So what do we all think of Hegseth and senior cabinet member using Signal app

[willdup]

I am sure you guys want to keep it open as long as you can. I think the horse has been beaten to death. You got a chance to grill tulsi. Insult hegseth publicly and you may get your pound of flesh with waltz. Even Benghazi and the Afghanistan pullout didn’t stay in the public eye very long. And those were miles worse. By Monday next week everyone will have moved on.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think this is going away any time soon.

Mike Waltz Left His Venmo Friends List Public

A WIRED review shows national security adviser Mike Waltz, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, and other top officials left sensitive information exposed via Venmo—until WIRED asked about it.

www.wired.com

 

[zingerdawg]

Not only the right to be emotional about this, but the experience of communicating while involved in combat, etc. so I think she knows something about that. She's also on the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs.

Yes. Here is the rub Celtic. She was part of some of the Afghan withdrawal planning. She didn’t disparage the gold star families. She acknowledged their sacrifice. But she certainly wasn’t so angry. I wonder why. And why not when you are part of something that caused loss of life. This was a mistake in an app. I went back to look thru her responses to the Afghan withdrawal. It is noted when it came to her own party screwup her wording and handling of things was much less emotional. That is my point. You would think she would have some empathy after what happened to her own planning gone awry

 

[Georgia Jim]

I had to google. Not a good look or statement from her at all.

It's been in Media ALL week...unless you swear by CNN,MSNBC,NPR,NYT et. al....Crickets from them all.. I wonder why?

 

[willdup]

Yes. Here is the rub Celtic. She was part of some of the Afghan withdrawal planning. She didn’t disparage the gold star families. She acknowledged their sacrifice. But she certainly wasn’t so angry. I wonder why. And why not when you are part of something that caused loss of life. This was a mistake in an app. I went back to look thru her responses to the Afghan withdrawal. It is noted when it came to her own party screwup her wording and handling of things was much less emotional. That is my point. You would think she would have some empathy after what happened to her own planning gone awry

She was a sitting member of the Senate during the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

What exactly are you suggesting that she helped plan?

 

[magnolia93ugagrad]

It's been in Media ALL week...unless you swear by CNN,MSNBC,NPR,NYT etc al....Crickets from them all.. I wonder why?

I don’t watch the news. I glance at twitter occasionally and listen to a 5 min recap podcast daily. The news is exhausting and not how I want to spend my time.

 

[willdup]

It's been in Media ALL week...unless you swear by CNN,MSNBC,NPR,NYT etc al....Crickets from them all.. I wonder why?

Totally out of bounds. Crockett has gotten intoxicated by her new political fame and she really showed her ass. Awful and inexcusable.

 

[willdup]

Yes. Here is the rub Celtic. She was part of some of the Afghan withdrawal planning. She didn’t disparage the gold star families. She acknowledged their sacrifice. But she certainly wasn’t so angry. I wonder why. And why not when you are part of something that caused loss of life. This was a mistake in an app. I went back to look thru her responses to the Afghan withdrawal. It is noted when it came to her own party screwup her wording and handling of things was much less emotional. That is my point. You would think she would have some empathy after what happened to her own planning gone awry

I hope we can all laugh at this one.

Second funniest movie ever after Blazing Saddles.

 

[zingerdawg]

She was a sitting member of the Senate during the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

What exactly are you suggesting that she helped plan?

It is in an article I just saw. I will go back and find it when I have time to link it. She was asked to help in certain aspect of the withdrawal. She was opposed to the evacuation the way it was done. It was too fast. They worked on a deadline. This was her take. But she didn’t blame Biden. She blamed Trump. Of course. She apologized in her statement for those who died during the evacuation. Saying many more still are trying to come home. She said she would push for an investigation into the 20 year war. This never happened. I am not blaming her. It actually sounds like what she helped with came off without a hitch. She is an interesting person to research for sure. She also fell for several media lies. She was still regurgitating stuff that was debunked during the campaign for President. The operation conducted by hegseth was a success. All targets. No loss of life. She sure handled things differently in these two situations. One way, way worse than the other. Wonder why.

 

[TivoliDawg]

View embedded media

Mike Waltz Left His Venmo Friends List Public

A WIRED review shows national security adviser Mike Waltz, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, and other top officials left sensitive information exposed via Venmo—until WIRED asked about it.

www.wired.com

effing amateur hour. Holy crap.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

My only comments on this matter, for now:

1. I've had slack on my government-issued phone before. It's been the standard communication tool for more than one deployment.

2. Given what I've read so far, my guess is the main issue is the supposed name of the CIA analyst. That's not classified, unless they're involved in HUMINT. There is zero possibility they would be using an actual name, even at much higher classification level, if that were the case.

3. The first most likely scenario is (due to the name) a CUI issue; Controlled Unclassified Information. There is zero issue of using or discussing that for official uses, on approved devices or via approved methods.

I can commit a CUI violation by emailing my own SSN to somebody for official purposes and not encrypting the email.

4. The second obvious scenario is an OPSEC (Operational Security) violation. That isn't a classification, it's a set of practices designed to protect sensitive information from being exploited. Time of the strikes is definitely OPSEC and not necessarily classified. Usually, it takes more than one detail to move into the classified realm (thus, what I assume is the reference that more info is available on the 'high side').

Even a "secret" mission is going to be listed in the unclassified (but, CUI System and protected by OPSEC) scheduling software for the flying unit. It has to be, for a lot of really boring reasons I'm not going to address (it's simply how air ops work)

I can commit an OPSEC violation by accidentally throwing a way a CUI flight schedule in the trash can or mentioning to my wife at dinner in a restaurant what time I'm taking off for my training sortie tomorrow.

