Post New

...but probably won't. Interestingly enough, he highlights a point that I've made over the years: Voters expect competence.

https://www.thefp.com/p/can-democrats-embrace-abun...

There are countless examples of such inefficiencies and delays. The culprit is a Democratic Party that puts ideology and special interests ahead of good governance. It is committed to ensuring that development is not socially harmful in any way, and does not transgress the interests of any “stakeholders.” In reality, that amounts to a promise that nothing will get done. The result is endless paperwork and litigation by those stakeholders—or, more accurately, interest groups that claim to represent those stakeholders. This includes countless environmental and “social justice” NGOs, local NIMBY groups and, of course, the army of lawyers who make their living from this sort of thing. Costs balloon and projects are delayed.

Voters expect competence.

Well, if you saw any news today, you know that the voter’s expectations sure as hell aren’t being met by the Trump administration.

Looked at the other thread. Usual symphony from the usual suspects.
As far as competency goes, the left has no leg to stand on.

Voters expect competence.

Certainly not any Trump voters. Unless they were looking for competence in lawbreaking and grifting off the public. For that kind of competence, Trump is your man.

—Peter

Dope1: Looked at the other thread. Usual symphony from the usual suspects.
As far as competency goes, the left has no leg to stand on.

Says the guy who for years said Hillary belonged in prison for mishandling classified information.

Fcuking hilarious.

These nitwits were drafting war plans -- likely on their cell phones -- on Signal and not a single one of them noticed that there was someone in the group who didn't belong there. Not one.

How deep in the cult must one be to refuse to admit this was likely illegal, these communications were unsecure, and unlike Hillary's classified documents scandal, the SignalGate scandal made our military plans available to our enemies, threatened the mission, and made our soldiers vulnerable.

People have gone to prison for less.

But, sure, right, uh-huh... the left are incompetent.

Looked at the other thread. Usual symphony from the usual suspects.

That's an odd response, from you. You and I have had extensive conversations about what you think the statutes governing classified and national security information mean. Under your view of the statutes, the deliberate transmission of classified national defense information over an unsecured unapproved commercial app to non-secured devices isn't just incompetence - it's criminal behavior that merits prosecution. The inclusion of Goldberg was an inadvertent mistake; but the choice to transmit that specific information through that specific channel intentional. Under your view of the law, at a minimum Waltz and Hegseth committed crimes, not merely incompetence.

...but probably won't. Interestingly enough, he highlights a point that I've made over the years: Voters expect competence.

Says a person who happily and blindly supports the most corrupt and incompetent administration in our history.

Dope: Looked at the other thread. Usual symphony from the usual suspects.

albaby1: That's an odd response, from you. You and I have had extensive conversations about what you think the statutes governing classified and national security information mean. Under your view of the statutes, the deliberate transmission of classified national defense information over an unsecured unapproved commercial app to non-secured devices isn't just incompetence - it's criminal behavior that merits prosecution. The inclusion of Goldberg was an inadvertent mistake; but the choice to transmit that specific information through that specific channel intentional. Under your view of the law, at a minimum Waltz and Hegseth committed crimes, not merely incompetence.

Thank you for once again politely exposing the incredible hypocrisy we are seeing on the political right.

How much of this is being discussed on RW media? Crickets... or stories buried where most will not see them.

But, sure, right, uh-huh... the left are incompetent.

Except when they’re doing all of those ruthlessly diabolical things as the “Deep State”…. Like stealing the 2020 election.

Our guys were so incompetent, they got busted making war plans with a reporter in the room- not even 2 months into this administration.

By comparison, the ruthlessly efficient “Deep State” continues to hide all of the evidence we absolutely know exists, that proves the Democrats and Joe Biden stole the 2020 election.

The passage of the ACA was another example of the Democrat Deep State ruthless efficiency.

But other than things like that, the Democrats have been a flopping bag of inefficiency and stupidity.

Hunter Biden’s laptop, for example. I mean, how stupid can you get?

Under your view of the law, at a minimum Waltz and Hegseth committed crimes, not merely incompetence.

They aren’t Democrats, so it doesn’t count.

Under your view of the law, at a minimum Waltz and Hegseth committed crimes, not merely incompetence.

And YOU kept banging the “intent” drum for Hillary!, who obviously had intent to willfully store and distribute classified information.

My point was going to be that the messages were interesting insight into what administration officials were thinking but the usual suspects were busy working themselves up into a lather.

Certainly not any Trump voters. Unless they were looking for

Voters ask for competence. They get the opposite from democrats.

Under your view of the law, at a minimum Waltz and Hegseth committed crimes, not merely incompetence.

I know your post is really for the rest of us, but just pointing out that this person will never admit inconsistency and hypocrisy while trying to make it focused on a now-decade old whataboutism.

The amount and type of information exposed in the Hegseth/Waltz Signal posts, along with the real time nature of it makes this an extraordinarily reckless breach of security.

Pete

And YOU kept banging the “intent” drum for Hillary!, who obviously had intent to willfully store and distribute classified information.

Yep. But here, we don't have a dispute about intent. Hillary couldn't be prosecuted because she didn't send the messages. She received them. Which means she couldn't be prosecuted for sending classified information, because there was no way to prove that she intended for classified information to be sent - she wasn't the one who sent the messages.

That's not true of Hegseth and Waltz, who intentionally sent classified information about the national defense through unsecured channels. Unlike Clinton, they're the authors of these messages.

Wiles, Gabbard, Rubio, and other participants in the chat are analogous to Clinton - they received the classified information on unsecured devices through unsecured channels. And I will maintain, just as I did with Clinton, that any effort to prosecute them would be unsuccessful, because there's no proof that they intended for classified information to end up in an unsecured channel on their (probably) non-secured devices.

The same is not true of Hegseth and Waltz. They were the senders of this information. They intentionally and knowingly chose what information was put into the Signal app and distributed through non-secure channels to (probably) non-secure devices.

Under your reading of the statute means that they've committed prosecutable crimes. But (I expect) you won't call for their prosecution, or lament that we have a "two tiered" justice system because they're escaping the type of criminal charges that any lesser official would be subject to immediately. The President has pulled the security clearance of scores of prior officials for no articulated reason, and yet these guys are not only going to keep their clearances despite knowingly placing classified information about a pending operation, but they'll keep their jobs as well.

I understand why you're not going to say that Hegseth and Waltz should be prosecuted. But I don't think you're in a position to criticize those on the left who are correctly pointing out that what they did was grossly incompetent.

know your post is really for the rest of us, but just pointing out that this person will never admit inconsistency and hypocrisy while trying to make it focused on a n</iL

Physician, heal thyself.

But here, we don't have a dispute about intent. Hillary couldn't be prosecuted because she didn't send the messages.

Huh? She set up the server and housed it on her property. That’s a clear signal of intent if there ever was one.

I understand why you're not going to say that Hegseth and Waltz should be prosecuted. But I don't think you're in a position to criticize those on the left who are correctly pointing out that what they did was grossly incompetent.

I’ve actually said very little on the subject as I haven’t had a chance to look at the Atlantic article (other than to read a few snippets of texts from Vance). I don’t know if they were using an approved version of Signal or not, for one - and that seems like fairly important information.

Huh? She set up the server and housed it on her property. That’s a clear signal of intent if there ever was one.

You need to prove intent to remove the classified information from where it should be - not intent to receive classified information. Hegseth and Waltz knew that what they were typing was classified and they sent it - so intent is clearly established.

