Without getting too political, this is an administration that has flaunted convention, oversight, and basic professionalism on virtually every front. To hear that they do the same when it comes to IT security is utterly unsurprising.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys intellectual curiosity, the value of the site.
Does everybody here know the #2 at the FBI counter intel was texting his lover and asking if there’s anybody in the White House who could spy for them?[1]
They’d be foolish if they don’t try and dramatically shake things up. If I were them I wouldn’t trust any previous admin holdovers.
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/pjmedia.com/trending/strzok-pag...
Since when are unfriendly op-eds in the NYT "unprecedented"?
Look, I'm sure the Trump administration has plenty of legitimate reasons to be paranoid about people trying to undermine them, but it's pretty hard for me to accept that driving out all your competent opsec people is going to reduce the amount of leaks and compromises.
He was the #2 in the FBI Counterintelligence Division, which isn't exactly second in command of the entire bureau.
Also, the article you linked said that the texts "may show potential attempts by the FBI to conduct surveillance of President-elect Trump's transition team". And that is according to one senator from Iowa. That's a big difference from what you're saying actually happened.
Edited for formatting.
It's been 2 long years, and hopefully (finally) the public will get some transparency regarding the genesis of the 4 FISAs signed to spy on the campaign.
Of course, to learn anything substantial about the IG report you basically have to surgically removal oneself from the MSM spin machines.