Given what we know so far, here's the kicker: The only reason either of those would be an issue here is because Goldberg was inadvertently added. Whoever did that committed an OPSEC violation which led to a CUI issue. Can both of those be potentially bigger issues? Of course. We're fortunate they weren't. But, I'm sure we'll have new bullets added to our annual CUI/OPSEC training, now lol

I hope they release everything with only the CIA analyst's name redacted. Releasing that to the public at-large is pointless.

Totally out of bounds. Crockett has gotten intoxicated by her new political fame and she really showed her ass. Awful and inexcusable.

She is just a loudmouth radical who just wants to be heard so she can be on the commie channel MSNBC.

 

[zingerdawg]

I could be wrong, but I don’t think this is going away any time soon.

View embedded media

Mike Waltz Left His Venmo Friends List Public

A WIRED review shows national security adviser Mike Waltz, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, and other top officials left sensitive information exposed via Venmo—until WIRED asked about it.

www.wired.com

Biden-era guidance encouraged use of Signal app by highly-targeted govt officials: 'Best practice'

A Biden-era Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) best guidance document shows highly-targeted government employees were encouraged to use Signal.

www.yahoo.com

This is interesting. A national security member of Biden’s team confirmed signal was used by them.

Basically Everyone’s Health Records Were Leaked Under Biden’s Watch

Electronic health information breaches exploded under the Biden Administration, and the person front and center throughout this meltdown was HHS Deputy Secretary Andrea Palm, formerly Wisconsin's Health Services Secretary-Designee.

www.maciverinstitute.com

US Treasury files hacked by China, Biden issues cybersecurity order

Chinese hackers breached the U.S. Treasury Department between September and November 2024, gaining access to more than 3,000 files.

san.com

Answers Demanded From Biden Following Massive Social Security Data Leak

President Joe Biden’s administration is facing pressure to respond to what could be the

floridianpress.com

I am so, so mad. I need to stomp my foot. Yelling at republicans clouds. Dammit.

 

[bayrooster]

effing amateur hour. Holy crap.

Waltz and bad judgement seem to be pretty tight!

 

[willdup]

Biden-era guidance encouraged use of Signal app by highly-targeted govt officials: 'Best practice'

A Biden-era Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) best guidance document shows highly-targeted government employees were encouraged to use Signal.

www.yahoo.com

This is interesting. A national security member of Biden’s team confirmed signal was used by them.

Basically Everyone’s Health Records Were Leaked Under Biden’s Watch

Electronic health information breaches exploded under the Biden Administration, and the person front and center throughout this meltdown was HHS Deputy Secretary Andrea Palm, formerly Wisconsin's Health Services Secretary-Designee.

www.maciverinstitute.com

US Treasury files hacked by China, Biden issues cybersecurity order

Chinese hackers breached the U.S. Treasury Department between September and November 2024, gaining access to more than 3,000 files.

san.com

Answers Demanded From Biden Following Massive Social Security Data Leak

President Joe Biden’s administration is facing pressure to respond to what could be the

floridianpress.com

I am so, so mad. I need to stomp my foot. Yelling at republicans clouds. Dammit.

No one at this point is questioning whether Signal had been used previously. The question is, was Signal appropriate for this group discussing this topic, and why was the use of the app so sloppy that no one noticed, for several days, that Goldberg was included in the thread?

This is from the first article that you shared:

"A Department of Defense memo from 2023 under the Biden administration detailed that while Signal was approved for some use by government officials, they could not use the platform to "access, transmit, process non-public DoD information." CISA's guidance related to Signal was released after the Department of Defense guidance."

Whatever word games you or anyone else want to try and play, safe to say that what Hegseth shared very much qualifies as "non-public DOD information".

If you'd like to engage in a larger cybersecurity discussion, I'm all for it.

Stop targeting Russian hackers, Trump administration orders US Cyber Command

For years, the United States has joined with much of the rest of the world, in declaring that Russia poses a significant cyber threat - hosting cybercriminal gangs and state-sponsored hackers who present a danger to national security, critical infrastructure, and commercial organisations.

www.bitdefender.com

 

[atlanta cock#]

No one at this point is questioning whether Signal had been used previously. The question is, was Signal appropriate for this group discussing this topic, and why was the use of the app so sloppy that no one noticed, for several days, that Goldberg was included in the thread?

This is from the first article that you shared:

"A Department of Defense memo from 2023 under the Biden administration detailed that while Signal was approved for some use by government officials, they could not use the platform to "access, transmit, process non-public DoD information." CISA's guidance related to Signal was released after the Department of Defense guidance."

Whatever word games you or anyone else want to try and play, safe to say that what Hegseth shared very much qualifies as "non-public DOD information".

If you'd like to engage in a larger cybersecurity discussion, I'm all for it.

Stop targeting Russian hackers, Trump administration orders US Cyber Command

For years, the United States has joined with much of the rest of the world, in declaring that Russia poses a significant cyber threat - hosting cybercriminal gangs and state-sponsored hackers who present a danger to national security, critical infrastructure, and commercial organisations.

www.bitdefender.com

Let it go, Will. It's a nothing burger. A bright guy like you should know that. The country is far more concerned with this.

 

[magnolia93ugagrad]

 

[zingerdawg]

No one at this point is questioning whether Signal had been used previously. The question is, was Signal appropriate for this group discussing this topic, and why was the use of the app so sloppy that no one noticed, for several days, that Goldberg was included in the thread?

This is from the first article that you shared:

"A Department of Defense memo from 2023 under the Biden administration detailed that while Signal was approved for some use by government officials, they could not use the platform to "access, transmit, process non-public DoD information." CISA's guidance related to Signal was released after the Department of Defense guidance."

