Prosperdick said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

I doubt most Americans will see the distinction.

---

I doubt most American will see the DISTRACTION.



Dems just boiling up their hate cauldron.

Learn from it, move on.

---

They have a lot of pent up anger and frustration because Trump has been handing them their heads for the past two months. Based on the number of lefty's replying on this thread, they needed an outlet to vent and relieve the stress. Hope they feel better now.

I believe the Trump administration will learn a valuable lesson, correct the problem, and keep right on rolling doing the work of the American people.

---

This times 1000. I guarantee most of them avoided this forum like the plague until they finally had something to gloat about...sad.

---

The most important takeaway is that this will never happen to the POTUS because he's too old to know how to use Signal.

Not to speak for Titan but he's not suggesting that as THE reason but rather a possibility.

titan said:

---

rootube said:

---

I know this is a bi-partisan problem but people don't understand accountability these days. We love to blame millennials for this kind of crap but these are grown men and women trying their best to shift blame all over the place in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Blame the reporter
Blame some junior staffer
Claim there was nothing important in the text
Blame Biden for approving the use of Signal [Misunderstands the continuity argument]
Blame Hillary for whatever she did [Irrelevant]
Claim it was a brilliant insight into the workings of the administration * (see below)

Did I miss anything?

---

Not really, except that we don't know for sure that the italics are not *true* rather than being certain they are excuses.

For example, that an insider in the staff deliberately did this is far from ruled out imo. Which in turn would make all the reactions and denials more true than not---they wouldn't be lying.

* Note -- that is not a `shift of blame'. Read it again. Its a comment that says the mistake revealed also good. I am a glass half full person.

---

Waltz's Signal account added Goldberg to the group.


Wong's Signal account was also in the group.

Was Wong using Waltz's Signal account, instead of his own, to create the group?

Prosperdick said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

I doubt most Americans will see the distinction.

---

I doubt most American will see the DISTRACTION.



Dems just boiling up their hate cauldron.

Learn from it, move on.

---

They have a lot of pent up anger and frustration because Trump has been handing them their heads for the past two months. Based on the number of lefty's replying on this thread, they needed an outlet to vent and relieve the stress. Hope they feel better now.

I believe the Trump administration will learn a valuable lesson, correct the problem, and keep right on rolling doing the work of the American people.

---

This times 1000. I guarantee most of them avoided this forum like the plague until they finally had something to gloat about...sad.

---

I've been here the whole time pal!

The worst that happened here is 1) somebody added a rad lefty journo to a conversation of high level gov officials, and 2) they used a non-approved app to discuss some classified info.

Hopefully they fire whoever added the journo and they learn from this and we can move on.

rgvag11 said:

---

titan said:

---

rootube said:

---

I know this is a bi-partisan problem but people don't understand accountability these days. We love to blame millennials for this kind of crap but these are grown men and women trying their best to shift blame all over the place in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Blame the reporter
Blame some junior staffer
Claim there was nothing important in the text
Blame Biden for approving the use of Signal [Misunderstands the continuity argument]
Blame Hillary for whatever she did [Irrelevant]
Claim it was a brilliant insight into the workings of the administration * (see below)

Did I miss anything?

---

Not really, except that we don't know for sure that the italics are not *true* rather than being certain they are excuses.

For example, that an insider in the staff deliberately did this is far from ruled out imo. Which in turn would make all the reactions and denials more true than not---they wouldn't be lying.

* Note -- that is not a `shift of blame'. Read it again. Its a comment that says the mistake revealed also good. I am a glass half full person.

---

Waltz's Signal account added Goldberg to the group.


Wong's Signal account was also in the group.

Was Wong using Waltz's Signal account, instead of his own, to create the group?

---

I can easily see someone giving their phone to a staffer.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Not to speak for Titan but he's not suggesting that as THE reason but rather a possibility.

