Pot meet kettle...

Remember when you texted for days with Adam Waldman, the lawyer for Oleg Deripaska, about the SSCI investigation and a private meeting with Christopher Steele? https://t.co/fOzMcUA3a9 pic.twitter.com/05niYG1OAn

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) March 25, 2025

Zobel said:

---

For those saying the reporter had a "duty" or had a requirement to report spillage - I think this is just not correct. Laws about classified information apply to individuals who have access to it, and they are bound by legal obligations / duty to protect it.

Now if John Q Public knowingly possesses or distributes unauthorized classified information, they could have a criminal liability for that action. But they still don't have a duty to report.

---

When I used that term, it was not in a sense of a legal duty.

It was in a sense of an ethical duty and/or patriotic duty.

(I know, those apparently don't exist anymore for many in this country...)

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

I communicate over Signal, encryption and all. But why would government officials be communicating over a group chat, whatever the mechanism? Don't they all live in the same three-square mile area in the seat of government?

---

To avoid federal record laws, FOIA requests, etc.

---

Maybe so, but I've seen more than one article today from conservative commentators discussing why it's crazy to discuss information like this over anything but secure channels. One even said that it's such stupidity that Trump should ask Hegseth to resign. I mean doesn't releasing tactical information about the timing of the attack over unsecured channels potentially put our service men at risk? That's Biden level stupidity.

excited dems think they're pulling on the thread that will unravel an administration.

Meanwhile, America still thinks they're out of their minds on 90% of the issues...the histrionics here in the senate hearing are just confirming their insanity, as evidenced by multiple references to...among other things...climate, lol, change.

Edit: The audience outbursts from Dem/CCP joint operation, Code Pink were especially special.

To the mention that this wouldn't have happened in WW2, people also need to remember Congressman Andrew May. He revealed at a press conference that Japanese depth charges were being set too shallow to hit US subs. The report got sent out across the wires and the Japanese were able to see it and correct their mistake.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Tulsi Gabbard: “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal chat.”

Sen. Mark Warner: “So then if there was no classified material, share it with the committee.”

pic.twitter.com/LHybOpWH6S

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) March 25, 2025

Again, all congress is good for is naming post offices, going on junkets, and calling hearings in hopes of a 'gram worthy soundbite.

They've ceded all of their power to the executive and judicial branches. All they good for is feeding tax dollars into the machine and grandstanding.

Stands to reason that 70% are compromised by the executive branch in one way or another.

---

OMG! No classified info was in that group chat.

END OF STORY.

Sorry Libs.

I'm not sure there is a clear-cut ethical duty for him to do that either over against reporting on the event as an observer.

Every job has a purpose, and the role of a journalist is to seek and communicate truth about events to the public. If we're talking ethics he has an ethical duty to do his job well for the public benefit. His virtue would be found in doing this job well, and would be based on his truthfulness, courage (to report at perhaps personal or professional risk), and justice (representing events fairly). I think you could make a good argument that failing to report something like this would actually be an ethical failing on his part.

I think his choice whether to report or not would balance between the extremes, on the one hand being sensationalism, on the other hand being silence / omission of news that was actually deserving of public interest.

From what I can tell after reading the article, it seems like he threaded the needle pretty well here.

will25u said:

---

.@CIADirector: "One of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer ... One of the things that I was briefed on very early was ... the use of Signal as a permissible work use — it is." pic.twitter.com/INE94qxikL

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 25, 2025

---

Ah, so all of the Democrats who happily globbed onto this thread will surely be disappointed in the Biden administration information security policies that were inherited by the Trump administration. Right?

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Still can't believe that top government officials use Signal for these conversations.

In a lot of industries (not nearly as important as DOD), this is grounds for dismissal.

---

SEC fines a bank practically weekly for this kind of thing.

---

Yep. Banks got fined $500M a year ago for using Signal.