Whatever word games you or anyone else want to try and play, safe to say that what Hegseth shared very much qualifies as "non-public DOD information".

If you'd like to engage in a larger cybersecurity discussion, I'm all for it.

Stop targeting Russian hackers, Trump administration orders US Cyber Command

For years, the United States has joined with much of the rest of the world, in declaring that Russia poses a significant cyber threat - hosting cybercriminal gangs and state-sponsored hackers who present a danger to national security, critical infrastructure, and commercial organisations.

www.bitdefender.com

Read the article. It is approved for high target government employees. Spin it all you want. Biden had so many security breaches it wasn’t even funny. He wrote an executive order to try to save his legacy for being inactive abiut how many breaches went on during his watch. All of this stuff was already in place. You think trump’s group is coming in and changing all the cybersecurity safety measures out there in two months. It is a ridiculous argument. It is straight politics. The fact that Biden had to do this 3 days before his term ended should tell you what they had in place wasn’t working.

Executive Order on Strengthening and Promoting Innovation in the Nation’s Cybersecurity | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency

bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov

Don’t remember you mentioning this. Glad you are so concerned now.

Former President Biden's Executive Order to Strengthen U.S. Cybersecurity and Consumer Trust

On January 17, 2025, former President Joe Biden issued an executive order titled Strengthening and Promoting Innovation in the Nation's Cybersecurity (EO 14144). Building on previous efforts, including Executive Order 14028, this directive seeks to bolster cybersecurity across federal systems...

www.akingump.com

Other than pardon his criminal family, this was one of his last official acts. He was forced to do it because the Chinese were able to hack us under his watch whenever they wanted to. This has been an ongoing issue. It just didn’t happen last week for the first time.

 

[willdup]

View embedded media

Which is also a reminder that we apparently leveled an entire residential apartment building to kill one guy. But they were brown civilians affected, so...

Read the article. It is approved for high target government employees. Spin it all you want. Biden had so many security breaches it wasn’t even funny. He wrote an executive order to try to save his legacy for being inactive abiut how many breaches went on during his watch. All of this stuff was already in place. You think trump’s group is coming in and changing all the cybersecurity safety measures out there in two months. It is a ridiculous argument. It is straight politics.

Executive Order on Strengthening and Promoting Innovation in the Nation’s Cybersecurity | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency

bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov

Don’t remember you mentioning this. Glad you are so concerned now.

Former President Biden's Executive Order to Strengthen U.S. Cybersecurity and Consumer Trust

On January 17, 2025, former President Joe Biden issued an executive order titled Strengthening and Promoting Innovation in the Nation's Cybersecurity (EO 14144). Building on previous efforts, including Executive Order 14028, this directive seeks to bolster cybersecurity across federal systems...

www.akingump.com

Other than pardon his criminal family, this was one of his last official acts. He was forced to do it because the Chinese were able to hack us under his watch whenever they wanted to.

High target people, not high target content. I quoted your article, which details specific direction from the DOD about the prohibition of Signal for non-public information. Was that not clear, or are you as confused as Hegseth?

 

[zingerdawg]

Which is also a reminder that we apparently leveled an entire residential apartment building to kill one guy. But they were brown civilians affected, so...


High target people, not high target content. I quoted your article, which details specific direction from the DOD about the prohibition of Signal for non-public information. Was that not clear, or are you as confused as Hegseth?

Day one they loaded this on his phone. Same with waltz and Radcliffe. This is silly. The issue was how Goldberg got there. Anything else is just more political theater. No response to Biden using an executive order on this three days before he left. It was a big problem coming in that Biden never fixed. The standard you hold for both parties is so laughable it isn’t even funny. Glad you are outraged now. I hope they find the problem and fix it. It will be an ongoing fight. Which is why this barely was talked about here even though it was a terrible look for Joe during his term. He presided over the most security breaches in our country’s history. I don’t blame him. It is going to be a constant fight. But to hold one group to a higher standard is just agenda driven. And you know it.

If this had happened to any cabinet member under Biden, you wouldn’t care. You didn’t even care that one went awol. It literally doesn’t get worse than that.

Lloyd Austin hospitalized and Biden is clueless. So much for 'adults being back in charge.'

President Joe Biden, the commander in chief, had no clue for three days that the person he appointed to run the Pentagon was out of commission.

www.usatoday.com

 

[willdup]

Day one they loaded this on his phone. Same with waltz and Radcliffe. This is silly. The issue was how Goldberg got there. Anything else is just more political theater. No response to Biden using an executive order on this three days before he left. It was a big problem coming in that Biden never fixed. The standard you hold for both parties is so laughable it isn’t even funny. Glad you are outraged now. I hope they find the problem and fix it. It will be an ongoing fight. Which is why this barely was talked about here even though it was a terrible look for Joe during his term. He presided over the most security breaches in our country’s history. I don’t blame him. It is going to be a constant fight. But to hold one group to a higher standard is just agenda driven. And you know it.

Try and stay on topic.

I've already conceded the use of Signal for appropriate content. Attack plans are not appropriate content, as detailed by the article you provided and proven by the fact that a reporter from the Atlantic was added to the thread, and no one even noticed.

In addition, I haven't seen a single defender of this debacle offer a reasonable justification for why Hegseth felt compelled to share operational details with such a broad group, many of whom are not part of the national defense team. After the completion of the operation, maybe. Before the operation, no way.

 

[zingerdawg]

Try and stay on topic.

