Faux News is worse than I thought.
-
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.
@Horace said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
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.
Good summary.
Hypocrisy was shown too, but we've seen that already with how Trump now uses FBI for lawfare now that he's on the other side of the ball.
-
@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).
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@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).
Did I say hacking?
Read very carefully what I wrote.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
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?
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
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.
Nope. I have some good friends (shocker) that work there. To keep the details simple, there's a network where classified communication happens, and a network where unclassified communication happens. The reference to Ratcliffe's POC is classified as are the military attack details. I believe Signal is only allowed to be used for U//FOUO messages (unclassified, for official use only).
-
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@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).
Did I say hacking?
Read very carefully what I wrote.
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@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).
Did I say hacking?
Read very carefully what I wrote.
You asked:
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?
How? Waltz added him.
Mistake? Yes.
Deliberate? No.
Why was his info in Waltz's phone? No idea. Waltz seems somewhat slimy and inept, but I'm guessing the JG contact was in his phone as a suggest contact and when he went to form the Signal group he clicked on JG not realizing it wasn't the trade ambassador.
-
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@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).
Did I say hacking?
Read very carefully what I wrote.
You asked:
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?
How? Waltz added him.
Mistake? Yes.
Deliberate? No.
Why was his info in Waltz's phone? No idea. Waltz seems somewhat slimy and inept, but I'm guessing the JG contact was in his phone as a suggest contact and when he went to form the Signal group he clicked on JG not realizing it wasn't the trade ambassador.
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@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).
Did I say hacking?
Read very carefully what I wrote.
You asked:
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?
How? Waltz added him.
Mistake? Yes.
Deliberate? No.
Why was his info in Waltz's phone? No idea. Waltz seems somewhat slimy and inept, but I'm guessing the JG contact was in his phone as a suggest contact and when he went to form the Signal group he clicked on JG not realizing it wasn't the trade ambassador.
Keep following the bread crumbs...Why would Waltz have Greenshit's contact info on Signal?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
I often wondered how Doctor Watson used to feel watching the great intelligence at work.
-
I often wondered how Doctor Watson used to feel watching the great intelligence at work.
-
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@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).
Did I say hacking?
Read very carefully what I wrote.
You asked:
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?
How? Waltz added him.
Mistake? Yes.
Deliberate? No.
Why was his info in Waltz's phone? No idea. Waltz seems somewhat slimy and inept, but I'm guessing the JG contact was in his phone as a suggest contact and when he went to form the Signal group he clicked on JG not realizing it wasn't the trade ambassador.
Keep following the bread crumbs...Why would Waltz have Greenshit's contact info on Signal?
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@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).
Did I say hacking?
Read very carefully what I wrote.
You asked:
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?
How? Waltz added him.
Mistake? Yes.
Deliberate? No.
Why was his info in Waltz's phone? No idea. Waltz seems somewhat slimy and inept, but I'm guessing the JG contact was in his phone as a suggest contact and when he went to form the Signal group he clicked on JG not realizing it wasn't the trade ambassador.
Keep following the bread crumbs...Why would Waltz have Greenshit's contact info on Signal?
Most likely a "suggested contact" since that is how the Signal app works. I have friends in the government who said the "accidental add" happens very often. Probably one reason classified content is not allowed.
-
@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.
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@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.
Several million people with security clearances will have to undergo extra boring-and-pointless security training sessions triggered by the moronic mistakes of the Fools at the Top.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
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.
@Horace said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
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.
-
Not an accident. The choice to use Signal to talk military plans was deliberate.
-
Hillary's email server also did no harm.
-
-
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@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.
Several million people with security clearances will have to undergo extra boring-and-pointless security training sessions triggered by the moronic mistakes of the Fools at the Top.
-
@Horace said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
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.
-
Not an accident. The choice to use Signal to talk military plans was deliberate.
-
Hillary's email server also did no harm.
@Axtremus said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@Horace said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
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.
- Not an accident. The choice to use Signal to talk military plans was deliberate.
Obviously for all practical purposes this is a non-issue except for the accidental part I was referring to.
From even a legally pedantic perspective, it may have been a non-issue, but for that accidental part.
-