I’ve actually said very little on the subject as I haven’t had a chance to look at the Atlantic article (other than to read a few snippets of texts from Vance). I don’t know if they were using an approved version of Signal or not, for one - and that seems like fairly important information.

There is no approved version of Signal. It's not an authorized app for classified information. It's been percolating for a day now, and no one has come forward to argue that it is ever legal to send this kind of information via Signal.

You need to prove intent to remove the classified information from where it should be - not intent to receive classified information. Hegseth and Waltz knew that w

The server is the intent. Then there’s Anthony Weiner’s laptop that had copies of everything on it…how’d Huma get all that stuff?

There is no approved version of Signal. I

You don’t know that.

There is no approved version of Signal.

You don’t know that.

Of course there isn’t an approved version of Signal, otherwise Faux News would be screaming it 24x7.

Obviously, these morons have been using Signal since 1/20. And our adversaries (Russia, China, etc.) have had a front row seat to all these conversations, as well.

Stupid is as stupid does.

The server is the intent. Then there’s Anthony Weiner’s laptop that had copies of everything on it…how’d Huma get all that stuff?

The server isn't the intent. We've gone over this several times: the criminal statutes relating to classified information make it a crime to possess classified information you don't have clearance for and to remove classified information from where it's supposed to be - they do not make it a crime to possess classified information outside a secure location. They're just not written that way. So to prove a crime by someone with high levels of clearance, you need to prove that they're the ones who sent the information, not that they received it.

You are never going to agree with me on that - but it's not relevant to this conversation. Because if Clinton committed a crime (as you believe), then it is inarguable that Hegseth and Waltz committed a crime by sending classified information about a pending national defense operation over an unsecure app. You're the one with the more expansive view of what the statutes criminalize - which should mean that you would regard Waltz and Hegseth as criminals. But I don't think you're ever going to acknowledge that.

You don’t know that.

DOD says so:

Unmanaged 'messaging apps,' including any app with a chat feature, regardless of the primary function, are NOT authorized to access, transmit, process non-public DoD
information. This includes but is not limited to messaging, gaming, and social media apps. (i.e., iMessage, WhatsApps, Signal).

https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Lib...

....as well as all of the government officials who have commented on this, both Republican and Democratic. No one has come out and said that this is permissible - if this had actually been approved, you would have heard someone making that argument right now. Even at the highest levels of government, the response has not been to claim that this was allowed: Hegseth's response was to deny that this had even happened (the idiot - he didn't realize that the government had already confirmed that the messages Goldberg received were authentic), and Trump's response today was to say that Waltz had learned his lesson. Neither argued that there was nothing wrong because Signal is an authorized app - because it is not!.

There's no way out of this, Dope. If what Clinton did was a crime, then what Hegseth and Waltz did was absolutely a crime. Honestly, if what Clinton did was a crime then everyone on that Signal chat committed a crime as well - because they all did what Clinton did, which is receive classified information in an unsecured channel. I do not think that Susie Wiles or Marco Rubio committed a crime, for the same reason I don't think Clinton did - the criminal statutes don't cover possessing classified information in an unsecure location if you have clearance to have it. But since you think Clinton committed crimes, you should believe that all of the chat participants committed crimes here.

Obviously, these morons have been using Signal since 1/20.

Probably even earlier than that.

--Peter

You are never going to agree with me on that - but it's not relevant to this conversation. Because if Clinton committed a crime (as you believe), then it is inarguable that Hegseth and Waltz committed a crime by sending classified information about a pending national defense operation over an unsecure app. You're the one with the more expansive view of what the statutes criminalize - which should mean that you would regard Waltz and Hegseth as criminals. But I don't think you're ever going to acknowledge that.

So one starts to ask what Dope1 actually believes. Two distinct possibilities exist. One is that he believes whatever Democrats do is a crime and what ever Republicans do cannot be a crime. The other is that he is a foreign agitator attempting to sow discord and division.

Personally, I'd go for the former over the latter. He's much too obvious to actually be a foreign agent, and his approach isn't winning converts. That's not the kind of smart person foreign governments would employ for such an effort.

--Peter

So one starts to ask what Dope1 actually believes. Two distinct possibilities exist. One is that he believes whatever Democrats do is a crime and what ever Republicans do cannot be a crime. The other is that he is a foreign agitator attempting to sow discord and division.

Typical lib. Can't make an argument, can't engage, can't comprehend that somebody has a perspective other than theirs, can't exist outside of a small bubble. So they make it personal.

Roll over and show me your belly while you're at it.

How sad. But thanks for auto placing yourself in the same bucket that your similarly poorly equipped running mates occupy. They usually place said bucket over their heads while walking around, never wondering why they keep running into doorjambs.

That's an odd response, from you.

Not when it's done by Team Red. Then it's all good!

Does the hypocrisy surprise you? Sadly, it's doesn't surprise me anymore.

Honestly, if what Clinton did was a crime then everyone on that Signal chat committed a crime as well - because they all did what Clinton did, which is receive classified information in an unsecured channel. I do not think that Susie Wiles or Marco Rubio committed a crime, for the same reason I don't think Clinton did - the criminal statutes don't cover possessing classified information in an unsecure location if you have clearance to have it. But since you think Clinton committed crimes, you should believe that all of the chat participants committed crimes here.

I'd say "lock 'em all up", but the Felon would just pardon them.

And this answers one question:

https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1904549630274...

.
@CIADirector
: "One of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer ... One of the things that I was briefed on very early was ... the use of Signal as a permissible work use — it is."

So Signal is okay to use at work.

And more from Ratcliffe:

RATCLIFFE: I don't know if you use Signal messaging app, but —

BENNETT: I do, I do — not for classified information; not for targeting —

RATCLIFFE: Well, neither do I, Senator.

BENNETT: Not for anything remote —

RATCLIFFE: Neither do I, Senator. To be clear —

BENNETT: Well, that's what your testimony is today.

RATCLIFFE: It absolutely is not, Senator. Were you not listening at the beginning? When I said that I was using it, as permitted — it is permissible to use.

BENNETT: I agree that's your testimony. I agree that's your testimony. You asked me if I use it, and I said, "Not for targeting; not for classified information."

RATCLIFFE: And I said I don't either.

You can watch this exchange here:

https://x.com/townhallcom/status/19045608939349157...

So Signal is okay to use at work.

Not a relevant question. Lots of apps that are okay to use at work, but not for classified or national defense information. There's almost certainly unsecured lines in the CIA, and that doesn't mean that the CIA director is supposed to use them for classified or national defense conversations.

Not a relevant question.

Sure it is. You said it wasn't, I said I don't know, and Ratcliffe is here saying that it's permissible to use when discussing government business.

Lots of apps that are okay to use at work, but not for classified or national defense information.

And right after that JR says they weren't sharing classified info. Confidential information mostly likely.

There's no way out of this, Dope.

No way out of what? The Congressional testimony today lets the air out of all your tires. And I'd quit barking up this tree were I you - you're basically going back on all your intent arguments from before. Let's review:

Hillary!
-Set up a mail address to handle official business outside of government channels
-Set up a physical server she housed at her private business
-Conducted government business from both, and illegally stored, received and transmitted classified information (Talent Keyhole/NO FORN) material on it
-Gave non-cleared other people (Huma) access to the server. They then spread the info around like glitter at a 4-year old's birthday party.

