SecDef shares US war Plan in Group chat

[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.

DP. Thank god the journalist brought this to light. How many other Signal group chats are taking place that involve classified info? We'd never even know this has happening if the journalist didn't report on it. Not too long ago, this journalist would be widely heralded from people on both sides as a patriot for holding the government accountable. Now you call him partisan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thirty three thousand classified emails erased from an unprotected server... silence

A ghost writer revealed under oath that classified documents have been shared by Dark Brandon.... silence

An approved communication device was used and no classified information were disclosed... FIRE!!!

This was classified information of the most sensitive type and the manner of sharing it was absolutely not approved.

any other questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except...how do you put them all in one room together when it's a Saturday, some of them are in Washington while others are at Mar-a-Lago?

[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 stand by what's going to be the worst take of the month. They shouldn't have been on Signal in the first place. That's the point. It's unsecure, it's unsafe, it's against the law. The whole Cabinet was on, and their casualness with this particular conversation shows that there is inevitably tons of other Signal conversations going on. You could just admit that what they did is horribly wrong instead of being so partisan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except...how do you put them all in one room together when it's a Saturday, some of them are in Washington while others are at Mar-a-Lago?

are you serious?

they all go to washington. or they all go to mar a lago. i'm sorry, did planning a war get in the way of your golf vacation?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"I’m sure if he wasn’t a journalist from a failing magazine it wouldn’t be an issue for the felon at all. 😉"

I subscribe to that failing magazine. Jeff Goldberg will probably get a Pulitzer for his reporting.

+1. If he doesn’t deserve one, who does. Especially since this was ethical reporting. Waiting to publish until US troops were safe, redacting the name of the covert operative (something Trump couldn’t be bothered to do with the JFK papers), describing war plans in a high level, general way and not publish specifics. Publishing once it was safe to do so, and not waiting two years to publish it in a tell all book.

This is Watergate and Pentagon Papers level reporting.

[Anonymous]

Have Lisa and Susan expressed their “concern” yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"I’m sure if he wasn’t a journalist from a failing magazine it wouldn’t be an issue for the felon at all. 😉"

I subscribe to that failing magazine. Jeff Goldberg will probably get a Pulitzer for his reporting.

+1. If he doesn’t deserve one, who does. Especially since this was ethical reporting. Waiting to publish until US troops were safe, redacting the name of the covert operative (something Trump couldn’t be bothered to do with the JFK papers), describing war plans in a high level, general way and not publish specifics. Publishing once it was safe to do so, and not waiting two years to publish it in a tell all book.

This is Watergate and Pentagon Papers level reporting.

+1 I'm impressed with him and the Atlantic. They really did everything right here. There were a lot of things he could have done that would have made him more attackable...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except...how do you put them all in one room together when it's a Saturday, some of them are in Washington while others are at Mar-a-Lago?

are you serious?

they all go to washington. or they all go to mar a lago. i'm sorry, did planning a war get in the way of your golf vacation?!

Or you know what else the government has the ability to do - classified video conference. I've done it at different security levels. I'm sure Cabinet secretaries can figure out how to do it too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have Lisa and Susan expressed their “concern” yet?

Yes, they did last night. Lisa was more disapproving than Susan and wondered who would be getting fired over this. Susan, was typical, useless blah blah.

But some Republicans in Congress, which is meant to act as a check on and exercise oversight of the executive branch, have largely downplayed the incident, offering mild criticism if any.

“A mistake was made. It happens,” Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy told reporters, adding that it’s “not keeping the American people up at night. … Trust me, this is not going to lead to the apocalypse.” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said on Fox News: “This is what the leftist media is reduced to ... now we’re griping about who’s on a text message and who’s not. I mean, come on.” North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said, “You got to know who you’re sending your text to,” but he also told reporters “it’s a 24-hour news cycle. … I’ve got a lot of confidence in Mike [Waltz]. This doesn’t undermine my belief that he’s a solid pick for the role.” Florida Sen. Rick Scott expressed similarly tepid concerns: “Clearly, they’ve got to, you know, make sure that they’re careful how they do this,” he told reporters when asked about the group chat.

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said the incident warranted “some kind of internal investigation” to “make corrections,” but Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville said a congressional investigation wasn’t needed: “You can’t put just blame on just one person, other than the fact that the person in charge, that the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, he’ll get it corrected. And you know, that’s just part of transition and growing,” Tuberville told CNN.

Florida Rep. Brian Mast, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, seemed to echo Tuberville’s sentiment, telling reporters that the issue “wasn’t a systemic thing” and didn’t require a “special investigation.”

