Mike waltz made the mistake of adding the reporter, but everyone involved made the mistake of discussing too secret plans over a medium not designed/approved for it. THAT is the big issue here, not who invited the reporter errantly.
Trump Admin Includes Atlantic Reporter in Airstrike Plans Group Chat
- Thread starter Spencer_York
- Start date
Can you also admit that lying about it was a bad look. Maybe your media’s truthiness should also be in question? I assume it’s all silent from catturds corner since we didn’t see you run in here and post it?
A small difference is that she never emailed top secret Military attack plans to a newspaper editor.
To act like this isn't some amateur hour idiotic f up is laughable. As much as you want to "what about" this situation, how about being consistent and admitting that this is a really bad mistake that had actual National Security implications.
JUST IN: SecDef Hegseth Torches Anti-Trump Hoax Peddler Jeffrey Goldberg Over 'War Plans' Conspiracy | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
In a bold response to Jeffrey Goldberg's controversial claims, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth vehemently rebuffs allegations of classified information leaks, labeling them as fabrications from a discredited journalist. This exchange sheds light on the ongoing tensions surrounding national...
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Nah he’ll reply with a gif instead.
He said she said so far.JUST IN: SecDef Hegseth Torches Anti-Trump Hoax Peddler Jeffrey Goldberg Over 'War Plans' Conspiracy | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
In a bold response to Jeffrey Goldberg's controversial claims, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth vehemently rebuffs allegations of classified information leaks, labeling them as fabrications from a discredited journalist. This exchange sheds light on the ongoing tensions surrounding national...
Pretty giant fvck up. Definitely embarrassing.
It does make me wonder how super busy professionals manage these discussions in a secure way. My exec leadership team discusses everything on What’s App. Different time zones, meetings all day, constant travel. There’s no time for a secure phone line. Hard to access secure email from your phone, etc.
It does make me wonder how super busy professionals manage these discussions in a secure way. My exec leadership team discusses everything on What’s App. Different time zones, meetings all day, constant travel. There’s no time for a secure phone line. Hard to access secure email from your phone, etc.
Our company uses Microsoft Teams for everything for the same reason. I don't love it because I have to use 2 form identification to log in and it's just unwieldy compared to texting.
Yeah, this is why I am saying I don't know what is standard. I personally use signal, but if my phone is open, the app doesn't require any further login, etc. It is encrypted though. But I have no personal knowledge whatsoever to say that this isn't how every recent administration has discussed this type of stuff. It doesn't smell right to me to discuss war plans in that setting, but I can't pretend to know its not normal.
I am embarrassed for you that you apparently don't have the intelligence to comprehend statements that were put in the most basic terms.
I should admit this is a bad mistake? My first line: "I think this was a big mistake"
Secondly, I was asked my opinion on whether whoever did it should be fired. Normally, people look at precedents to help decide what should be done. Pointing out a precedent is not a "what about". The precedent was someone who had a serious security lapse and was not fired nor prosecuted and the reason given was that it was not intentional. Both issues were determined to be "unintentional".
Can't wait to read your highly intelligent response that will prove your reading comprehension is well above average.
Same here, but for confidential memos we can add secure to the email title and its encrypted and only those you chose can open it.
With federal state secrets, there are obviously secure networks that these type of communications must take place. Using a third party app, is absolutely bonkers and if they had done this as low level bureaucrats they would all have lost their security clearance immediately and likely been prosecuted.
I agree that it does feel off. Thanks for a reasonable response.
Jeffrey Goldberg is the Editor in Chief of the Atlantic, so I don't think his career is hurting.
Adding the reporter is bad but the real scandal is high level Trump admin officials using an unsecure Signal (a messaging app) channel to discuss highly classified information. That is absolutely damning and this doesn't seem to be a one-off occurrence.
THE TRUMP ADMIN IS USING AN UNSECURE MESSAGING APP TO REPEATEDLY DISCUSS HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND NO ONE REALIZED A REPORTER HAD BEEN ADDED TO THE GROUP CHAT
This should give all you Trump guys pause but it won’t. Arrogant and ignorant people in charge is not good. The gut instinct to lie and vilify the reporter even though he literally was sent the information. They seem to be kinda sure Trump gave them the go ahead, why not 1000% sure. The reporter can’t even disclose everything because it’s classified, why did these people need to know operation details before the raid. If Lloyd Austin did this he would be out already and for good reason. At least 2 people should resign, my bet is 0.
I agree with this and I can't stand Goldberg, who is a pretty awful person
Was on the wrong end of a classified document shared via email on an unsecured network for DoD. I never opened it as didn't most because the sender hit reply all before attaching. It caused a shit show as entire offices were taking off the network and hardware was confiscated. Signal use is less of an issue in my mind than uncleared personnel having access. By use, I mean communicating not sharing classified documents.
FYI, the material in my case was not damning just aggregated data that elevated classification.
FYI, the material in my case was not damning just aggregated data that elevated classification.
Yeah signal is technically encrypted. I use it for a friend group group chat. But they weren't on a secret server or anything, they were just on a Signal owned server
Yeah I believe during WW2 some reporters would get briefed on operations before they happened so they could get their stories started but it was made very clear they had to shut up and keep their mouths shut
Right, same. I am assuming that isn't allowed communication, but won't pretend to be an expert either is all I'm saying.
