Faux News is worse than I thought.
-
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
According to Gabbard, nothing classified was discussed.
They are going to have to torture their definitions.
this case from a legal perspective won’t have anything to do with the journalist being in the chat. It will only have to do with what was discussed in the chat. But I’m not even sure if illegality is more than a twinkle in the left’s eye right now.
wrote 6 days ago last edited by@Horace said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
According to Gabbard, nothing classified was discussed.
They are going to have to torture their definitions.
Does anyone miss the good old days when it was easy to see what's "classified"?
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
You could always put them in the garage.
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
@Jolly If you were president, what do you think the appropriate response/punishment would be to this?
-
@Jolly If you were president, what do you think the appropriate response/punishment would be to this?
wrote 5 days ago last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@Jolly If you were president, what do you think the appropriate response/punishment would be to this?
Basically what Trump said. We screwed up. I have confidence in my people (while letting the offender know that he's on a very short rope). I'd also have a very serious discussion with my Cabinet about OpSec.
It's not the end of the world and the sky is not falling. It is an issue for the Dems to make political hay, something they and their allies in the press need badly, so they will exploit this as much as they can.
In the long run (14 days), what does it really mean for the American people? If I were the Dems, I'd be having the serious fights around service cuts and tariffs, instead of playing "gotcha". Because if they can't define who they now are and what they will do for America, focusing instead on these types of political issues, they might do something unusual...Lose seats in the midterms.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@Jolly If you were president, what do you think the appropriate response/punishment would be to this?
Basically what Trump said. We screwed up. I have confidence in my people (while letting the offender know that he's on a very short rope). I'd also have a very serious discussion with my Cabinet about OpSec.
It's not the end of the world and the sky is not falling. It is an issue for the Dems to make political hay, something they and their allies in the press need badly, so they will exploit this as much as they can.
In the long run (14 days), what does it really mean for the American people? If I were the Dems, I'd be having the serious fights around service cuts and tariffs, instead of playing "gotcha". Because if they can't define who they now are and what they will do for America, focusing instead on these types of political issues, they might do something unusual...Lose seats in the midterms.
wrote 5 days ago last edited by jon-nyc@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
In the long run (14 days), what does it really mean for the American people?
It’s a good question and the answer depends on what the administration’s takeaways are.
I find it notable that, of the dozen or so people on the chat, not one said ‘should we be doing this on Signal?’ That, plus Trump’s comments being only about Walz, suggests the use of signal for NatSec discussions and operations is endemic and will continue.
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by jon-nyc
-
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
In the long run (14 days), what does it really mean for the American people?
It’s a good question and the answer depends on what the administration’s takeaways are.
I find it notable that, of the dozen or so people on the chat, not one said ‘should we be doing this on Signal?’ That, plus Trump’s comments being only about Walz, suggests the use of signal for NatSec discussions and operations is endemic and will continue.
wrote 5 days ago last edited by@jon-nyc said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
I find it notable that, of the dozen or so people on the chat, not one said ‘should we be doing this on Signal?’ That, plus Trump’s comments being only about Walz, suggests the use of signal for NatSec discussions and operations is endemic and will continue.
I'd imagine each defense and intel agency is sending very clear guidance to their employees about if they can use Signal and, if so, what it can be used for. I'd also imagine WhiskeyLeaks & Gang will be very gun shy in the future about using it, so maybe this is (barf) a good "lessons learned" event.
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
I don't expect this to happen again.
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
Haha bold prediction. They'll be careful not to add a random journalist to their classified chat I'm sure.
-
Haha bold prediction. They'll be careful not to add a random journalist to their classified chat I'm sure.
wrote 5 days ago last edited by@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
Haha bold prediction. They'll be careful not to add a random journalist to their classified chat I'm sure.
I mean, depending on how retarded you think the administration is, it's a bold prediction.
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by Jolly
Boys and girls, contrary to popular belief around here, no official of either party constantly scours X feeds for security minutiae. The Ap was on their government issued phones. The Ap is on the CIA computers.
Pardon me for thinking if that is the case, then the Administration might just assume it is a valid communication tool.
My only concern with this matter is how did Goldshit get on the chat? Was it a mistake? Or was it deliberate?
And knowing that Goldshit has written outright lies about Trump in the past, who would even have the guy in their contacts?
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
There was no harm done, and it won't happen again. The level of carelessness involved is impossible to defend, and it's put Gabbard and others in a position where they have to spend some of their credibility weaseling around the questions. But this will blow over in any case, mostly because 1. it was an accident that won't happen again, and 2. no harm was done.
-
Boys and girls, contrary to popular belief around here, no official of either party constantly scours X feeds for security minutiae. The Ap was on their government issued phones. The Ap is on the CIA computers.
Pardon me for thinking if that is the case, then the Administration might just assume it is a valid communication tool.
My only concern with this matter is how did Goldshit get on the chat? Was it a mistake? Or was it deliberate?
And knowing that Goldshit has written outright lies about Trump in the past, who would even have the guy in their contacts?
wrote 5 days ago last edited by@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
And knowing that Goldshit has written outright lies about Trump in the past, who would even have the guy in their contacts?
We all know how Trump feels about lies! Zero tolerance for dishonesty.
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
I think the main lesson we've all learned from this is what a dreadful person Goldberg is.
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
Bottom-feeder loser, I've been told by our leader.
-
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
And knowing that Goldshit has written outright lies about Trump in the past, who would even have the guy in their contacts?
We all know how Trump feels about lies! Zero tolerance for dishonesty.
wrote 5 days ago last edited by@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
And knowing that Goldshit has written outright lies about Trump in the past, who would even have the guy in their contacts?
We all know how Trump feels about lies! Zero tolerance for dishonesty.
Answer the question young man and follow it to the logical conclusion.
-
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
And knowing that Goldshit has written outright lies about Trump in the past, who would even have the guy in their contacts?
We all know how Trump feels about lies! Zero tolerance for dishonesty.
Answer the question young man and follow it to the logical conclusion.
wrote 5 days ago last edited by Doctor Phibes@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
Answer the question young man and follow it to the logical conclusion.
One of Trump's guys is lying is one possible conclusion.
Obviously, that couldn't happen. You couldn't find a more truthful, honest and decent group of patriots if you advertised for them in Patriot Monthly, The Magazine for Patriots.
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
Any theory that this was intentional will be easily proven or disproven. I am guessing it will be disproven, to very little fanfare.
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
@Jolly What question? Waltz literally added Goldberg to the chat. There is no way around it. No hacking, no typo phone numbers. The way the app works is you have to deliberately select which people to bring in, mostly using the display name (JG, in this case). Some are saying Waltz probably meant to add JG (Jamieson Greer, the US Trade representative).
-
Any theory that this was intentional will be easily proven or disproven. I am guessing it will be disproven, to very little fanfare.
wrote 5 days ago last edited by Doctor Phibes@Horace said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
Any theory that this was intentional will be easily proven or disproven. I am guessing it will be disproven, to very little fanfare.
What actually happened is that Mike Walz was added to the chat by accident. Mr. Goldberg had tried to have a chat with Mike Hunt, and for some reason auto-correct took over.
From there, it was just a further series of unfortunate events ending in the conclusion we now see before us.