Trump Admin Shares War Plans w Journalist

[1032004]

12 minutes ago, jross said:

If spotting a staged leak is convoluted, try explaining Goldberg’s invite as a whoopsie.

----

The least likely event is an accidental invite of a despised reporter.

The obvious scenarios are a staffer, Russia via social engineering, or Waltz himself.

Why would this chat, framing the U.S. as strong compared to Europe and Iran/Houthis as trade-route villains, include this reporter?

A staffer might want to to embarrass Waltz/Hegseth, hoping to spark turnover.  Who is this staffer and do they have access to Waltz device?

Russia would go about this a different way.  They wouldn't want to expose their insights, know it will give reason to cramp down.  They also wouldn't benefit from leadership turnover or projection of America's strength.  Remember... "Hegseth is unqualified"... so why would Russia want him out?

It is unlikely that Waltz would knowingly end his career to embarrass Hegseth.  Waltz, likely with a partner, staged this; the narratives are too sharp for chance.

Take off the tinfoil hat dude.  Goldberg got invited because Waltz meant to invite someone with the same initials.  Waltz acknowledged he did it himself. 

Not to mention it’s debatable this chat “frames the US as strong.”  It shows the VP disagreeing with the President 

Edited March 27 by 1032004

[jross]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

how including a reporter in the chat 

What was the honest risk of including the reporter based on the material discussed?

[Scouts Honor]

6 minutes ago, jross said:

What was the honest risk of including the reporter based on the material discussed?

none

[fishbane]

7 minutes ago, jross said:

What was the honest risk of including the reporter based on the material discussed?

That the reporter would report on it immediately and a target of the attack might see it.  You don't send something to a reporter with the expectation that they don't write about it.

[jross]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Take off the tinfoil hat dude.  Goldberg got invited because Waltz meant to invite someone with the same initials.  Waltz acknowledged he did it himself. 

Not to mention it’s debatable this chat “frames the US as strong.”  It shows the VP disagreeing with the President 

I missed that.  Did he directly state that he invited Goldberg by mistake because he shared the initials of another person?  Does that change that it could be an intentional leak?  Do we have reason to believe these people who were obviously lying are telling the truth with how Goldberg was added?

Please explain how the VP is disagreeing with the president.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

14 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

none

Said no military expert, ever.

[jross]

6 minutes ago, fishbane said:

That the reporter would report on it immediately and a target of the attack might see it.  You don't send something to a reporter with the expectation that they don't write about it.

Publishing before hand would be self-suicide.

The practicality of publishing quickly enough for the target to understand/act is slim. 

The damage to the gov optics would be much worse.

Has the US government ever shared information with reporters before strikes?  (yes)

[fishbane]

6 minutes ago, jross said:

I missed that.  Did he directly state that he invited Goldberg by mistake because he shared the initials of another person?  Does that change that it could be an intentional leak?  Do we have reason to believe these people who were obviously lying are telling the truth with how Goldberg was added?

Please explain how the VP is disagreeing with the president.  

I don't know if it had anything to do with the initials.  His statement was closer to he had Goldberg's number saved under the wrong name thought he had invited someone else.  He didn't know how that happened.  

You're intentional leak hypothesis makes no sense at all.  Why intentionally leak something to a journalist that is going to be public two hours later?  It's unlikely that he gets it published before everyone already knows and if he does then that's really bad.  Usually things get leaked so that they become public, because they otherwise would not.  This is not the case here so it serves no purpose to leak it. 

[1032004]

29 minutes ago, jross said:

I missed that.  Did he directly state that he invited Goldberg by mistake because he shared the initials of another person?  Does that change that it could be an intentional leak?  Do we have reason to believe these people who were obviously lying are telling the truth with how Goldberg was added?

Please explain how the VP is disagreeing with the president.  

He didn’t specifically say it was due to the initials, but after the nonsense about the number getting “sucked in,” he ultimately admitted that “the person I thought was on the chat, wasn’t.”

 

 

Here is the quote from Vance.  Not a great thing to go public IMO

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, fishbane said:

I don't know if it had anything to do with the initials.  His statement was closer to he had Goldberg's number saved under the wrong name thought he had invited someone else.  He didn't know how that happened.  

