When the Australian government is also telling him not to, to avoid causing a diplomatic incident with the US.
An incident that the left wing press has done the best it can to try and create.
This story - which may or may not be factual (I suspect it is partly factual but mostly nonsense) - came from the New York Times. There's very little evidence to support it.
Why do people seem to be just accepting it is accurate? I thought people were starting to understand the concept of 'fake news' but this story (which frankly is rather odd - it relies on a conservative diplomat with decades of experience, including as Australia's longest serving Foreign Minister, suddenly being very strangely indiscreet - it's not impossible, but seriously, there's a lot of reason to have questions) seems to be just accepted as true.
It's an interesting thought, that the government of Australia is more afraid of the "Deep State" in America that's fomenting a coup than the actual Administration under attack.
That said, the thing that always gnawed at the back of my mind is why an Australian ambassador, after an evening of drinking with a low-level Trump campaign aide, would think that an off-hand comment that "Russians" had compromising information on Hillary Clinton was worth running up the chain of command.
I'd have thought that the world's diplomatic corps would have taken it for granted that "Russians" had dirt on everyone, and that it was not earth-shattering news, especially since the Clinton server story had been news for quite some time.
-PJ