Fwiw, I Listened to a brief segment of the hearing. It was stated that using signal app has been standard procedure for years. Not sure if that’s accurate or what info is acceptable to share.
So what do we all think of Hegseth and senior cabinet member using Signal app
- Thread starter TivoliDawg
- Start date
Fwiw, I Listened to a brief segment of the hearing. It was stated that using signal app has been standard procedure for years. Not sure if that’s accurate or what info is acceptable to share.
1. White House counsel approved the use of Signal for non-classified discussions.
2. The phones the principals used had Signal pre-loaded when issued to them.
3. The Biden Administration used Signal in the exact same way.
4. The conversations Goldberg shared in his Atlantic piece were not classified.
5. Those same conversations discussed how to share classified information separately on classified IT system.
6. Literally the only proof we have that any classified discussions occurred is Goldberg's assertion that the parts of the conversation he withheld from the article were "conceivably" classified.
7. Goldberg is a highly unreliable narrator who has created or participated in multiple wildly inaccurate anti-Trump hoaxes.
I don’t disagree. Except one thing. A normal administration would start an investigation into this. What or who is a definition of a normal administration anymore? Tiv. They couldn’t find out where the freaking cocaine came from that was found in the White House. Too bad that administration isn’t on the case. 🤦♂️
Trump administration is reviewing how it sent military plans to The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in his first public remarks about the The Atlantic's reporting, said, "Nobody was texting war plans."
www.nbcnews.com
They did investigate it. Sounds like they just confirmed that they leaked it to the journalist. But. It sounds like this isn’t a new thing. Just saw lava post that above. Which is kind of what I thought.
Lava - I don't think you want to take this one on. It's a massive black eye for the administration and any effort to whitewash it makes you look like a partisan of the worst kind.
how does he not know this? This is a lesson for ALL - own up to your mistakes. They are taking this down an unnecessary path of destruction. The cover up lies are ridiculous.
Think he’s just reporting testimony from today’s hearing. I caught some of this in passing.
I’ll have my AI argue with your AI.
1. White House Counsel’s Approval Does Not Equal Proper Use
Even if the White House counsel approved the use of Signal for non-classified discussions, that does not mean it was used appropriately in practice. Government officials are expected to adhere to strict protocols, and misuse of such platforms—whether intentional or accidental—can still be a serious breach.
2. Pre-Loaded Signal Does Not Justify Its Use
The fact that phones were issued with Signal pre-loaded does not necessarily mean that officials used it properly or that sensitive conversations were handled appropriately. It is common for officials to have access to various communication tools, but their use must align with security policies.
3. Biden Administration’s Use of Signal Is Not a Valid Defense
Even if the Biden administration used Signal in a similar way, that does not automatically exonerate Trump administration officials. The key question is whether Signal was used to discuss classified or highly sensitive information improperly. “They did it too” is not a defense in matters of national security.
4. Non-Classified Conversations Can Still Be Highly Sensitive
The fact that the conversations Goldberg shared were not classified does not mean they were appropriate. Sensitive but unclassified (SBU) discussions still require careful handling, and conversations about how to transfer classified information could themselves be problematic.
5. Discussion of Classified Info Handling Raises Red Flags
If officials were discussing how to transfer classified information via separate systems, that raises the question of whether they were improperly handling it before. The concern is not just about whether classified material was explicitly shared on Signal, but whether it was part of a broader pattern of careless or improper handling.
6. Goldberg’s Assertion Should Not Be Dismissed Outright
Dismissing Goldberg’s claim based solely on his past reporting history is an ad hominem argument. While skepticism is reasonable, his assertion that some parts of the conversation were “conceivably” classified should be weighed alongside other available evidence, not dismissed out of hand.
7. Attacking the Messenger Doesn’t Address the Core Issue
Calling Goldberg an “unreliable narrator” because of previous controversies does not refute the substance of his reporting. The credibility of his sources, the context of the conversations, and whether any additional corroborating evidence emerges are more relevant factors in assessing the legitimacy of the claims.
Goldberg being on there was a huge mistake. But, there is a lot of incorrect things being discussed in the media and in this thread. I'm not whitewashing anything, simply providing data that contradicts the narrative. Give it 48 hours (as always) and the Goldberg part of this story will remain the only mistake. If we find out how and why he was added...and that might disappear, too.
