Trump Admin Shares War Plans w Journalist

[jross]

6 minutes ago, 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. 

I am certain that several government workers will continue to use signal unless IT audits and enforcement occurs.  Humans do what they will.

[red viking]

1 minute ago, jross said:

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.  

The person that invited him into the chat should be fired and so should the people that were part of the decision to use Signal for this and didn't try to do anything to prevent it. That's probably all of them. That's incredibly stupid. 

[red viking]

5 minutes ago, jross said:

I am certain that several government workers will continue to use signal unless IT audits and enforcement occurs.  Humans do what they will.

OMG. You don't see the difference between using Signal to talk about planned military operations and using Signal to talk about routine civilian government work? 

I've used my personal phone to chat about government business but there's no comparison to this. No way I'd use it to discuss stuff like this. 

This is unreal. 

Edited Tuesday at 07:06 PM by red viking

[red viking]

10 minutes ago, jross said:

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

Absolutely not. Congress and the people of this country need to know about this. This will be important in the next elections, including 2026. We need a Democratic Congress that has a chance to get rid of these clowns. 

[Tripnsweep]

So when are the congressional hearings and investigations about this going to start? 

[jross]

7 minutes ago, red viking said:

The person that invited him into the chat should be fired and so should the people that were part of the decision to use Signal for this and didn't try to do anything to prevent it. That's probably all of them. That's incredibly stupid. 

Signal itself is secure!  The less serious problem is that the conversation is not record kept.  The more serious problem is the human error of inviting the wrong person to the chat.  It's a lot harder to get access to one of the end point devices where the unencrypted information is present.

Part of the problem that provides leeway is that Signal was already installed on devices and utilized by the prior administration.

[jross]

12 minutes ago, red viking said:

Absolutely not. Congress and the people of this country need to know about this. This will be important in the next elections, including 2026. We need a Democratic Congress that has a chance to get rid of these clowns. 

This "Signal" incident will not impact my independent vote in 2026 or 2028.

Neither will bombing to protect the trading routes.

[jross]

12 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

So when are the congressional hearings and investigations about this going to start? 

Why waste money?  Fire the meeting organizer staffer at minimum... issue the newly enforced policy... reprimand those involved... move on.

Edited Tuesday at 07:21 PM by jross

[red viking]

5 minutes ago, jross said:

Signal itself is secure!  The less serious problem is that the conversation is not record kept.  The more serious problem is the human error of inviting the wrong person to the chat.  It's a lot harder to get access to one of the end point devices where the unencrypted information is present.

Part of the problem that provides leeway is that Signal was already installed on devices and utilized by the prior administration.

That's a lie. Signal is not secure enough. That's a relative term. There is an official platform(s) for communicating this type of information and they blatantly disregarded proper protocol. 

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, jross said:

Why waste money?  Fire the meeting organizer staffer at minimum... issue the new policy... reprimand those involved... move on.

He's not firing anybody that's loyal to him. That's the problem. Loyalty to Trump is 95% of the decision to hire/fire people in this Administration. 

[jross]

17 minutes ago, red viking said:

OMG. You don't see the difference between using Signal to talk about planned military operations and using Signal to talk about routine civilian government work? 

I've used my personal phone to chat about government business but there's no comparison to this. No way I'd use it to discuss stuff like this. 

This is unreal. 

You are talking about what's right.  I'm talking about human nature.

[fishbane]

18 minutes ago, 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.  

I don't think the approach of "Fix this or I publish" should have been taken.  He could have just been deleted from the chat and who knows if they do anything.  Publishing holds them accountable.  Not sure how he could use the leverage of not publishing to do any more.

I don't think naming the app or not changes anything in a material way.  If they take security seriously moving forward then whatever app it was would be of no use to foreign actors because it will not be used.  If he chose not to name the app than any foreign gov could guess between at most a handful of apps and get it in short order.  Doesn't make much difference in my opinion. 

I wasn't really asking if Goldberg would have wrote the same story about a breach 6 months ago.  It was more asking if you'd call a story like this about the Biden administration "clout chasing" regardless of who wrote it (Goldberg/The Atlantic/Fox News/Whoever)?   

[jross]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

I don't think the approach of "Fix this or I publish" should have been taken.  He could have just been deleted from the chat and who knows if they do anything.  Publishing holds them accountable.  Not sure how he could use the leverage of not publishing to do any more.

I don't think naming the app or not changes anything in a material way.  If they take security seriously moving forward then whatever app it was would be of no use to foreign actors because it will not be used.  If he chose not to name the app than any foreign gov could guess between at most a handful of apps and get it in short order.  Doesn't make much difference in my opinion. 

