The Next President is...

[Banzai]

Remember, the majority of this forum called for Hillary Clinton to go to prison when folks found out she was hosting a private messaging server for official business. I’m sure that there will be no double standards applied in this case.

On the other hand, everyone could just ignore it and raise tenuous points about how this story could be fake news (which has essentially already been done), even though the administration confirmed its veracity. 

[BashiChuni]

they're both bad, but the Hilary private server was EGREGIOUS

[brabus]

2 hours ago, Banzai said:

Remember, the majority of this forum called for Hillary Clinton to go to prison

She was processing TS//SAR material at home. Is that what got put out on Signal in this case?

As of now, I haven’t seen anything beyond some screenshots of who-gives-a-shit content.  Not saying this couldn’t end up blowing up into something really bad, but for now there’s a lot of hot air blowing around without evidence to back up the level of “rage” responses on SM/MSM. 

[Banzai]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

She was processing TS//SAR material at home. Is that what got put out on Signal in this case?

As of now, I haven’t seen anything beyond some screenshots of who-gives-a-shit content.  Not saying this couldn’t end up blowing up into something really bad, but for now there’s a lot of hot air blowing around without evidence to back up the level of “rage” responses on SM/MSM. 

What level are ATOs? You know that timing and location would be classified prior to execution of an attack. Additionally, in the Atlantic article, the editor clearly censored multiple texts.

Also, did you “see” any of Hillary’s screenshots? You have to understand you are entirely falling into a double standard because of political affiliation.

[brabus]

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

What level are ATOs?

So he posted an ATO on Signal to a journalist? Cool, go with evidence. I’m 100% open to anything being possible and am not at all saying said level of evidence couldn’t possibly surface in the future, I’m just saying it hasn’t as of now (that I’ve seen anyways, happy to take any and all point outs). I make zero judgments or opinions on this topic as of right meow, just stating there is a lot of hyperbolic reaction from the political opposition without supporting evidence. 

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

Additionally, in the Atlantic article, the editor clearly censored multiple texts.

LOL. Yeah, the Atlantic and this “journalist” are totally credible. Maybe they get something correct this time, but also maybe they don’t and it’s completely blown out of proportion for political reasons, which is their historic MO.

 

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

why the fuck would you invite a journalist to join a signal chat? i'd fire Waltz immediately

I am guessing Hegseth used Signal as part of his former gig at Foxnews which would explain the links to journalists.  Also, Signal very popular in the SOF community...there is a whole Signal subculture.

Sending it to the wrong person is not the issue, sending classified plans on a non-approved network is the issue.  And if he did it he should be punished.

Legally Comey help set the precedent that it not a big deal when we all know it is.  It took intent from both Hegseth and Clinton to put that material on an unclassified network.  33,000 Hillary Emails had to be transferred off a classified network and copied onto an unclassified server, I never understood how Comey didn't see that as deliberate and with intent.  I am very curious how Hegseth's deal plays out...again if the details are correct (to include weapons loads), then it was a deliberate effort to take material off and unclass network (pictures or digitally copied), and put it on Signal...or did he type a note with the details...either way UNSAT, no excuses, time to be held accountable.

[ViperMan]

I don't know what they did or didn't send over Signal, so couch this in terms of hypotheticals.

*IF* actual plans were sent over signal, that's every bit as bad as Hilary's email server. It's sloppy as F and warrants resignations, and criminal charges. If we're gonna hang out to dry airmen who flex on whatever video game crew they play with by sending secret info, we sure as hell are gonna do the same if the SECDEF is being a sloppy MF.

That said, it's very likely this is more of the same blue-haired hyperventilating ala "January 6th was a coup d'etat."

[Smokin]

So far the only screen shots I've seen are solidly in the policy debate sphere and would hardly be considered classified.  Sloppy, but hardly worth the attention it has received.  If a "journalist" that clearly hates Trump and everything he does was really sent actual war plans (not debates), there is zero chance that he wouldn't have taken screen shots of all of it, let alone the most damaging sections. 

If someone has reputable sources of actual plans being shared, I'd be interested.  Until then, I'll consider this simply the continued ravings of a person infected with TDS posing as a journalist.  