I've already conceded the use of Signal for appropriate content. Attack plans are not appropriate content, as detailed by the article you provided and proven by the fact that a reporter from the Atlantic was added to the thread, and no one even noticed.

In addition, I haven't seen a single defender of this debacle offer a reasonable justification for why Hegseth felt compelled to share operational details with such a broad group, many of whom are not part of the national defense team. After the completion of the operation, maybe. Before the operation, no way.

View embedded media

That is the rub. You are a little behind in your liberal rhetoric. Sensitive information is the term they are using now. Elizabeth Warren corrected that for everyone yesterday. Not attack plans. Sensitive information is your new phrase. Come on will. I am curious what it will be next week. You are in your last paragraph trying to justify when, where and how. Have at it. 18 percent can produce a lot of crazy I know. You wouldn’t even bring it up if this was Kamala in charge. Of course, she would have just kept letting people die. She damn sure wouldn’t have answered anyone’s questions about it.

Wait. Let me try. Kamala in her own words:

“You see there is an app. These things can be on your phone or computer. People communicate with these. They are supposed to be safe from bad people. But they are not always safe. When you try to keep everyone safe it is hard so we try every day to do better. The app people are hard working Americans. They love this country too. And deserve our respect. We should be united in this respect. And careful not to disrespect that respect”

 

[willdup]

That is the rub. You are a little behind in your liberal rhetoric. Sensitive information is the term they are using now. Elizabeth Warren corrected that for everyone yesterday. Not attack plans. Sensitive information is your new phrase. Come on will. I am curious what it will be next week. You are in your last paragraph trying to justify when, where and how. Have at it. 18 percent can produce a lot of crazy I know. You wouldn’t even bring it up if this was Kamala in charge. Of course, she would have just kept letting people die. She damn sure wouldn’t have answered anyone’s questions about it.

You can't stop parsing words or stay on topic. Honestly, it's boring. I'll wait for more information and get back to work.

 

[zingerdawg]

You can't stop parsing words or stay on topic. Honestly, it's boring. I'll wait for more information and get back to work.

I just want you to be up to date. They aren’t using attack plans today. I feel bad when you get left behind. When that Native American speaks you should be listening at all times. What are people calling Elizabeth today. Pocahontas? I am having a great time. Just seeing you so triggered and reaching so hard. Good to see you in mid season form.

 

[celticdawg]

Let it go, Will. It's a nothing burger. A bright guy like you should know that. The country is far more concerned with this.

View embedded media

What proof do you have? Today's poll shows 74% consider the Signal leak a serious problem. Even 60% of the Republicans think so.

 

[willdup]

What proof do you have? Today's poll shows 74% consider the Signal leak a serious problem. Even 60% of the Republicans think so.

 

[BigPapaDawg]

No the clown show follows the inexcusable deaths of Americans. Your hypocrisy is on full display.

That would be your hypocrisy on display as you can't call out a horrible error and pathetic judgement on our military operations. You are ok with group text chat since lil Trumpie says it's all ok. GTFOH

 

[poochpup]

Exactly. Why is he sharing this info. at all? The strike on the Houthis is not even a large military operation statistically. Why share it?

It appears to me he’s bragging or somehow letting his ego get in the way.

Also, why are Vance and Trump not on the same page?

Who thing is a debacle. But according to some on this board, it’s actually the reporter’s fault that Watlz added him. Lolol.

Or no wait, this is “fake news”! Except it isn’t.

Or wait, this reporter has already been “discredited”, except it’s Pete Hegseth who has been discredited.

Oh wait... the operation was very successful.. Hmm.. wasn't that the goal? Don't lose sight of what it was designed for. It worked. 1st serious strike against those Hooters. Certainly, previous admin. did NOTHING.

 

[TivoliDawg]

Oh wait... the operation was very successful.. Hmm.. wasn't that the goal? Don't lose sight of what it was designed for. It worked. 1st serious strike against those Hooters. Certainly, previous admin. did NOTHING.

The name and gender of a Houthi double agent was in the Signal thread. Israel has already complained to the USA about the text disclosure.

This is an insane breach. There aren’t a lot of comparable historical acts. Maybe Wdward Snowden?

Would you share intelligence with this admin.?

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

Before you demand oral sex from any Dems, it’s relevant for you to know that Rep. Don Bacon is a Republican congressman from Nebraska.

But whatever gets you off, ATL Cock.

Bacon is a RINO

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise. What the argument is that signal was an approved app for use. It has been used across multiple administrations. I think it was actually initially approved by the Biden administration but I am not sure about that. It was considered a secure channel for information like this. They were using an approved app. If it turns out not being secure do we blame who brought signal on board in the first place. You damn sure can blame the people using the app. Other than adding the last person on earth they would want to add to their conversation. That is what 55 is pointing out. And he is right. That is the error. Fix that. The rest is just political theater

 

[celticdawg]

View embedded media

Yeah, so letting hackers get your information to pull this off is okay, because, you know, shit happens. Another poor appointment in the Trump administration.

 

[celticdawg]

View embedded media

Good luck with that. Trump will probably say that the messages were set to disappear, so sorry Judge - BTW you're impeached.

 

[BigPapaDawg]

View embedded media

That's the most stupid spin and defense. First it wasn't someone hacking into chat. Also if some journalist could hack into a classified chat, that is as bad as adding journal themselves . It's a major screw up. Lord of journalist can hack into imagine our foreign enemies.

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

That's the most stupid spin and defense. First it wasn't someone hacking into chat. Also if some journalist could hack into a classified chat, that is as bad as adding journal themselves . It's a major screw up. Lord of journalist can hack into imagine our foreign enemies.