---

If you make an assertion like that you need to have a shred of evidence. That I'm aware of there is no evidence. So it's just trying to shift blame to some outside force trying to get us.

rootube said:

---

titan said:

---

rootube said:

---

I know this is a bi-partisan problem but people don't understand accountability these days. We love to blame millennials for this kind of crap but these are grown men and women trying their best to shift blame all over the place in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Blame the reporter
Blame some junior staffer
Claim there was nothing important in the text
Blame Biden for approving the use of Signal [Misunderstands the continuity argument]
Blame Hillary for whatever she did [Irrelevant]
Claim it was a brilliant insight into the workings of the administration * (see below)

Did I miss anything?

---

Not really, except that we don't know for sure that the italics are not *true* rather than being certain they are excuses.

For example, that an insider in the staff deliberately did this is far from ruled out imo. Which in turn would make all the reactions and denials more true than not---they wouldn't be lying.

* Note -- that is not a `shift of blame'. Read it again. Its a comment that says the mistake revealed also good. I am a glass half full person.

---

I will agree that if you can set aside the fact that this should never have happened what was said was fine. The only person I personally agreed with on those texts was JD Vance who questioned why we were even doing this in the first place.


As for your second claim, you are wrong. In order to assert that this was some kind of inside job (which is what I think you are suggesting) the burden of proof is on the person making those claims. Currently there is zero evidence of this. Suggesting there is a possibility with zero evidence is just just looking for cover. Even if there was something a leader is accountable for everyone under him including the most junior person.

---

Yes can agree it should never happened.

On the second, no, there is plenty of evidence, just not yet the kind to stand up in court. The leaks and abuses of power against the 45 admin by implanted staffers and press coordination alike was so present, you can make a probability argument. But that's only circumstance evidence, will agree.

Zero evidence is more fitting a scenario that would say that is improbable, and really doubt any honest would say can rule out a bad-faith action is partly behind all this. Not given what has come before.

Its not looking for cover -- its exploring likely candidates. A deliberate insertion of the tag would certainly explain everything we have seen you must admit. That doesn't mean it happened. But its in the running at least right up there with asinine error.

you've been here long enough to know that Titan considers and throws out possibilities during discussions of what happened and how. It is a way of not zeroing in on something and creating a blind spot. An approach needed by more people.

No Spin Ag said:

---

TheRealJacob said:

---

I say that regardless of political party, I don't hate Trump, I just don't think his cabinet is experienced enough.

---

People don't need experience to know to double check what they're doing.

Now, is this an earth shattering thing that happened? No.

Should it not have happened? Yes.

Will those involved in this mistake make extra sure that it never happens again? Yes.

And that's pretty much all that needs to be said about this matter.

---

This is a good answer. I am not convinced that any Top Secret info were released. Frankly, Secret would be the most. There are other clearances that would have been violated, but those deal with what we want other friendly nations to know. For example. A FVEY partner may receive intel or information, but not the Philippines. Even though both allies might be involved.

I have mention I use SIGNLE exclusively in my work. We do use it communicate individually, small teams and in large settings.

In this case, this reporter got invited….the reporter receive the invite…..knowing it was a big invite and should've followed up with a "are you sure you meant to invite me" ? Follow up. The reporter didn't because he knew there were exploitation potential……which is how you can judge that he only had nefarious intent.

This mistake is like when you send a email to a group of people and you click and choose the wrong "John Moore"
You, as the sender won't notice till something happens.

I say that the left talk about this for the next month. As long as the Houthis and Iran get smashed….none of this matters.

Has Goldberg released the name(s) of CIA undercover agents he claimed were part of the texts? He could easily do that with redactions.

I'd still like to see him take the phone to the full committees for validation. Hopefully my liberal friends agree. Until that time, this is still sus.

Quote:

---

In this case, this reporter got invited….the reporter receive the invite…..knowing it was a big invite and should've followed up with a "are you sure you meant to invite me" ? Follow up. The reporter didn't because he knew there were exploitation potential……which is how you can judge that he only had nefarious intent.

---

In fairness, not if he was just any reporter, rather than one with a record of spinning against like Goldberg. I can see a reporter or another not having nefarious intent, but just overwhelming "wow--interesting" curiosity and not being able to resist just listening for a while. Maybe never talk about it. After all, there is the other side--he might hear something evil and truly have an opening to act.