[SurelySerious]

So far the only screen shots I've seen are solidly in the policy debate sphere and would hardly be considered classified.  Sloppy, but hardly worth the attention it has received.  If a "journalist" that clearly hates Trump and everything he does was really sent actual war plans (not debates), there is zero chance that he wouldn't have taken screen shots of all of it, let alone the most damaging sections. 
If someone has reputable sources of actual plans being shared, I'd be interested.  Until then, I'll consider this simply the continued ravings of a person infected with TDS posing as a journalist.  

Turns out those “policy debate” parts of how we view our partners/other nations and how we use that to arrive at our national security decisions are typically as or more classified than an ATO entry. Those things they’re discussing are some of the same types of things that are damaging from wikileaks cable leaks.

[Smokin]

20 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Turns out those “policy debate” parts of how we view our partners/other nations and how we use that to arrive at our national security decisions are typically as or more classified than an ATO entry. Those things they’re discussing are some of the same types of things that are damaging from wikileaks cable leaks.

Yes and no.  Those same debates are being done in the public sphere by those same individuals in the signal chat to the press at official press conferences and no one has claimed that those were somehow leaks.  Trump has repeatedly said that Europe needs to take a bigger role in their own security and defense, so that can hardly be classified.

If they had gone into detail like 'country A is a more important partner than B because of XYZ and this action is only going to help country B and country A doesn't want us to do it, so let's not' then I could see that being classified.  But simply saying that 'I don't know if we should do this because Europe needs to step up' is nothing different than they have said to the public repeatedly.  Did anything they said really reveal any capabilities, decision making processes, or really anything that would hurt us or our allies?  I didn't see anything that did.  Will our adversaries benefit from the 'leak'?  Not directly, but I would argue that they are benefiting from the circus that has erupted afterwards, but that is only due to the absurd reactions and is 100% on the media and the left.

I'm fully open to changing my mind if more info comes to light, but the screenshots shared so far are a big nothing.

[disgruntledemployee]

To those saying the screenshots are a nothingburger, do you want the reporter to release all the screenshots of what it thought to be quite classified info, to satisfy your opinion that is was bad to have such discussions on an unclass system?

Ah fuck it, the Chiners/Ruskies already have it, might as well tell the rest of the world.  I mean the texts aren't marked S, TS or anything.

[17D_guy]

Just now, disgruntledemployee said:

To those saying the screenshots are a nothingburger, do you want the reporter to release all the screenshots of what it thought to be quite classified info, to satisfy your opinion that is was bad to have such discussions on an unclass system?

Ah fuck it, the Chiners/Ruskies already have it, might as well tell the rest of the world.  I mean the texts aren't marked S, TS or anything.

That's exactly what they want, otherwise it's all a TDS deranged journalist. The article clearly said the author was not releasing information because it would put intel & other operations at risk, but I guess that needs to be put out as well.

The bias to believe what you want to believe is always strong.

[Sua Sponte]

Base security manager just sent out this email:

“To confirm, Signal is not approved for CUI, OPSEC, or classified and would never be approved because it is not government owned or operated.”

[disgruntledemployee]

Odds that NSA Waltz get a pink slip/mean tweet firing by Friday: 50/50?

[Flev]

Trump just stated the journalist was added to the chat by a Waltz staffer. The plot thickens.

On the bright side, this incident may finally push units and command teams to use DOD-approved messaging apps instead of the cowboy stuff we've been seeing.

[HeloDude]

I think if it was gross negligence, then yes, someone should be fired…and if it’s Waltz, then so be it.  But let’s not pretend the Democrats suddenly care about this security stuff.  Two things can be true at the same time.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:

To those saying the screenshots are a nothingburger, do you want the reporter to release all the screenshots of what it thought to be quite classified info, to satisfy your opinion that is was bad to have such discussions on an unclass system?

Ah fuck it, the Chiners/Ruskies already have it, might as well tell the rest of the world.  I mean the texts aren't marked S, TS or anything.

Did you watch the testimony this morning?  Signal was installed on their computers/phones one day one of the job by the GOVERNMENT.  I am certain that came with usage restrictions but still!

