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