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

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:

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.

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:

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.

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"!

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...