Bottom line: If White House counsel (both Biden and Trump's) approved the use of this program on official government devices and no actual classified data was shared, Goldberg remains the mistake.
There's a whole lot of "ifs" there. Like I said, wait and see.
We can settle one important point today if Gabbard and the intelligence community want to stand behind the assertion that there was no classified information included in the thread.
Give Goldberg permission to release the entire thread. Then we can determine for ourselves who is lying.
You are taking the testimony from Gabbard and Ratliff at face value, which I am not at all inclined to do.
Gabbard says there was no classified information, which isn’t even believable based on what we already know. But they can either release the rest of the exchange or give Goldberg permission to do so.
Goldberg has straight up claimed that Hegseth and Gabbard are lying. Let’s get the cards on the table and find out.
I agree, release it. I find it hard to believe that they would testify to 'no classified', knowing he has the full text.
I was more worried that these guys went outside of normal protocol. Using an app or something that hasn’t been vetted. Which they did not. They made a stupid mistake. Compounded it by not knowing one person in the group was in Russia. Need to own that part and move forward. The sad part is this just distracts from what needs to be done.
No, but his history of fabrication would make him a candidate
Government phones like those guys would use have extra encryption (via vpns and other things). In a past life I had experience with one. But, as magnolia links, Signal is vulnerable. But, that just means don't talk classified stuff. That doesn't mean you can't discuss sensitive things. Proof of their non-classified talk (to m e) is that they literally discussed using another method to actually discuss things at a higher classification.
Attacking the messenger, just as Hegseth did. He did this despite the fact that the existence of the thread itself had already been confirmed by an official source, which made Hegseth look like a hothead and an idiot.No, but his history of fabrication would make him a candidate
The guy isn’t qualified, he’s never been qualified, he shouldn’t be within one thousand miles of that job, and he has completely confirmed that with this episode and how he has responded to it.
The point being, outside of him being on the chat (which deserves an answer), the "worst" part of this, we have to rely on his word. Those who said he is wrong, did so under oath. He has not.
He has a history of being unreliable with things he said happened. Thus, I'm with you: let us see it all. How many times does he have to show you can't trust him, before it's not 'attacking the messenger', but instead calling a spade a spade?
I fully expect you to retract some of your Hegseth commentary if/when proven he was correct.
I need to get this straight. Both sides are arguing about who to trust. While stating that past indiscretions are an indicator for one guy but not the other. Ok. Got it.
You can claim that Goldberg reported things in the past as possible that were not subsequently proven, but that’s quite different from making claims regarding what he personally viewed and has proof of.
Given the monumental screwup that resulted in Goldberg being invited into the thread and the information he was exposed to, I’d say he has conducted himself quite admirably on this matter so far. Let’s settle the issue and release the entire thread. If Gabbard and the intelligence community resist that, that’s an answer in and of itself.
And I won’t be changing my position that Hegseth is extremely unqualified. By any measure and regardless of how this plays out, he is.
You would think that stuff from Goldberg like this:
1. New Yorker article linked Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda, including a meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, but the 9/11 Commission and a 2008 Pentagon report found no evidence
2. An Atlantic piece claimed President Trump called fallen soldiers “losers” and “suckers” during a 2018 France trip, citing anonymous sources. Over 20 people, including John Bolton, denied it. Goldberg admitted on CNN the cemetery visit cancellation was likely due to weather and that Trump’s hair concern might be wrong
3. Atlantic article said Trump angrily refused to pay $2,500 for Army Private Vanessa Guillén’s funeral after being murdered, quoting him saying, “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a f---ing Mexican!”. Her sister refuted this, calling it “impossible” since Trump called her personally to offer help and never complained about costs.
4. His book Prisoners and other writings about serving as a guard at an Israeli prison during the First Intifada have been questioned for accuracy
...would make for ample reason to at least question the accuracy of the messenger.
Is it? Benefit of the doubt: Maybe he just has no clue what classified information looks like. And actually, no. As I listed above, he's been accused of flat-out fabrication.