No Spin Ag said:

---

TheRealJacob said:

---

I say that regardless of political party, I don't hate Trump, I just don't think his cabinet is experienced enough.

---

People don't need experience to know to double check what they're doing.

Now, is this an earth shattering thing that happened? No.

Should it not have happened? Yes.

Will those involved in this mistake make extra sure that it never happens again? Yes.

And that's pretty much all that needs to be said about this matter.

---

Well said. That sums it up.

Dumb mistake, without any real consequence (other than looking dumb for making a minor mistake).

But it's being blown way way out of proportion, for obvious reasons.

titan said:

---

rootube said:

---

titan said:

---

rootube said:

---

I know this is a bi-partisan problem but people don't understand accountability these days. We love to blame millennials for this kind of crap but these are grown men and women trying their best to shift blame all over the place in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Blame the reporter
Blame some junior staffer
Claim there was nothing important in the text
Blame Biden for approving the use of Signal [Misunderstands the continuity argument]
Blame Hillary for whatever she did [Irrelevant]
Claim it was a brilliant insight into the workings of the administration * (see below)

Did I miss anything?

---

Not really, except that we don't know for sure that the italics are not *true* rather than being certain they are excuses.

For example, that an insider in the staff deliberately did this is far from ruled out imo. Which in turn would make all the reactions and denials more true than not---they wouldn't be lying.

* Note -- that is not a `shift of blame'. Read it again. Its a comment that says the mistake revealed also good. I am a glass half full person.

---

I will agree that if you can set aside the fact that this should never have happened what was said was fine. The only person I personally agreed with on those texts was JD Vance who questioned why we were even doing this in the first place.


As for your second claim, you are wrong. In order to assert that this was some kind of inside job (which is what I think you are suggesting) the burden of proof is on the person making those claims. Currently there is zero evidence of this. Suggesting there is a possibility with zero evidence is just just looking for cover. Even if there was something a leader is accountable for everyone under him including the most junior person.

---

Yes can agree it should never happened.

On the second, no, there is plenty of evidence, just not yet the kind to stand up in court. The leaks and abuses of power against the 45 admin by implanted staffers and press coordination alike was so present, you can make a probability argument. But that's only circumstance evidence, will agree.

Zero evidence is more fitting a scenario that would say that is improbable, and really doubt any honest would say can rule out a bad-faith action is partly behind all this. Not given what has come before.

Its not looking for cover -- its exploring likely candidates. A deliberate insertion of the tag would certainly explain everything we have seen you must admit. That doesn't mean it happened. But its in the running at least right up there with asinine error.

---

I completely disagree with you. You are making the kind of argument you would laugh at if this were the Biden admin making the same assertion. It's a convenient way to shift blame to the other side because that's how they operate not us. By the way, I'm sure the Biden admin would be in full spin mode just like this.

It's too bad there wasn't a signal leak during Biden's term (that we know of) because it would have been nice if someone could have let Biden/Austin know that their "plan" for the Afghanistan withdrawal was a complete cluster**** that would leave valuable military equipment in enemy's hands and get our servicemen killed.

That's what a complete failure of an admin looks like liberals. You can also take your whataboutism and shove it.

Squadron7 said:

---

I like Trump as much as anyone....but someone needs to get "sent home" for this.

---

Mea culpa here.

I should have gone with the 48 hour rule on this.

Agreed.

The 'whataboutism' is pretty ironic, given the absolute chaotic disaster of the Biden admin. It was one embarrassing folly after another. Didnt matter if it was something as simple as riding a bike, walking to his office, or something important like withdrawing or troops, or controlling runaway inflation...Everything was handled poorly, with real/tangible consequences that the American people rejected.

Maybe pick another admin to 'what about'. Biden is not a good benchmark.

Logos Stick said:

---

The worst that happened here is 1) somebody added a rad lefty journo to a conversation of high level gov officials, and 2) they used a non-approved app to discuss some classified info.

Hopefully they fire whoever added the journo and they learn from this and we can move on.

