Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So interesting that apparently Signal is the messaging that was approved for CIA use from previous administrations. Senator attempted to downplay this. I hate when you have to listen ten times to get what is actually the trust. The reality is that moving forward you can’t use anything that has initials which can be accidentally put in. The big story should be why this reporter said nothing immediately. Most people would have said something if only you don’t want to hear something you are not allowed to hear.

Please cite to your information that the CIA approved signal as a messaging app for classified info (except maybe for agents undercover and in the field in remote areas without other more secure means of communication to report imminent threats— which was not the case here.).

They were obviously listening to the hearing.

It amazes how posters here feel NO responsibility to even news Google a single fact.

Ratcliffe said that, and provided zero evidence. The same Ratcliffe who already got caught trying to cover up a massive security leak and lying about its contents.

It amazes how posters here feel NO responsibility to even Google a single fact.

Stephen Colbert said: It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all.

I feel this way about this thread. Republicans could plaster data on covert operations that put our military at risk on a public building, and there would be some GOP people who would defend them regardless. It's the narrative that matters to them, and "owning the libs". The GOP is ignoring that they broke the law and that they've put soldiers at risk with such careless behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So interesting that apparently Signal is the messaging that was approved for CIA use from previous administrations. Senator attempted to downplay this. I hate when you have to listen ten times to get what is actually the trust. The reality is that moving forward you can’t use anything that has initials which can be accidentally put in. The big story should be why this reporter said nothing immediately. Most people would have said something if only you don’t want to hear something you are not allowed to hear.

Please cite to your information that the CIA approved signal as a messaging app for classified info (except maybe for agents undercover and in the field in remote areas without other more secure means of communication to report imminent threats— which was not the case here.).

They were obviously listening to the hearing.

It amazes how posters here feel NO responsibility to even news Google a single fact.

There were no such specifics in that hearing, and the witnesses in that hearing were lying their asses off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So interesting that apparently Signal is the messaging that was approved for CIA use from previous administrations. Senator attempted to downplay this. I hate when you have to listen ten times to get what is actually the trust. The reality is that moving forward you can’t use anything that has initials which can be accidentally put in. The big story should be why this reporter said nothing immediately. Most people would have said something if only you don’t want to hear something you are not allowed to hear.

Please cite to your information that the CIA approved signal as a messaging app for classified info (except maybe for agents undercover and in the field in remote areas without other more secure means of communication to report imminent threats— which was not the case here.).

They were obviously listening to the hearing.

It amazes how posters here feel NO responsibility to even news Google a single fact.

Ratcliffe said that, and provided zero evidence. The same Ratcliffe who already got caught trying to cover up a massive security leak and lying about its contents.

It amazes how posters here feel NO responsibility to even Google a single fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So interesting that apparently Signal is the messaging that was approved for CIA use from previous administrations. Senator attempted to downplay this. I hate when you have to listen ten times to get what is actually the trust. The reality is that moving forward you can’t use anything that has initials which can be accidentally put in. The big story should be why this reporter said nothing immediately. Most people would have said something if only you don’t want to hear something you are not allowed to hear.

Please cite to your information that the CIA approved signal as a messaging app for classified info (except maybe for agents undercover and in the field in remote areas without other more secure means of communication to report imminent threats— which was not the case here.).

Radcliffe just said it in this morning’s hearing

Trump is just trying to show the libs the danger that comes from hiring incompetent people based on the color of their skin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DEMOCRAT politicians have NOTHING without their constant ATTACKS on their OPPONENTS.

This is why Democrat poling has fallen
LOWER than EVER.

Shame on these sick attack politicians called Democrats. We see today how they make up whatever they want. Shame, shame, shame.

Really a shame that the Ukrainian army has killed all of the talented Russian trolls and this is what we’re left with.

That is gallows, but it made me guffaw.

Me too - this is why I can't quit DCUM.

Also if I spewed this much about this stuff to the people I actually know I'd have no more friends.

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.

unreal - you complaining about someone "being so partisan" hahaha

you know how this mistake wouldn't have happened? if they'd all been in one room together and not in a group text

Except...how do you put them all in one room together when it's a Saturday, some of them are in Washington while others are at Mar-a-Lago?