He said nothing to anybody during the Chat and apparently didn't reach out to anybody before publishing (glad to be corrected on that). I'm not sure if that falls under "quite admirably". And I agree that it should be released. But, there is actually nothing stopping him from releasing it if he wants to. Nothing. You know what he and his publication do get by him waiting? More attention for the failing publication.
The longer he keeps this in the news, the better for him.
Not all reporters get everything right every time.
1) He got that one wrong. It happens.
2) John Kelly has confirmed publically Trump said those word to him. If you trust Trump over Kelly, I can dispense with any future debates with you.
3) the facts of this story remain in dispute, although it seems Trump never paid for the service as promised.
Did Trump snub soldier's funeral bill? What we know
The former president promised to help pay for Vanessa Guillén's funeral. The Atlantic reported he told his chief of staff not to pay when he heard the cost.
www.newsweek.com
4) non-specific and irrelevant. It’s a book about a controversial topic. That fact that there are some critics of what has generally been praised as a good book means nothing.
“Failing publication”. You discredit yourself when you spout Trump anti-press nonsense.
The Atlantic is currently profitable. Perhaps more importantly, it’s owned by Laurene Powell Jobs, who is worth around $24b. The Atlantic isn’t going anywhere.
I hope we get some items cleared up. I listened to a conservative talk show host on the radio. He says many things that I disagree with as expected. But he tries to be straight unlike other talk shows. He said that Signal is not supposed to be used on the government phones. He said they were using personal phones which makes it worse with one person in Russia at that time. Just what I heard.
One other thing. Since messages aren't saved on Signal it seems it's not appropriate if conversations are supposed to be saved. Installation on computers seems to be irrelevant in this incident.
One other thing. Since messages aren't saved on Signal it seems it's not appropriate if conversations are supposed to be saved. Installation on computers seems to be irrelevant in this incident.
That was tongue-in-cheek, for precisely what you said. Should have used the sarcasm font
I'm remember reading in the article that he did reach out after he left the chat. He emailed questions and got responses from at least 2 departments.
No classified information was released on the phones per our national security adviser. All a bunch of disinformation by idiots trying to hurt Trump.
There is no way that you know that, but your statement comes as no surprise. The only disinformation we've had so far is from the administration including Trump.
Not all reporters get everything right every time.
1) He got that one wrong. It happens.
2) John Kelly has confirmed publically Trump said those word to him. If you trust Trump over Kelly, I can dispense with any future debates with you.
3) the facts of this story remain in dispute, although it seems Trump never paid for the service as promised.
Did Trump snub soldier's funeral bill? What we know
The former president promised to help pay for Vanessa Guillén's funeral. The Atlantic reported he told his chief of staff not to pay when he heard the cost.www.newsweek.com
4) non-specific and irrelevant. It’s a book about a controversial topic. That fact that there are some critics of what has generally been praised as a good book means nothing.
Sister of slain army private and others speak out after alleged 2020 Trump remark
Atlantic report claims Trump disputed funeral costs he offered to pay for Vanessa Guillén, a murdered US soldier
www.theguardian.com
You might want to read this one with quotes. From the sister and the family’s attorney. Basically calling Goldberg one of the worst journalist they have ever dealt with. The first one in her career she ever had to call out publicly.
We have already gone down the line with John Kelly. He is the same guy who clobbered the media for how they treated Trump. Had never seen so many lies told about one person. Then gets fired for being a complete moron, and now Trump is a fascist dictator and Kelly heard him say this. All while 20 other people there didn’t. Come on will. This is a ridiculous defense. This is why no one wants to believe the left and what they put out there. Ever. Especially about Trump. TDS literally dripping from this.
The sister said she voted for Trump and will continue to vote for Trump. Your guy claimed he said there is no way a funeral for a Mexican costs that much. Who he used as a source also came out and said the statement could be more ridiculous and untrue.
The more I read about this guy. Holy shit he is terrible at his job. And he certainly has an axe to grind with Trump. Heads should roll. They included the worst journalist maybe ever to do it. Good god
Last edited:
Back to the topic of the thread, this is potentially embarrassing timing.Sister of slain army private and others speak out after alleged 2020 Trump remark
Atlantic report claims Trump disputed funeral costs he offered to pay for Vanessa Guillén, a murdered US soldierwww.theguardian.com
You might want to read this one with quotes. From the sister and the family’s attorney. Basically calling Goldberg one of the worst journalist they have ever dealt with. The first one in her career she ever had to call out publicly.
