The article is an excellent overview of SingnalGate.
I also noticed that the president was NOT on the chat. Most Commanders-in-Chief would be with their people in the secure situation room. When there was some discussion as to what exactly Trump wanted, it was Stephen Miller who spoke for the president. (Is he actually running the operations in the White House while Elon does the showy stuff?) Also, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would normally be part of any such discussion. Of course, there is no confirmed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs because Trump fired him for being Black, and because Hegseth believes that anyone who is black is an incompetent DEI hire. The currently Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Biden appointee) was not in the discussion and likely would have objected to the use of Signal. I'm not sure why the Secretary of the Treasury was included.
I'm old enough to remember that during Trump 1.0 there were problems with Trump using his personal phone, as well as giving sensitive information to the Russians while he was bragging about what he was doing. And then, of course, stealing secret documents from the WH tops it all off. If the boss can ignore the laws and disregard US national security then so can his underlings. This is the true example of trickle-down. Trump lies, breaks the law, is unethical, has numerous conflicts of interests so everyone down the ladder from him can do the same. This is one of the reasons that the character of who you vote for is actually very important.
Another study in criminal negligence from the trump-musk idiots and incompetents regime. And the press, congress and courts are rightly investigating at all of the laws and security procedures that these dangerous bumbling fools are once again blowing through. But in the chaos and confusion, we should not loose sight of the preposterous and here-to-fore unimaginable prospect that the head of the most lethal military in history of the world is playing out his fantasy as the first person shooter in a war game - with real military personnel as his non player characters using real mass killing military weapons. Unbelievably, it no longer beggars belief.
Much reporting ignores the fact that all of these people, especially the ones who have been associated with cybersecurity in the past (Ratcliffe, Waltz, Rubio, et al), have received training, directives, and briefs associated with information security. Enlisted people in the military get some form of similar training. How do these people at the top ignore those guidelines with no penalty?
On March 24, Michael Steele (MSNBC, "The Beat") interviewed Larry Pfeiffer (former senior director of The White House Situation Room under President Obama along with various NSA management and analyst positions going back to HW Bush; see his Linkedin profile).
He described the process and management of secure communications, including when key players were "out in the field" and away from offices and SCIF's. Secure comms are available 24/7. One of his jobs was managing a team responsible for those tasks.
I thought this was a telling quote, particularly since the Bush - Cheney administration was not viewed as the most "thoughtful". The context was a bit of confusion about how people like Ratcliffe, Rubio, and Gabbard who all had proper knowledge of security protocols would not call out this use of insecure comms:
"....Michael Waltz, who also served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and on the China Task Force while in Congress, and Michael Waltz had served in the Bush-Cheney administration, which was probably one of the most well organized, well run national security council staffs that ever existed. So he had seen how these things should be done...."
Worth the watch. The referenced portion including context starts at 5:44.
It strikes me that two things didn't happen on this chat. 1 No one verified who was included and their "need to know" 2. No one verified who wasn't there, as in checked attendees against any list, which should have included the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Perhaps that name was to close to the reporter's name, or Walz mistook the Atlantic magazine for the commander of the Atlantic fleet. Either way anyone else that grossly incompetent would resign or be fired.
Lying? Yep. Deflecting? Yep. Covering their collective asses? No doubt. But consider this: They were all appointed by the greatest liar of all time, a guy who wouldn’t know the truth if it were staring him in the face and to save whatever face he might have would pardon them all and have “his” Justice Attorney General and “his” Justice Department file charges against Jeffrey Goldberg. And just for ducks, “his” FBI arresting Goldberg would be the “greatest” thing ever.
Herr Goebbels must be chortling in glee as he looks up from his current place in Hell: An entire country seasoned to believe any brazen lie forwarded by Herr Trump — Mein Traum.
"However, Signal makes it clear whenever someone new is added to a group, and the texts show that Goldberg was added to the ill-fated group by Waltz."
I am not looking to defend any of these clowns by any stretch, but I do wonder about this one point, which I've seen others assert, too. My question is, if Waltz started by creating the group, adding several members, *before* he sent his first message, is it really true that the others would have gotten a notification that Goldberg had been added, if Goldberg was one of the names Waltz originally added to the list?
These people are so unbelievably incompetent.....even their LIES are incompetent.
(LOL!)
The article is an excellent overview of SingnalGate.