You are asking why the people who are urgently involved with launching missiles at people need to.. show up for work on attack days? Seriously? So the paper pusher at the Department of Forestry has to drive an hour to sit at an office desk to file receipts, but the military leaders running missile strikes can do it while drunk-dialing reporters while in line at Starbucks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So interesting that apparently Signal is the messaging that was approved for CIA use from previous administrations. Senator attempted to downplay this. I hate when you have to listen ten times to get what is actually the trust. The reality is that moving forward you can’t use anything that has initials which can be accidentally put in. The big story should be why this reporter said nothing immediately. Most people would have said something if only you don’t want to hear something you are not allowed to hear.

Please cite to your information that the CIA approved signal as a messaging app for classified info (except maybe for agents undercover and in the field in remote areas without other more secure means of communication to report imminent threats— which was not the case here.).

They were obviously listening to the hearing.

It amazes how posters here feel NO responsibility to even news Google a single fact.

Messaging apps are not uncommonly used for unclassified. That person in that post was referring to classified.

Anonymous wrote:So interesting that apparently Signal is the messaging that was approved for CIA use from previous administrations. Senator attempted to downplay this. I hate when you have to listen ten times to get what is actually the trust. The reality is that moving forward you can’t use anything that has initials which can be accidentally put in. The big story should be why this reporter said nothing immediately. Most people would have said something if only you don’t want to hear something you are not allowed to hear.

HEADLINE: ATLANTIC REPORTER FAILS TO CORRECT AND COVER UP COLOSSAL F**K-UP BY TRUMP ADMIN - MORE AT 11!

Correct it was in the heating and Warner did not disagree. So yes and more people should listen to hearings when people are under oath because unless you hear people under oath (both sides) you do not know what is spin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The Military Times newspaper has already pointed out that the yahoos on the group chat broke several laws. This is very clear. Prosecute Hegseth, Vance, Waltz, Gabbard, Miller, Wiles and co. We're waiting.

Thie Military Times is not affiliated with the military and privately held. They also excused Secretary Austin so not necessary unbiased. Some people may think this is a military newspaper and it is not. When you hear prosecute for being on a government acceptable thread you have to step back and see who is saying this. Again these witch hunts are not good for the country. I cannot imagine being a politician today.

Trump is disappearing people without even bothering with prosecution. He's the biggest witch hunter of them all. Trump is prosecuting everyone who simply tried to enforce the law over the past 4 years, thousands of people. There is no "government acceptable thread" for sharing upcoming missile strikes with random acquaintances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The Military Times newspaper has already pointed out that the yahoos on the group chat broke several laws. This is very clear. Prosecute Hegseth, Vance, Waltz, Gabbard, Miller, Wiles and co. We're waiting.

Thie Military Times is not affiliated with the military and privately held. They also excused Secretary Austin so not necessary unbiased. Some people may think this is a military newspaper and it is not. When you hear prosecute for being on a government acceptable thread you have to step back and see who is saying this. Again these witch hunts are not good for the country. I cannot imagine being a politician today.

Right, it is it censored (to protect higher ups) like military communications are.

Much more credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So interesting that apparently Signal is the messaging that was approved for CIA use from previous administrations. Senator attempted to downplay this. I hate when you have to listen ten times to get what is actually the trust. The reality is that moving forward you can’t use anything that has initials which can be accidentally put in. The big story should be why this reporter said nothing immediately. Most people would have said something if only you don’t want to hear something you are not allowed to hear.

Please cite to your information that the CIA approved signal as a messaging app for classified info (except maybe for agents undercover and in the field in remote areas without other more secure means of communication to report imminent threats— which was not the case here.).

They were obviously listening to the hearing.

It amazes how posters here feel NO responsibility to even news Google a single fact.

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.

So, in other words: Every one in America has an obligation to assume that Trump's government is utterly incompetent, and we are all obligated to monitor their work and fix their mistakes for them, and do it for free, because he is firing all the mission-focused professionals and all the investigators.

And sharing imminent military attack details with random people in your personal addressbook is not as bad as an administrator being in the hospital for a few days.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The Military Times newspaper has already pointed out that the yahoos on the group chat broke several laws. This is very clear. Prosecute Hegseth, Vance, Waltz, Gabbard, Miller, Wiles and co. We're waiting.

Thie Military Times is not affiliated with the military and privately held. They also excused Secretary Austin so not necessary unbiased. Some people may think this is a military newspaper and it is not. When you hear prosecute for being on a government acceptable thread you have to step back and see who is saying this. Again these witch hunts are not good for the country. I cannot imagine being a politician today.