Hills was then bailed out by James Comey stating "no reasonable prosecutor" blah blah blah when in fact it was never his job to make that determination. Whoops. That one gets conveniently forgotten!

I thought yesterday, "Better to wait for more facts to come out", and they have.

Ratcliffe says Signal came installed on his machine. Signal is encrypted. Therefore, somebody thinks that Signal is okay for officials to talk.
All of them said there was no classified information in the chat. No classified info, no crime.

Should Waltz be blasted for adding the reporter? Sure. Obviously they were having a confidential discussion.

Does the hypocrisy surprise you?

I'll take, "1pg doesn't know what he's talking about - again - tries to make it personal - again - and steps on a rake for $200, Alex".

The frowny face is a great feature. <click>

Sure it is. You said it wasn't, I said I don't know, and Ratcliffe is here saying that it's permissible to use when discussing government business.

No, I said it wasn't an authorized app to use for the transmittal of classified or national defense information. No version of it is. You can discuss unclassified, unrestricted "government business" on anything - even a pay phone. But you can't transmit this kind of information over

And right after that JR says they weren't sharing classified info. Confidential information mostly likely.

It's unfathomable that the information described in the Atlantic article would not be considered classified information. It may not have been labelled classified, but the participants should have known that it would be treated as such even if not labeled. And even if it weren't formally classified, it's indisputably national defense information, which also is prohibited from being sent that way. And Ratcliffe wouldn't necessarily know - and certainly doesn't get to make the call - whether information generated by another agency is considered classified by that agency.

Probably even earlier than that.

Interestingly, it was approved for use by Senators 5 years ago:

In March 2017, Signal was approved by the sergeant at arms of the U.S. Senate for use by senators and their staff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Audience

No way out of what? The Congressional testimony today lets the air out of all your tires. And I'd quit barking up this tree were I you - you're basically going back on all your intent arguments from before. Let's review:

I think you're misremembering the argument. Clinton didn't commit a crime because she received the information. She wasn't the one to remove it from where it was supposed to be. The relevant statutes don't criminalize the stuff you mentioned - if someone has clearance to possess classified information, it is not a crime to possess it outside of a secure facility as long as you're not the one who removed it from the secure locations. Only the removal, not the possession, is criminalized - unless you retain it after being asked for it back:

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=833164536

Regardless, it doesn't matter whether you agree with my position on that law or not - under your interpretation of the law, it would be a crime not just for Waltz and Hegseth to send classified or national security information on Signal, but for Rubio and Wiles and everyone else to receive it.

Ratcliffe says Signal came installed on his machine. Signal is encrypted. Therefore, somebody thinks that Signal is okay for officials to talk.
All of them said there was no classified information in the chat. No classified info, no crime.

Again, only Gabbard and Ratcliffe said the information wasn't classified - but it's not information generated by their agency, so it's not their call. Even if the information wasn't marked or designated classified, it can still be classified even without the designation. And it doesn't matter whether it's classified, because it is illegal to disseminate national defense information this way, regardless of classification status.

It will be interesting to see if the Administration reveals the contents of the chat - or if the President and/or DoD confirms that the information is not classified.

<sigh> Sadly my url didn't work due to parsing issues.

Hey Manlobi, how can I include a url with special chars in it?

"Yep. But here, we don't have a dispute about intent. Hillary couldn't be prosecuted because she didn't send the messages. She received them. Which means she couldn't be prosecuted for sending classified information, because there was no way to prove that she intended for classified information to be sent - she wasn't the one who sent the messages.

That's not true of Hegseth and Waltz, who intentionally sent classified information about the national defense through unsecured channels. Unlike Clinton, they're the authors of these messages."

To be fair, Clinton did forward emails she received that contained classified information. Obviously she didn't know that they contained classified information because they were sent to her unsecured so she had no reason to think they did.

To your greater point, Clinton wasn't prosecuted because prosecutors could not show intent. She testified not knowing there was classified information in the emails.

This stuff with Waltz and Hegseth is a whole lot worse. It is clear they knew information was classified. They were the one's initiating sending the classified information.

It should also be noted that apparently CIA Director John Ratcliffe broadcast the name of an active CIA intelligence officer into the chat. This may or may not be a crime depending upon the officers classification (which is unknown), but even if it doesn't rise to the level of a crime it is dangerous and unprofessional and a CIA director should know better.

What makes it even worse is the Steve Witkoff (Trump's Ukraine and Middle East envoy) was in Moscow talking to Putin during the exchange of messages and was one of the people on the thread. Russia has long been trying to hack into the Signal app and at the very least they very likely were collecting messages from the cell towers for decryption later. So the Trump administration is literally messaging classified information using an unsecure form of communication to someone who's cell phone is using cell towers inside Russia that is collecting all of the data. That is brutally unprofessional and can get people killed. What a clown show.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/flight-data-s...

No, I said it wasn't an authorized app to use for the transmittal of classified or national defense information. No version of it is. You can discuss unclassified, unrestricted "government business" on anything - even a pay phone. But you can't transmit this kind of information over

What's "this" level? Evidently it wasn't classified.

It's unfathomable that the information described in the Atlantic article would not be considered classified information.

That's up to the classifying authority to determine. Would you care to guess who that is in this case?

Clinton didn't commit a crime because she received the information. She wasn't the one to remove it from where it was supposed to be.

Sure she did. Her closet server by definition removed it from a secure SCIF. IIRC she was also scrubbing classification marks, meaning she knew what she was looking at the entire time (proving her intent).

Regardless, it doesn't matter whether you agree with my position on that law or not - under your interpretation of the law, it would be a crime not just for Waltz and Hegseth to send classified or national security information on Signal, but for Rubio and Wiles and everyone else to receive it.

Except evidently there was no classified information. At any rate no reasonable prosecutor is going to charge any of those folks because Waltz screwed up and added the reporter.

It will be interesting to see if the Administration reveals the contents of the chat - or if the President and/or DoD confirms that the information is not classified.

The Senate can huff and puff all they want. Given that the subject matter is foreign policy and military affairs...it's quite clearly and Constitutionally under the Executive Branch's purview.

What's "this" level? Evidently it wasn't classified.

Gabbard wouldn't know. It's not her agency. It wasn't marked classified - because the information was being sent in a Signal chat - but that doesn't mean it wasn't classified.

That's up to the classifying authority to determine. Would you care to guess who that is in this case?

Almost certainly DoD. They would be the agency that generated that information, and would have assigned a classification level to it. It's exceedingly unlikely that "we're going to attack the Houthis at this specific time at these locations using these specific weapons" wasn't classified information by DoD.

Trump and Hegseth have the ability to declassify that information - but they don't have the ability to go back in time and make it unclassified at the time it was sent over an unsecured channel.

Sure she did. Her closet server by definition removed it from a secure SCIF. IIRC she was also scrubbing classification marks, meaning she knew what she was looking at the entire time (proving her intent).

No, it didn't. Whoever emailed her the information removed it from the secure SCIF. Being the recipient of an email doesn't make you the person who removed the information.

At any rate no reasonable prosecutor is going to charge any of those folks because Waltz screwed up and added the reporter.

Except the issue isn't the adding the reporter. It's these guys deliberately using an unsecured channel in the first place. I agree that a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't charge the recipients over receiving and storing national defense information in an unsecured location

The Senate can huff and puff all they want. Given that the subject matter is foreign policy and military affairs...it's quite clearly and Constitutionally under the Executive Branch's purview.

