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.

BUT HER EMAILS!!!!!!!
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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

How about making this decision to get around records laws?

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.

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.

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:

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.

Anonymous wrote:The intel hearings had best be made for TV this week. Both GOP and Dems need to hold these reckless excuses accountable.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

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:

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.

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.