---

Bringing someone without security clearance and/or not read-in to the SAP into a classified SAP meeting AND discussing classified material on a non-secure/approved medium are serious offenses and are easily grounds for removal of security clearance. Even if it is a first time offense.

rootube said:

---

titan said:

---

rootube said:

---

titan said:

---

rootube said:

---

I know this is a bi-partisan problem but people don't understand accountability these days. We love to blame millennials for this kind of crap but these are grown men and women trying their best to shift blame all over the place in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Blame the reporter
Blame some junior staffer
Claim there was nothing important in the text
Blame Biden for approving the use of Signal [Misunderstands the continuity argument]
Blame Hillary for whatever she did [Irrelevant]
Claim it was a brilliant insight into the workings of the administration * (see below)

Did I miss anything?

---

Not really, except that we don't know for sure that the italics are not *true* rather than being certain they are excuses.

For example, that an insider in the staff deliberately did this is far from ruled out imo. Which in turn would make all the reactions and denials more true than not---they wouldn't be lying.

* Note -- that is not a `shift of blame'. Read it again. Its a comment that says the mistake revealed also good. I am a glass half full person.

---

I will agree that if you can set aside the fact that this should never have happened what was said was fine. The only person I personally agreed with on those texts was JD Vance who questioned why we were even doing this in the first place.


As for your second claim, you are wrong. In order to assert that this was some kind of inside job (which is what I think you are suggesting) the burden of proof is on the person making those claims. Currently there is zero evidence of this. Suggesting there is a possibility with zero evidence is just just looking for cover. Even if there was something a leader is accountable for everyone under him including the most junior person.

---

Yes can agree it should never happened.

On the second, no, there is plenty of evidence, just not yet the kind to stand up in court. The leaks and abuses of power against the 45 admin by implanted staffers and press coordination alike was so present, you can make a probability argument. But that's only circumstance evidence, will agree.

Zero evidence is more fitting a scenario that would say that is improbable, and really doubt any honest would say can rule out a bad-faith action is partly behind all this. Not given what has come before.

Its not looking for cover -- its exploring likely candidates. A deliberate insertion of the tag would certainly explain everything we have seen you must admit. That doesn't mean it happened. But its in the running at least right up there with asinine error.

---

I completely disagree with you. You are making the kind of argument you would laugh at if this were the Biden admin making the same assertion. It's a convenient way to shift blame to the other side because that's how they operate not us. By the way, I'm sure the Biden admin would be in full spin mode just like this.

---

No I would not. And have already said blaming the Biden admin for this is also dumb. Even if they had pre-existing setup they used, that doesn't mean it was idiotic. It still falls on Waltz if he didn't have it tested out and inspected. If you are into Dune, think of it as House Atreides taking over after the Harkonnens or vice-versa. They inspect what is passed on.

You are making the error of thinking that I assume that any bureaucracy is overtly competent. This just isn't shocking to me. Nor would it be from Biden, and W's. What was so shocking and alienating about Biden's is how willfully destructive it was, not its mistakes.

I think people need to understand that this is most likely a low level staffer that set this up. You would think this wouldn't go to that situation, but I think people would be very surprised to find even high-level government organizations are structured like companies.

Not an excuse, but definitely human error. At the very least this will shake things up and make sure nothing like this happens again hopefully. It's certainly embarrassing and they deserve all the criticism they're getting but it's getting to be beating a dead horse at this point. Can't change it, just have to move forward.

But I get that Trump haters and Democrats will keep harping on this. We would be doing it if it was the opposite party. I mean hell they're still whining about J6. It's all they have.

The signal app shows Waltz adding him. Could it be a staffer? Maybe but the simplest answer is often the truth. He made a mistake, oh well.

annie88 said:

---

I think people need to understand that this is most likely a low level staffer that set this up. You would think this wouldn't go to that situation, but I think people would be very surprised to find even high-level government organizations are structured like companies.

