SecDef shares US war Plan in Group chat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "reporter" also broke the story of "losers and suckers"

He has receipts, i.e., actual screen shots of the messages. He didn’t chase the story – – he was added erroneously to the chat. What don’t you understand about that?

He also could have done what I have done at work when I have received something I should not receive and that is to contact someone and say I believe I received this by accident. No he is thinking he will get a book or a million speaking engagements. I am sure also exaggerating as well. Sad.

He doesn't need to exaggerate when he has screenshots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "reporter" also broke the story of "losers and suckers"

He has receipts, i.e., actual screen shots of the messages. He didn’t chase the story – – he was added erroneously to the chat. What don’t you understand about that?

He also could have done what I have done at work when I have received something I should not receive and that is to contact someone and say I believe I received this by accident. No he is thinking he will get a book or a million speaking engagements. I am sure also exaggerating as well. Sad.

If people are misbehaving in this way, we should know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This "reporter" also broke the story of "losers and suckers"

And his source John Kelly has confirmed that on the record multiple times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is officially standing by Waltz. But it’s still possible he’ll get Waltz to resign if the press coverage gets to be too much for him.

Hegseth is the one who added number of planes and positions, which is much worse than adding the wrong number. That’s classified info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "reporter" also broke the story of "losers and suckers"

He has receipts, i.e., actual screen shots of the messages. He didn’t chase the story – – he was added erroneously to the chat. What don’t you understand about that?

He also could have done what I have done at work when I have received something I should not receive and that is to contact someone and say I believe I received this by accident. No he is thinking he will get a book or a million speaking engagements. I am sure also exaggerating as well. Sad.

He is a freaking journalist. This is a gold mine for him. He has walked a very fine line and done it with class. If only the national security principals we have right now had a small fractious of the professionalism of the reporter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So who was Waltz intending to add when he added Goldberg by mistake? My guess is Gorka and the app autofilled Goldberg instead.

People have been guessing the USTR Jameson Greer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "reporter" also broke the story of "losers and suckers"

He has receipts, i.e., actual screen shots of the messages. He didn’t chase the story – – he was added erroneously to the chat. What don’t you understand about that?

He also could have done what I have done at work when I have received something I should not receive and that is to contact someone and say I believe I received this by accident. No he is thinking he will get a book or a million speaking engagements. I am sure also exaggerating as well. Sad.

Oh right. Out of everything here, this is the problem. Mmmhhhm. Right.

Excuse me Mr. VP, I have taken a wrong turn and will kindly see my way out of this funny business, er nothingburger convo, among you fine fellows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who was Waltz intending to add when he added Goldberg by mistake? My guess is Gorka and the app autofilled Goldberg instead.

People have been guessing the USTR Jameson Greer.

But why? What the heck does the USTR have to do with the Houthi small group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "reporter" also broke the story of "losers and suckers"

He has receipts, i.e., actual screen shots of the messages. He didn’t chase the story – – he was added erroneously to the chat. What don’t you understand about that?

He also could have done what I have done at work when I have received something I should not receive and that is to contact someone and say I believe I received this by accident. No he is thinking he will get a book or a million speaking engagements. I am sure also exaggerating as well. Sad.

Why don't you apply that reasoning to the actual natsec people on the chat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is officially standing by Waltz. But it’s still possible he’ll get Waltz to resign if the press coverage gets to be too much for him.

Hegseth is the one who added number of planes and positions, which is much worse than adding the wrong number. That’s classified info.

+1 Chatting about this on Signal - very very very bad
Mistakenly adding a reporter to Signal/no one being aware of who was in the chat generally - very very very bad
Adding operational details like locations, timing, positions of military personnel to the chat - the goddamn worst

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who was Waltz intending to add when he added Goldberg by mistake? My guess is Gorka and the app autofilled Goldberg instead.

People have been guessing the USTR Jameson Greer.

But why? What the heck does the USTR have to do with the Houthi small group?