Unsecure in what way? Comms are fully encrypted from end point to end point. The code is open source.
Pete already had a couple of doubles on the way up and the way down by the sound of it
You're nuts if you don't think this isn't a scandal that deserves everyone involved to lose their jobs
The Hillary situation is something that *everyone* in Washington basically does. It was technically classified material but it was newspaper articles or something similar. This is way worse
This is logical and I would agree, but I don't know what the current rules/regs are.
Depending on what was being discussed and at what level, I have to assume that the convo would be either Secret at a minimum, or Top Secret.
The fact that they could even add a random uncleared person to the convo is the big red flag for me. That screams to me that the convo was not via some method that was locked down by the govt.
Since we're early into the Admin, I wonder what the existing rules, regs, policies that were in effect for using this particular app / method of convo. Just curious if it was common practice, or was this a new thing?
Adding the reporter was not intentional... so it's not an intentional leak. Good on the reporter if it's true that he held the info until after the operation took place. Thats what I would expect/hope that ANY American would do.
The whole "war plans" thing... i think it's semantics. "War Plans" or "Operations Plans" have a specific meaining so Hegseth is probably technically correct but a bit disingenuous. The reporter used "war plans" to mean the discussion in general which was concerning military activity that was planned and/or ongoing.,
This...
Anytime, I am invited to a "secure" briefing, I am vetted/cleared/checked. What if it had been a Russian diplomat? An Israeli operative? Stormy Daniels? Who does Waltz or anybody in that group have in their contacts? What happened and how it went down is just about the best-case scenario. This could have been much, much worse.
I know this will not be what you want to hear but mistakes happen and firing everybody thinking that is the solution comes last NOT FIRST
First I would say to you that I doubt highly that YOU have enough information to make an informed decision. Of course there are the mad banshee ranting and mob effect of TDS but I believe in working the facts. At this time I am hearing that something happened and I would trust that something happened, however cooler heads need to examine what happened and how it came about and take counter measures or corrective action to close this loophole that allegedly allowed this to happen.
My position is every time there is a SNAFU does not require a major blowup because of the TDS folks who lost an election.
I am a Christian Conservative middle class American votes split tickets all the time, but admittedly lean Republican as I see most of their candidates as conservative COMMON-SENSE FOLKS.
Watching this week some of the elected officials and judges invoke NAZI in their words along with trying to inflame people to violence such as Al Green and Jasmine Crockett which can be considered due to the TESLA attacks encouraging that violence.
I will readily admit that I have read many of the posts and watched the news , but in spite of that I am woefully under educated and need to sit back and wait for further information.
Maybe somebody needs to be educated fired or whatever, however if everyone who made mistakes in government was fired for every mistake after about a week the halls of government would be deserted.
So I think my best strategy is lurk and watch and wait until I see the who , what , where and when
I will repeat that you may be 100% right but I prefer to wait a bit and learn more about what happened and be supportive of making America a better country.
Don't downplay the Hillary thing. It was bad. And it was done over a long term, not a singular mistake. And then there was the self-serving scramble to cover it up/mitigate by wiping/destroying the computer(s).
Can't downplay this either. Need to figure all the factors that played into the curren thing and the sequence of events. The biggest thing is why was the conversation happening via a method/medium that would allow a simple mistake that is a common one for all of us to make, to spill that info and not automatically block someone that isn't supposed to be part of the convo from receiving it in a way that they could ead it.
Edit: holy run-on sentence batman!
Last edited:
Agreed. Neither is good.
This seems worse. They were discussing National Security Secreta on a commercially owned service... My company doesn't allow that and I'm hardly dealing with National Secrets.
"In the recent coverage that references her emails, former FBI Director James Comey is sometimes quoted as saying that of the 33,000 Clinton emails examined by bureau investigators, three had classification markings. That’s less than one-hundredth of one percent, and not worth comparing to Trump’s malfeasance anyway, but it’s still false -- apparently meant to bolster Comey’s absurd claim that other Clinton emails were “classified” although never marked as such.
Those three State Department documents were “call sheets,” innocuous memos reminding Clinton to make scheduled phone calls. During her FBI interview, investigators showed her one of those memos, reminding her to place a condolence call to the president of Malawi--not exactly a top secret matter. As Comey himself later admitted, any classification marking on that sheet had been wrongly applied.
In short, the three supposedly classified documents attributed to her emails were barely even confidential, let alone secret or subject to the sanctions of the Espionage Act."
Last edited:
I don't know all the details to say what i think, but i'm not going to argue that point. Its an embarrasing fvck up. And it seeminly is bad.
Really need to know how it was even possible that it could have happened and how its going to be prevented going forward.
But at least the crosstalk was good. 😔
Edit: 1. Was the chat happening on official government devices (you don't use your personal phone like you often do in corporate world, you get a diferent phone (or two))? 2. Is the Signal App approved for official use? 3. Was the convo actually classified? (i assume it was but... maybe it wasn't)
Last edited:
Except for the part where they talked about how much they hated Europe and how they were going to get renumeration from them. Hating Europe has never been and should never be an American position.
What will you say if nobody loses their job?
If Trump cared about competence, he wouldn’t have a bimbo from the Dakotas running the Department of Homeland Security