Not an excuse, but definitely human error. At the very least this will shake things up and make sure nothing like this happens again hopefully. It's certainly embarrassing and they deserve all the criticism they're getting but it's getting to be beating a dead horse at this point. Can't change it just have to move forward.

---

Whose decision was it to have a high-level discussion on potential war plans on a commercial communications platform? And please don't say Biden.

The scandal involving Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State went on for years.

titan said:

---

rootube said:

---

titan said:

---

rootube said:

---

titan said:

---

rootube said:

---

I know this is a bi-partisan problem but people don't understand accountability these days. We love to blame millennials for this kind of crap but these are grown men and women trying their best to shift blame all over the place in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Blame the reporter
Blame some junior staffer
Claim there was nothing important in the text
Blame Biden for approving the use of Signal [Misunderstands the continuity argument]
Blame Hillary for whatever she did [Irrelevant]
Claim it was a brilliant insight into the workings of the administration * (see below)

Did I miss anything?

---

Not really, except that we don't know for sure that the italics are not *true* rather than being certain they are excuses.

For example, that an insider in the staff deliberately did this is far from ruled out imo. Which in turn would make all the reactions and denials more true than not---they wouldn't be lying.

* Note -- that is not a `shift of blame'. Read it again. Its a comment that says the mistake revealed also good. I am a glass half full person.

---

I will agree that if you can set aside the fact that this should never have happened what was said was fine. The only person I personally agreed with on those texts was JD Vance who questioned why we were even doing this in the first place.


As for your second claim, you are wrong. In order to assert that this was some kind of inside job (which is what I think you are suggesting) the burden of proof is on the person making those claims. Currently there is zero evidence of this. Suggesting there is a possibility with zero evidence is just just looking for cover. Even if there was something a leader is accountable for everyone under him including the most junior person.

---

Yes can agree it should never happened.

On the second, no, there is plenty of evidence, just not yet the kind to stand up in court. The leaks and abuses of power against the 45 admin by implanted staffers and press coordination alike was so present, you can make a probability argument. But that's only circumstance evidence, will agree.

Zero evidence is more fitting a scenario that would say that is improbable, and really doubt any honest would say can rule out a bad-faith action is partly behind all this. Not given what has come before.

Its not looking for cover -- its exploring likely candidates. A deliberate insertion of the tag would certainly explain everything we have seen you must admit. That doesn't mean it happened. But its in the running at least right up there with asinine error.

---

I completely disagree with you. You are making the kind of argument you would laugh at if this were the Biden admin making the same assertion. It's a convenient way to shift blame to the other side because that's how they operate not us. By the way, I'm sure the Biden admin would be in full spin mode just like this.

---

No I would not. And have already said blaming the Biden admin for this is also dumb. Even if they had pre-existing setup they used, that doesn't mean it was idiotic. It still falls on Waltz if he didn't have it tested out and inspected. If you are into Dune, think of it as House Atreides taking over after the Harkonnens or vice-versa. They inspect what is passed on.

---

If this was an accident and not the CIA using Paragon/Graphite to spy this admin should know better, especially after all the spying/leaking during his first term. If it was the CIA using Graphite there are WAY more firings that need to happen in that house of snakes. Reminder:

Quote:

---

"In September, the Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) signed a two-million-dollar contract with Paragon, an Israeli firm whose spyware product Graphite focusses on breaching encrypted-messaging applications such as Telegram and Signal."

---

Stonegateag85 said:

---

The signal app shows Waltz adding him. Could it be a staffer? Maybe but the simplest answer is often the truth. He made a mistake, oh well.

---

Well, maybe Waltz did make mistake himself but a lot of times these are delegated to lower subordinates. That would be my guess. People that have never worked in communications or media don't understand really how many people deal with different parts of it. It is not unheard of for a large company or government organization to rely on executive assistants or assistants.

With my background in media and communications, I realize that there can be errors sometimes that never should've happened. I have seen some doozies in my lifetime. I have even been the cause of one once. Nothing on this level, but still embarrassing.

I think the average person thinks things don't work like this, but when it comes down to it, it is not necessarily complete competence, but simple human error that causes these things.

