What the hell?

[DANC]

That analogy works for Biden. They found six pages at his home and they reported it. Hundreds of documents were at Trump's home, and he kept trying to hide them. The two cases aren't close to the same. A shoplifer with a $100 item and submits to arrest when caught vs a bank robber who fights the police trying to arrest him.

Clinton is closer to Trump. They found 60ish top secret documents. That was over time. She could/should have shut down the server after one, certainly after two. She was willing to let it keep happening. That is very problematic.

I get why they go more leniently on people who discover a document and call it in. That is the behavior they want, they don't want them burying the document in the backyard to stay out of prison. It is why Biden's case is so very different than Trump's. The bigwigs who have been caught and punished were actively covering up. That's the behavior they REALLY want to stop.

Create a group that does not report to the president. They monitor documents. After a meeting, no one, not even the president, leaves the room if 10 documents were handed out and 9 were returned. No documents in the private areas of the White House or US Naval Observatory. Documents cannot leave secure areas of House/Senate. The elected have to leave their offices and go to the documents. I know that will cut down on the time they have to call to gladhand for money, but that's just an extra benefit. The problem doesn't seem to be the people who can get fired for losing documents, it is the people who largely won't get fired.

Not quite true, Marv. Biden's lawyers reported they found classified information and reported.

Then, when the FBI was investigating, it was discovered there were other classified documents stored in different places.

That's quite different then 'Biden self-reported'. He only did it when it was about to be disclosed.

 

[DANC]

I didn't hear about Hilary's being over time once she was caught She turned over her server when she was being investigated and cooperated through being cleared. She didn't fight the investigation, try to get followers to think the FBI did an improper raid on her house nor have a 2nd server that she tried to hide and claim didn't exist. Having a hard time thinking her scandal was closer to Trump's but sure somewhere between Biden and Trump

She didn't fight the investigation? How many blackberries were destroyed. Why weren't the e-mails turned over?

Your revised history isn't going to fly.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

OK. I'm simply passing along what somebody who I gather is familiar with these procedures speculated -- so as to allow Gabbard to testify under oath that the info wasn't classified.

Whether or not it should've been at that time would be neither here nor there -- to that specific question. But only in a narrow technical sense.

Either that or she just committed perjury.

BTW, I should note that the person I'm referring to is Ed Whelan -- who has been a clerk for a couple of federal judges (including Scalia at SCOTUS), general counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Deputy Assistant AG at the OLC.

So I would assume he has some familiarity with the machinery of this.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Maybe you should follow the thread to see how that came up, instead of cherry picking.

Pointing out other examples of use of classified material is not a defense. It's stating facts. Do you have a problem with stating facts or with the same standard applied to all?

I have no issue with facts. I do have issues with distorting facts to favor your partisan bias

 

[mcmurtry66]

She didn't fight the investigation? How many blackberries were destroyed. Why weren't the e-mails turned over?

Your revised history isn't going to fly.

What’s your take on this event based on your experience. Been waiting for you to weigh in without disclosing too much, obviously

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

She didn't fight the investigation? How many blackberries were destroyed. Why weren't the e-mails turned over?

Your revised history isn't going to fly.

I didn't revise anything. The investigators knew about the deleted emails and had no issue...thus you can't claim she interfered with their investigation

And you definitely can't claim what she did was worse than what Trump did and pretend you aren't hyper partisan

 

[DANC]

While I'm certainly not going to defend any of them, considering the reckless choice to use a public network for this conversation that any one of them could've and should've questioned, I find it interesting that Hegseth is the one taking most of the heat (at least from NRO)...given that Waltz was the one who added Goldberg to the thread.

I mean, Vance was on there too. So, if you're aiming at the highest ranking official on it, wouldn't that be Vance?

Because they think if they can generate enough heat on Hegseth, he'll resign or be fired. Easier to focus on just one at a time.

We've seen this act before.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I have no issue with facts. I do have issues with distorting facts to favor your partisan bias

You still think Biden is sharp as a razor. When you type your posts are you laughing as you type?

 

[DANC]

What’s your take on this event based on your experience. Been waiting for you to weigh in without disclosing too much, obviously

lol Sorry - Al Gore was still in the process of inventing the internet when I was in.

This is just another example of bureaucrats who don't really understand technology. Hillary opened an e-mail which put a virus on her computer. I didn't hear Democrat claiming she wasn't qualified to be Prez because of that.

It was a screw up, but a tempest in a teapot. The blame should be on whoever added Goldberg to the group chat.

I'm not convinced it wasn't a plant, but it really doesn't matter why.

 

[mcmurtry66]

lol Sorry - Al Gore was still in the process of inventing the internet when I was in.

This is just another example of bureaucrats who don't really understand technology. Hillary opened an e-mail which put a virus on her computer. I didn't hear Democrat claiming she wasn't qualified to be Prez because of that.

It was a screw up, but a tempest in a teapot. The blame should be on whoever added Goldberg to the group chat.

I'm not convinced it wasn't a plant, but it really doesn't matter why.