The journalist in question is a far left lunatic. I would not put anything past him

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

Yeah, so letting hackers get your information to pull this off is okay, because, you know, shit happens. Another poor appointment in the Trump administration.

It’s a big nothing burger. Get over it. A real reach compared to the bs we have had to put up with the last 4 years. As usual the media blows up every story to epic proportions when it’s a Republican administration and they ignore or downplay serious f ups when it’s a Democrat administration. People are sick of it. Hence you get Trump again.

 

[Moosefish]

So to summarize your position, everything was entirely appropriate other than the fact that someone added a reporter to the thread.

Sorry, this is going to be long.

I'm going to give you (and others that disagree w/ my "take" on this subject) the benefit of the doubt, and reiterate the information I have provided in what I hope is a more clear and concise manner. Please read my entire response before replying to anything. I also request the courtesy of quoting only what you're responding to. Otherwise, with a post this long I have to guess 😂

My position has remained consistent:

Someone added Goldberg to a Signal chat. That was bad. Goldberg alleged secret war plans were discussed. That’s false. No classified information was divulged. Should Goldberg have been added to the chat? No. Very bad mistake. That made this a OPSEC issue and an OPSEC issue, only. Did the OPSEC issue turn into anything worse? No, thankfully.

Words being used here are black & white. They all have very specific meanings. Classified has a very specific and defined threshold. The Signal Chat did not cross it. I looked at the Current CENTCOM Classification Guide today. I would share it, but it is not on a network you have access to (although it would now fall under CUI, even though it had the no-longer used "Unclassified" marking. No big deal).

However, the truth is self-evident: Classification Guides are available to all of Congress. Every member has a military aide. If you believe that not a single congressional staffer or reporter with a source with access didn't try and run the content of the released chat through an applicable classification guide and/or that the administration didn't do the same, I would respectfully argue that opinion ignores even basic logic.

There were two days of hearings and not a single person provided a reference from any classification guide that would indicate any of what was said in that chat crossed the Classified threshold. In fact, those involved provided specifics that would have caused it to cross the threshold. Again, black & white. Specific types of information. You don't have to believe me on any of this. But, the accuracy of what I have told you is clear because of what was not provided: Any reference to a specific black/white crossed line.

The same goes for any argument against using Signal in the way they did, including the DoD memo you reference below in a quote I respond to. Every necessary tool to do so is available to every elected critic.

If anybody can provide concrete official guidance on the classified nature of what was in there, I will absolutely retract all my commentary on this matter and admit I was wrong. But, despite specifically looking for it, I have yet to find it.

But, what have we gotten instead? Sensational rants and mischaracterizations of what "classified" is. Bad "what ifs" of what "could" have happened because this is an OPSEC violation. What they are doing are highlighting why OPSEC is very, very important. Those criticisms are correct: All those bad things could happen anytime OPSEC is violated.

But, an OPSEC violation does not mean the conversation was inappropriate, like actual Classified information would have been.

Waltz said: “I take full responsibility” for the error. Good. Find out what happened, fix it, and don't let it happen again. If that means no more Signal, go for it.

The CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. use Signal to communicate. Why? Because it’s a highly encrypted, highly secure communication medium. Is it perfect? Can it be exploited if you don't stay vigilant from those exploitations? Obviously. That's why actual Classified information isn't allowed. It's actually perfect for "Sensitive" information, to use the current word of choice.

The Atlantic story raised questions about the use of Signal. Obviously, there are times when you might use it and other times you wouldn't. That's why some matters were being discussed on the "high side" via classified channels.

Bottom line? You always want to be careful with sensitive information, and the Trump team has admitted the mistake of Jeffrey Goldberg being added to the chat. The next step is to prevent OPSEC violations of this type again.

This is the reporting of the Fox News Chief National Security Correspondent, who suggests that your take is incorrect from a number of different perspectives.

I’m beginning to think that you might be unwilling to criticize Trump and his administration under even the most extreme circumstances.

View embedded media

1. Everything in her tweet, outside of the incorrect statement by an anonymous source, is a description of OPSEC, which I've already addressed. Other opinions she got seem to be based on supposition instead of actual knowledge of what was in the Chat. As I said: This is a black & white issue.

2. There has been plenty of things Griffin has said I agree with and at least two very specific incidents she has reported on (that I have first-hand knowledge of) that she has gotten 100% wrong. Her being at Fox carries no more weight in your argument. If you want to go in that direction, you don't get to disagree with anything Scott Jennings on CNN says. Works both ways, sir.

Moose obviously is far and away more qualified than anyone here to opine on this subject. And he also has established a credibility level in terms of objectivity….even if he leans right.

I try my best to separate fact and my opinion. I also try to provide evidence for my opinions. If someone wants to disagree with it, I hope they provide contradicting evidence. Someone dismissing it without providing counterevidence to what I said/provided is very frustrating.

Pretty dang thorough for only having a few minutes. Nice work.

Waiting on my youngest to get ready for school 🤣

Moose certainly marshals the most research in support of his arguments but he isn’t objective. In fact, his final conclusions on any given topic including this one can be predicted with a high degree of certainty, which is indicative of his bias.

Nobody is objective will. I have pointed out more than once I will "defend" parts of something I don't necessarily agree with because I find the logic attacking it to be inadequate. I enjoy any discussion and particularly enjoy the research. I particularly enjoy research papers. Maybe I need to go back to school 😝

I have disagreed with Trump and certainly other "right leaning" individuals on this very board many times. If my responses seem to be consistently in defense of Trump and Republicans, I will argue (because I'm the one making the arguments) it's simply a result of how far you and others have drifted towards the illogical leanings of the progressive left: i.e. Trump and anybody associated with him can only be wrong, no room for nuance and certainly no chance to admit something he's done might actually be "good".

