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?

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.

Pam and Kash are right on it!

Oh wait

Pam’s stressing over Elon. Elon is under siege. Poor thing

She can’t focus on two problems

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Pam and Kash are right on it!

Oh wait

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

Anonymous wrote:People who are saying he should have just quietly exited the chat, as we would for a work email sent to us erroneously --- why don't you see this is a national security issue, and carries much more gravity than an oops work email?

And don't you think the public has a right to know that this serious gaffe occurred, and that this speaks to the level of competence of the government, and don't you think the public should be aware of the level of competence of your leaders?

I see it that the journalist was doing his job. We, you, should want to know this is happening.

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: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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

+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 wrote:

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 wrote:Have Lisa and Susan expressed their “concern” yet?

Anonymous wrote:

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.