fishbane

He also won the US open in both styles and made an Olympic team.

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.

It seems like the majority of people didn't get the same message you did. Most people got the message that these guys are incompetent. I think you're just wrong on this. If the goals were what you stated earlier (decisiveness, etc ) why include the name of a covert CIA operative that the CIA had to ask Goldberg not to publish in the communication? It doesn't make sense. It is unnecessary for the goals. It makes them look incompetent. Assuming you are right and they were trying to send those signals to the world, I'd say they failed in their objective. Most people got the message that they are incompetent and not any of that other stuff. Any reasonable person could have predicted this is how including a reporter in the chat would be viewed by the public. You logic doesn't seem to work in the end. They are not buffoons so it had to be intentional, but any reasonable person could see the plan wouldn't work and they would look like incompetent buffoons. Yet they did it.

Doesn't the strike itself do all those things without the "inadvertent" disclosure to Goldberg? I think the disclosure erodes those messages with one of incompetence.

Lol how about just not adding them to sensitive chats regarding military strikes?

I don't know where he got it either. This is the most applicable section of 18.793 is subsection (e) "Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it" So ifin it was classified information that was sent to Goldberg the only part that is really applicable to contacting the FBI or anyone in the government is the last clause, "willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it." Goldberg willfully retained the information, but he didn't fail to deliver it. Since there is an and in the sentence both parts must be true for it to apply. This is an old law that predates signal and even electronic mail. When writing it they likely envisioned a physical dossier of classified information that was misdelivered and keeping it means the intended recipient would not get it. I don't think it really applies here. Also it would seem that the unauthorized recipient would only be required to deliver it to the person entitled to receive it not the FBI. In the article Goldberg wrote I don't believe he disclosed any classified information so I don't think the earlier parts of (e) apply to that. Writing an article about being accidentally sent classified information is not publishing classified information. The only time he published classified information was when he later released the more complete transcript of the signal chat. This was after the attack took place so potentially the information was no longer classified and after members of the Trump administration claimed multiple times that there was no classified information in the chat. It would be difficult to prosecute him after they said that. Even still, he ran this past the CIA and did not publish the name of a covert CIA operative that was named in the chat. There may be a time component to this. Classified before the attack. Not classified after. Also if there was no classified information why did the CIA ask him not to publish the name of a covert CIA operative named in the chat? The laws you didn't actually read? How exactly would you know?

The exact section of US Code you want Goldberg prosecuted under every other person in the chat violated by sharing the information with him. Do you not agree? The individuals in the signal chat had lawful possession of the information and shared it with a person not entitled to receive it. Could it be any more clear that they violated that? I don't know why you keep bringing up the FBI neither section of law mentions it at all anywhere. Goldberg contacted at least the CIA before publishing the transcripts. I'm inclined to think he was more responsible with the sensitive information than the others. Going after him and not the people who shared it with him in the first place is the stupidest suggestion I can think of.

Where does it say anything about the FBI in either section? Goldberg clearly communicated with at least some government department before releasing the transcript. He said the name of a covert CIA agent was used in the chat and that he did not release that by request of the CIA. There is likely a weak case that Goldberg violated either section, but it seems pretty cut and dry that the people sharing the information with Goldberg violated these. How crazy would it be to try and prosecute Goldberg, but not the people who actually leaked the information to an unauthorized person in the first place?!?

Sounds like Goldberg would be an unauthorized person by the definition in USC 18-798. Those that shared the information with him if classified better have a good lawyer.

If it is deemed classified information wouldn't it be a pretty strong case against those sharing information with Goldberg in the signal chat?

The vice president cannot be "fired."

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)?

At least VP Vance cannot be fired.

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?

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

It depends on the conference/state. From PA the top 5 from the independent school state tournament qualify. There are about 20 teams that participate. In New England, where NYMA is now, I think it's the top 6 from about 40 teams. In smaller and less competitive regions it might be only the champion that qualifies. I think that's what it is in DC.

Today NYMA is in the New England Qualifier. Their website doesn't go back to 1962 with the conference results. https://nepswa.com/results/#neiswa

There is more national prep history here https://nepswa.com/national-preps/. They had some document on the history in the real real old days and I guess public schools used to attend way back in the 1930s. The school Mr. Blizzard attended, Milton Hershey, moved to the PIAA in 1972. In 1972 the rules change and private schools were allowed into the PIAA. Many compete there now like Bishop McCort, Faith Christian, BECA, etc. So I think the number of schools has gone up and down and changed quite a bit over time. I suspect it was an open in 1962 mainly because of the relative number entries at the extreme weights relative to the middle weights. I wouldn't expect that at a tournament where the champs/top3/whatever from state/conference tournaments qualified. It would be more or less equal at the championship and you'd only see this in the first qualification round of tournaments. NYMA only had 4 or 5 entries in the tournament. I assume there were more wrestlers than that on the team so my guess is that it was an open tournament and they only sent the better. Still the wrestlers they sent failed to win any matches at the tournament. Maybe Jason Bryant or Gimp knows something about the qualification for National Preps back then. I had some across that bracket after Bryant said he had seen a national perp bracket with Trump's name in it when his wrestling background came up over in one of the wrestling forums. I think Gimp had been the tournament director or helped to run preps for a number of years, but not as far back as 1962. Still he may know.

To be clear I do not know the qualification procedure if any for the 1962 National Prep tournament. NYMA did not have a wrestler entered at all/most weights. So I think either the wrestlers had to qualify or the coach only took wrestlers he thought had a chance to do something at the tournament. Maybe someone else on here knows the qualification process for Preps in the 1960s?

I am not sure about this. Certainly today wrestlers must qualify for National Preps based on placement in their respective state/conference tournament. However, back in the real old days I suspect National Preps was an open tournament. The NCAA wrestling championships used to be an open tournament too. I think it wasn't until the late 1970s or early 1980's that placement at a conference tournament was required. If I recall correctly this played a role in the epic story of Barry Davis going missing before the Big Ten tournament one year. I think he had some understanding that he didn't have to wrestle at Big Tens to wrestle at NCAAs and broke during his weight cut and left. Gable tracked him down and got him to the tournament. Any way I think this means that Trump was good enough to start on his high school team one year and either good enough to qualify or good enough for his coach to think it was worth bring him if it was an open. The later might be a low bar as I am sure this was a bus trip his team was taking anyway. This was the only bracket I could find with Trump in it, so he either didn't qualify or didn't make the team/his coach left him home the other years.

I think so. I got it here https://www.nationalprepwrestling.org/copy-of-the-history

1962 National Prep 160lb bracket.

Yes

Lol barely and that's the point. I'm not sure it says much one way or the other about Walz, but it means the fund managers were smart. The idea behind buying the index fund is so that retirements are NOT affected by the performance of one company, but rather the index as a whole. The reality is that the stock was over valued. The money Minnesota employees "lost" from the pension fund never existed in the first place. If you are looking for someone to clown on here might I suggest the foolish people that were buying shares of a car company with $25B in annual car sales at valuations over $1T?

"The overwhelming focus is on solving full self-driving. That’s essential. It’s really the difference between Tesla being worth a lot of money or worth basically zero." Elon Musk June 2022. Anyone that has this opinion and thinks Tesla is far from solving FSD could think this. Exactly $0 is unlikely it could be slightly positive or negative.