No, it's not - or rather, it's not exclusively under the Executive Branch's purview. That's why there exist laws and statutes governing classified information! Why the Congress has Foreign Affairs committees and Defense Committees in both Chambers! Why the Congress is expressly given power over the Army and the Navy, over military bases, confirmation power over ambassadors and ratification power in treaties! Why we had all of those hearings on Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi! Foreign policy is not the sole and exclusive purview of the Executive Branch. It is 100% within the power of Congress to investigate this to see if anything needs to be done.

What's "this" level? Evidently it wasn't classified.

BTW, let me ask you this question:

If Goldberg had published the entirety of that Signal chat at the time he received it, alerting the Houthis to the imminent attack and allowing them to prepare for it, possibly resulting in military casualties or the mission failing....do you think he would have violated any laws? If so, why?

Gabbard wouldn't know. It's not her agency. It wasn't marked classified - because the information was being sent in a Signal chat - but that doesn't mean it wasn't classified.

What about Ratcliffe?

Almost certainly DoD.

Okay. Who's the classifying authority in the DoD?

Trump and Hegseth have the ability to declassify that information - but they don't have the ability to go back in time and make it unclassified at the time it was sent over an unsecured channel.

You're assuming it was classified to begin with.

No, it didn't. Whoever emailed her the information removed it from the secure SCIF.

She's the SecState.
Besides, according to you upthread, Marco Rubio needs to be in jail. Why no Herself, then?

No, it's not - or rather, it's not exclusively under the Executive Branch's purview.

Congress has very specific foreign policy roles. They ratify treaties. That's about it. Day to day foreign policy machinations are the exclusive purview of the exec branch.

That's why there exist laws and statutes governing classified information! Why the Congress has Foreign Affairs committees and Defense Committees in both Chambers!

Ooo, exclamation points! Do these people classify information?

Why we had all of those hearings on Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!

Because Hillary! was and is a moron, and her State Department inadequately protected a US Ambassador and his station resulting in his death, the death of the security team and a US facility being overrun.

Foreign policy is not the sole and exclusive purview of the Executive Branch.

It absolutely is. The word you're looking for is "oversight", which Congress can do.

If Goldberg had published the entirety of that Signal chat at the time he received it, alerting the Houthis to the imminent attack and allowing them to prepare for it, possibly resulting in military casualties or the mission failing....do you think he would have violated any laws? If so, why?

I don't know. Is it a crime to publish privileged conversations that you're inadvertently added to?

You might ask yourself this: So why *wouldn't* this guy publish everything?

It seems it was a staffer of Waltz's who made the mistake:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump...

Trump's comments were his first substantive remarks since The Atlantic broke the story, which detailed how journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently added to a group chat on a private messaging app where plans for military strikes in Yemen were discussed. Goldberg said he was added to the discussion after receiving a request from a user identified as Waltz.

When asked what he was told about how Goldberg came to be added to the Signal chat, Trump said, “It was one of Michael’s people on the phone. A staffer had his number on there.”

You might ask yourself this: So why *wouldn't* this guy publish everything?

As he has said: the text thread included targeting data and other information that he logically considered to be classified.

How many times has the Pentagon told the public which targets it was going to strike, what loadout, and what time?

Answer: never

Why? Because it’s classified and would pose a direct threat to American lives if the wrong people got ahold of the information

Dope1: You might ask yourself this: So why *wouldn't* this guy publish everything?

albaby1 answered that in another thread: https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=354406615

Why? Because it’s classified and would pose a direct threat to American lives if the wrong people got ahold of the information

That's your assertion. But the classifying authority is saying otherwise.

BTW, you guys are making a case for the FBI to raid the reporter and seize all of his electronic equipment.

You might ask yourself this: So why *wouldn't* this guy publish everything?

Because he has honor an integrity and does not want to break the law or even come close to breaking the law.

--Peter

Because he has honor an[d] integrity and does not want to break the law or even come close to breaking the law.

Maybe.
But according to this thread he's already flirted with that.

So do you people want him in jail? You're (the libs) arguing that everyone who received this stuff is a criminal, so why aren't you agitating for this guy to be clapped in irons?

You're (the libs) arguing that everyone who received this stuff is a criminal

This is why most of us don't bother discussing things with you any longer. You consistently misrepresent what others say to you. Then you persist is claiming you are right in your interpretation even after is it explained to you why you are wrong.

So I'm not going to discuss this with you unless and until you understand how you are misrepresenting your opponents' position in the quoted statement above.

--Peter

This is why most of us don't bother discussing things with you any longer. You consistently misrepresent what others say to you. Then you persist is claiming you are right in your interpretation even after is it explained to you why you are wrong.

Fail.

Regardless, it doesn't matter whether you agree with my position on that law or not - under your interpretation of the law, it would be a crime not just for Waltz and Hegseth to send classified or national security information on Signal, but for Rubio and Wiles and everyone else to receive it.

That's al upthread attempting to use my arguments against me. He's the one saying "it would be a crime"...and that includes the reporter.

Try again. Or show me your belly again. You pick.

So I'm not going to discuss this with you

Oh noes! You're merely lib #235 who would rather make this about me than about the issues.

He's the one saying "it would be a crime"...and that includes the reporter.

He's saying that is your position based on how you thought Hillary Clinton should be treated for receiving classified information. It is not albaby's position, it is his interpretation of your position.

Do you understand that?

--Peter

He's saying that is your position based on how you thought Hillary Clinton should be treated for receiving classified information. It is not albaby's position, it is his interpretation of your position.

He's trying to jiu-jitsu me, which is the same thing as making the argument himself (by attempting to pin me down with my own words). If you know anything about that particular martial art you'll recognize that reversals and takedowns are a big part of it.

I just used the same tactic on you (by asking you if you thought the reporter should already be in jail, because according to al's attempt to jiu-jitsu my earlier words, perhaps he should be)...and you pooped your pants in reply.

Pro tip: Stop making this stuff about other posters.

Go grab a pair of Depends and a couple of Handiwipes, and we can try again. Or you can get all stompy-foot in your next reply.

Or you can get all stompy-foot in your next reply.

Nope. No stompy feet here. No poopy pants.

Just a reinforcement of my thought that you are not interested in a serious discussion. So I will stop attempting a serious discussion.

--Peter

He's trying to jiu-jitsu me...

No, he's not. He's applying your logic to the HRC server (wherein she received classified info on the unsecured server) to the situation of the users who received the texts on Signal. In BOTH cases, he said those aren't crimes. Only the transmission of them. No jiujitsu required, just simple logic. Pretty straightforward, actually.

Just receiving them isn't an issue.

You're either not reading what he's (albaby) saying, and deliberately misunderstanding. I won't speculate which.

Go grab a pair of Depends and a couple of Handiwipes, and we can try again.

That’s dope speak for ‘Man, I’m getting the shit kicked out of me by albaby.’

This is interesting, and it's from X, one of Dope's favorites:

CBS Evening News @CBSEveningNews

While President Trump downplayed the texting troubles caused by his top officials, @CBSNews has obtained a National Security Agency alert from last month warning against using the Signal app, calling it a "high-value target to intercept sensitive information." @EdOKeefe has more.

https://x.com/CBSEveningNews/status/19046662075227...

So there'd already been a warning on the Signal App that was apparently ignored.

Just a reinforcement of my thought that you are not interested in a serious discussion. So I will stop attempting a serious discussion.