---

That has nothing to do with Signal per se and everything to do with not preserving records - important if and when SEC investigations occur at that bank - which actually makes Signal even more secure.

---

The people we are talking about have to preserve records too.

---

The implication is that Signal is inherently bad and not secure which is complete bull**** and being spouted by libs who don't know what the hell they are talking about. I was adding some much needed context. If Banks used Teams instead and deleted the chats with no recoverable backup, they would also be fined in the same manner.

---

Are you nuts?

A journalist was able to share points of contracts for each office for this strike as well as other messages direct from Signal… defend how you will but this fact alone sort of makes the point being spouted by the libs.

---

Couple of points. That is a human issue, not a Signal issue. As pointed out above, Signal is loaded on the computers of members of the admin - including the CIA director - by government IT.

Second, as far as the particular info, we don't know what was shared. We have Goldberg claiming what was shared, that's all. Goldberg has major cred issues.

Wasn't a call. was a group chat.

The Dems in this hearing are desperate to find some "Gotcha" and there isn't any there. The text chain on that signal app did not have any classified info and as far as these officials have testified, that they have never participated in a signal chat that ever had any classified info. "Signal" isnt used when classified info is involved.

Such a waste of time.

Houston Lee said:

---

The Dems in this hearing are desperate to find some "Gotcha" and there isn't any there. The text chain on that signal app did not have any classified info and as far as these officials have testified, that they have never participated in a signal chat that ever had any classified info. "Signal" isnt used when classified info is involved.

Such a waste of time.

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Wasn't a call. was a group chat.

---

Ok. Point stands.

Logos Stick said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Still can't believe that top government officials use Signal for these conversations.

In a lot of industries (not nearly as important as DOD), this is grounds for dismissal.

---

SEC fines a bank practically weekly for this kind of thing.

---

Yep. Banks got fined $500M a year ago for using Signal.

---

That has nothing to do with Signal per se and everything to do with not preserving records - important if and when SEC investigations occur at that bank - which actually makes Signal even more secure.

---

The people we are talking about have to preserve records too.

---

The implication is that Signal is inherently bad and not secure which is complete bull**** and being spouted by libs who don't know what the hell they are talking about. I was adding some much needed context. If Banks used Teams instead and deleted the chats with no recoverable backup, they would also be fined in the same manner.

---

Are you nuts?

A journalist was able to share points of contracts for each office for this strike as well as other messages direct from Signal… defend how you will but this fact alone sort of makes the point being spouted by the libs.

---

Couple of points. That is a human issue, not a Signal issue. As pointed out above, Signal is loaded on the computers of members of the admin - including the CIA director - by government IT.

Second, as far as the particular info, we don't know what was shared. We have Goldberg claiming what was shared, that's all. Goldberg has major cred issues.

---

Now let's do this same scenario where Signal was being used on personal devices, which is what seems to be happening here.

Personally, I have no issue with Goldberg publishing the classified information. If the government is trying to discredit him, I don't have a problem with him giving a big "F U" to the administration and publishing it.

Houston Lee said:

---

The Dems in this hearing are desperate to find some "Gotcha" and there isn't any there. The text chain on that signal app did not have any classified info and as far as these officials have testified, that they have never participated in a signal chat that ever had any classified info. "Signal" isnt used when classified info is involved.

Such a waste of time.

---

As I said yesterday, a "nothingburger" but the dems are desperate for a gotcha!

pic.twitter.com/Rb7jN08DJZ

— Max Burns (@themaxburns) March 25, 2025

Quote:

---

Tulsi Gabbard: “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal chat.”

Sen. Mark Warner: “So then if there was no classified material, share it with the committee.”

pic.twitter.com/LHybOpWH6S

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) March 25, 2025

---

What an annoying line of questioning. His red herring of 'classified or release it all!!!!!' is so ignorantly obtuse. (though it seems to have hooked a few posters on this thread)

Is his campaign strategy classified? Nope. Would he release the info? Nope.

