SecDef shares US war Plan in Group chat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

I listened to an interview with him. He was very careful about what he told the interviewer about what he read on the chat, expressing discomfort several times with revealing sensitive information (apparently the chat contained specific war plans and names of CIA agents). Notably, he took himself off the chat after the strikes on the Houthis occurred and he realized the whole thing wasn't actually a prank or scam of some sort. And he contacted several WH officials to inform them of the fact that he had inadvertently been included in the chat.

MAGA is just annoyed that these clowns got caught in the act and were publicly embarrassed by Goldberg. Some "patriots"!

[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.

It also could have been US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Goldberg has said that he goes by "JG" on Signal.

Why does the US Trade Representative need to know specific bombing targets and sequencings? Maybe a heads up there would an attack, given the connection to shipping lanes. But the nitty gritty details? He has no need to know.

[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?

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.

What did the reporter do wrong? Doesn't even deserve a slap on the wrist.

The reporter is a hero for exposing the recklessness of this administration. If you read his story he didn't even believe that the chat was real at first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone listening to the hearing? They are getting positively destroyed.

And yet, nothing will come of it. They can't say there wasn't classified communication and then say but we won't release it. Either it was classified or it wasn't, and if it wasn't, it should be fully disclosed.

And now 5Eyes has every reason to withhold information sharing, as it if didn't before.

[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?

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.

What did the reporter do wrong? Doesn't even deserve a slap on the wrist.

I don't think the journalist has done anything wrong. If you actually read his article, he thought the chat was fake until he realized bombs were dropping at the time they said they would. But this administration seems to be bringing a lot of prosecutions of people who disagree with them to make a point, so I'm sure they'll want to make an example....but it would be epic to see everyone in the chat prosecuted en masse for breaking the law (which they did, many times over).

[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.

It also could have been US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Goldberg has said that he goes by "JG" on Signal.

Why does the US Trade Representative need to know specific bombing targets and sequencings? Maybe a heads up there would an attack, given the connection to shipping lanes. But the nitty gritty details? He has no need to know.

I'm guessing JG instead of JD or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone listening to the hearing? They are getting positively destroyed.

Nothing will come of this. Remember when Trump said he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth Ave and no one would care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone listening to the hearing? They are getting positively destroyed.

The GOP Senators are cowards who say they're saving their questions for the closed seesion.

Also, Tulsi is a lying disaster. At first she wouldn't acknowledge she was on the chat and now she's answering questions about what it discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

I listened to an interview with him. He was very careful about what he told the interviewer about what he read on the chat, expressing discomfort several times with revealing sensitive information (apparently the chat contained specific war plans and names of CIA agents). Notably, he took himself off the chat after the strikes on the Houthis occurred and he realized the whole thing wasn't actually a prank or scam of some sort. And he contacted several WH officials to inform them of the fact that he had inadvertently been included in the chat.

MAGA is just annoyed that these clowns got caught in the act and were publicly embarrassed by Goldberg. Some "patriots"!

Those patriots were sending around emojis with communications that could have gotten American soldiers killed. Unbelievable. And the GOP just shrugs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except Trump was working from home at MAL that day…

[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.

Stop gaslighting. This mistake could not have happened if they were following protocol. None of this should be on Signal or on personal phones or include someone who was in Moscow at the time or include stupid emojis or copy-paste top secret details from a secured source to an unsecured phone to be shared on a group chat.

+1

Whos uses a random work chat thread as an analogy for classified information/a national security discussion?

We all know people are fallible and mistakes happen. This is why the smart people, long before Trump, set up a system where this particular mistake CAN NOT happen if you just follow the rules.

All the Trump apologists who trying to claim "innocent mistake"... you look so naive and ignorant. This is not how intelligent people operate. This is not how professionals do their job. There are processes in place to prevent mistakes. If your people choose to ignore them, IT IS NOT AN INNOCENT MISTAKE. Nothing innocent about it.

They should all be fired and never hired again.

[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.

Stop gaslighting. This mistake could not have happened if they were following protocol. None of this should be on Signal or on personal phones or include someone who was in Moscow at the time or include stupid emojis or copy-paste top secret details from a secured source to an unsecured phone to be shared on a group chat.

The reporter should have identified himself immediately and waiting was wrong. The only reason he didn’t identify was to get a story and that is wrong.
Also let’s compare this to our former DOD secretary who didn’t let anyone know he was being treated with serious surgery is not even close. Liberal media was very very quiet on that. That was willful. This was a technology accident. The politics around here is tiring.

This is indefensible. I'm embarrassed for you.

What did you say when Secretary Austin was MIA? Yeah guessing nothing and again willful. There was almost no discussion of abandoning post and that he should step down by liberal media.
President as well but that was
his decision and he was allowed to make that decision. So I am willing to allow a mistake and am annoyed that a seasoned reporter kept quiet and didn’t identify himself. You have to wonder what same reporter would have done if it was Biden’s team. I can speculate that he would have identified himself.

[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.

Stop gaslighting. This mistake could not have happened if they were following protocol. None of this should be on Signal or on personal phones or include someone who was in Moscow at the time or include stupid emojis or copy-paste top secret details from a secured source to an unsecured phone to be shared on a group chat.

The reporter should have identified himself immediately and waiting was wrong. The only reason he didn’t identify was to get a story and that is wrong.
Also let’s compare this to our former DOD secretary who didn’t let anyone know he was being treated with serious surgery is not even close. Liberal media was very very quiet on that. That was willful. This was a technology accident. The politics around here is tiring.

The felon is lighting a match to America, and you’re still justifying it. Unbelievable. Have some self-respect and stop with this partisan BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway the political forum here is just so one sided.

Maybe it is but I looked at center and right news this morning and the only one who wasn't absolutely clear about laws being broken was FOX.

[Anonymous]

Kash Patel just said he didn't learn about the Goldberg article until this morning. Good to know the FBI is right on top of it.