*Sniff…Sniff*. Oh. Here <tosses you a pack of Handiwipes>. Use these.

You stopping trying to have a serious discussion actually requires that at one point you tried to participate in a serious discussion. Haven’t seen that.

Next lib, please.

That’s dope s

Hmmm…did I say that to Al?

Nope! Your grade: Fail.

Next lib, please.

So there'd already been a warning on the Signal App that

lol. Is your local pot shop a target for thieves? (The answer is yes). That statement amounts to “2+2=4”.

Next lib, please.

Article I of the Constitution enumerates several of Congress’s foreign affairs powers, including those to “regulate commerce with foreign nations,” “declare war,” “raise and support armies,” “provide and maintain a navy,” and “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” The Constitution also makes two of the president’s foreign affairs powers—making treaties and appointing diplomats—dependent on Senate approval.

Beyond these, Congress has general powers—to “lay and collect taxes,” to draw money from the Treasury, and to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper”—that, collectively, allow legislators to influence nearly all manner of foreign policy issues. For example, the 114th Congress (2015–2017) passed laws on topics ranging from electronic surveillance to North Korea sanctions to border security to wildlife trafficking. In one noteworthy instance, lawmakers overrode President Barack Obama’s veto to enact a law allowing victims of international terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments.

Congress also plays an oversight role. The annual appropriations process allows congressional committees to review in detail the budgets and programs of the vast military and diplomatic bureaucracies. Lawmakers must sign off on more than a trillion dollars in federal spending every year, of which more than half is allocated to defense and international affairs. Lawmakers may also stipulate how that money is to be spent. For instance, Congress repeatedly barred the Obama administration from using funds to transfer detainees out of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Congress has broad authority to conduct investigations into particular foreign policy or national security concerns. High-profile inquiries in recent years have centered on the 9/11 attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation programs, and the 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

Furthermore, Congress has the power to create, eliminate, or restructure executive branch agencies, which it has often done after major conflicts or crises. In the wake of World War II, Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947, which established the CIA and National Security Council. Following the 9/11 attacks, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security.

lol. Is your local pot shop a target for thieves?

It wasn't directed at you, but FYI, no one is listening in on vape stores for National Security Information.

It wasn't directed at you, but FYI, no one is listening in on vape stores for National Security Information.

You didn’t get the point. Saying an app is a high value target because of who uses it is merely a statement of fact…kinda like saying thieves target pot shops (because they want the weed and the fact that pot shops are cash only).

So in other words your point about “they ignored a warning” isn’t really a point.

You might ask yourself this: So why *wouldn't* this guy publish everything?

Because the nature of the information is such that it’s almost certainly classified. Had he published it at the time he received it, he almost certainly would have been prosecuted for revealing classified information about an impending military operation. So he didn’t release it.

Now that the administration finds it necessary to pretend that it’s possible that this type of information wouldn’t be considered classified, they might decide it’s safe to publish. But even then, they’re being super cautious to make sure they don’t get prosecuted.

You didn’t get the point. Saying an app is a high value target because of who uses it is merely a statement of fact…

Oh, you didn't understand the original post, I see now.

"According to Goldberg, the chat included detailed discussions about U.S. military strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. He specifically noted that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared "operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing" just two hours before the strikes occurred on March 15, 2025." GROK

So the tactic seems to be that the information, which should be classified, wasn't classified, because Hegseth didn't classify it. Or if he did, that will be classified until 2080.

That's al upthread attempting to use my arguments against me. He's the one saying "it would be a crime"...and that includes the reporter.

No, you misunderstand.

The argument that people made alleging that Clinton committed a crime was that she deliberately chose to transact work on and have work-related information sent to a non-secure server, and therefore was responsible when it turned out that classified information ended up on that non-secure server. I've pointed out to you several times that this argument is wrong because the specific language in the criminal statutes doesn't cover it. But if someone accepted that argument - as you did - it would mean that participants like Rubio and Wiles and the others would be criminally responsible, since they had deliberately chosen to transact official work on unsecured devices.

None of that would include the reporter, who should not have anticipated that simply being a Signal user would result in him being included - by accident - in a group chat with the cabinet-level national security team of the U.S. government discussing national defense information.

Because the nature of the information is such that it’s almost certainly classified. Had he published it at the time he received it, he almost certainly would have been prosecuted for revealing classified information about an impending military operation. So he didn’t release it.

Sure about that? The is Jeffrey Goldberg, a journalist not known for stellar ethics.

But if someone accepted that argument - as you did - it would mean that participants like Rubio and Wiles and the others would be criminally responsible, since they had deliberately chosen to transact official work on unsecured devices.

And this is you trying to use my argument against me…just as I said. Jiu-jitsu.

Problem is:
None of that would include the reporter, who should not have anticipated that simply being a Signal user would result in him being included - by accident

…you can’t call for Rubio and the others to be jailed and avoid the reporter.

Sure about that? The is Jeffrey Goldberg, a journalist not known for stellar ethics.

He didn’t release the info. He said he wasn’t going to release the info and he told us why he didn’t release the info.

What is there to be unsure of?

What is there to be unsure of?</iL

Because if he has nothing…he’d also keep his mouth shut.

No, you misunderstand.

It’s evident that he is incapable of “understanding”, so I’m not sure it’s fair to say “you misunderstand.”

He doesn’t just contort himself into a pretzel try to evade the obvious logic, it’s more of a pretzely-pretzely-pretzel. This sort of thing only counts if a Democrat does it, but not if a Republican does it.

This is the sort of pablum that Fox News and similar feed daily to their base, but without the ability of anyone to come in (as albaby does) and say “No, that’s not right.”

He picks and prods for every single word, looking for the tiniest sliver of daylight for his argument, and failing to find it, reaches for that portion of the brain in which the rest of us find the ability to say “OK, I guess I was wrong” but finds nothing, so like the toddler who can’t accept the obvious continues on with the argument, ignorant of the fact that it has been fully answered and explained to any other sentient being.

…you can’t call for Rubio and the others to be jailed and avoid the reporter.

I'm not calling for them to be jailed - I'm pointing out that under your interpretation of the statutes, they've committed a crime.

And no, the reporter is in a different factual position. The others deliberately and intentionally engaged in a work discussion involving national security on an unsecured channel. The argument that was raised against Clinton is an allegation that she knew, or should have known, that if she conducted work on an unsecured platform that there was a likelihood that classified information would end up there. The same would apply to the other government participants in this chat, since they also deliberately and intentionally discussed national security issues on Signal. But not Goldberg, who was placed into the channel without his consent or knowledge and did not participate in the discussion.

"He didn’t release the info. He said he wasn’t going to release the info and he told us why he didn’t release the info."

Goldberg is the only one on the text chain who showed any intelligence, integrity, and awareness. He did not go public with the confidential details. He did a great thing for the Country by releasing info that showed just how incompetent the Trump admin is. If I was Goldberg, I'd
be looking over my shoulder for MAGA thugs looking to silence him.

I got a laugh out of one of the 1st things Hegseth texted: If anything goes wrong, just
blame Biden !! Hegseth puts in a text the MAGA gameplan: for anything that happens, just
blame Biden. They remind me of the spiteful spoiled brat mean girls we all knew and
hated in Junior High School.

MAGA needs to go away. They are entrenched and getting rich on their cut of the Trump grift,
so they aren't gonna go willingly. Hopefully enough of them get tossed to the curb in 2026 to
make a difference.