South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds added that he expected Democrats to raise the incident during an intelligence hearing on Tuesday, and that “some of my Republican colleagues may raise it just as an issue to be very concerned about.” Gabbard and Ratcliffe are among those who were already due to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters it was an issue of “systems and process, not personnel,” suggesting that disciplinary action against anyone involved in the chat would be the wrong move. “The administration is addressing what happened,” Johnson said. “Apparently an inadvertent phone number made it onto that thread. They’re gonna track that down and make sure that doesn’t happen again. … Clearly, I think the administration has acknowledged it was a mistake and they’ll tighten up and make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Still, the breach seems to have shaken up many others in the party.

Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon spelled out the national security implications of the gaffe, telling reporters, “everybody makes mistakes, texting somebody, we’ve all done it. But you don’t put classified information on unclassified devices like Signal. And there’s no doubt, I’m an intelligence guy, Russia and China are monitoring both their phones, right. So putting out classified information like that endangers our forces, and I can’t believe that they were knowingly putting that kind of classified information on unclassified systems, it’s just wrong.” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said it “sounds like a huge screw up. I mean is there any other way to describe it? I don’t think you should use Signal for classified information.” And New York Rep. Mike Lawler posted on X: “Classified information should not be transmitted on unsecured channels—and certainly not to those without security clearances, including reporters. Period.”

“We’re just finding out about it. But obviously, we’ve got to run it to ground and figure out what went on there. We’ll have a plan,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune. Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters the committee “will be looking into this.” “It’s definitely a concern, and it appears that mistakes were made,” Wicker added, but he said that whether someone should be held accountable depended on the results of an investigation.

Meanwhile, Maine Sen. Susan Collins reportedly called the incident an “extremely troubling and serious matter”; Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told a HuffPost reporter, “there needs to be some accountability”; and Montana Sen. Tim Sheehy put it most bluntly: “Well, somebody f--ked up.”

[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?

Except this is not about a journalist.

The only story here is the reckless disregard the principals committee has for our national security.

+1 If you want to prosecute the journalist for "breaking the law" by remaining on a chat that he didn't ask to be added to and which wasn't marked in any way as "classified" go ahead. I think that would be a hard case to make.

But it would be worth it, because it would be impossible to prosecute the journalist without prosecuting DUI hire Hegseth, VP Vance, Stephen Miller, Sec State Marco Rubio, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, DNI head Tulsi Gabbard, NSA head Waltz and all the other people on that thread that broke several laws on national security, records management as well as protocols on troop safety by planning a war on a commercial platform. One guy was in Russia while he was on the chat. Lord knows what they pulled from the phone.

Right. Someone who receives classified information who is not cleared is not in trouble. The people with clearances that did are.

A couple of former high ranking NSA officials said that in past administrations, there is no way this would this happen without someone's security clearance being pulled for a breach like this.

[Anonymous]

Wow, Susan. It’s indeed troubling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except...how do you put them all in one room together when it's a Saturday, some of them are in Washington while others are at Mar-a-Lago?

are you serious?

they all go to washington. or they all go to mar a lago. i'm sorry, did planning a war get in the way of your golf vacation?!

Or, you go into different SCIFs in different locations that are set up to have secure communications between them. I have been in a such a room and had such a conversation (different subject matter). They exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except...how do you put them all in one room together when it's a Saturday, some of them are in Washington while others are at Mar-a-Lago?

All these people have secure government-issued phones.

[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?

Except this is not about a journalist.

The only story here is the reckless disregard the principals committee has for our national security.

+1 If you want to prosecute the journalist for "breaking the law" by remaining on a chat that he didn't ask to be added to and which wasn't marked in any way as "classified" go ahead. I think that would be a hard case to make.

But it would be worth it, because it would be impossible to prosecute the journalist without prosecuting DUI hire Hegseth, VP Vance, Stephen Miller, Sec State Marco Rubio, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, DNI head Tulsi Gabbard, NSA head Waltz and all the other people on that thread that broke several laws on national security, records management as well as protocols on troop safety by planning a war on a commercial platform. One guy was in Russia while he was on the chat. Lord knows what they pulled from the phone.

Right. Someone who receives classified information who is not cleared is not in trouble. The people with clearances that did are.

Bring on the prosecution. Prosecute them all...they'll slap the journalist on the wrist if anything, because how tf was he to know what crazy chat he'd been added to...but the other ones, they've broken at least 3 federal laws.