well if you read the article they were cyber security personnel. And they are reaching retirement. One guy is leaving before retirement. I'm not for disbanding the entire FBI I am for replacing as many of them as possible and starting over. I feel that way about most if not all of the government. Look at congress 18% approval rate. Time to see them all go and start over. 

[Horsefly]

1 minute ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

What these Branch Trumpidians want is a politicized organization that does what Trump wants, i.e. investigates “Pizzagate” and the “DNC murder” of Seth Rich, or whatever other stupid “drain the swamp” conspiracy cooked up by Hannity, Alex Jones, etc.

Fighting real crime?  Keeping our country safe against actual threats, who needs that?

😂.  

[Hardcore Troubador]

7 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

Well if you read the article they were cyber security personnel. And they are reaching retirement. One guy is leaving before retirement. I'm not for disbanding the entire FBI I am for replacing as many of them as possible and starting over. I feel that way about most if not all of the government. Look at congress 18% approval rate. Time to see them all go and start over. 

I read the whole article.  We’re losing 3 highly experienced cyber security experts at one of the agencies charged with protecting our nation’s infrastructure against criminal cyber intrusions which, as the article states, are at a f’in all time high!

No indication they were anything but dedicated public servants (if you know otherwise show me proof and I’ll look at it).  It’s a loss to our national security (whatever the reason they’re leaving - retirement, a bigger paycheck, etc).

And that’s a good thing?  Betch, please 🤦🏾‍♀️

[HSFBfan]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

I read the whole article.  We’re losing 3 highly experienced cyber security experts at one of the agencies charged with protecting our nation’s infrastructure against criminal cyber intrusions which, as the article states, are at a f’in all time high!

No indication they were anything but dedicated public servants (if you know otherwise show me proof and I’ll look at it).  It’s a loss to our national security (whatever the reason they’re leaving - retirement, a bigger paycheck, etc).

And that’s a good thing?  Betch, please 🤦🏾‍♀️

It's a good thing in the sense that we can get some new blood in there. People being in a position for 30 years or more is not always the best of things. The agency can get younger. New energy. New ways of doing things. They are going to the private sector so I'm sure that's more money than a government paycheck 

[Hardcore Troubador]

1 minute ago, HSFBfan said:

It's a good thing in the sense that we can get some new blood in there. People being in a position for 30 years or more is not always the best of things. The agency can get younger. New energy. New ways of doing things. They are going to the private sector so I'm sure that's more money than a government paycheck 

On that level I agree.  Yes new blood always good, but it’s not draining the swamp, and not a good start to a Friday.

Biggest thing that caught my eye was the assessment that we are facing an unprecedented level of cyber threats.

[HSFBfan]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

On that level I agree.  Yes new blood always good, but it’s not draining the swamp, and not a good start to a Friday.

Biggest thing that caught my eye was the assessment that we are facing an unprecedented level of cyber threats.

It's a great start to a Friday and yes it could be potentially draining the swamp. And it's a saratoga opening day what a day!!!! Were always facing some sort of threat. 

[Bormio]

Most of the people who work at the FBI are truly dedicated public servants.  However there is something truly wrong with the culture at the FBI and has been for quite a while.  Just the behavior of Strzok and his voluminous texting on his government cellphone should tell you that.  

[Horsefly]

2 minutes ago, Bormio said:

Most of the people who work at the FBI are truly dedicated public servants.  However there is something truly wrong with the culture at the FBI and has been for quite a while.  Just the behavior of Strzok and his voluminous texting on his government cellphone should tell you that.  

No, that’s a problem with strzok.  Doesn’t mean the other thousands are doing the same.  It’s careless to pick the actions of a few and denigrate the whole agency, we hear this argument all the time about police misconduct. 

[Hardcore Troubador]

10 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

No, that’s a problem with strzok.  Doesn’t mean the other thousands are doing the same.  It’s careless to pick the actions of a few and denigrate the whole agency, we hear this argument all the time about police misconduct. 

The FBI vs. local police comparison is spot on.  I guess we will see the #MAGA crowd here at the next BLM rally protesting the culture of police brutality?

[Bormio]

7 minutes ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

The FBI vs. local police comparison is spot on.  I guess we will see the #MAGA crowd here at the next BLM rally protesting the culture of police brutality?

While I am sympathetic to the dangers and uncertainties that police officers face, I do think the brutality we see at times is indicative of underlying problems in police departments.  There is also a difference between comparing the actions of police officers in high-pressure, on the street encounters to what Strzok was allowed to do in his everyday office work.

[Hardcore Troubador]

7 minutes ago, Bormio said:

While I am sympathetic to the dangers and uncertainties that police officers face, I do think the brutality we see at times is indicative of underlying problems in police departments.  There is also a difference between comparing the actions of police officers in high-pressure, on the street encounters to what Strzok was allowed to do in his everyday office work.

Here’s the thing - where’s the proof Strzok took any action as a result of his bias?

The guy is an assclown and a moron.  He cheated on his wife and texted about it using a taxpayer phone.  He used a taxpayer phone and left a record of his bias against he President.  He is so stupid that he allowed his personal feelings to jeopardize the appearance of impartiality that is essential to a serious investigation.  He’s not a hero as those on the left make him out to be, and Mueller was right to can his ass.  I was happy to see his smirking little face get blasted by the House.

But where’s the evidence he was trying to frame or otherwise manufacture something against the President?  And where’s the proof that anything like that actually happened?