It’s evident that he is incapable

You lose. Right out of the gate.
It’s not my fault you people got wee-wee’d up 2 days ago only to have your thing fall apart yesterday. Learn to deal with setbacks; you’ll be happier.

https://x.com/Shawn_Farash/status/1904877475278057...

You people got played.

It’s not my fault you people got wee-wee’d up 2 days ago only to have your thing fall apart yesterday.

The Atlantic released the chat today. It contains specific information about the targets to be struct, the exact time that the attack would take place, and several of the specific weapons packages that would be used. That information was placed into an unsecured channel before any of these attacks took place. There was also an after-action initial assessment of the results of the attack.

https://archive.ph/PKHpH

Gabbard is going to have an uncomfortable day in the House hearings, I think. Ratcliffe at least was careful enough to clarify his initial statements to say that he didn't put any classified information into the chat, and that there was no classified intelligence info in the chat. Gabbard was more unequivocal, and demurred that any weapons platforms were actually discussed - she will have some walking back to do.

As noted in the other post, the Senate national security folks were already publicly calling for investigations into how on earth this could possibly have happened - both from their committees and by the Administration. Those calls are not going to diminish now that they can see how catastrophically bad the disclosures actually were.

It’s not my fault you people got wee-wee’d up 2 days ago only to have your thing fall apart yesterday.

Dope...get a grip!

Set aside your passionate partisanship for a moment and put country over party for a change.

You people got played.

Ummmm....did you actually read the body of the text, which includes the following?

At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, “TEAM UPDATE:”
The text beneath this began, “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Centcom, or Central Command, is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East. The Hegseth text continues:
•“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
•“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”

•“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
•“1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”
•“1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”
•“MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”
•“We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security.
•“Godspeed to our Warriors.”

I mean - this is supposed to be a surprise attack. It was intended to strike specific individuals - the mission could have been compromised with a single phone call to the Houthis to alert them to just stay home and hide that day. And if the enemy had been alerted as to the specific time of the attack and the specific weapons platforms being used, they could have been better prepared with defensive measures and possibly cost American lives.

The GOP in the Senate is already calling for investigations. I think you'll be surprised when the GOP elected officials that focus on national security don't share your assessment that this was anodyne information that was appropriate to share through an unsecured plaform.

“We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security.

That's the sentence in Hegseth's message that makes me want to take him by the shoulders and shake the vodka bottle out of his coat pocket.

ok... low blow. Agreed.

(but I'm beginning to suspect that it's not far from the truth.)

You people got played.

Says the person getting played.

It contains specific information about the targets to be struct,

Oh, really? Were there GPS coordinates in there, or an address? All you got was ‘their missile guy’s girlfriend’s house’ after it had already been blown up with him inside.

As in, past tense.

By the way, you missed another detail: They told a lot of partners about the strike before this. Because they, you know, usually notify allies and partners of this sort of thing.

Even the Atlantic isn’t saying WAR PLANNNNZZ anymore.

Gabbard is going to have an uncomfortable day in the House hearing

If by this you mean, ‘grilled by morons to whom it’s a surprise we have a plane called an F-18 that can carry bombs’, sure. Her eyeballs are going to get tired from being rolled around in her head all day.

I mean - this is supposed to be a surprise attack. I

Sigh.
You under stand that by then all that had just transpired, or was in the process of going down? A few likes after that they mention the damage assessment.

You got played.

You under stand that by then all that had just transpired, or was in the process of going down? A few likes after that they mention the damage assessment.

The information was posted in the chat at 11:45 - two hours before the attack.

You're getting played. The exact time of the attack, the specific weapons platforms being used, identifying the goal of the mission as individual personnel at their then-known location....this is information that could have destroyed the mission and put American military personnel at risk, if it had gotten out before the attack was completed.

albaby1: Ratcliffe at least was careful enough to clarify his initial statements to say that he didn't put any classified information into the chat, and that there was no classified intelligence info in the chat.

This sounds classified:

"From CIA perspective, we are mobilizing assets to support now but a delay would not negatively impact us and additional time would be used to identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership."

The information was posted in the chat at 11:45 - two hours before the attack.

More like 30 minutes. I'll remind you they already notified other folks what was going on.

And "specific weapons platforms". LOL. Really? How long have F-18s been in service? I'll answer for you: since the 1980's.

Is the F-18 visible to radar? How about the tomahawks?

Having deployed operationally 3x with a JSOTF, the 5Ws of pending operations would generally be classified at the SECRET level, perhaps higher depending on the gravity and scope of the operation.

They're not unclassified.

Signal is not an appropriate platform for any messaging other than "check your high side please" and that's exactly where the messaging should be - on classified networks. Which are controlled for access - that is no journalists could participate, even inadvertently. No hostile nation states.

This is the most significant OPSEC failure I've seen that I can remember, across my 35 year DoD arc.

This is what happens when you put amateur, unqualified, no merit loyalists in high positions.

There's no approved version of Signal on a government owned system. I worked in digital comms, in and out of uniform, for decades, in the WH even under both Bush and Obama. This is not ok. Only amateurs would do this.

But nice try. Well, not really but I'm trying to be gracious. You're grossly out of your depth. You're appallingly naive and lack a modicum of critical thinking.

But nice try. Well, not really but I'm trying to be graci

More insults. Nothing says "I'm good at this and have a strong case to make" like firing away on the interwebs. You go!

I'm aware of your background. What you're not aware of is that Signal started being a thing in the Biden admin.


You're appallingly naive and lack a modicum of critical thinking.

All you've done on this board is fling crap, like the other pets in the zoo. The *least* you could do is make it amusing to read but I suspect that's too big of a lift.

Toodles! <clicks Frowny Face>

This is what happens when you put amateur, unqualified, no merit loyalists in high positions.

Which, with perhaps one or two exceptions, is what all the Trump appointees have been.

It's disastrous.

What you're not aware of is that Signal started being a thing in the Biden admin.

Here's Tulsi today.

GABBARD: It was a mistake that a reporter was inadvertently added to a Signal chat with high-level national security principles, having a policy discussion about imminent strikes against the Houthis and the effects of the strike. The National Security Adviser has taken full responsibility for this, and the National Security Council is conducting an in-depth review, along with technical experts working to determine how this reporter was inadvertently added to this chat.

The conversation was candid and sensitive. But as the President and National Security Adviser stated, no classified information was shared. There were no sources, methods, locations, or war plans that were shared. This was a standard update to the National Security Cabinet that was provided alongside updates that were given to foreign partners in the region.

GABBARD: The Signal message app comes preinstalled on government devices. In December of 2024, CISA stated, "We strongly urge highly targeted individuals to immediately review and apply best practices provided in the guidance to protect mobile communications, including consistent use of end-to-end encryption." And they named Signal as an example of such an end-to-end encrypted messaging app.

Ideally, these conversations occur in person. However, at times, fast-moving coordination of an unclassified nature is necessary where in-person conversation is not an option.

https://x.com/townhallcom/status/19049043536741134...

https://x.com/townhallcom/status/19049130274612392...

…you can’t call for Rubio and the others to be jailed and avoid the reporter.

You don't know how bad that argument is - and likely never will.

The information was posted in the chat at 11:45 - two hours before the attack.

More like 30 minutes.

Actually, the 11:44 communication indicated the FA18s were being launched.

