Tomo. Surely an "unsung hero" of the POST-election for warning that the transition team were under surveillance? Hardly unsung if I had heard of him, even if I didn't know why he was a "hero" (for doing his job well?)

Supertroll, perhaps the term "unsung hero" is not the most appropriate, now.

Reuters reported here
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-intelligence/senior-u-s-officials-recommend-removal-of-nsa-director-sources-idUSKBN13E0SF?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

November 19, 2016 / 8:55 PM / in a year

Senior U.S. officials recommend removal of NSA director: sources

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The heads of the Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community have recommended to President Barack Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, be removed from his position, sources familiar with the matter said on Saturday.

    The recommendation by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, first reported by The Washington Post, was delivered to the White House last month.   

    Obama chose Rogers to take over at the NSA in 2014 and gave him the task of repairing the damage after the huge leaks about its electronic spying program by contractor Edward Snowden.

    But there have been other security lapses, the sources said, including the one that led to the arrest of NSA contractor Harold Martin earlier this year.    

    Rogers is being considered as a potential new director of national intelligence by President-elect Donald Trump, a post that oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

    The Washington Post reported that a decision by Rogers to travel to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday without notifying superiors caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, but the recommendation to remove him predated his visit.

Rogers is head of both the National Security Agency and the U.S. military’s Cyber Command. Carter was also disappointed with the Cyber Command’s performance in the war against Islamic State, another source said.

The White House, Pentagon, NSA and office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment. A Trump campaign spokesman had no immediate comment.

    U.S. Representative Devin Nunes, chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee and a Republican, said later on Saturday he had written to Carter and Clapper asking them to testify to the committee about the matter.

The Obama administration wants to split leadership at the National Security Agency and Cyber Command, arguing that the job of leading two agencies with differing missions is too much for one person.

    But some members of Congress, led by Republican Senator John McCain, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, oppose that plan, saying that Cyber Command needs access to the NSA’s resources to do its job effectively."   

★If this account is true, then it suggests that Obama was not prepared to stoop too low, so late. He had appointed Rogers in the first place to plug leaks★

We do not yet know, how heated, longstanding and acrimonious, the discussions were, that caused Rogers to visit Trump, or how long his discussion with Trump was.

It would be logical to assume that Rogers took convincing evidence to Trump, and that he had previously "secured" a copy for his own defence, if necessary, (personal insurance?) away from his office and home.

Trump may already have a small armoury stacked full of "smoking guns", but none of them may be admissible in Court. They will be more reliable than anything within Steele's Dodgy Dossier.

It would be logical to assume that Nunes, Gowdy and others, are aware of the Rogers Insurance Policy.

Feb 10, 2018 at 4:30 PM | Radical Rodent

Climate Scientists are still convinced that the absence of evidence of polar bear sh¡tting in the woods, is proof that polar bears are extinct.

Schiff is wrecking any chance of Democrats finding financial support for his Presidential aspirations. Which Democrat will be next?

The True Pundit domain was only registered in March of this year. Since then, the site has published many false stories, such as Hillary Clinton wearing an earpiece at a debate, her using hand signals with one of the debate moderators, and Clinton being drunk one morning before a campaign rally.

Not to mention the Pizzagate disgrace.

Fake news.

href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/fever-swamp-election?utm_term=.yvyxYV1E2#.rpQbBOwMK">Buzzfeed

Buzzfeed

Of course not, just observing that a source that spread that particular piece of conspiratorial nastiness is not to be taken seriously.

Feb 11, 2018 at 11:49 AM | Phil Clarke

Buzzfeed seem to have been banking on a Clinton win, with stories to match, supporting her credibility. Quite a few journalists are regretting putting their faith in people known to be liars, or are they just victims of their own gullibility?

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/buzzfeed-uk-sees-exodus-of-newsroom-talent-following-job-cuts/

"Buzzfeed journalists who have left since the start of the New Year:

Senior editor, Luke Bailey
Supervising video producer, Oisin Bickley
Illustrator, Sian Butcher
Science writer, Tom Chivers
Editor-at-large, Robin Edds
Senior reporter, Aisha Gani
Illustrator, Rebecca Hendin
Copy chief, Rory Lewarne
Breaking news reporter, Alicia Melville-Smith
Scotland editor, Hilary Mitchell
Science editor, Kelly Oakes
Editorial director, Tom Phillips
Commissioning editor, Chelsey Pippin
Scotland reporter, Jamie Ross
Special projects editor, Louise Ridley
Reporter, Fiona Rutherford
Consumer business correspondent, Sara Spary
Homepage editor, Francis Whittaker

"It emerged in December 2017 that a third of Buzzfeed UK’s newsroom staff were to be made redundant. Another 22 staff from other sections of the publisher were also up for redundancy."

Buzzfeed have been very active at leading stories about Climate Science, and now Climate Science is following the lead of Buzzfeed, as they have also run out of other people's money.

The US decided that Trump was more reliable with their money, than St Hillary.

Trump will probably will take his revenge on the climate for exposing his baldness. So much effort and ingenuity pitilessly exposed for all to see by a stray puff of wind. Or perhaps it was stronger than a puff given the amount of ozone-destroying hair spray employed to keep the Donald's pate covered. Maybe North Korea having developed a secret weapon in retaliation for "Rocket Man". The mechanics of the back combed wrap around will be special features of multiple hair dressing magazines. Perhaps his personal hairdresser should be given a special Oscar for scenery design.

Feb 11, 2018 at 2:49 PM | Supertroll

I thought climate scientists had proved that the ozone hole was caused by CFCs in hair spray. Is this why the Hockey Team image consultants, have gone for less hair on the head, combined with a stubbly little goatee?

The back-combed stray wrap around, was actually a Stealth aeronautic manoeuvre, developed for evasive Cruise missiles, as it iincreased improbability and implausibility rather than fear, as shown by Arthur Scargill sporting a shiny white helmet, during the early 80s Miner's Strike.

Could Trump and Scargill unite to reopen coal mines either side of the Atlantic, with a handshake somewhere in the middle?

tomo. And start sucking lollipops?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DT5i-8LW4AMRKtd.jpg

Feb 11, 2018 at 7:10 PM | tomo

Nobody had fabricated Global Warming in 1973.

Back then, they were all talking about a new ice age. The Climate seems to warm and cool cyclically, and no one knows why.

At least Trump has adequate cranial insulation.

And yet, and yet ….

Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College.

The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020.

But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

With friends like that ….

Nate Silver