And what proof do you have of a pervasive anti-Trump culture at the FBI that has any tangible effect on the investigations against him?

 

[Bormio]

Just now, Hardcore Troubador said:

Here’s the thing - where’s the proof Strzok took any action as a result of his bias?

The guy is an assclown and a moron.  He cheated on his wife and texted about it using a taxpayer phone.  He used a taxpayer phone and left a record of his bias against he President.  He is so stupid that he allowed his personal feelings to jeopardize the appearance of impartiality that is essential to a serious investigation.  He’s not a hero as those on the left make him out to be, and Mueller was right to can his ass.  I was happy to see his smirking little face get blasted by the House.

But where’s the evidence he was trying to frame or otherwise manufacture something against the President?  And where’s the proof that anything like that actually happened?

 

He may think his bias did not affect his actions, but he very likely is kidding himself.  Biases affect our actions in ways we refuse to admit - look at what happens with police officers.  I am a physician - patients I like probably subtly get better care than people I do not.  But to the point of this thread, his behavior that people had to know about was tolerated by management - and he was rewarded with plum jobs.

[Horsefly]

11 minutes ago, Bormio said:

While I am sympathetic to the dangers and uncertainties that police officers face, I do think the brutality we see at times is indicative of underlying problems in police departments.  There is also a difference between comparing the actions of police officers in high-pressure, on the street encounters to what Strzok was allowed to do in his everyday office work.

Come on Bormio, there has been plenty of police dept misconduct that involved the brass and their immorality.  Hardly pressure from the streets.  One recently was a police chief from Biscayne Prk, Fl that directed his staff to target minorities and frame them for unsolved crimes.

[Hardcore Troubador]

Just now, Bormio said:

He may think his bias did not affect his actions, but he very likely is kidding himself.  Biases affect our actions in ways we refuse to admit - look at what happens with police officers.  I am a physician - patients I like probably subtly get better care than people I do not.  But to the point of this thread, his behavior that people had to know about was tolerated by management - and he was rewarded with plum jobs.

We have no proof that happened.  The only action re: his career we do know about is that Mueller fired him when it became clear he held personal bias.

BTW, Bormio give youself more credit than that even on the “subtle” aspects.  I’m a lawyer.  I can say with certainty that I’ve had clients I disliked but always prepared their case as zealously as I did those whose company I enjoyed.  No difference in how the case was presented, except maybe I made them wait an extra day befor I returned their call.  Let them stew a bit waiting...

[Horsefly]

9 minutes ago, Bormio said:

He may think his bias did not affect his actions, but he very likely is kidding himself.  Biases affect our actions in ways we refuse to admit - look at what happens with police officers.  I am a physician - patients I like probably subtly get better care than people I do not.  But to the point of this thread, his behavior that people had to know about was tolerated by management - and he was rewarded with plum jobs.

So if biases are a fact of nature and common as you infer, then why even address it as it relates to Strozk?  

I would think the goal then would be to mitigate biases (seeing as we all have them) as much as possible so that it isn't impactful or changes an outcome, which the investigation stated it didn't.

[Hardcore Troubador]

Just now, Horsefly said:

So if biases are a fact of nature and common as you infer, then why even address it as it relates to Strozk?  

I would think the goal then would be to mitigate biases (seeing as we all have them) as much as possible so that isnt as impactful, which the investigation stated it didn't.

Exaclty.  Multiple layers of review of the evidence in the investigation.

Subtly we may even do things slightly slower or faster for example depending on if we like a person or not, like return a call. But does it actually affect anything? Or is it just a tiny ripple against the hull of a moving battleship?

[Bormio]

1 minute ago, Horsefly said:

Come on Bormio, there has been plenty of police dept misconduct that involved the brass and their immorality.  Hardly pressure from the streets.  One recently was a police chief from Biscayne Prk, Fl that directed his staff to target minorities and frame them for unsolved crimes.

Certainly indefensible.  But most of these publicized cases are on the street events.

[Cat_Scratch]

On 7/20/2018 at 9:10 AM, Hardcore Troubador said:

I read the whole article.  We’re losing 3 highly experienced cyber security experts at one of the agencies charged with protecting our nation’s infrastructure against criminal cyber intrusions which, as the article states, are at a f’in all time high!

No indication they were anything but dedicated public servants (if you know otherwise show me proof and I’ll look at it).  It’s a loss to our national security (whatever the reason they’re leaving - retirement, a bigger paycheck, etc).

And that’s a good thing?  Betch, please 🤦🏾‍♀️

As an ex cyber security/systems guy, I can tell you that it isn't getting easier to keep the hackers out. I retired 7 years ago. Everyday there seemed to be a new threat, new virus/trojans, hackers trying to steal CC numbers, etc... I can understand why these senior staffers wanted to retire. I'm sure they were getting all the heat from within for letting the Ruskies hack servers. 

Here's the deal. Most of the hackers need a way in... backdoor trojans/virus, keyboard loggers, etc... the hackers probably came in through an unsecured server. If I were to blame anyone, I would blame the firewall for not being secure enough, or blame some of the staffers for having offsite servers sending and receiving classified emails. Hack's normally take time to setup. You can't blame someone for not doing their job when a server/email device isn't on site, or not on the list of official servers. You want to blame anyone for this, blame the people that had unsecured devices. Anyone come to mind?

You would think I was crazy if you seen some of the places I hacked into in the 80's. Never did anything malicious. Of course when the feds came calling, the hacking stopped.