I also noticed that the president was NOT on the chat. Most Commanders-in-Chief would be with their people in the secure situation room. When there was some discussion as to what exactly Trump wanted, it was Stephen Miller who spoke for the president. (Is he actually running the operations in the White House while Elon does the showy stuff?) Also, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would normally be part of any such discussion. Of course, there is no confirmed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs because Trump fired him for being Black, and because Hegseth believes that anyone who is black is an incompetent DEI hire. The currently Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Biden appointee) was not in the discussion and likely would have objected to the use of Signal. I'm not sure why the Secretary of the Treasury was included.
Great summary and explanations. Thanks!
I'm old enough to remember that during Trump 1.0 there were problems with Trump using his personal phone, as well as giving sensitive information to the Russians while he was bragging about what he was doing. And then, of course, stealing secret documents from the WH tops it all off. If the boss can ignore the laws and disregard US national security then so can his underlings. This is the true example of trickle-down. Trump lies, breaks the law, is unethical, has numerous conflicts of interests so everyone down the ladder from him can do the same. This is one of the reasons that the character of who you vote for is actually very important.
Another study in criminal negligence from the trump-musk idiots and incompetents regime. And the press, congress and courts are rightly investigating at all of the laws and security procedures that these dangerous bumbling fools are once again blowing through. But in the chaos and confusion, we should not loose sight of the preposterous and here-to-fore unimaginable prospect that the head of the most lethal military in history of the world is playing out his fantasy as the first person shooter in a war game - with real military personnel as his non player characters using real mass killing military weapons. Unbelievably, it no longer beggars belief.
Much reporting ignores the fact that all of these people, especially the ones who have been associated with cybersecurity in the past (Ratcliffe, Waltz, Rubio, et al), have received training, directives, and briefs associated with information security. Enlisted people in the military get some form of similar training. How do these people at the top ignore those guidelines with no penalty?
On March 24, Michael Steele (MSNBC, "The Beat") interviewed Larry Pfeiffer (former senior director of The White House Situation Room under President Obama along with various NSA management and analyst positions going back to HW Bush; see his Linkedin profile).
He described the process and management of secure communications, including when key players were "out in the field" and away from offices and SCIF's. Secure comms are available 24/7. One of his jobs was managing a team responsible for those tasks.
I thought this was a telling quote, particularly since the Bush - Cheney administration was not viewed as the most "thoughtful". The context was a bit of confusion about how people like Ratcliffe, Rubio, and Gabbard who all had proper knowledge of security protocols would not call out this use of insecure comms:
"....Michael Waltz, who also served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and on the China Task Force while in Congress, and Michael Waltz had served in the Bush-Cheney administration, which was probably one of the most well organized, well run national security council staffs that ever existed. So he had seen how these things should be done...."
Worth the watch. The referenced portion including context starts at 5:44.
https://youtu.be/HPKiTq3_1I4?si=qiF1q2zcP0w3XAGO
It strikes me that two things didn't happen on this chat. 1 No one verified who was included and their "need to know" 2. No one verified who wasn't there, as in checked attendees against any list, which should have included the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Perhaps that name was to close to the reporter's name, or Walz mistook the Atlantic magazine for the commander of the Atlantic fleet. Either way anyone else that grossly incompetent would resign or be fired.
The ridiculous toady AG, Pam Bondi, says there's nothing to investigate. Then she went back to kissing Trump's boots.
https://www.mediaite.com/news/reporter-asks-pam-bondi-about-doj-involvement-with-signalgate-she-pivots-to-hillary-clinton-and-hunter-biden/
Lying? Yep. Deflecting? Yep. Covering their collective asses? No doubt. But consider this: They were all appointed by the greatest liar of all time, a guy who wouldn’t know the truth if it were staring him in the face and to save whatever face he might have would pardon them all and have “his” Justice Attorney General and “his” Justice Department file charges against Jeffrey Goldberg. And just for ducks, “his” FBI arresting Goldberg would be the “greatest” thing ever.
Herr Goebbels must be chortling in glee as he looks up from his current place in Hell: An entire country seasoned to believe any brazen lie forwarded by Herr Trump — Mein Traum.
"However, Signal makes it clear whenever someone new is added to a group, and the texts show that Goldberg was added to the ill-fated group by Waltz."
I am not looking to defend any of these clowns by any stretch, but I do wonder about this one point, which I've seen others assert, too. My question is, if Waltz started by creating the group, adding several members, *before* he sent his first message, is it really true that the others would have gotten a notification that Goldberg had been added, if Goldberg was one of the names Waltz originally added to the list?
😡