I wasn't really asking if Goldberg would have wrote the same story about a breach 6 months ago.  It was more asking if you'd call a story like this about the Biden administration "clout chasing" regardless of who wrote it (Goldberg/The Atlantic/Fox News/Whoever)?   

Clout chasing is clout chasing.

It'd be hard not to as a media company.

[mspart]

28 minutes ago, red viking said:

The person that invited him into the chat should be fired

That is the point jross is making. 

mspart

[jross]

7 minutes ago, red viking said:

That's a lie. Signal is not secure enough. That's a relative term. There is an official platform(s) for communicating this type of information and they blatantly disregarded proper protocol. 

Signal’s comms encryption have never been busted. Attacks hit the devices or trick the users, not the code. Sooner or later, some tech leap or random bug may crack it open.

[Tripnsweep]

31 minutes ago, jross said:

Why waste money?  Fire the meeting organizer staffer at minimum... issue the newly enforced policy... reprimand those involved... move on.

You don't think that people should resign or be fired over accidentally sharing classified military information? Fortunately the chief editor of The Atlantic is able to keep his mouth shut and not compromise anyone. 

If you were angry about Hilary Clinton and her emails then you should be furious about this. 

[Caveira]

33 minutes ago, red viking said:

That's a lie. Signal is not secure enough. That's a relative term. There is an official platform(s) for communicating this type of information and they blatantly disregarded proper protocol. 

It’s not a personal email account / server I hope.  That would be bad.  

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

You don't think that people should resign or be fired over accidentally sharing classified military information? Fortunately the chief editor of The Atlantic is able to keep his mouth shut and not compromise anyone. 

If you were angry about Hilary Clinton and her emails then you should be furious about this. 

It says fired in his second sentence.  

Edited Tuesday at 07:57 PM by Caveira

[red viking]

10 minutes ago, Caveira said:

It’s not a personal email account / server I hope.  That would be bad.  

This is military plans. I know u wingers get confused a lot, but let's differentiate this from other types of govt communication. 

[jross]

I’m hearing Democrats and the CIA Director insist Signal’s fine for government use, with Ratcliffe and Hegseth claiming the info wasn’t classified. At best, the chatters are playing word games to dodge the obvious: you don’t invite a reporter to share coordination about forthcoming strikes. At worst, it’s a reckless lack of accountability. "Legal" or not, admit the screw-up. Ratcliffe won't admit it was a major mistake.  He was going to downplay it as an inadvertent release of unclassified information.  Gabbard either would not admit or at least wasn't given enough time to admit she was on the chat.

They've been coached to dodge and appear spineless as result.  This is the ick that makes me sick.

So now I want them all thrown out... but that gets us no where.

Minimally need to fire the Waltz staffer.  If this was intentional, does he get jail time?  Trump already said Waltz is too valued to fire... so be it.

Take these dips in the back room and slap them around.

Then move on.

 

[jross]

Old ass children can't admit they make a mistake.

[Wrestleknownothing]

And in the single most predictable move, Trump is standing by Waltz and claiming it is imperfect technology, ignoring that it is not approved technology for that very reason.

And CIA Director Radcliffe when asked if this was a huge mistake replied with a one word answer, "No".

To work for Trump, to be Trump, you must be genetically modified to have any sense of shame over telling bald-faced lies removed.

[Le duke]

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.  

Why?

They all committed serious security violations.

Ones that would get just about anyone wise fired.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Le duke]

Signal’s comms encryption have never been busted. Attacks hit the devices or trick the users, not the code. Sooner or later, some tech leap or random bug may crack it open.

Bro…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1032004]

1 hour ago, jross said:

I’m hearing Democrats and the CIA Director insist Signal’s fine for government use, with Ratcliffe and Hegseth claiming the info wasn’t classified. At best, the chatters are playing word games to dodge the obvious: you don’t invite a reporter to share coordination about forthcoming strikes. At worst, it’s a reckless lack of accountability. "Legal" or not, admit the screw-up. Ratcliffe won't admit it was a major mistake.  He was going to downplay it as an inadvertent release of unclassified information.  Gabbard either would not admit or at least wasn't given enough time to admit she was on the chat.

They've been coached to dodge and appear spineless as result.  This is the ick that makes me sick.

So now I want them all thrown out... but that gets us no where.

Minimally need to fire the Waltz staffer.  If this was intentional, does he get jail time?  Trump already said Waltz is too valued to fire... so be it.

Take these dips in the back room and slap them around.

Then move on.

 

Good on you for acknowledging the word games.  Seeing a lot of people on x saying “Gabbard says it wasn’t classified.  See!”

Edited Tuesday at 10:31 PM by 1032004