Do we think the Trump Tower room was a SCIF?

[Grasswire2]

Considering the fact that the property itself was reportedly under surveillance for Russian mobster money launderers and so forth, we shouldn't assume there ISN'T audio somewhere in the vaults of the Intel Community.

The gang that couldn't shoot straight wouldn't be savvy enough to sweep for bugs.

And for damned sure Intel was tracking the Russians who entered the building.

[lastlib]

1. a what?

[fleur-de-lisa]

3. Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (pronounced "skiff")

It's a U.S. Department of Defense term for a secure room. It can be a secure room or data center that guards against electronic surveillance and suppresses data leakage of sensitive security and military information.

[bottomofthehill]

4. Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility

Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (pronounced “skiff”), a U.S. Department of Defense term for a secure room. It can be a secure room or data center that guards against electronic surveillance and suppresses data leakage of sensitive security and military information. SCIFs are used to deny unau­tho­rized per­son­nel, such as for­eign intel­li­gence ser­vices or corporate spies, the oppor­tu­nity for unde­tected entry into facil­i­ties for the exploita­tion of sen­si­tive activ­i­ties.

[dlk]

2. For Someone Who is as Controlling and Insecure as Trump, It's Naive to Think He Wasn't Involved

[fleur-de-lisa]

5. No, I don't think so. Trump was a candidate at the time.

If you are asking if some of the characters that attended were under surveillance, then yes, I believe they absolutely were.

I think the FBI hot-miked the cell phones of some of the attendees (without their knowledge) and therefore, Mueller knows exactly what was said.

And let's not forget that Mueller has the written notes that Manafort took during that meeting. Mueller knows all!

[Grasswire2]

7. exactly my point

...and so to think that Trumps can get away with lying about the meeting is ridiculous.

[better]

6. In a word, no.

And a SCIF does much more than merely deny undetected entry. Their construction is governed by DCID (Director of Central Intelligence Directive) 1-21 Annex B, which in turn references UL 2050 for the intrusion detection and prevention standards. Both are very stringent. I spent several years designing and installing the intrusion and access control systems for SCIFs.

Walls have to be constructed with double thick drywall sandwiched around expanded 9g steel (so that even cutting into the space with tools takes longer than it does for a response force to arrive). Entrances have to be protected by a man-trap, with dual factor authentication for entry (card + PIN/fingerprint, etc), balanced magnetic contacts and motion detectors, as well as a mechanical spin-dial lock. The alarm panel must have redundant communication links, and there are only a small number of panels accredited for use in a SCIF. Openings such as air ducts have to have sound masking technology. Even the wiring transiting the perimeter of a SCIF must be protected, to the point of being encased in conduit, with the cover of every junction box outside the secured space protected by a contact wired to the alarm system. No electronics are permitted within, and all uncleared personnel must be accompanied by a cleared person at all times. I go up in the ceiling to troubleshoot the wire to a motion detector, cleared person goes with me.

And beyond all of that, the space would have to be cleared by an entity with the authority to grant a security clearance. You can't just get accredited as a SCIF simply by virtue of meeting the technical requirements. You have to have an actual reason. Unless they were doing work for the government that requires SCI clearance, they could not possibly have a SCIF, at least in terms of accreditation.

[Grasswire2]

8. exactly my point

The lies of the suspects will be easily revealed.