Frankly, your framing of me above is borderline insulting. If you want to discuss predicting someone's response: I recommend you take a long, hard look in the mirror. Any semblance of nuance or difference in your opinion from the daily musings of the most biased of left-leaning media seems to have vanished. I hope I'm wrong.

I figured out why Hegseth is doubling down on not releasing “war plans”. He’s going to claim they weren’t “war plans”… because US Congress never formally declared war. So how could they be war plans?

These are specifics about a mission that was yet to take place and the only military officials who I’ve seen publicly claim these are not classified are the ones who work for Donald Trump.

.....

No one who watched Gabbard testify (and has a brain) thinks there is any way she is not lying. She literally contradicted herself 24 hours later. She is so incompetent. She doesn’t even lie well.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've already addressed everything you're talking about here and you still stick to nonsensical points.

Protecting vital national security information isn't a "no harm, no foul" exercise. People go to prison for security breaches that caused no known harm, in part because potential damage isn't always knowable and can be so catastrophic.

If you can provide an example of non-classified breaches like you describe that led to prison terms, I'd like to see it and discuss it. Otherwise, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

While I respect Moose as a poster, he has proven to be as biased as anyone else on here.

This is full-on projection.

I countered his argument with a post from a well-respected National Security reporter, from Fox, no less, who has a very different take.

As discussed above, that certainly wasn't an accurate counter argument. It was a mis framing of OPSEC as equal to a breach of classified information.

Right now, I believe there are more respected voices on the topic agreeing with Jennifer Griffin's take then agreeing with Moosefish's take.

If any of these "more respected voices" are saying that there was classified information in that Chat, then they are simply wrong, no matter how much more respected they are (not exactly a high level to achieve 😜)

If anyone wants to argue that Hegseth is, by any measure, a well-qualified leader of the DOD, I welcome that discussion. He isn't, and a two-thousand-word essay from Moose or anyone else won't change that fact.

I have had two major issues with every single SecDef I have served under (and it's been a ton): Their focus on the politics of the DoD (which includes their ever-present close ties to defense contractors) and their universal lack of focus truly taking care of those in uniform. Hegseth is certainly a non-conventional pick and my hope is that he is better in both of those areas than his predecessors. If he is not up for the job, I hope he is removed.

He was communicating on an approved app. He was mentioning security protocols. It sounds more like you just want to be right. Talk about bias. Your post absolutely shows your bias. Certainly way worse than what moose just posted.

This is my big problem with lots of will's comments on Hegseth and most anything Trump-related.

I liked Senator Tammy Duckworth who called Hegseth a "f---- liar". She said "This is so clearly classified info he recklessly leaked that could've gotten our pilots killed." "He needs to resign in disgrace immediately."

If, despite her military background, she truly believes that it was "so clearly classified info", then she is a complete idiot (I don't believe so), a liar for political purposes, or actually hasn't closely read the contents of the Chat. There is no other explanation.

The fact that Goldberg was mistakenly added to a discussion of this nature between people at the highest level of national security leadership and no one even noticed PROVES the point that Signal is not a secure channel. You can’t argue otherwise.

That's not actually "proof" it's not a secure channel, as spillage and leakage from absolutely secure channels still happen sometimes. I can make a mistake adding crypto to a secure radio, not do it correctly, and spill state secrets over an open channel.

What is PROVES is that nothing is secure from plain human error.

The rest is just political theater

Interesting how Goldberg decided to sit on all of this until literally the day before some involved were scheduled to appear before Congress. I'm sure that wasn't a factor at all and I'm probably not allowed to point that out due to 'bias'🙄

Whether Signal was approved for a discussion that included timing and weapons platforms for a forthcoming military operation remains an open issue.

This is simply incorrect. Signal was was approved to discuss unclassified information. There are best practices for OPSEC, but even some of the types of information they provided in that Chat I could theoretically provide over an open line. I don't want to get into some long discussion about this. But, I think you are making a lot of assumptions with no basis in fact or actual policies.

"A Department of Defense memo from 2023 under the Biden administration detailed that while Signal was approved for some use by government officials, they could not use the platform to "access, transmit, process non-public DoD information." CISA's guidance related to Signal was released after the Department of Defense guidance."

Whatever word games you or anyone else want to try and play, safe to say that what Hegseth shared very much qualifies as "non-public DOD information".

High target people, not high target content. I quoted your article, which details specific direction from the DOD about the prohibition of Signal for non-public information. Was that not clear, or are you as confused as Hegseth?

Hegseth has every right to actively or passively rescind a 2023 memo from the very organization he's currently in charge of, considering the CISA Best Practices referenced in the article came out after the DoD memo and the DoD then or now had every right to change that policy.

Are you arguing that a SecDef doesn't have the right to change the policy of his own department, especially with new information on how to safeguard information within Signal?

I'd actually like to see that memo, for a lot of reasons.

In addition, I haven't seen a single defender of this debacle offer a reasonable justification for why Hegseth felt compelled to share operational details with such a broad group, many of whom are not part of the national defense team. After the completion of the operation, maybe. Before the operation, no way.

I strongly disagree that I did not provide reasonable justification, previously. I thought my example provided ample justification.

If you disagree, I have the name and number of a then one-star who you are free to call and ask why he decided to include the Medical Group, Mission Support Group, Maintenance Group, Comptroller Squadron, Force Support Squadron, Dental Squadron, Communications Squadron, Civil Engineering Squadron, Logistics Readiness Squadron, Contracting Squadron, Air Mobility Squadron, JAG, and the Host Nation Coordination Cell Commanders in a pre-strike brief that was 'before the operation'...and not just the Operations Group Commander. Not reasonable? Ok.