Trade is affected by the Houthis actions in the Suez Canal which is what the attacks were trying to fix. But agree that no USTR would be in the sit room for the operational decisions and that is where this discussion should have been.

We’ve all heard “this meeting could have been an email,” this chat absolutely should have been a meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "reporter" also broke the story of "losers and suckers"

He has receipts, i.e., actual screen shots of the messages. He didn’t chase the story – – he was added erroneously to the chat. What don’t you understand about that?

He also could have done what I have done at work when I have received something I should not receive and that is to contact someone and say I believe I received this by accident. No he is thinking he will get a book or a million speaking engagements. I am sure also exaggerating as well. Sad.

Why don't you apply that reasoning to the actual natsec people on the chat?

I stand by what I said. We live in a world where this kind of mistake can happen and you learn from it. I have definitely received emails and sometimes emails at the bottom say if you received by accident you need to erase and contact sender. I have done this and can even recall a time someone said something I didn’t appreciate and it was an awkward call. The dumb thing is this reporter could have done this and built a reputation as a stand up person instead of being so partisan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "reporter" also broke the story of "losers and suckers"

He has receipts, i.e., actual screen shots of the messages. He didn’t chase the story – – he was added erroneously to the chat. What don’t you understand about that?

He also could have done what I have done at work when I have received something I should not receive and that is to contact someone and say I believe I received this by accident. No he is thinking he will get a book or a million speaking engagements. I am sure also exaggerating as well. Sad.

Why don't you apply that reasoning to the actual natsec people on the chat?

I stand by what I said. We live in a world where this kind of mistake can happen and you learn from it. I have definitely received emails and sometimes emails at the bottom say if you received by accident you need to erase and contact sender. I have done this and can even recall a time someone said something I didn’t appreciate and it was an awkward call. The dumb thing is this reporter could have done this and built a reputation as a stand up person instead of being so partisan.

unreal - you complaining about someone "being so partisan" hahaha

you know how this mistake wouldn't have happened? if they'd all been in one room together and not in a group text

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "reporter" also broke the story of "losers and suckers"

He has receipts, i.e., actual screen shots of the messages. He didn’t chase the story – – he was added erroneously to the chat. What don’t you understand about that?

He also could have done what I have done at work when I have received something I should not receive and that is to contact someone and say I believe I received this by accident. No he is thinking he will get a book or a million speaking engagements. I am sure also exaggerating as well. Sad.

Why don't you apply that reasoning to the actual natsec people on the chat?

I stand by what I said. We live in a world where this kind of mistake can happen and you learn from it. I have definitely received emails and sometimes emails at the bottom say if you received by accident you need to erase and contact sender. I have done this and can even recall a time someone said something I didn’t appreciate and it was an awkward call. The dumb thing is this reporter could have done this and built a reputation as a stand up person instead of being so partisan.

You clearly haven’t read the article, and you should before you compare this to anything you’ve experienced in your own life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "reporter" also broke the story of "losers and suckers"

He has receipts, i.e., actual screen shots of the messages. He didn’t chase the story – – he was added erroneously to the chat. What don’t you understand about that?

He also could have done what I have done at work when I have received something I should not receive and that is to contact someone and say I believe I received this by accident. No he is thinking he will get a book or a million speaking engagements. I am sure also exaggerating as well. Sad.

Why don't you apply that reasoning to the actual natsec people on the chat?

I stand by what I said. We live in a world where this kind of mistake can happen and you learn from it. I have definitely received emails and sometimes emails at the bottom say if you received by accident you need to erase and contact sender. I have done this and can even recall a time someone said something I didn’t appreciate and it was an awkward call. The dumb thing is this reporter could have done this and built a reputation as a stand up person instead of being so partisan.

So you don’t want to know about the fact that our govt is discussing classified war plans on unsecured group chats? That isn’t important to you? It is the stand up journalist’s to bring that information to the public.