Trump Admin Shares War Plans w Journalist

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 hours ago, jross said:

I’m announcing a new White House policy: Any outlet that exploits breaches like the Houthi leak, or twists ops to harm our security, gets cut off. No chats, no leaks, no seat at the table. If you put headlines over America, you’re out.

I seem to recall you rejoicing over the new freedoms of speech under a Trump administration. Censoring journalist who expose serious incompetence is the worst form of denial of freedom of speech. This journalist did this country a great service by exposing this breech of protocols that could put the military at risk. If anything, he should be rewarded. Without his work these morons would keep breeching security protocols.

[red viking]

3 hours ago, jross said:

I’m announcing a new White House policy: Any outlet that exploits breaches like the Houthi leak, or twists ops to harm our security, gets cut off. No chats, no leaks, no seat at the table. If you put headlines over America, you’re out.

He didn't expose anything until after the attack happened. 

ATLANTIC: if you are reading this, THANK YOU for exposing the continued incompetence of this Administration. Hopefully they learn something so that this will happen less often in the future. You may have saved several American lives in the future.  

Edited March 25 by red viking

[jross]

Mike Waltz is a former Army Special Forces officer that received four Bronze Stars while serving in the Special Forces during multiple combat tours in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Africa. He served in the Bush administration as a defense policy director in the Pentagon and as counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney.  AND “It was one of Michael’s (Waltz) people on the phone. A staffer had his (reporter) number on there,” the president said. 

I think we shouldn't be interfering in other countries period unless it is absolutely necessary.  I'm not an expert on the constitution for war.  What I'm reading is this:

• The U.S. Constitution assigns specific roles to Congress and the President regarding military actions, including bombing other countries. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power "to declare War," meaning it has the sole authority to formally initiate military hostilities. This implies that significant military actions, like bombing another country, traditionally require congressional approval.

• Article II, Section 2 designates the President as the "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces, giving him broad authority to direct military operations once war is authorized or in response to immediate threats.

• Congress hasn’t declared war since World War II. Instead, presidents have increasingly relied on their Article II powers for military actions, especially short-term or "limited" strikes

  • Korea (1950-1953) - Truman sent troops and authorized bombing of North Korea under UN auspices, no declaration.
  • Lebanon (1958) - Eisenhower deployed troops and air support to stabilize the government, no declaration.
  • Vietnam (1964-1973) - Johnson escalated bombing and troop deployment after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, no declaration.
  • Dominican Republic (1965) - Johnson sent troops and air support to quell a rebellion, no declaration.
  • Cambodia (1970) - Nixon expanded Vietnam War with bombing campaigns, no declaration.
  • Laos (1962-1975) - Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon conducted secret bombing against North Vietnamese supply lines, no declaration.
  • Grenada (1983) - Reagan invaded and bombed to oust a Marxist regime, no declaration.
  • Libya (1986) - Reagan ordered airstrikes on Tripoli and Benghazi after a terrorist attack, no declaration.
  • Panama (1989) - George H.W. Bush launched an invasion with air support to remove Noriega, no declaration.
  • Iraq (1991) - George H.W. Bush led Desert Storm with bombing after a congressional authorization, no declaration.
  • Iraq (1993) - Clinton bombed Baghdad in response to an assassination plot, no declaration.
  • Iraq (1998) - Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, four days of airstrikes, no declaration.
  • Bosnia (1995) - Clinton ordered NATO-led airstrikes to enforce peace, no declaration.
  • Kosovo (1999) - Clinton authorized NATO bombing of Serbia, no declaration.
  • Afghanistan (2001) - George W. Bush bombed al-Qaeda and Taliban targets under the 2001 AUMF, no declaration.
  • Iraq (2003) - George W. Bush invaded and bombed under a 2003 authorization, no declaration.
  • Pakistan (2004-2018) - Bush and Obama conducted drone strikes on terrorist targets, no declaration.
  • Yemen (2002-present) - Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump used drone strikes and occasional bombings against al-Qaeda and Houthis, no declaration.
  • Libya (2011) - Obama led NATO airstrikes to topple Gaddafi, no declaration.
  • Syria (2014-present) - Obama, Trump, and Biden bombed ISIS and Syrian targets under the 2001 AUMF, no declaration.
  • Somalia (2007-present) - Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden conducted airstrikes and drone campaigns against al-Shabaab, no declaration.
  • Yemen (2025) - Trump bombed Houthi targets in response to Red Sea attacks, no declaration.