But, I stand by my point.

The name and gender of a Houthi double agent was in the Signal thread. Israel has already complained to the USA about the text disclosure.

This is an insane breach. There aren’t a lot of comparable historical acts. Maybe Wdward Snowden?

Would you share intelligence with this admin.?

That's completely false. Israel’s complaint to the US was their concern over the broader intelligence exposure and not a specific outing of an agent’s identity. That would be the "source" portion of what would be classified. Again...a OPSEC issue.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure you can provide the name and a link to that name.😜

 

[magnolia93ugagrad]

Previous administrations were wary of Signal. Trumpworld has embraced it

Amid the furor over the use of a commercial messaging app to discuss a military strike, the Trump administration has insisted that using Signal is routine and authorized. But former and current officials disagree. Andrew Feinberg reports

www.independent.co.uk

 

[willdup]

Sorry, this is going to be long.

I'm going to give you (and others that disagree w/ my "take" on this subject) the benefit of the doubt, and reiterate the information I have provided in what I hope is a more clear and concise manner. Please read my entire response before replying to anything. I also request the courtesy of quoting only what you're responding to. Otherwise, with a post this long I have to guess 😂

My position has remained consistent:

Someone added Goldberg to a Signal chat. That was bad. Goldberg alleged secret war plans were discussed. That’s false. No classified information was divulged. Should Goldberg have been added to the chat? No. Very bad mistake. That made this a OPSEC issue and an OPSEC issue, only. Did the OPSEC issue turn into anything worse? No, thankfully.

Words being used here are black & white. They all have very specific meanings. Classified has a very specific and defined threshold. The Signal Chat did not cross it. I looked at the Current CENTCOM Classification Guide today. I would share it, but it is not on a network you have access to (although it would now fall under CUI, even though it had the no-longer used "Unclassified" marking. No big deal).

However, the truth is self-evident: Classification Guides are available to all of Congress. Every member has a military aide. If you believe that not a single congressional staffer or reporter with a source with access didn't try and run the content of the released chat through an applicable classification guide and/or that the administration didn't do the same, I would respectfully argue that opinion ignores even basic logic.

There were two days of hearings and not a single person provided a reference from any classification guide that would indicate any of what was said in that chat crossed the Classified threshold. In fact, those involved provided specifics that would have caused it to cross the threshold. Again, black & white. Specific types of information. You don't have to believe me on any of this. But, the accuracy of what I have told you is clear because of what was not provided: Any reference to a specific black/white crossed line.

The same goes for any argument against using Signal in the way they did, including the DoD memo you reference below in a quote I respond to. Every necessary tool to do so is available to every elected critic.

If anybody can provide concrete official guidance on the classified nature of what was in there, I will absolutely retract all my commentary on this matter and admit I was wrong. But, despite specifically looking for it, I have yet to find it.

But, what have we gotten instead? Sensational rants and mischaracterizations of what "classified" is. Bad "what ifs" of what "could" have happened because this is an OPSEC violation. What they are doing are highlighting why OPSEC is very, very important. Those criticisms are correct: All those bad things could happen anytime OPSEC is violated.

But, an OPSEC violation does not mean the conversation was inappropriate, like actual Classified information would have been.

Waltz said: “I take full responsibility” for the error. Good. Find out what happened, fix it, and don't let it happen again. If that means no more Signal, go for it.

The CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. use Signal to communicate. Why? Because it’s a highly encrypted, highly secure communication medium. Is it perfect? Can it be exploited if you don't stay vigilant from those exploitations? Obviously. That's why actual Classified information isn't allowed. It's actually perfect for "Sensitive" information, to use the current word of choice.

The Atlantic story raised questions about the use of Signal. Obviously, there are times when you might use it and other times you wouldn't. That's why some matters were being discussed on the "high side" via classified channels.

Bottom line? You always want to be careful with sensitive information, and the Trump team has admitted the mistake of Jeffrey Goldberg being added to the chat. The next step is to prevent OPSEC violations of this type again.



1. Everything in her tweet, outside of the incorrect statement by an anonymous source, is a description of OPSEC, which I've already addressed. Other opinions she got seem to be based on supposition instead of actual knowledge of what was in the Chat. As I said: This is a black & white issue.

2. There has been plenty of things Griffin has said I agree with and at least two very specific incidents she has reported on (that I have first-hand knowledge of) that she has gotten 100% wrong. Her being at Fox carries no more weight in your argument. If you want to go in that direction, you don't get to disagree with anything Scott Jennings on CNN says. Works both ways, sir.



I try my best to separate fact and my opinion. I also try to provide evidence for my opinions. If someone wants to disagree with it, I hope they provide contradicting evidence. Someone dismissing it without providing counterevidence to what I said/provided is very frustrating.



Waiting on my youngest to get ready for school 🤣



Nobody is objective will. I have pointed out more than once I will "defend" parts of something I don't necessarily agree with because I find the logic attacking it to be inadequate. I enjoy any discussion and particularly enjoy the research. I particularly enjoy research papers. Maybe I need to go back to school 😝

I have disagreed with Trump and certainly other "right leaning" individuals on this very board many times. If my responses seem to be consistently in defense of Trump and Republicans, I will argue (because I'm the one making the arguments) it's simply a result of how far you and others have drifted towards the illogical leanings of the progressive left: i.e. Trump and anybody associated with him can only be wrong, no room for nuance and certainly no chance to admit something he's done might actually be "good".