Just because you can legally share information (ie not classified), doesnt mean you should. Hence, why it's still a mistake.

It's obvious he knows this though, which is why he won't let them finish 4 words consecutively.

rgvag11 said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

The Dems in this hearing are desperate to find some "Gotcha" and there isn't any there. The text chain on that signal app did not have any classified info and as far as these officials have testified, that they have never participated in a signal chat that ever had any classified info. "Signal" isnt used when classified info is involved.

Such a waste of time.

---

---

if there is some evidence of classified info in the signal text chain, please feel free to share it. I will stand with you in your fight to safeguard our national secrets.

I am against any mishandling of classified information.



but your posting history doesn't seem to share the same concern with the issue, just with the people implicated in THIS instance.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Still can't believe that top government officials use Signal for these conversations.

In a lot of industries (not nearly as important as DOD), this is grounds for dismissal.

---

SEC fines a bank practically weekly for this kind of thing.

---

Yep. Banks got fined $500M a year ago for using Signal.

---

That has nothing to do with Signal per se and everything to do with not preserving records - important if and when SEC investigations occur at that bank - which actually makes Signal even more secure.

---

The people we are talking about have to preserve records too.

---

The implication is that Signal is inherently bad and not secure which is complete bull**** and being spouted by libs who don't know what the hell they are talking about. I was adding some much needed context. If Banks used Teams instead and deleted the chats with no recoverable backup, they would also be fined in the same manner.

---

Are you nuts?

A journalist was able to share points of contracts for each office for this strike as well as other messages direct from Signal… defend how you will but this fact alone sort of makes the point being spouted by the libs.

---

Couple of points. That is a human issue, not a Signal issue. As pointed out above, Signal is loaded on the computers of members of the admin - including the CIA director - by government IT.

Second, as far as the particular info, we don't know what was shared. We have Goldberg claiming what was shared, that's all. Goldberg has major cred issues.

---

Now let's do this same scenario where Signal was being used on personal devices, which is what seems to be happening here.

Personally, I have no issue with Goldberg publishing the classified information. If the government is trying to discredit him, I don't have a problem with him giving a big "F U" to the administration and publishing it.

---

Loading on a personal device doesn't change anything about Signal's inherent security and trustworthiness. That would be device security, aka a strong pin.

He's not going to share screenshots with all the gory details because I highly doubt he has any to share.

Wasn't Trump indicted(wrongly) for sharing national security information? Hmmm....

If this reporter shares national security information, if it were in the signal chats, that would mean he should be indicted also, right?

Eso si, Que es said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

The Dems in this hearing are desperate to find some "Gotcha" and there isn't any there. The text chain on that signal app did not have any classified info and as far as these officials have testified, that they have never participated in a signal chat that ever had any classified info. "Signal" isnt used when classified info is involved.

Such a waste of time.

---

---

if there is some evidence of classified info in the signal text chain, please feel free to share it. I will stand with you in your fight to safeguard our national secrets.

I am against any mishandling of classified information.

---

Jeffery Goldberg has the evidence and said there was information that he would not publish because it was is classified.

Houston Lee said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Tulsi Gabbard: “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal chat.”

Sen. Mark Warner: “So then if there was no classified material, share it with the committee.”

pic.twitter.com/LHybOpWH6S

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) March 25, 2025

Again, all congress is good for is naming post offices, going on junkets, and calling hearings in hopes of a 'gram worthy soundbite.

They've ceded all of their power to the executive and judicial branches. All they good for is feeding tax dollars into the machine and grandstanding.

Stands to reason that 70% are compromised by the executive branch in one way or another.

---

OMG! No classified info was in that group chat.

END OF STORY.

Sorry Libs.

---

Based on what evidence?

rgvag11 said:

---

Eso si, Que es said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

The Dems in this hearing are desperate to find some "Gotcha" and there isn't any there. The text chain on that signal app did not have any classified info and as far as these officials have testified, that they have never participated in a signal chat that ever had any classified info. "Signal" isnt used when classified info is involved.