Thank you. That’s all I need from this thread

 

[DANC]

Top of my head:

1. Kennedy on Bay of Pigs
2. Reagan said something like "serious mistakes were made" in the iran contra affair.
3. Obama two weeks into office said "I screwed up"
4. Robert McNamara in his book said the US was "terribly wrong" going into Vietnam and keeping that war gone (albeit he did so only 1995)
5. Gary Hart resigned because he couldn't control his nether regions.

There might be others that I can't recall or remember, but few and far between

Those were admissions when there was no other way out. And far more serious than this incident.

Gary Hart? lmao

 

[dbmhoosier]

"I am not a crook." - R. Nixon

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." - B Clinton

"I will not pardon him [Hunter]." J. Biden

Cry more.

 

[Mark Milton]

Those were admissions when there was no other way out. And far more serious than this incident.

Gary Hart? lmao

Well, Gary did say sorry. As I said, apologies are almost nonexistent throughout history.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Cry more.

View embedded media

You're like a dog seeing a squirrel. Try to stay on topic. I realize you have no personal opinions or knowledge on any subject but at least try to link tweets of Twitter Twits on the subject at hand sometime.

 

[dbmhoosier]

You're like a dog seeing a squirrel. Try to stay on topic. I realize you have no personal opinions or knowledge on any subject but at least try to link tweets of Twitter Twits on the subject at hand sometime.

You are believing one of the biggest liars in the history of journalism. Let it play out.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

You are believing one of the biggest liars in the history of journalism. Let it play out.

View embedded media

It was confirmed by the white house, Mr. Hutz.

 

[DANC]

Good question. Goldberg repeatedly questions whether this is actually real because he has no idea why he would be included on it. He also writes:

"At 11:44 a.m., the account labeled “Pete Hegseth” posted in Signal a “TEAM UPDATE.” I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing."

I'm guessing at that point he's probably saying "oh shit". Goldberg probably did what he felt was best--not compromising anything by disclosing it.

Or he could have been worried he was being set up, which, if I were him, would be my first reaction.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You are believing one of the biggest liars in the history of journalism. Let it play out.

View embedded media

I'm not dismissing what he says, as you are and WH spokespersons aren't saying that what he's saying is false. They're admitting mistakes were made.

 

[DANC]

You do realize that DOGE is purposefully avoiding official channels to avoid records disclosures?

I think the real issue is people using personal devices assuming signal is approved. Leading officials should assume their personal devices are hacked and monitored.

Get Smart foresaw all this 60 years ago. They used the Cone of Silence to discuss sensitive information.

We should start using that again.

 

[DANC]

But some people build campaigns on it.

Again, name the time details of an operation were leaked just days in advance on a messaging app?

In this case, wasn't it 2 hours before the strike?

The mistake wasn't discussing on the app. It was inviting someone without required authorization into the chat.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

OK. I'm simply passing along what somebody who I gather is familiar with these procedures speculated -- so as to allow Gabbard to testify under oath that the info wasn't classified.

Whether or not it should've been at that time would be neither here nor there -- to that specific question. But only in a narrow technical sense.

Either that or she just committed perjury.

She's either fibbing or she's dumb.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Cry more.

View embedded media

Those still aren't very good "right track" numbers.

To me, what this reflects is that Dems were down on Biden -- and, in many cases, probably not having much to do with the state of things. They were understandably anxious about him running again and that morphed into anger at him when he dropped out late in the cycle.

Obviously, Republicans were down on him too....but a lot of Rs are naturally going to express more optimistic views now that their guy is in office.

Thing is: almost anybody who mentioned in 2023 the prospect of Biden bowing out was pilloried for it by many of the same people. Forfeiting the advantage of incumbency, etc.

 

[DANC]

I have no issue with facts. I do have issues with distorting facts to favor your partisan bias

I'm not the one doing that here.

 

[DANC]

I didn't revise anything. The investigators knew about the deleted emails and had no issue...thus you can't claim she interfered with their investigation

And you definitely can't claim what she did was worse than what Trump did and pretend you aren't hyper partisan

WTF are you talking about?

Destroying blackberries and using bleachbit isn't interfering with the investigation?

Are you f'ing serious?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Not quite true, Marv. Biden's lawyers reported they found classified information and reported.

Then, when the FBI was investigating, it was discovered there were other classified documents stored in different places.

That's quite different then 'Biden self-reported'. He only did it when it was about to be disclosed.

Still, not good evidence he attempted to hide boxes.

And to hear many tell it, he would be found not guilty if he did due to mental incompetence. He'd have to know that hiding boxes was wrong. That's the frustrating part about Trump, there were letters and then visits and finally a raid and he never took it seriously. If it had been, "oh my gosh, the move was chaotic, these got mixed in", that is one thing. But it went on far, far too long.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm not dismissing what he says, as you are and WH spokespersons aren't saying that what he's saying is false. They're admitting mistakes were made.

I've had more than my share of criticisms of Goldberg and The Atlantic in recent years. And I'd be more than glad to hop on that train here if it was warranted.

But it's not warranted at all. In fact, he exercised a lot of responsibility by waiting until after the operation was over before spilling the beans. And, when he did spill the beans, he took care to leave out things that he determined might be useful to our enemies.

