jross

who is they?

Did "Trump" really support them? Or someone from his admin? Why does anyone support them? I get that they are anti woke and masculine but their treatment on women is repulsive. The Tate brothers do not make America great.

Had it been classified, Hegseth and Waltz would be in review for willfully communicating classified info to someone without clearance. Hegseth’s communication was unintentional to an outsider but reckless and punishable. Waltz’s intent depends on whether he meant to add the reporter; then he left him in when sensitive info was shared. His own info sharing on positive ID has some risk. He’s probably in trouble. Ratcliffe is likely fine... Vance and the others would not have legal risk either way.

The law does not list who the civilian should report it to. §793 is handled by the Department of Justice and the FBI is its investigative branch. A civilian could report it to their local police, who will report it to the FBI or he could phone 1-800-CALL-FBI. Had the information been classified, Goldberg could be reviewed for unauthorized possession and willful retention. He didn't share anything risky, just retained it for 10+ days. After the information was claimed as "not classified", he was good (a little grey area) to retain and share. So far as I can tell, Goldberg did not contact FBI, etc. agencies between receiving the information and publishing it. He did notify the White House on March 25th around noon as a journalistic heads-up.

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.

cognitive ability doesn’t correlate with humility

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.

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

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: 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." 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. 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. Leaders Care Vance: "I will say a prayer for victory." and emojis from others... Vance: ...Risk to increase of oil price...

I wanted to work for the CIA or FBI in software engineering. Helping my country and get a pension? Yes please. But no thank you to the pay and relocation. Many smart tech folks say no to government work.

The F9T53 OPSEC Special Bulletin doesn’t say 'Signal is insecure' in a technical sense. The encryption is not broken. Rather, it flags Signal as insecure in practice for DoD use due to phishing vulnerabilities exploited by Russian hackers. The phishing warning did not matter if Goldberg’s access was an invite error rather than a hack. The 'insecurity' was procedural. How could this have been prevented? Using a government or closed access app that a civilian could not use. This could still allow a wrong invite to a government worker on said app. There needs to be a closed access app that also has classification consideration that limits the qualifications of who is accidently invited due to human error. Ask yourself why signal is being used to begin with. (the alternatives must lack usability)

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)

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.

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

covert CIA operative? Ratcliffe testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 25, 2025, that the "operative" was one of his aides and not undercover.

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.

The CEO of tech companies get phished in internal security tests. Everyone is susceptible to a well orchestrated operation.

This is correct. Signal has not been hacked. The risk is social engineering / phishing and that risk applies to all apps.

There have been many strikes where I didn’t “get it.” The leak’s too convenient, curates a specific narrative, and makes this a conversation. They did not want the blow back but they wanted the exposure. People are paying attention and the intent is clear as to why we would interfere. Besides the leak, everyone looks competent.

Yes, laws apply. Private Citizen: Don’t share (18 U.S.C. § 798), don’t keep (18 U.S.C. § 793). Report to FBI, return it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Military/Government Employee: More strict than private citizen. Secure it, report to security officer, don’t share. Follow DOD rules (5200.01), return or destroy as directed. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/520001m_vol3.pdf

My thoughts continue to evolve on this. Originally I thought this must be a staffer that accidently or purposely included the reporter to cause leadership turnover. Hearing the director say he doesn't know how this occurred indicated he's a buffoon. But he's not a buffoon. So then I thought it must be that social engineering exploited a device vulnerability. Now that I've read the actual texts, I'm leaning to this being an intentional disclosure. The message goes to one of the last people you would expect (Goldberg). The messaging accomplishes this: US is decisive US provides global security in a way that Europe cannot US interests are important - let's make Europe pay for the benefit we provide

Will you share the full article?

Oh look; a baby troll.

This may be the problem! https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability

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