Clown show: White House inadvertently texted top-secret Yemen war plans to journalist

[User]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

….Except their top secret military plans, evidently.

Except... that is not what happened. 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, User said:

Except... that is not what happened. 

Posted in a group chat on a commercial platform with a journalist present. That’s exactly what happened 

Edited Monday at 04:05 PM by BeaverFever

[User]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Posted in a group chat on a commercial platform with a journalist present. That’s exactly what happened 

"top secret military plans"

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, User said:

"top secret military plans"

The US Department of Defense’s own classification guidelines suggest the kind of detailed military plans in the Signal chat would typically be classified at least at the “secret” level, while some of the real-time updates could have risen to a higher level of classification.

[User]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

The US Department of Defense’s own classification guidelines suggest the kind of detailed military plans in the Signal chat would typically be classified at least at the “secret” level, while some of the real-time updates could have risen to a higher level of classification.

If you are going to copy and paste, you should provide the source and quotes so it doesn't appear as if you are dishonestly trying to pass this off as your own comment. 

 

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

It's not against standards. In fact, there is a Biden era memo that endorses using Signal.

However, you are trying to dismiss the fact that Goldberg had a responsibility to inform and dismiss himself from the chat and his retention of materials he believed were classified is a violation of law. His selling of that information (that he believed was classified) is also illegal.

Signal is not approved for classified information. Don't be silly. Like a secure room, the secured systems don't let anyone in without proper credentials. That's why they exist. Unlike Signal, in which you can invite anyone in the world. 

Goldberg's responsibility as a journalist is to serve the public. He did not publish information that would harm a military operation. He published a story about the comically sloppy security in the Trump administration. The white house started lying and denying, so he published the chat. He had no other responsibility, legally or ethically.  -- If Deep Throat mails a journalist a manilla envelope of secret info, the journalist is not obligated to burn it. To the contrary, their duty to the public typically means an obligation to break the story, taking care not to cause material harm. Sometimes the leak itself is the story--as in this case. 

And sorry, but no, he didn't "sell" the information any more than any act of journalism--and he didn't even do that until the WH Clown car told the world it wasn't classified. lol. He gave them exactly enough rope to hang themselves. The fools. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, User said:

If you are going to copy and paste, you should provide the source and quotes so it doesn't appear as if you are dishonestly trying to pass this off as your own comment. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/27/signal-chat-leak-pete-hegseth

[gatomontes99]

35 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Signal is not approved for classified information.

Well, then, it's a good thing nothing was classified. I was speaking in terms of how Goldberg viewed it. Like most libs, he wasn't viewing things realistically.

36 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The white house started lying and denying

They didn't lie or deny anything. What are you smoking?

37 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And sorry, but no, he didn't "sell" the information any more than any act of journalism--and he didn't even do that until the WH Clown car told the world it wasn't classified. lol. He gave them exactly enough rope to hang themselves. The fools. 

Yes. He did sell it. Magazines, even internet based magazines, make money. They aren't charities. He published content that he knew he shouldn't have with the intent of harming the image of Pete Hegseth et. al.

[User]

8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/27/signal-chat-leak-pete-hegseth

I didn’t need a link here, just pointing out that what you are doing is wrong and appears dishonest.

Do better. 

[Hodad]

47 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Well, then, it's a good thing nothing was classified. I was speaking in terms of how Goldberg viewed it. Like most libs, he wasn't viewing things realistically.

It absolutely is classified. That's not even a question. It's just a blatant lie that it wasn't, and frankly it's hard to imagine a more necessary classification than an impending military strike. You are not dumb enough to believe otherwise. Come on. I defy you to come up with any scenario in which the facts of a military operation can simultaneously be shared publicly and also depends on the (comically) lauded "OpSec."

 

Quote

They didn't lie or deny anything. What are you smoking?

 

Yes, they did. They are absolutely lying about the information not being classified. Nobody believes them, but they don't really care anymore. Post-truth. 

Quote

Yes. He did sell it. Magazines, even internet based magazines, make money. They aren't charities. He published content that he knew he shouldn't have with the intent of harming the image of Pete Hegseth et. al.

