Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- that the conversation was on signal in the first place, which at best wasn’t approved for classified info and most likely was deliberately chosen as a communications platform to avoid accountability, and

-

The government doesn't have anything better. They have special hardware and live conversation, but nothing better for people who are all over the place with different devices.

Is this Karoline again? You guys would know better if you hadn't skipped all the Orientation meetings.

Karoline apparently doesn’t have anything better to do than troll DCUM.

Some are calling for the WH to fire Waltz and move on, get it behind them. But really, they are loathe to fire Waltz since he is the best of the group, the most qualified and experienced and reliable.

(Trump wants to fire Waltz because he dares to have Goldberg's number on his phone (!) because he doesn't care about national security. Nor does anyone else in his administration.)

Anonymous wrote:
Any military officer would have being fired and investiaged. Why are these criminals not prosecuted?

From NBC News’s Ryan Nobles in Threads: “SIGNIFICANT development in the fallout from the signal chat snafu.. Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R) say he and ranker Jack Reed (D) have agreed to ask the administration for an independent Inspector General report on the matter.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Goldberg himself said he got a request to connect from Waltz a few days before the chat started. Has anyone discussed this?

Link?

Did the invite acknowledge that it was Goldberg or was it mistaken identity?

DP, but I saw Goldberg talking about this on TikTok. I think it was an interview with NBC.

He discussed it on the Bulwark Podcast too.

And on The Atlantic’s own podcast, Radio Atlantic.

and the Daily from the NYT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- that the conversation was on signal in the first place, which at best wasn’t approved for classified info and most likely was deliberately chosen as a communications platform to avoid accountability, and

-

The government doesn't have anything better. They have special hardware and live conversation, but nothing better for people who are all over the place with different devices.

This is not true! At all! In fact, most must rescind their cell phones to lockboxes whether in person or remotely. These folks are head of National Security. Stop lying about what you don’t know.

“The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.”

Ha ha. Very apropos to Whiskileaks. MAGA has no idea where this came from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- that the conversation was on signal in the first place, which at best wasn’t approved for classified info and most likely was deliberately chosen as a communications platform to avoid accountability, and

-

The government doesn't have anything better. They have special hardware and live conversation, but nothing better for people who are all over the place with different devices.

Bullshit. I worked under SecDef Hagel.

That's why agency heads designate POC (points of contact) to act on their behalf. Those designated POC should have been the ones in a SCIF discussing and receiving the plans, not the agency heads on an unsecured public app like Signal.

Waltz even said when he started the Signal group: "Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx."

Marco Rubio designated Mike Needham
Vance designated Andy Baker
Tulsi Gabbard designated Joe Kent
Scott Bessent designated Dan Katz
Hegseth designated Dan Caldwell
John Ratcliffe designated a goddamn active CIA officer by name

It is true that the US government does not have its own secure messaging system. But that's why you designate your POCs to act on your behalf when you are on travel. That information should then be disseminated back to the department head through proper secure channels using proper classification.

Now they Republicans are talking about how they are going to make sure proper protocols are in place blah, blah, blah. WE ALREADY BLEEPING HAVE THEM! You can create all the goddamn new protocols you want, but if those in charge aren't keen on following protocols, then what's the point? And that's the whole vibe of this admin: do whatever the F they want and damn the consequences. No one can stop them. No one can check them. They know this and that's exactly how they act.

Anonymous wrote:Does Tulsi Gabbard have the intelligence of a gnat? She can't seem to remember much. Is she on drugs? Or is she just stupid? She doesn't have a college degree. She "attended" community college. WTF is she doing as the head of National Intelligence???? Head of National Stupidity would make more sense.

I used to interview homicide suspects. She really gave off “lying sack of sh@t” vibes yesterday when asked direct questions. Her blood pressure was pounding and she was gulping air at a few points. When a person is telling the truth they are confident and don’t struggle to remember something that happened two weeks ago. I didn’t watch all the testimony but it sounds like Ratliff lied too.

Anonymous wrote:Karoline Leavitt is doubling down. She is so breathtakingly stupid.

It's not really fair. Her job is to speak for Trump. She is smart and talented at faithfully bringing his message to the media.

Anonymous wrote:Lmao. They drew Donald’s favorite judge in the lawsuit

+ Musk's billions

Anonymous wrote:Karoline Leavitt is doubling down. She is so breathtakingly stupid.

Can the Atlantic sue Karoline Leavitt for calling the Atlantic story a "hoax"?

Unless this allegation is proven, isn't that defamation of the writer and the publication?

Just wondering. Calling it a "hoax" seems pretty extreme. That implies that the story is entirely fabricated, including the screenshots of the chat. Wouldn't it be simple to prove that allegation is false and malicious?

Any military officer would have being fired and investiaged. Why are these criminals not prosecuted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA Senator Jon Osseff should be on everyone’s radar. He’s got what it takes to run in 2028. Young gun slaughtered them.

I did not know anything about him before watching that. I want to know everything about him now. That is the kind of voice we need.

+1000!!!!!

Yes. Thank you for posting. How completely embarrassing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- that the conversation was on signal in the first place, which at best wasn’t approved for classified info and most likely was deliberately chosen as a communications platform to avoid accountability, and

-

The government doesn't have anything better. They have special hardware and live conversation, but nothing better for people who are all over the place with different devices.

Maybe we need better people, if we don't have better things.
Surely there's someone who's capable of leading a military and also knows how to use a phone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- that the conversation was on signal in the first place, which at best wasn’t approved for classified info and most likely was deliberately chosen as a communications platform to avoid accountability, and

-

The government doesn't have anything better. They have special hardware and live conversation, but nothing better for people who are all over the place with different devices.

Lie.