Such a waste of time.

---

---

if there is some evidence of classified info in the signal text chain, please feel free to share it. I will stand with you in your fight to safeguard our national secrets.

I am against any mishandling of classified information.

---

Jeffery Goldberg has the evidence and said there was information that he would not publish because it was is classified.

---

This Goldberg:

Goldberg argued that Saddam Hussein's regime posed a significant threat to the United States, including suggesting possible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. He cited interviews with Iraqi defectors and Kurdish sources claiming Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and had ties to terrorism.

Goldberg reported that President Donald Trump called fallen American soldiers "losers" and "suckers," based on anonymous sources.

Goldberg wrote that Trump expressed admiration for Hitler's generals, wanting similar loyalty from his own military leaders, again relying on anonymous sources.

Charpie said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

The Dems in this hearing are desperate to find some "Gotcha" and there isn't any there. The text chain on that signal app did not have any classified info and as far as these officials have testified, that they have never participated in a signal chat that ever had any classified info. "Signal" isnt used when classified info is involved.

Such a waste of time.

---

It's so funny, right? Then why not just saw what was in the chat?

In fact, I say that the reporter from the Atlantic just release everything since Tulsi and all of them say it wasn't classified! That will show them!! Hahaha

---

Not surprised you don't realize that if Jeff Goldberg had more politically harmful info…he'd have released it gleefully by now. (Note, this is an example of critical reasoning/thinking). And, even if data about the strike were classified at the time…it's almost certainly not now, as it happened already, and was successful.

Democrats worried about Trump administration divulging non-classified information to The Atlantic via Biden-administration approved apps, which might harm our foreign policy/strikes on Houthi muslim terrorists, but didn't, is really one of the funnier stories of the week so far.

A literally trembling Sen. Bennet (who oh btw ran originally as a bipartisan moderate) yelling and lying about Ratcliffe's testimony and the actions while exclaiming Goldberg as an outstanding journalist is emblematic of the left trying to latch onto this issue somehow as a winning one people will care about after lunch today.

CIA Director Ratcliffe & Sen. Bennet Get Into a HEATED Exchange Over Who Added the Atlantic Reporter to the Signal Chat

“I’ve seen conflicting reports about who added the reporter to the Signal messaging group”pic.twitter.com/sJJoXOr9IM

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) March 25, 2025

Logos Stick said:

---

army01 said:

---

It is nowhere near secure. Information like this should've only been transmitted through appropriate channels. No sort of impending attacks/battle plans should ever be transmitted over any open source applications. It should 100% be sent high side only.

---

The software is absolutely secure. The reason it's open source is to allow any and all security experts on the planet to audit it for vulnerabilities and backdoors.

The issue here was the human error, adding a person to the group that should not have been added.

---

Nothing on an open network (which a cell phone would be considered) is secure.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Tulsi Gabbard: “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal chat.”

Sen. Mark Warner: “So then if there was no classified material, share it with the committee.”

pic.twitter.com/LHybOpWH6S

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) March 25, 2025

Again, all congress is good for is naming post offices, going on junkets, and calling hearings in hopes of a 'gram worthy soundbite.

They've ceded all of their power to the executive and judicial branches. All they good for is feeding tax dollars into the machine and grandstanding.

Stands to reason that 70% are compromised by the executive branch in one way or another.

---

OMG! No classified info was in that group chat.

END OF STORY.

Sorry Libs.

---

Based on what evidence?

---

Under oath statements by Ratcliffe, Gabbard, Patel?

Logos Stick said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Still can't believe that top government officials use Signal for these conversations.

In a lot of industries (not nearly as important as DOD), this is grounds for dismissal.

---

SEC fines a bank practically weekly for this kind of thing.

---

Yep. Banks got fined $500M a year ago for using Signal.