We have already gone down the line with John Kelly. He is the same guy who clobbered the media for how they treated Trump. Had never seen so many lies told about one person. Then gets fired for being a complete moron, and now Trump is a fascist dictator and Kelly heard him say this. All while 20 other people there didn’t. Come on will. This is a ridiculous defense. This is why no one wants to believe the left and what they put out there. Ever. Especially about Trump. TDS literally dripping from this.
The sister said she voted for Trump and will continue to vote for Trump. Your guy claimed he said there is no way a funeral for a Mexican costs that much. Who he used as a source also came out and said the statement could be more ridiculous and untrue.
The more I read about this guy. Holy shit he is terrible at his job. And he certainly has an axe to grind with Trump. Heads should roll. They included the worst journalist maybe ever to do it. Good god
As top Trump aides sent texts on Signal, flight data show a member of the group chat was in Russia
As top Trump cabinet members sent texts in a Signal group chat, CBS News analysis shows one of them, Steve Witkoff, was in Russia.
www.cbsnews.com
Forgot about this one. Right before the electionSister of slain army private and others speak out after alleged 2020 Trump remark
Atlantic report claims Trump disputed funeral costs he offered to pay for Vanessa Guillén, a murdered US soldierwww.theguardian.com
You might want to read this one with quotes. From the sister and the family’s attorney. Basically calling Goldberg one of the worst journalist they have ever dealt with. The first one in her career she ever had to call out publicly.
We have already gone down the line with John Kelly. He is the same guy who clobbered the media for how they treated Trump. Had never seen so many lies told about one person. Then gets fired for being a complete moron, and now Trump is a fascist dictator and Kelly heard him say this. All while 20 other people there didn’t. Come on will. This is a ridiculous defense. This is why no one wants to believe the left and what they put out there. Ever. Especially about Trump. TDS literally dripping from this.
The sister said she voted for Trump and will continue to vote for Trump. Your guy claimed he said there is no way a funeral for a Mexican costs that much. Who he used as a source also came out and said the statement could be more ridiculous and untrue.
The more I read about this guy. Holy shit he is terrible at his job. And he certainly has an axe to grind with Trump. Heads should roll. They included the worst journalist maybe ever to do it. Good god
He got Kelly to confirm that one too. I didn’t even know about this guy before all of this happened. He doesn’t seem real.
Did you read what that said? Identifying a vulnerability and linking steps how to avoid it, while also not listing anything from this incident as prohibited is not some smoking gun.Back to the topic of the thread, this is potentially embarrassing timing.
As top Trump aides sent texts on Signal, flight data show a member of the group chat was in Russia
As top Trump cabinet members sent texts in a Signal group chat, CBS News analysis shows one of them, Steve Witkoff, was in Russia.www.cbsnews.com
...and it provides further proof that Signal is approved for use.
...and Russian hackers generally do their work outside of Russian borders.
I've read several discussions about the lengths that US officials go to when on trips abroad.
Again, Goldberg should have never been on the Chat. I've read theories that are conjectureeith no evidence, so I won't list them. I've read another where another lower ranking official with with JG initials could have been why somebody added Goldberg.
But, this does not appear to be what the hysterical accusations initially made it out to be.
World class deflection. Goldberg was added to a thread involving our entire national security leadership regarding a topic that should have never been discussed on Signal and somehow it's his fault and discredits what has already been acknowledged by the administration.
He is making very specific claims based on his firsthand knowledge of the Signal thread. No one is questioning whether he was on the thread or not.
Gabbard can release the full thread today and put it all to rest, which Goldberg is well aware. What does he have to gain from lying when he claims he has the receipts?
That's a strawman argument. Which specific claims are you suggesting are false or overblown?
Deflection? It was another example of his shoddy reporting. I've already said that adding him to the chat is a clear big mistake.
I tried to float above a benefit of the doubt that maybe he just doesn't know actual classified information when he sees it...and calling it "war plans" demonstrates that. Again, if everybody who literally swore under oath that the information isn't classified knows that he has all the info...that seems a pretty good indicator that it isn't, because if/when it is released, it should be obvious.
