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.

And this -

Prob not true

It is the place for me, who has no D1 wrestling in their state.

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.

Clout chasing is clout chasing. It'd be hard not to as a media company.

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

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

This "Signal" incident will not impact my independent vote in 2026 or 2028. Neither will bombing to protect the trading routes.

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.

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

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.

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

Hi thieves! That rich banker leaves his doors unlocked. Hi enemies! Come focus your attention on Signal.

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.

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.

He overshared, amplifying security vulnerability awareness and contributing hurting his own country's brand. His reward for this sensational scoop is no more scoops.

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.

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

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.

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.

I said to fire the one who invited the journalist and reprimand the chat participants. That's enough for me.

Many newspapers that would cover NYMA are not digitized... I was able to find the National Prep tournament in a PA newspaper, stating Harlow beat the previous year's champ 3-2. Harlow was taken down, had two escapes, and rode his opponent the entire third period to earn the riding time point. There are digitized newspapers from New York showing that Donald Trump competed in the New York State Golf tournaments at least in 1961 and 1963. Here are two article snippets from that.

Yea I made the leap based on today's National Prep literature coupled with Harlow having wrestled at his state and regional in 1962. They very well could have been a prep open tournament. There also would have been fewer prep schools than there would be today. I can't find much about 1962 for anyone anywhere.