Again not confirmed it was a mistake because of the initials, but the screenshots do show that Goldberg just appeared on the chat as “JG,” so IMO it is the most likely scenario of how he “thought he had invited someone else”

[fishbane]

34 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

He didn’t specifically say it was due to the initials, but after the nonsense about the number getting “sucked in,” he ultimately admitted that “the person I thought was on the chat, wasn’t.”

Again not confirmed it was a mistake because of the initials, but the screenshots do show that Goldberg just appeared on the chat as “JG,” so IMO it is the most likely scenario of how he “thought he had invited someone else”

That's the clip that I had seen.   It's pretty funny.  Whether he fat fingered the invite or had Goldberg saved as someone else to conceal he had him saved and forgot or saved only as his initials again to conceal he had him saved and confused it for another JG it's a pretty embarrassing mistake.

This also cuts against JRoss's intentional leak hypothesis.  Why call him a loser like that when you intentionally added him to the chat?

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, fishbane said:

That's the clip that I had seen.   It's pretty funny.  Whether he fat fingered the invite or had Goldberg saved as someone else to conceal he had him saved and forgot or saved only as his initials again to conceal he had him saved and confused it for another JG it's a pretty embarrassing mistake.

This also cuts against JRoss's intentional leak hypothesis.  Why call him a loser like that when you intentionally added him to the chat?

Waltz also said he didn’t know Goldberg and had never talked to him.  

[1032004]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Waltz also said he didn’t know Goldberg and had never talked to him.  

Which was an obvious lie.  Or are you just arguing we’re not sure when he’s actually telling the truth?

Edited March 27 by 1032004

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Which was an obvious lie.  Or are you just arguing we’re not sure when he’s actually telling the truth?

The only thing I find obvious about this is that dimocrats don’t want the administration using Signal.  Maybe because they can’t crack it. 

[Tripnsweep]

False alarm people. Trump says none of this happened and it's just a liberal hoax.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/27/politics/yemen-security-breach-trump-hegseth-waltz/index.html

[jross]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

I don't know if it had anything to do with the initials.  His statement was closer to he had Goldberg's number saved under the wrong name thought he had invited someone else.  He didn't know how that happened.  

You're intentional leak hypothesis makes no sense at all.  Why intentionally leak something to a journalist that is going to be public two hours later?  It's unlikely that he gets it published before everyone already knows and if he does then that's really bad.  Usually things get leaked so that they become public, because they otherwise would not.  This is not the case here so it serves no purpose to leak it. 

Because of the narrative and attention.  I've never witnessed so much attention to a strike like this.  But now I am reading and paying attention:

1. Europe Is Incapable and Freeloading
   • Waltz : "European navies do not have the capability to defend against the types of sophisticated, anti-ship, cruise missiles, and drones the Houthis are now using." 
   • Hegseth: "VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC." 
2. United States as Strong and Decisive
   • Waltz: "Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes." 
   • Hegseth: "We are prepared to execute … This [is] not about the Houthis … 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation … 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered." 
   • Hegseth: "Start this on our own terms … if we don’t act … this leaks, and we look indecisive." 
   • Ratcliffe: "CIA is mobilizing to support now." Even the spooks are in, showing all-hands commitment.
3. America First: No Freeloading, Trump-Aligned
   • Waltz: "[We’re] working with the defense and state departments to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans – at Trump’s request." 
   • Miller: "The president was clear: green light, but … if the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return." 
   • Vance: "I just hate bailing Europe out again … The public may not understand why sending a message is necessary." Vance is not dissenting, just considering consistency.
4. Leaders Care
   • Vance: "I will say a prayer for victory."  and emojis from others...
   • Vance: ...Risk to increase of oil price...

Edited March 27 by jross

[jross]

40 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Why call him a loser like that when you intentionally added him to the chat?

The mindset is because he is a loser and based on the suckers and loser story, the perfect reporter.