This was 2hours 1 minute prior to the anticipated time on target- plenty of time to move tbe HVT being bombed. It was also plenty of time to move an AA battery to a position along the threat axis in order to threaten the planes coming in. At the very least, it was time enough to place Houti forces on heightened ALERT.

This is what happens when you put amateur, unqualified, no merit loyalists in high positions.

A common characteristic of dictatorial regimes.

They may be clowns, but the clowns have flamethrowers.

More like 30 minutes. I'll remind you they already notified other folks what was going on.

And "specific weapons platforms". LOL. Really? How long have F-18s been in service? I'll answer for you: since the 1980's.

Two hours before the strikes hit. More than enough time for the Houthis, if they received the information, to move their high value individuals away from their usual locations. More than enough time for them to prepare countermeasures, especially against the specific drones that were identified as part of the mission. If that information had gotten out, it could have defeated the mission entirely. The relevant information isn't "F-18's exist" - it's "F-18's and MQ-9 drones and Tomahawk missiles are going to be used at these exact times and for these exact purposes," which would be invaluable tactical information for the Houthis.

Roger Wicker, Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is one of the first to respond to the release of the full transcript. His assessment? This is the type of information that would be classified:

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said Wednesday he believes the information detailing the attack plan against the Houthis in Yemen should have been classified.

Wicker told reporters that the plans Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out via a Signal chat, which included when fighter jets would take off and drone strikes would drop over the region, were sensitive enough to warrant that level of classification.

“The information as published recently appears to me to be of such a sensitive nature that, based on my knowledge, I would have wanted it classified,” Wicker said at the Capitol.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5215153-roger-...

His message - own the mistake and make sure it doesn't happen again. Not that this was unimportant information that wouldn't have been classified - that this shouldn't have happened and steps need to be taken to figure out how to prevent it from repeating.

This is what happens when you put amateur, unqualified, no merit loyalists in high positions.

AKA "DUI hires".

You don't know how bad that argument is - and likely never will.

Why? Are reporters above the law?

More than enough time for the Houthis, if they received the information, to move their high value individuals away from their usual locations.

You understand that these aren't stealth platforms and that there are radars all over the place in that region, right?

His message - own the mistake and make sure it doesn't happen again.

The reporter never should have been added to the chat. But in terms of the actual information, once they let partners in the region know they're Doing Something the cat is effectively out of the bag.

The text didn't say what or who was being struck.

You understand that these aren't stealth platforms and that there are radars all over the place in that region, right?

You understand that giving them up to two hours of advance notice lets them do things that they couldn't do in the much shorter amount of time from when these fighters show up on radar? Like moving all of their high-value personnel away from places that they are known to have frequented? Setting up specific anti-aircraft assets in specific locations at that exact time so that they can more effectively engage with an attack that they know is coming - and with which specific weapons platforms, so they can optimize their response?

The reporter never should have been added to the chat. But in terms of the actual information, once they let partners in the region know they're Doing Something the cat is effectively out of the bag.

No, it's not - because those partners in the region treat classified information carefully - knowing that if they don't, they won't be given a heads up in the future. Giving partners in the region a heads up through secure channels, to people who are cleared for that information, is not the same as letting information leak to a third party because the Secretary of Defense didn't have enough sense to avoid typing that specific information into an unsecured commercial app.

Only amateurs would do this.

Which is what we have. A government of amateurs.

I expect POTUS to be an amateur. That's just a popularity contest to get that position. But, in the past, they have mostly appointed professionals to appointable positions. Folks that have a clue. Not this time around. And they're trying to terminate the professional civil service, too, in favor of sycophant hiring. Kiss the ring, or else...right down to the humble clerk.

But nice try. Well, not really but I'm trying to be gracious.

You succeeded. :-)

You understand that giving them up to two hours of advance notice lets them do things that they couldn't do in the much shorter amount of time from when these fighters show up on radar?

Wasn't 2 hours. And the planes/missiles show up on radar pretty much right after they take off. Given that planes don't just appear out of thin air and that there's no airstrip in the middle of the water, it's obvious where they came from.

because those partners in the region treat classified information carefully

Okay, sure.

No, it's not - because those partners in the region treat classified information carefully - knowing that if they don't, they won't be given a heads up in the future. Giving partners in the region a heads up through secure channels, to people who are cleared for that information, is not the same as letting information leak to a third party because the Secretary of Defense didn't have enough sense to avoid typing that specific information into an unsecured commercial app.

I suspect if this had happened last year, he'd be screaming for investigations and impeachment. But, because it is the Felon, it's no big deal.

It is nice to see that at least some Reps have a few ounces of integrity and responsibility, and want to hold hearings. They should remove the persons who sent classified material over a non-secure app. At the minimum, Hegseth. He seemed to be the most blatant.

Wasn't 2 hours.

Hegseth put all the information into the Signal channel two hours before the expected strike would take place. It was less than two hours before the operation began - the first wave of F-18's were to take off a half-hour later - but two hours before the first window for the targets were to be hit. Per the message, the first strike window for the first wave of attack began at 13:45 - two hours after his 11:44 post.

If the Houthis had two hours advance notice that the U.S. was going to try to strike a high-value individual and with what weaponry, that news would have been unbelievably valuable to thwart the attack. If they had access to that information, at a minimum they would have simply moved their high-value folks away from places they would be known to frequent - and they would be able to figure out which locations would be good hiding places, knowing that the U.S. was attacking with those weapon platforms (as opposed to others). And they'd know the exact time it was going to happen.

Which is why the Republican head of the Armed Services Committee isn't pretending that this was innocuous information. This would have been and should have been classified and protected information.

Hegseth put all the information into the Signal channel two hours before the expected strike would take place.

30 minutes. Partners had been notified, so the word was already out.

If the Houthis had two hours advance notice that the U.S. was going to try to strike a high-value individual and with what weaponry, that news would have been unbelievably valuable to thwart the attack.

Uh, huh.

Which is why the Republican head of the Armed Services Committee isn't pretending that this was innocuous information. This would have been and should have been classified and protected information.

He's mostly going to be mad about the reporter being added, which never should have happened.

30 minutes. Partners had been notified, so the word was already out.

Two hours. Thirty minutes before the first planes took off, but two hours before the actual attack. If the Houthis had obtained that information when Hegseth posted it, they would have had two hours to prepare their response.

Uh, huh.

Of course. If you tell them at 11:45 that at 1:45, the U.S. intends to drop bombs in an effort to kill a high-value Terrorist that they anticipate will be at a known location, that gives them two hours for their high-value personnel to just....move to someplace they aren't at now and generally don't frequent. Which would probably destroy the mission, because whoever was being targeted wouldn't be anywhere we anticipated. To say nothing of whatever defensive countermeasures they could have put in place before the actual strike took place...again, two hours after the message was posted.

He's mostly going to be mad about the reporter being added, which never should have happened.

And wouldn't have happened if Hegseth hadn't dumped all that information onto Signal, rather than using a more secure means of communication. The problem isn't just that Waltz made a mistake in adding someone to the chat group - it's that using a Signal chat group makes the communications vulnerable to being accessed by outside people in a way that more secure communications platforms are not. It's not a safe platform to discuss classified information like this. There's no earthly reason for Hegseth to be putting that kind of information onto a commercial messaging app in the first place.

At the minimum, Hegseth. He seemed to be the most blatant.

Waltz is the guy who included Goldberg in the conversation.

But Hegseth, Gabbard et al bear loads of responsibility for eyes wide open conducting a chat discussing military operational details in realtime over Signal.