Lol. Selling the information is literally selling the information. Journalists don't sell information, they publish it. As in to make public. The job is to serve the public, not protect the image of a party-boy pundit turned (shudder) Secretary of Defense. The public should be informed when officials f*ck up--and this was a massive f*uckup. 

As always, you're not pissed that Trumpco has done so many things wrong, you're mad at anyone who tries to hold them accountable for their own actions. Nothing is too much. You'll happily take it all. You don't seem to have a gag reflex. 🤷‍♂️

Edited Monday at 10:44 PM by Hodad

[Aristides]

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, User said:

I didn’t need a link here, just pointing out that what you are doing is wrong and appears dishonest.

Do better. 

If there was ever a time for putting yourself in someone else's shoes...how would you be reacting to this clown show if it was being performed by Democrats?

[gatomontes99]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If there was ever a time for putting yourself in someone else's shoes...how would you be reacting to this clown show if it was being performed by Democrats?

With complete ignorance and indifference because it would have never been reported.

[User]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If there was ever a time for putting yourself in someone else's shoes...how would you be reacting to this clown show if it was being performed by Democrats?

I quote things that other people say so that you know I am quoting them. I provided sources for the things I am quoting. I don't post things without this making it appear as if I said it when I did not. 

What does being in someone else's shoes have to do with that?

[User]

58 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Once again, we already have a meme thread for this stupid crap. 

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

It absolutely is classified. That's not even a question. It's just a blatant lie that it wasn't, and frankly it's hard to imagine a more necessary classification than an impending military strike.

No, it is not absolutely classified. Following this absurd logic, every single operation ever conducted every hour of the day during any military operation is "classified" and every single member of the Armed forces down to the Pvt. that is told about the mission has to be rated to hear classified material and they can never be told about the routine patrol they are going on or the particular mission unless they are all in a secure classified setting, even the Pvt just sitting in his tent in the sand. 
 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

You are not dumb enough to believe otherwise. Come on. I defy you to come up with any scenario in which the facts of a military operation can simultaneously be shared publicly and also depends on the (comically) lauded "OpSec."

You have never served a day of your life in the military that is clear. The information here was not shared publicly, for all Hegseth knew he was on a secure chat with the National Security team and OpSec was in fact intact. 

 

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

With complete ignorance and indifference because it would have never been reported.

And what if it had been reported?

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And what if it had been reported?

It wouldn't.

How do I know?

We could all see the Biden was cognitively impaired. It was blatantly obvious. And the press would never report it other than to say it was a conspiracy theory.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, User said:

I quote things that other people say so that you know I am quoting them. I provided sources for the things I am quoting. I don't post things without this making it appear as if I said it when I did not. 

You'll have to provide examples of you doing that to corroborate it.

18 minutes ago, User said:

What does being in someone else's shoes have to do with that?

Nothing at all. Apparently you've run away from the question you can't bear to ask yourself - how would you be reacting to this clown show if it was being performed by Democrats?

[User]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You'll have to provide examples of you doing that to corroborate it.

No, I don't. 

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Nothing at all.

Then you should choose better comments of mine to respond to. 

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

And the press would never report it other than to say it was a conspiracy theory.

What if it had been Fox News that broke the story?

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Then you should choose better comments of mine to respond to. 

Sure.

19 minutes ago, User said:

The information here was not shared publicly, for all Hegseth knew he was on a secure chat with the National Security team and OpSec was in fact intact. 

How would you be reacting to this if it was a Democrat National Security team and there were doubts about OpSec being intact?

[User]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How would you be reacting to this if it was a Democrat National Security team and there were doubts about OpSec being intact?

The same way. 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, User said:

The same way. 

With no doubt, no disbelief, no concern about the competence of the national security you place your trust in?

That's very very difficult to believe.

[User]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

With no doubt, no disbelief, no concern about the competence of the national security you place your trust in?

That's very very difficult to believe.

Where do you get that I have no concern here?

I have repeatedly pointed out the issue here was the stupidity of adding a journalist, anyone not supposed to be added, to the group.