fishbane

Really bad like that on a mobile browser. If you are unfortunate enough to get that question asking if you want to continue in the browser or the tapatalk app and are not quick to respond it gets covered with an ad and then you can't do anything but reload the page and try again.

Is the list of 5x AAs complete or could someone get it done next year? I think this would only be possible if someone wrestled in 2021 and later took a redshirt.

Interesting. Just tried it on my phone in brave and no ads.

It's not really showing a name, but the photo. The bubble with JG is the default in Signal if someone has not added a photo. If the person only has filled in the first name field it will be a single letter their first initial. If they have entered both a first and last name in Signal then it will be two letters, the first and last initial. I think Michael Waltz likely entered "Michael Waltz" in the first name field which is why he only has an "M" in the bubble. Jeffrey Goldberg likely had his name in the signal app as Jeffrey Goldberg which is why he had "JG", but that doesn't mean Waltz didn't have him saved in his phone as something else.

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?

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.

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?

Still blocking them for me.

A few more that haven't been named yet. Henry Cejudo - Olympic Gold Brandon Slay - Olympic Gold, 2x NCAA finalist Zeke Jones - World Champ, Olympic Silver, World Bronze, NCAA finalist 3x AA Bobby Weaver - Olympic Champ, World Silver, NCAA 3rd John Peterson - Olympic Gold, Olympic Silver, World Silver, World Bronze, NAIA AA

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.

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?