SecDef shares US war Plan in Group chat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh what will that do? They will just ignore it.

They'll say it's classified....

Nope that won't fly this time.

Any American settling for that is a fool.

Midterms are your last chance to vote. Vote like your life depends on it because it does. Vote like your Voting Rights depends on it because they do.

Dicatorship with Trump/Retribuiton/Trumpbucks will not end well.

Unfortunately we’re not lacking for fools. How do you think we ended up in this boat to begin with.

LOL I don't disagree with you at all. The cult of stupidity is never going away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Indeed, “The Scandal That Wasn’t”.

Democrats have nothing, but pretend hysteria.

So boring.

No your head is exploding because of the mental gymnastics you are trying to do.
For example Goldberg and Pete Hegseth. One takes DOD protocols seriously:

Goldberg:

—Did not disclose sensitive information; and
—Left the chat when clear he was on chain (errantly) w/classified plans

Petey
- Was told in February Signal was not secure
- Was drunk as usual
- Lying to the American people again

They shared classified data about an impending military strike on a group text through an insecure app, while more than one participant was using personal phone and/or was overseas (including one person in Moscow), added a journalist to the group, admitted it, denied it, then admitted it again.

The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, not knowing DoD policy on classified and controlled unclassified information on unsecured devices is appalling.

[Anonymous]

The part that people are missing is that they're doing official communications on Signal to avoid those communications being retained. There are Project 2025 training videos that specifically recommended this type of thing as a way to avoid subpoenas. Our government is using 3rd party software to discuss OPSEC, NOFORN, and Top Secret levels of communication in avenues that do not retain data. They can stage a total takeover of the US and there will be no evidence through any official channels and don’t have to be retained as per White House records policy.
Shameful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been watching the hearing video. Surreal to see CIA directorcavoiding the question how hih did not know who all was in the group chat. As av70 yo Signal user, I'm willing to show him how that works if he needs help.

I mean, isn’t it just tapping with your thumb to see all the chat participants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The part that people are missing is that they're doing official communications on Signal to avoid those communications being retained. There are Project 2025 training videos that specifically recommended this type of thing as a way to avoid subpoenas. Our government is using 3rd party software to discuss OPSEC, NOFORN, and Top Secret levels of communication in avenues that do not retain data. They can stage a total takeover of the US and there will be no evidence through any official channels and don’t have to be retained as per White House records policy.
Shameful

This makes a lot of sense, but do you have any links or references? I would like to hear more about this.

[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 win the most asinine take of the day on DCUM. Truly. Tell me you haven't worked in national security without telling me. Jesus. Such a pathetic attempt at deflection from a truly criminal act that affects all of our safety.

[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.

You win the most asinine take of the day on DCUM. Truly. Tell me you haven't worked in national security without telling me. Jesus. Such a pathetic attempt at deflection from a truly criminal act that affects all of our safety.

100% convinced that Karoline Leavitt or some other Trump staffer is posting here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witkoff was in Moscow when he was added to the chat - he might have even been in the Kremlin. If they're doing everything on Signal, then Russia has God Knows What info from Witkoff's phone.

That’s a huge breach then.

Witkoff arrived in Russia early on Thursday (March 13). He met with Putin at the Kremlin late Thursday (13th). The Signal chat on Thursday was about points of contact. Policy discussions on Signal resumed Friday morning (14th). He didn’t comment in the chat until he arrived back to the states on Saturday (15th)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witkoff was in Moscow when he was added to the chat - he might have even been in the Kremlin. If they're doing everything on Signal, then Russia has God Knows What info from Witkoff's phone.

That’s a huge breach then.

Witkoff arrived in Russia early on Thursday (March 13). He met with Putin at the Kremlin late Thursday (13th). The Signal chat on Thursday was about points of contact. Policy discussions on Signal resumed Friday morning (14th). He didn’t comment in the chat until he arrived back to the states on Saturday (15th)

But did he have his phone with him? Anyone who has ever had any involvement in intelligence knows once the phone goes to Russia, it will be compromised.

[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.

No one gives a crap what you would do in your low level position. Read the room crazy cakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witkoff was in Moscow when he was added to the chat - he might have even been in the Kremlin. If they're doing everything on Signal, then Russia has God Knows What info from Witkoff's phone.

That’s a huge breach then.

Witkoff arrived in Russia early on Thursday (March 13). He met with Putin at the Kremlin late Thursday (13th). The Signal chat on Thursday was about points of contact. Policy discussions on Signal resumed Friday morning (14th). He didn’t comment in the chat until he arrived back to the states on Saturday (15th)

But did he have his phone with him? Anyone who has ever had any involvement in intelligence knows once the phone goes to Russia, it will be compromised.

Agree. Thanks for adding. I should have made that clear.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone admit to actually adding Goldberg? Is it possible the chat was hacked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone admit to actually adding Goldberg? Is it possible the chat was hacked?

Clarifying— is it possible one of their devices was compromised and some third party added Goldberg to the chat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone admit to actually adding Goldberg? Is it possible the chat was hacked?

If it was hacked, that’s not really better. It means anyone could’ve hacked in. That’s why you don’t use channels that aren’t approved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd say "unreal", but it's obviously real. I'd call it "unbelievable", but this administration's previous incompetence makes it completely believable. I don't really know what to call this...

Pete Hegseth... what an utterly incompetent, drunken boob. And isn't Waltz the one who's going on the unwanted trip to Greenland with Vance's wife and kid?

This whole administration is such a mess!

I read somewhere that Usha is planning to defect to Greenland with her kid ….