---

That has nothing to do with Signal per se and everything to do with not preserving records - important if and when SEC investigations occur at that bank - which actually makes Signal even more secure.

---

The people we are talking about have to preserve records too.

---

The implication is that Signal is inherently bad and not secure which is complete bull**** and being spouted by libs who don't know what the hell they are talking about. I was adding some much needed context. If Banks used Teams instead and deleted the chats with no recoverable backup, they would also be fined in the same manner.

---

Are you nuts?

A journalist was able to share points of contracts for each office for this strike as well as other messages direct from Signal… defend how you will but this fact alone sort of makes the point being spouted by the libs.

---

Couple of points. That is a human issue, not a Signal issue. As pointed out above, Signal is loaded on the computers of members of the admin - including the CIA director - by government IT.

Second, as far as the particular info, we don't know what was shared. We have Goldberg claiming what was shared, that's all. Goldberg has major cred issues.

---

Now let's do this same scenario where Signal was being used on personal devices, which is what seems to be happening here.

Personally, I have no issue with Goldberg publishing the classified information. If the government is trying to discredit him, I don't have a problem with him giving a big "F U" to the administration and publishing it.

---

Loading on a personal device doesn't change anything about Signal's inherent security and trustworthiness. That would be device security, aka a strong pin.

He's not going to share screenshots with all the gory details because I highly doubt he has any to share.

---

The app isn't the problem. The unsecured device is the problem.

What's he supposed to do? I guess he could redact enough of the sensitive information to let everyone know he has the goods.

Of all the people, why a chief editor of a liberal publication? Did one of them previously communicate with him via signal? The unluckiest fat finger or butt dial in the world?

The anonymous source was Trump's longest serving Chief of Staff, General John Kelly.

Quote:

---

We all use SIGNAL through out DoD.

---

help the thread understand how a chat is created (i.e. contacts from your phone, like a group text).

Does is show who the creator was (i.e. like a zoom call)

Does it show who all is on and how well does reveal who all is on the message? (i.e. "Who is on with number xxx-xxx-xxxx? They are not in my contacts)

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Still can't believe that top government officials use Signal for these conversations.

In a lot of industries (not nearly as important as DOD), this is grounds for dismissal.

---

SEC fines a bank practically weekly for this kind of thing.

---

Yep. Banks got fined $500M a year ago for using Signal.

---

That has nothing to do with Signal per se and everything to do with not preserving records - important if and when SEC investigations occur at that bank - which actually makes Signal even more secure.

---

The people we are talking about have to preserve records too.

---

The implication is that Signal is inherently bad and not secure which is complete bull**** and being spouted by libs who don't know what the hell they are talking about. I was adding some much needed context. If Banks used Teams instead and deleted the chats with no recoverable backup, they would also be fined in the same manner.

---

Are you nuts?

A journalist was able to share points of contracts for each office for this strike as well as other messages direct from Signal… defend how you will but this fact alone sort of makes the point being spouted by the libs.

---

Couple of points. That is a human issue, not a Signal issue. As pointed out above, Signal is loaded on the computers of members of the admin - including the CIA director - by government IT.

Second, as far as the particular info, we don't know what was shared. We have Goldberg claiming what was shared, that's all. Goldberg has major cred issues.

---

Now let's do this same scenario where Signal was being used on personal devices, which is what seems to be happening here.

Personally, I have no issue with Goldberg publishing the classified information. If the government is trying to discredit him, I don't have a problem with him giving a big "F U" to the administration and publishing it.

---

Loading on a personal device doesn't change anything about Signal's inherent security and trustworthiness. That would be device security, aka a strong pin.

He's not going to share screenshots with all the gory details because I highly doubt he has any to share.

---

The app isn't the problem. The unsecured device is the problem.

What's he supposed to do? I guess he could redact enough of the sensitive information to let everyone know he has the goods.

---

Perhaps you should tell your fellow libs that.


As far as Goldberg, yes. do that.

I voted for Trump, genius.