Note: I have not fact checked all the examples above.

Edited March 25 by jross

[Le duke]

15 minutes ago, jross said:

Mike Waltz is a former Army Special Forces officer that received four Bronze Stars while serving in the Special Forces during multiple combat tours in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Africa. He served in the Bush administration as a defense policy director in the Pentagon and as counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney.  AND “It was one of Michael’s (Waltz) people on the phone. A staffer had his (reporter) number on there,” the president said. 

 

A staffer put a journalist in a group chat...

in which Cabinet members were discussing S//NF details that, through compilation, add up to TS//NF information on a non-secure information system.

So, you're blaming the staffer for adding a journalist, and not the multiple Cabinet members who actually did the illegal thing in question?

Luckily, the journalist had the presence of mind to wait until after the operations were concluded before publishing the story. A *I poop my pants, don't laugh at me* load of American service members could have been killed.

Edited March 25 by Le duke

[jross]

14 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I seem to recall you rejoicing over the new freedoms of speech under a Trump administration. Censoring journalist who expose serious incompetence is the worst form of denial of freedom of speech. This journalist did this country a great service by exposing this breech of protocols that could put the military at risk. If anything, he should be rewarded. Without his work these morons would keep breeching security protocols.

Free speech let Goldberg publish; it doesn’t make him a hero. He lingered in the chat, passively collecting sensitive info he wasn’t cleared for, didn’t report the breach before going public, potentially letting enemies monitor Signal longer, and named Signal as the platform U.S. officials used. But the real mess starts with Waltz: his staffer adding Goldberg, Waltz not vetting the chat, and everyone using Signal. Goldberg’s recklessness just piles on.

 

[jross]

4 minutes ago, Le duke said:

So, you're blaming the staffer for adding a journalist, and not the multiple Cabinet members who actually did the illegal thing in question?

Its not a sucker's choice.  Its all those involved.  Please READ!

Quote

 

If I'm Trump, this is what I'd do:

• No Atlantic Leaks: Caught leaking to The Atlantic or talking without my okay? Fired.
• Signal’s Done: Past admins used it; Us, Biden’s crew. It’s easy, secure, but after the Houthi fiasco, it’s banned. JWICS for big stuff, Teams Gov for rest. Caught on unapproved apps? Gone. IT’s watching.
  • ...and  an official scolding to those on the chat
• Waltz’s Mess: Michael Waltz, your Signal invite let a journalist see war plans. Explain.  Fired.  Deputy steps up until I name a replacement.

 

[red viking]

15 minutes ago, jross said:

I think we shouldn't be interfering in other countries period unless it is absolutely necessary.  I'm not an expert on the constitution for war.  What I'm reading is this:

Agreed. We should be protecting our own borders, and that's about it. I think our reasons for invading other countries has more to do with economic interests (including lobbying) and/or protecting the status of the dollar than actual national security. Unfortunately, with so many foreign countries holding U.S. treasuries (which they could  decide to dump at any time) and allowing the dollar to be the reserve currency of the world, we could suffer serious economic blows by isolating ourselves. I'd still rather take that chance though. There's a good chance that these things happen at some point anyway. 

Much better to isolate ourselves by not intervening militarily than by starting trade wars with allies though. This is where  Trump is making a mistake, and he appears to realize that based upon his going back and forth. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

6 minutes ago, jross said:

Free speech let Goldberg publish; it doesn’t make him a hero. He lingered in the chat, passively collecting sensitive info he wasn’t cleared for, didn’t report the breach before going public, potentially letting enemies monitor Signal longer, and named Signal as the platform U.S. officials used. But the real mess starts with Waltz: his staffer adding Goldberg, Waltz not vetting the chat, and everyone using Signal. Goldberg’s recklessness just piles on.