[1032004]

27 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The only thing I find obvious about this is that dimocrats don’t want the administration using Signal.  Maybe because they can’t crack it. 

This is a new one.  The usual playbook response about this I’m seeing is that Biden was the one that approved using Signal in the first place 

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

He didn’t specifically say it was due to the initials, but after the nonsense about the number getting “sucked in,” he ultimately admitted that “the person I thought was on the chat, wasn’t.”

 

 

Here is the quote from Vance.  Not a great thing to go public IMO

 

 

 

Again not confirmed it was a mistake because of the initials, but the screenshots do show that Goldberg just appeared on the chat as “JG,” so IMO it is the most likely scenario of how he “thought he had invited someone else”

The JG in the screen shot could be basic configuration.  (I’ve not used signal) but a lot of these collab tools will default to initials when showing a name.   Our zoom configuration does that for example.  

[jross]

I don't need the answers to how Goldberg was added to understand that the people on the chat are punks.

Intentional?  No Intentional?  Just say you made a mistake and own it.

The denial and spin overshadows the win.

[1032004]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

The JG in the screen shot could be basic configuration.  (I’ve not used signal) but a lot of these collab tools will default to initials when showing a name.   Our zoom configuration does that for example.  

According to the screnshots, some of the people showed as initials (such as “MAR” and “TG”), but others showed as names (such as “JD Vance” and “Pete Hegseth”).  I don’t know anything about Signal but to me this suggests that how the names appeared was based on how they were stored on Waltz’s phone.

[fishbane]

13 minutes ago, jross said:

Because of the narrative and attention.  I've never witnessed so much attention to a strike like this.  But now I am reading and paying attention:

1. Europe Is Incapable and Freeloading
   • Waltz : "European navies do not have the capability to defend against the types of sophisticated, anti-ship, cruise missiles, and drones the Houthis are now using." 
   • Hegseth: "VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC." 
2. United States as Strong and Decisive
   • Waltz: "Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes." 
   • Hegseth: "We are prepared to execute … This [is] not about the Houthis … 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation … 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered." 
   • Hegseth: "Start this on our own terms … if we don’t act … this leaks, and we look indecisive." 
   • Ratcliffe: "CIA is mobilizing to support now." Even the spooks are in, showing all-hands commitment.
3. America First: No Freeloading, Trump-Aligned
   • Waltz: "[We’re] working with the defense and state departments to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans – at Trump’s request." 
   • Miller: "The president was clear: green light, but … if the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return." 
   • Vance: "I just hate bailing Europe out again … The public may not understand why sending a message is necessary." Vance is not dissenting, just considering consistency.
4. Leaders Care
   • Vance: "I will say a prayer for victory."  and emojis from others...
   • Vance: ...Risk to increase of oil price...

None of the attention is on 1), 2), 3) or 4) it is on their incompetence...  A message that we are strong, decisive, and incompetent isn't a good combination. 

[fishbane]

14 minutes ago, jross said:

I don't need the answers to how Goldberg was added to understand that the people on the chat are punks.

Intentional?  No Intentional?  Just say you made a mistake and own it.

The denial and spin overshadows the win.

Lol which is it a mistake by punks or some super plan to leak to the exchange to the perfect reporter to send a message?

[Wrestleknownothing]

50 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The only thing I find obvious about this is that dimocrats don’t want the administration using Signal.  Maybe because they can’t crack it. 

Nor does the NSA, those famous dimwits.

[jross]

9 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Lol which is it a mistake by punks or some super plan to leak to the exchange to the perfect reporter to send a message?

cognitive ability doesn’t correlate with humility

[jross]

16 minutes ago, fishbane said:

None of the attention is on 1), 2), 3) or 4) it is on their incompetence...  A message that we are strong, decisive, and incompetent isn't a good combination. 

I'm holding off on calling it incompetence until more comes out. If it is, they’ve got some dumb luck.  The mission worked out, and reading the chat, my respect for them increased.  The casualness of the chat bothers me some. I’d never want to be the one thanking someone for a mission that ends lives without also acknowledging how unfortunate it is.  ...but I suppose one hardens after tough choices becomes a way of life.