Goldberg has done nothing wrong here. Waltz screwed up by (accidentally, we presume) looping him in. And, CISA's guidance aside, I still don't think these conversations belong on any public communications infrastructure...encrypted or not.

 

[Mark Milton]

Or he could have been worried he was being set up, which, if I were him, would be my first reaction.

He did mention that as well. I agree. Except I would have said something smart alecky like "guys, this one time at band camp, I shoved a flute up my _____"

 

[DANC]

Still, not good evidence he attempted to hide boxes.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Cry more.

View embedded media

It goes far deeper than that. The Hill is very much a non-partisan site:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5208363-trump-economic-vulnerability/

 

[mcmurtry66]

It was confirmed by the white house, Mr. Hutz.

One of the greatest characters ever created. The reporters in the bookshelves of his office

Wow those law books

Ah yes. Not only do they make decorative office pieces but there’s useful tidbits of information in some of them

I can’t remember exactly what he said. Pure genius

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Do you have evidence he hid documents? I'm not you, if he did, charge him and let a court decide his fate. I have no overwhelming personal loyalty to someone I have never met. That strange loyalty to Trump baffles me.

If Biden hid documents, let's get him charged.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

WTF are you talking about?

Destroying blackberries and using bleachbit isn't interfering with the investigation?

Are you f'ing serious?

And yet I don't recall her being taken to court or accused by investigators for interfering.

 

[DANC]

And yet I don't recall her being taken to court or accused by investigators for interfering.

Jame Comey looked at it for a couple weeks and decided not to prosecute. I wonder why.

To call that an 'investigation' is laughable.

 

[DANC]

Do you have evidence he hid documents? I'm not you, if he did, charge him and let a court decide his fate. I have no overwhelming personal loyalty to someone I have never met. That strange loyalty to Trump baffles me.

If Biden hid documents, let's get him charged.

So, when Trump doesn't turn in all his documents, he's hiding them.

When Biden doesn't turn his in - for decades - there's no 'evidence' he's hiding them?

I agree - treat them both the same. Charge one or charge none. I've always said that.

It's not loyalty, Marv. It's looking at facts and making up my own mind. I'm insulted you think I'm 'loyal' to Trump when I've clearly stated my differences here.

 

[toastedbread]

Get Smart foresaw all this 60 years ago. They used the Cone of Silence to discuss sensitive information.

We should start using that again.

If they are having these kinds of discussions on their personal cell phones that is the real scandal. I would then assume the Russians and Chinese governments have knowledge of all varieties of top secret information and resignations would be warranted.

 

[mattndallas]

It was a screw up, but a tempest in a teapot. The blame should be on whoever added Goldberg to the group chat.

I'm not convinced it wasn't a plant, but it really doesn't matter why.

I don't think it was a plant, or an intentional accident, or double smokescreen, or whatever.

That said, if authentic, how/why was Goldberg added? Who created the group? Was Goldberg added instead of a similar name (Gold-someone) that auto-filled (Jesus, imagine that ), OR, was this a case of the group creator using a databased "name" that wasn't actually the accurate recipient?

Who wasn't on the list that was intended? And if that person didn't make the list, how/why was his name/number/handle/whatever replaced with Goldberg? How the hell did Goldberg even get into the "system"? Who had this Goldberg guy listed in the Rolodex as a "trusted US Official", and why?

 

[DANC]

If they are having these kinds of discussions on their personal cell phones that is the real scandal. I would then assume the Russians and Chinese governments have knowledge of all varieties of top secret information and resignations would be warranted.

Let's hope they're not.

If they learned anything from the Ukraine war, it's that unsecure comms are deadly. Russians found that out the hard way.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

In this case, wasn't it 2 hours before the strike?

The mistake wasn't discussing on the app. It was inviting someone without required authorization into the chat.

Of course it was a mistake discussing on the app. It's not authorized for classified or CCI. Back in your day it would have been inappropriate to have the discussion using smoke signals. OK, you're not quite that old, it would have been inappropriate to discuss via open radio channels.

 

[toastedbread]

Let's hope they're not.

If they learned anything from the Ukraine war, it's that unsecure comms are deadly. Russians found that out the hard way.

If I've seen nothing else from this administration they are incredibly sloppy and careless. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

 

[DANC]

I don't think it was a plant, or an intentional accident, or double smokescreen, or whatever.

That said, if authentic, how/why was Goldberg added? Who created the group? Was Goldberg added instead of a similar name (Gold-someone) that auto-filled (Jesus, imagine that ), OR, was this a case of the group creator using a databased "name" that wasn't actually the accurate recipient?

Who wasn't on the list that was intended? And if that person didn't make the list, how/why was his name/number/handle/whatever replaced with Goldberg? How the hell did Goldberg even get into the "system"? Who had this Goldberg guy listed in the Rolodex as a "trusted US Official", and why?

My total guess is that Signal has an address book Waltz probably had Goldberg in there because he had previous communications with him. He either accidently or intentionally added him to the chat.

I'm curious about when he was added. Was he added when there was some general discussion before people started talking plans and they forgot he was on there? I'd have to see the entire chat exchanges and when he was added.