 

Three things that politicians are great at, and Donald Trump is the best at, are lying, deflecting, and covering up.

Sunshine is the best antiseptic.

If he had simply reported to these guys that he was in the chat, they would have deleted him from the chat, kept using Signal exposing us to ongoing security risks, and then lied about it when he reported on it after the fact. He appears to have done exactly the right thing. They would have been chanting the Trump mantra "fake new, fake news, fake news" with a dead look in their eyes, had he handled it differently.

This is why many companies, and maybe the government, hire white hack hackers, to uncover their vulnerabilities before they are exploited by bad actors. And the thing about bad actors is that they never expose, just exploit. By exposing the incompetence here, the reporter has done the right thing to prevent others from exploiting. Again he is owed a debt of gratitude. Not censorship.

You are proposing censorship, which makes no sense to me given your prior proclamations that you were being censored and now it would stop.

[Scouts Honor]

asking myself

i know this is bad, but is this better or worse than a general talking with china 

[Scouts Honor]

i heard protect our own borders.

i agree, let leave ukraines borders to ukraine.

[fishbane]

4 hours ago, jross said:

I’m announcing a new White House policy: Any outlet that exploits breaches like the Houthi leak, or twists ops to harm our security, gets cut off. No chats, no leaks, no seat at the table. If you put headlines over America, you’re out.

Would you say the Atlantic reporter, Mr. Goldberg did this?

[jross]

10 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Three things that politicians are great at, and Donald Trump is the best at, are lying, deflecting, and covering up.

Sunshine is the best antiseptic.

If he had simply reported to these guys that he was in the chat, they would have deleted him from the chat, kept using Signal exposing us to ongoing security risks, and then lied about it when he reported on it after the fact. He appears to have done exactly the right thing. They would have been chanting the Trump mantra "fake new, fake news, fake news" with a dead look in their eyes, had he handled it differently.

This is why many companies, and maybe the government, hire white hack hackers, to uncover their vulnerabilities before they are exploited by bad actors. And the thing about bad actors is that they never expose, just exploit. By exposing the incompetence here, the reporter has done the right thing to prevent others from exploiting. Again he is owed a debt of gratitude. Not censorship.

You are proposing censorship, which makes no sense to me given your prior proclamations that you were being censored and now it would stop.

Restricting staffers from speaking with the Atlantic, unless permission is granted, would be a workplace rule with consequences, not censorship.  This is the same "suckers and losers" group.

There are multiple ways to fully expose the risk with accountability in a less reckless manner.  

[Le duke]

17 minutes ago, jross said:

Free speech let Goldberg publish; it doesn’t make him a hero. He lingered in the chat, passively collecting sensitive info he wasn’t cleared for, didn’t report the breach before going public, potentially letting enemies monitor Signal longer, and named Signal as the platform U.S. officials used. But the real mess starts with Waltz: his staffer adding Goldberg, Waltz not vetting the chat, and everyone using Signal. Goldberg’s recklessness just piles on.

 

So, nothing about all of the other people in the administration letting this happen?

Tulsi Gabbard? The DNI?

Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense?

JD Vance, the Vice President of the United States?

[jross]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

Would you say the Atlantic reporter, Mr. Goldberg did this?

He overshared, amplifying security vulnerability awareness and contributing hurting his own country's brand.

His reward for this sensational scoop is no more scoops.

[jross]

2 minutes ago, Le duke said:

So, nothing about all of the other people in the administration letting this happen?

Tulsi Gabbard? The DNI?

Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense?

JD Vance, the Vice President of the United States?

Please READ!

"Reprimand those on the chat." 

To me this means verbal warnings/written rebukes in their personnel files.  IT attention to their devices on apps installed, amongst larger personal device app compliance.  Not fired.