Frankly, your framing of me above is borderline insulting. If you want to discuss predicting someone's response: I recommend you take a long, hard look in the mirror. Any semblance of nuance or difference in your opinion from the daily musings of the most biased of left-leaning media seems to have vanished. I hope I'm wrong.



With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've already addressed everything you're talking about here and you still stick to nonsensical points.



If you can provide an example of non-classified breaches like you describe that led to prison terms, I'd like to see it and discuss it. Otherwise, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion.



This is full-on projection.



As discussed above, that certainly wasn't an accurate counter argument. It was a mis framing of OPSEC as equal to a breach of classified information.



If any of these "more respected voices" are saying that there was classified information in that Chat, then they are simply wrong, no matter how much more respected they are (not exactly a high level to achieve 😜)



I have had two major issues with every single SecDef I have served under (and it's been a ton): Their focus on the politics of the DoD (which includes their ever-present close ties to defense contractors) and their universal lack of focus truly taking care of those in uniform. Hegseth is certainly a non-conventional pick and my hope is that he is better in both of those areas than his predecessors. If he is not up for the job, I hope he is removed.



This is my big problem with lots of will's comments on Hegseth and most anything Trump-related.



If, despite her military background, she truly believes that it was "so clearly classified info", then she is a complete idiot (I don't believe so), a liar for political purposes, or actually hasn't closely read the contents of the Chat. There is no other explanation.



That's not actually "proof" it's not a secure channel, as spillage and leakage from absolutely secure channels still happen sometimes. I can make a mistake adding crypto to a secure radio, not do it correctly, and spill state secrets over an open channel.

What is PROVES is that nothing is secure from plain human error.



Interesting how Goldberg decided to sit on all of this until literally the day before some involved were scheduled to appear before Congress. I'm sure that wasn't a factor at all and I'm probably not allowed to point that out due to 'bias'🙄



This is simply incorrect. Signal was was approved to discuss unclassified information. There are best practices for OPSEC, but even some of the types of information they provided in that Chat I could theoretically provide over an open line. I don't want to get into some long discussion about this. But, I think you are making a lot of assumptions with no basis in fact or actual policies.





Hegseth has every right to actively or passively rescind a 2023 memo from the very organization he's currently in charge of, considering the CISA Best Practices referenced in the article came out after the DoD memo and the DoD then or now had every right to change that policy.

Are you arguing that a SecDef doesn't have the right to change the policy of his own department, especially with new information on how to safeguard information within Signal?

I'd actually like to see that memo, for a lot of reasons.



I strongly disagree that I did not provide reasonable justification, previously. I thought my example provided ample justification.

If you disagree, I have the name and number of a then one-star who you are free to call and ask why he decided to include the Medical Group, Mission Support Group, Maintenance Group, Comptroller Squadron, Force Support Squadron, Dental Squadron, Communications Squadron, Civil Engineering Squadron, Logistics Readiness Squadron, Contracting Squadron, Air Mobility Squadron, JAG, and the Host Nation Coordination Cell Commanders in a pre-strike brief that was 'before the operation'...and not just the Operations Group Commander. Not reasonable? Ok.

But, I stand by my point.



That's completely false. Israel’s complaint to the US was their concern over the broader intelligence exposure and not a specific outing of an agent’s identity. That would be the "source" portion of what would be classified. Again...a OPSEC issue.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure you can provide the name and a link to that name.😜

When I said a 2000 word essay wouldn’t change my mind, that wasn’t meant to be taken as a challenge.

In case you are wondering, you came in at 2721 words, including the quotes.

I don’t have the time to fully respond, but I’ll address one point.

I do respect you as a poster, but you are as biased as anyone else on here. I didn’t exclude myself from that characterization and it was not intended as an insult, just recognition of the fact that as far as I can remember, you have been extremely consistent in justifying anything associated with Trump, just as I have been consistent with criticism.

Our recent exchange on the J6 pardons just confirmed what I already suspected.

I’ll carve out some time tomorrow to respond, although I’ll pre-concede that my word count will surely pale in comparison.

 

[Moosefish]

Our recent exchange on the J6 pardons just confirmed what I already suspected.

I dont think I've actually given my full opinion on that subject, did I?

Edit: nevermind, you meant the "extremely solid evidence" discussion. Which actually highlights what I meant above.

I argue the logic of things, not because of my opinion/bias or my 100% feelings on a matter.

I was attempting to debate evidence, not J6 pardons. Blame it on my safety investigator background 😆

 

[thinkinofmontreal]

This is what happens when you hire talk show hosts to lead the largest military in the world.

This is North Korea-level incompetence.

And, of course, Hegseth takes no accountability.

I’m pretty sure the republicans on here would be very understanding if bird-brain Kamala were to have texted all the admin’s war plans to a Fox News reporter by mistake in an insecure channel.

You’re right about one thing for sure…Kamala is a bird brain. Heg and co made an error. Miniscule compared to the bumbling corrupt Biden bed wetters. Not a big deal in whole scheme. Glad they are doing sometime to take out bad actors. Trump policies have been on the money.

 

[LrgK9]

1) “The screw up was Goldberg being added. Not Hegseth's details.”
Moose nails the sine qua non of the issue.

2) Signal, although not the most secure protocol, was cleared for this type of discussion if the parties attending are properly controlled.
3) There's only one party who wasn't cleared to know.
4) We need to investigate how exactly he was added, by whom, and take appropriate action.
5) If any serious disclosure data breach was in fact committed, the person who released the information publicly should be criminally targeted for releasing significant secured details into the Public Domain.
6) However if, post facto at the time of the disclosure, the data disclosed had aged past a significant security breach, then no charges should be brought upon the disclosing party.

@Moosefish - Kudos & Thanks