But of course, people that have no understanding of the situation will ridicule and think they know what they're talking about. You know just like on chair quarterbacks, think they know and could do better, when they can't and couldn't.

Logos Stick said:

---

Has Goldberg released the name(s) of CIA undercover agents he claimed were part of the texts? He could easily do that with redactions.

I'd still like to see him take the phone to the full committees for validation. Hopefully my liberal friends agree. Until that time, this is still sus.

---

My understanding is that he did not release the name of the intelligence person because the admin asked him not to. He did release a second round of info after fist pounding that nothing was in the conversation was a security breach. An argument which is kind of undercut by the request not to release the name of the intelligence person.

annie88 said:

---

Stonegateag85 said:

---

The signal app shows Waltz adding him. Could it be a staffer? Maybe but the simplest answer is often the truth. He made a mistake, oh well.

---

Well, maybe Waltz did make mistake himself but a lot of times these are delegated to lower subordinates. That would be my guess. People that have never worked in communications or media don't understand really how many people deal with different parts of it. It is not unheard of for a large company or government organization to rely on executive assistants or assistants.

With my background in media and communications, I realize that there can be errors sometimes that never should've happened. I have seen some doozies in my lifetime. I have even been the cause of one once. Nothing on this level, but still embarrassing.

I think the average person thinks things don't work like this, but when it comes down to it, it is not necessarily complete competence, but simple human error that causes these things.

But of course, people that have no understanding of the situation will ridicule and think they know what they're talking about. You know just like on chair quarterbacks, think they know and could do better, when they can't and couldn't.

---

What is your background in national security as it relates to communications?

rgvag11 said:

---

The scandal involving Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State went on for years.

---

What happened with Clinton's server was far beyond a single chat event on Signal.

The amount of information on it, and how long it was accessible to anyone is comparing a teaspoon of sand to a dump truck full; and Clinton's sever was the dump truck.

This is not going to be the end all victory you people think it is going to be.

After all the "adults are back in the room" talk, the child-like excuse-making and finger-pointing is pretty disappointing. A simple acknowledgment that an error was made and moving on would have buried this already. Instead, we'll get at least a week of hemming-and-hawing and finer and finer nitpicking about how this wasn't a big deal that will make this administration look bad. It won't matter to MAGA, but it will to others.

rootube said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Has Goldberg released the name(s) of CIA undercover agents he claimed were part of the texts? He could easily do that with redactions.

I'd still like to see him take the phone to the full committees for validation. Hopefully my liberal friends agree. Until that time, this is still sus.

---

My understanding is that he did not release the name of the intelligence person because the admin asked him not to. He did release a second round of info after fist pounding that nothing was in the conversation was a security breach. An argument which is kind of undercut by the request not to release the name of the intelligence person.

---

I'm not advocating to release the names. I'm asking for the text thread that shows Ratcliffe naming them, with the actual names blacked out. That could easily be done.

Then take the phone to the House and Senate Intelligence committees for validation. That's where we are in the process. Until they happens, we are at a standstill.

Quote:

---

What is your background in national security as it related to communications?

---

I'm not involved in national security or anything close, but I've had contracts that require NIST 800-171 compliance.

Given what we know, and assuming no classified info was actually discussed/revealed...this is such a nothing burger being blown out of proportion. If this happened with a contractor, or other official, a corrective action response would have been required. That would consist of 'This happened, we'll do this to make sure it doesnt happen again.'

It's a dumb mistake, that didn't have any consequence. Truthfully it didn't need to be publicized, for any type of correction to occur. There's an obvious agenda there. If you didnt think so before, you sure do after the journalists comments after the hearings.

Recognize...whether you love him or hate him, Trump has racked up some Ws recently. There are people desperate to distract from those. That's really all this is.

zephyr88 said:

---

Being lectured by the party who ran a shadow government for the past 4 years seems quite rich to me.

---

This is a big deal on Bluesky…lol

Both cases involve classified information improperly stored or transmitted on a personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.

This current case involves many more people in the Executive cabinet than the former.

I believe the mission updates were not officially classified

That's an important detail