[fishbane]

1 minute ago, jross said:

He overshared, amplifying security vulnerability awareness and contributing hurting his own country's brand.

His reward for this sensational scoop is no more scoops.

It does seem like he used some discretion in what he shared.  He did not share everything or publish their contact information and did not publish ahead of the strike.  You think he shouldn't have published anything at all?  Would you have felt the same way if he had been included on a similar signal chat 6 months ago?

[red viking]

3 minutes ago, jross said:

He overshared, amplifying security vulnerability awareness and contributing hurting his own country's brand.

His reward for this sensational scoop is no more scoops.

How did he hurt national security for sharing what already occurred? 

[fishbane]

5 minutes ago, Le duke said:

So, nothing about all of the other people in the administration letting this happen?

Tulsi Gabbard? The DNI?

Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense?

JD Vance, the Vice President of the United States?

At least VP Vance cannot be fired.

[jross]

Just now, fishbane said:

It does seem like he used some discretion in what he shared.  He did not share everything or publish their contact information and did not publish ahead of the strike.  You think he shouldn't have published anything at all?  Would you have felt the same way if he had been included on a similar signal chat 6 months ago?

Goldberg showed some restraint but he screwed up the approach.  He could have used his leverage upfront: ‘I’m in your classified chat; fix this or I publish.’  Then, if he wrote anything, skip naming Signal and focus on the systemic failure.  'I got sensitive plans on an unapproved app; here’s why that’s a mess.'  Should he have stayed silent?  No, but this was clout-chasing, not duty.  Six months ago? I’d still care.  Security is security.  Would he have run it then?  Probably, but less punch.  

[red viking]

Good thing we got rid of DEI and are now hiring based solely upon "merit." 

Definition of merit: Loyalty to Trump

[jross]

13 minutes ago, red viking said:

How did he hurt national security for sharing what already occurred? 

Hi thieves!  That rich banker leaves his doors unlocked.

Hi enemies!  Come focus your attention on Signal.  

[red viking]

Just now, jross said:

Goldberg showed some restraint but he screwed up the approach.  He could have used his leverage upfront: ‘I’m in your classified chat; fix this or I publish.’  Then, if he wrote anything, skip naming Signal and focus on the systemic failure.  'I got sensitive plans on an unapproved app; here’s why that’s a mess.'  Should he have stayed silent?  No, but this was clout-chasing, not duty.  Six months ago? I’d still care.  Security is security.  Would he have run it then?  Probably, but less punch.  

He 100% did the correct thing. Incompetence needs to be exposed, including with the media. That's how we are able to get rid of incompetent people, or force them to fix their problems. 

Who do you think we are, Russia? Oh...wait....

[red viking]

Just now, jross said:

Hi thieves!  That rich banker leaves his doors unlocked.

Hi enemies!  Come focus your attention on Signal.  

Yah; I'm sure they're going to keep using Signal after all of this. If you think that's the case, I have a bridge to sell you. 

If Trump simply did the  right thing and fired them like a competent President would do, then that wouldn't be a discussion in the first place. 

[jross]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

He 100% did the correct thing. Incompetence needs to be exposed, including with the media. That's how we are able to get rid of incompetent people, or force them to fix their problems. 

Who do you think we are, Russia? Oh...wait....

Can you think of a better way one might influence you to lock your doors without publicly declaring your doors are unlocked?

[jross]

Just now, red viking said:

Yah; I'm sure they're going to keep using Signal after all of this. If you think that's the case, I have a bridge to sell you. 

If Trump simply did the  right thing and fired them like a competent President would do, then that wouldn't be a discussion in the first place. 

Firing the people on the chat is inappropriate.  

I'm regularly on an extended government call where once we get to security, I hop off the call.  Staying on the call would be me behaving like GB.  I should be fired if I chose to stay.  And so should the meeting organizer for allowing it.  The people sharing on the call are not accountable for who was invited and who remains on the call.