Faux News is worse than I thought.
-
wrote 8 days ago last edited by jon-nyc
I think anyone not in a cult can agree that the top NatSec guys using a non-classified forum to discuss future war plans and accidentally putting a journalist on the chat is, well, the story here?
These seem to capture it succinctly:
On FauxNews it’s the second story BUT they omit the actual story. According to them, “the story” is Hegseth calling them deceitful. I clicked the link thinking maybe in paragraph 8 is the lede but THERE IS NO PARAGRAPH 8. All it is is the video of DUI hire Hegseth lying through his filthy mouth.
-
wrote 7 days ago last edited by
Every bad news story is a hoax, and every judicial action taken is lawfare.
-
wrote 7 days ago last edited by
Yep, WaPo and The NYT are the sole purveyors of truth.
Anybody seen Hunter's laptop?...
-
wrote 7 days ago last edited by
Standard issue bias, the likes of which have been written about here a thousand times in the past, accepted and shrugged off. Now it’s a cult. Yawn. Unsurprisingly, that story is not currently on fox news dot com. Now they’re almost completely ignoring it but for one story about how Goldberg got on the chat. By the time anybody reads this, who knows what’ll be there.
-
wrote 7 days ago last edited by
Well, right now a headline is Patel claiming a CNN story (about plans to fire up to 1/3 of ATF agents and move up to 1,000 to FBI) is "entirely false". Let's revisit this post in a few weeks or months to see if any ATF agents are fired or moved, which would mean Patel is lying.
-
wrote 7 days ago last edited by
- Trump said we screwed up.
- Mike Waltz ain't going nowhere.
- Signal is on government issued phones as an approved ap.
- The investigation continues, but it looks like it was a Waltz staffer who added the reporter (a reporter who has been known to tell lies about Trump).
- Pretty much what was said on the call dovetail with previous public policy positions.
-
wrote 7 days ago last edited by
On 3 - do we know if it’s approved for sharing classified materials?
On 5 - do we know there was nothing classified in the text thread.
-
wrote 7 days ago last edited by
According to Gabbard, nothing classified was discussed.
-
wrote 7 days ago last edited by
@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 7 days ago last edited by
@Jolly said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
According to Gabbard, nothing classified was discussed.
That's really their own defense, so they are forced to say it.
Again, my guess is they're probably holding onto hope that the content "literally" didn't have a classification banner and therefore it wasn't classified, even if it was copied and pasted or paraphrased from a classified document (most likely what happened), which btw doesn't make the content not classified, that's actually a breach in and of itself of derivative classification regulations. This is all stuff that would immediately get any defense or intel worker fired on the spot and subject to potential jail time. It's literally what they teach you on day one after you get a clearance.
As far as I can tell, it would be Hegseth in the hot seat for sharing the actual war plans, all the other chatter seemed to be mostly logistical (POCs... commentary...) but he's the one who sent out the (obviously) classified content.
Anyway, the hypocrisy is real. Just imagine, as I always say, if the situation as reversed. I guess we don't have to imagine, there are the compilation clips of what Rubio, Hegseth, Trump, Vance, and everyone else said about Clinton's handling of classified content.
-
@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 7 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 6 days ago last edited by
You could always put them in the garage.
-
wrote 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 days ago last edited by
I don't expect this to happen again.
-
wrote 6 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 6 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.