And then there was Steve Witcoff- discussion participant who was in Moscow as he texted away.

Nobody thought to ask him “Steve, aren’t you sitting somewhere in the Kremlin as we speak?”

Yeah, right, Pete…… it’s Biden’s fault.

Nobody thought to ask him “Steve, aren’t you sitting somewhere in the Kremlin as we speak?”

I bet everyone is too cowed to raise any concerns or objections for fear of being reported by fellow group members as not being a team player and thereby going against dear leader. And this is exactly how autocracy breeds failing policies and actions. It's also how they all eventually die.

The Signal chat didn’t reveal anything, I’m sorry. No sources, no methods, no inklings of anything other than “The US is going to do A Thing today” and The Thing is similar to what the US has already been doing to the Houthis.

Your points might have some validity had this been intended to be a total surprise or was a new operation. Except that…we’ve been running more strikes on them recently.

Waltz is the guy who included Goldberg in the conversation.

Wasn’t Waltz. It was one of his staffers.

The Signal chat didn’t reveal anything, I’m sorry. No sources, no methods, no inklings of anything other than “The US is going to do A Thing today” and The Thing is similar to what the US has already been doing to the Houthis.

That's just false. The Signal chat revealed the exact day and time of the attack, the exact expected time on target, that the target was an individual Terrorist that was going to be at a known location, and exactly which types of weapons platforms would be used in the attack.

That's why the Republican Senators involved in the national security committees aren't going along with the "nothing to see here" approach that the Administration is taking, and which you seem to have bought into. They know that this is serious. They know that this information was important to have been kept secure, that it was (or should have been) classified from the moment it was created, and that it was an enormous lapse for this to have been handled in a way that transmitted all that information to a stranger. And they're willing to publicly call for further investigation - independent from the Administration - because they know that this cannot be allowed to happen again. And if the Administration is taking the line that this wasn't a big deal, that does not provide them with any assurance that the Administration will take the necessary steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The Signal chat revealed mission critical information that should never have been transmitted in that unsecured commercial app. The Senate GOP is sending a very strong message to the Administration that they need t just own that Hegseth (not just Waltz) made a big mistake, and that it's important to get to the bottom of how they've all been using Signal to conduct military and national security business. Claiming that nothing significant went wrong is not going to cut it.

<The Signal chat revealed the exact day and time of the attack

Sure.

That's why the Republican Senators involved in the national security committees aren't going along with the "nothing to see here"

There's not "nothing to see here" and that's not what I'm saying. This isn't the Big Thing That Brings Down the Trump Administration that the democrats are rending their garments over and fervently wishing it was. Many things went wrong: In no universe should you be able to add a random phone number into an app without extra authentication like with remote biometrics via a secured service. In other words even if somebody accidentally adds 867-5309 to the chat Jenny on the other end can't just join. That's the thing Wicker is (rightly) upset about.

As to the info, they've been running more strikes on the Houthis lately to step up their air campaign. You'd have more of a case if this was something happening out of the blue.


The Signal chat revealed mission critical information that should never have been transmitted in that unsecured commercial app.

Many things are wrong with this statement, but this thread has reached the talking past one another phase.

And this is exactly how autocracy breeds failing policies and actions. It's also how they all eventually die.

But it can take a long time. Witness Stalin's Russia.

The Signal chat didn’t reveal anything, I’m sorry. No sources, no methods, no inklings of anything other than “The US is going to do A Thing today” and The Thing is similar to what the US has already been doing to the Houthis.


Dope, you should audition for FOX 'news' or maybe something a bit further to the whacko right. You've got this spin thing down, not that your conclusions hold water, but that doesn't matter in the RW mediasphere.

Dope, you should audition for FOX 'news' or maybe something a bit further to the whacko right. You've got this spin thing down, not that your conclusions hold water, but that doesn't matter in the RW mediasphere.

He's just living up to his moniker: DOPE - Duplicity Obfuscation Prevarication Equivocation

If the Houthis had two hours advance notice that the U.S. was going to try to strike a high-value individual and with what weaponry, that news would have been unbelievably valuable to thwart the attack

Not for nuthin’, but the Houthis have air defense missiles, and they have used them as recently as a month ago.

They have not been very good with them, but I suspect having a 2 hour heads up would lead to a better outcome (for them) and worse (for us) given that they wouldn’t be running around trying to get organized at the same time the jets were flying overhead.

This isn't the Big Thing That Brings Down the Trump Administration that the democrats are rending their garments over and fervently wishing it was

I don't think anyone thought it would be that - certainly no one has suggested it is. The Trump Administration can't be "brought down." He's the President, and will remain so for the next four years (approximately).

But this is still a significant political issue for them to deal with, and it's going to linger. Partially because their response has more aimed at denying that there was anything wrong, rather than acknowledging a problem and then committing to fixing it. But mostly because this mistake lines up very neatly with what Democrats were criticizing about some of his Cabinet picks in the first place - a claim that he was prioritizing political ideology and personal fealty over experience and competence in the subject matter of the agencies.

Hegseth was one of the more heavily criticized, with Democrats complaining that spending the last decade working on television was not adequate preparation to lead a large modern military. This incident supports that complaint. It also makes it all the more remarkable that GOP Senators who voted to confirm him are expressing such concern). If you put someone in charge of the military who has spent the last decade primarily working in television, rather than actually in the military, he won't have the experience or judgment to guide him to refrain from putting this kind of information in a group text that he didn't set up.

The Signal chat didn’t reveal anything, I’m sorry. No sources, no methods, no inklings of anything other than “The US is going to do A Thing today” and The Thing is similar to what the US has already been doing to the Houthis.

Dope, with that info even *I* could've thwarted part of the attack, and, maybe downed an F-18, or at least caused repairs. I've never been in that game, but it takes no brains to move the targets. 2 hours is a windfall.

There's not "nothing to see here" and that's not what I'm saying

It sure as hell was and that's exactly what you were saying. Starts with "it happens' and "nothing to see here" which comes out as no classified info, you can use the app, etc. When that doesn't work, you hear calls for an investigation and various other statements taking the event seriously. I'd like to see Hegseth gone and someone with experience in there. Pick a loyalist with experience. Hegseth will screw up again.

Dope, with that info even *I* could've thwarted part of the attack, and, maybe downed an F-18, or at least caused repairs.

They've been flying lots of sorties for several days now.

It sure as hell was and that's exactly what you were sayi

That's nice.

" audition for FOX 'news' or maybe something a bit further to the whacko right"

Spin it MAGA, Spin it !

Gaslight it MAGA, Gaslight it !

The fallout has been exactly what I expected. Trump didn't let me down, nor did
any of the stooges on his team. So no surprise at all that the resident MAGAt on this
board is spinning and gaslighting his MAGA heart out.

Dope might understand and appreciate the points being made on this thread if one of his children had been the F-18 pilot.

The pilot definitely would, I'd bet.

I take it back. You're as dumb as a post.

The pilot definitely would, I'd bet.

Former Air Force F-16 pilot Adam Kinzinger is livid.

this mistake lines up very neatly with what Democrats were criticizing about some of his Cabinet picks in the first place - a claim that he was prioritizing political ideology and personal fealty over experience and competence in the subject matter of the agencies.


Exactly. Thank you.

Hegseth is way out of his element.

What you're not aware of is that Signal started being a thing in the Biden admin.

And it's good for normal conversations, but not for war plans prior to an attack. Keep using it, just no this way.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.