From an intel perspective the material was not classified, but they drew two very fine distinctions:

1.  They CIA/FBI/DNI were not the arbitrator of DoD classified and referred questions to DoD - valid.

2.  SECDEF is the declassification source for DoD material (I did not know that).

In my mind a crap argument to assert SECDEF can declassify simply by sending...I hope that is not what they are going to argue.

Bottomline - if the material was not classified as asserted, publish it for all to see...sunshine is the best disinfectant.  If it was classified, do not publish and hold those responsible accountable.  Not hard to say unless you are democrat talking about Hillary's private server and 33,000 emails.

[uhhello]

It would be refreshing to see them say 'we fucked up, shouldn't have happened.  Here is what we're doing to prevent it in the future'.  The flip flopping of all these admins suddenly caring about security when it suits their side is nauseating.  

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

To those saying the screenshots are a nothingburger, do you want the reporter to release all the screenshots of what it thought to be quite classified info, to satisfy your opinion that is was bad to have such discussions on an unclass system?

Yes, that's what I want.  The assertion is these were war plans for strikes that have already happened.  If that's true there is no OPSEC issue with releasing them, and it would convince me to advocate for punishment.  "Trust me, it's very secret and they should resign" is insufficient from the same person who pushed the Russian collusion hoax.

That said, adding a reporter to your principal chat group is laughably stupid & incompetent.  If Waltz did it, regardless of whether secrets were discussed, he should be fired.

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, Flev said:

Trump just stated the journalist was added to the chat by a Waltz staffer. The plot thickens.

On the bright side, this incident may finally push units and command teams to use DOD-approved messaging apps instead of the cowboy stuff we've been seeing.

Stop trying to make WICKR happen!  I'll never log into Teams!

[Banzai]

9 hours ago, brabus said:

So he posted an ATO on Signal to a journalist? Cool, go with evidence. I’m 100% open to anything being possible and am not at all saying said level of evidence couldn’t possibly surface in the future, I’m just saying it hasn’t as of now (that I’ve seen anyways, happy to take any and all point outs). I make zero judgments or opinions on this topic as of right meow, just stating there is a lot of hyperbolic reaction from the political opposition without supporting evidence. 

LOL. Yeah, the Atlantic and this “journalist” are totally credible. Maybe they get something correct this time, but also maybe they don’t and it’s completely blown out of proportion for political reasons, which is their historic MO.

 

You’re being intentionally dense. The reporter knew timing and location of when strikes were happening within 15 minutes of TTI. He knew this more than 2 hours before the strikes.

[Lawman]

Stop trying to make WICKR happen!  I'll never log into Teams!

Wickr won’t happen because, “it costs money.”

Its a BS excuse when we’re paying registry keys for every other major software or app we use, but it was the exact reason given when we discussed making a transition off signal to it.

My favorite thing about Wickr was the massive files it would let you push through it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

3 minutes ago, Banzai said:

You’re being intentionally dense. The reporter knew timing and location of when strikes were happening within 15 minutes of TTI. He knew this more than 2 hours before the strikes.

Other than the claim from a compromised reporter with a history of pushing false narratives, do you have any proof of this claim?

If it's true it should be easy to produce a screen shot.

[Banzai]

41 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Other than the claim from a compromised reporter with a history of pushing false narratives, do you have any proof of this claim?

If it's true it should be easy to produce a screen shot.

I just want to confirm you stance. Do you believe that these screenshots are fake?

Followed by

 

Or do you believe those are true?

What do you think about the national security council saying they appear to be authentic?

If you believe they are true then is your belief that in between these texts in this text chain they did not share information on the strikes - and that was entirely fabricated? 

Do you think it’s possible that the reporter is being truthful in intentionally not sharing what he thinks is classified information? 

If it is true, do you think he should openly share what he believes is classified information? Or do you think if he believes that it is classified that he should not put it out there?

Is your stance that, although much of what was stated by the reporter is backed up by verifiable evidence, that this portion of his article is fake news?

If so, what makes you think that?

Edited Tuesday at 09:31 PM by Banzai

[Banzai]

How about this, let’s take a hypothetical stance that there is totally not enough evidence to believe this is anything other than a fake news smear job.

If it comes out as true - which the truth will come out when the reporter is called to testify - will you oppose and denounce the actions taken if targets and timing and/or other classified information were shared?

Edited Tuesday at 09:26 PM by Banzai