Pete Hegseth texted war plans to a reporter by accident

[squistion 1,869]

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1904891297216799088

In the Senate worldwide threats hearing just yesterday, Sen. Martin Heinrich asked: "Precise operational issues were not part of this conversation?" Tulsi Gabbard replied: "Correct."

Pete Hegseth shared launch times in the Signal war plans chat.

[edjr 6,577]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

Not sure about “worst thing ever” but it’s not good.

Their response is making it much worse.

You get my point. What is the point? You're all going to argue with each other based on your side. Do you realize how focking insane that is?

[thegeneral 2,813]

Just now, edjr said:

You get my point. What is the point? You're all going to argue with each other based on your side. Do you realize how focking insane that is?

Why argue anything with this logic? I think Mahones is the best QB of all time. Pete Rose shouldn’t be in the HOF. Pizza is an overrated food. Soup is an underrated food. I think College Football should add a European soccer style regulation to Division 1.

[HotRod 65]

19 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Most of the info was so general it would not be considered classified.  We know almost nothing about where the strikes are coming from and what the targets are.  CENTCOM is responsible for a huge area which covers all of the Middle East and south and central Asia.  So except for the times, I don't see a huge issue.  

We know that this was attacking the Houthis and we know where they are.  Not specific but if someone has intel about the Houthis they could piece together what the targets might be and take preventative action. 

[edjr 6,577]

4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Why argue anything with this logic? I think Mahones is the best QB of all time. Pete Rose shouldn’t be in the HOF. Pizza is an overrated food. Soup is an underrated food. I think College Football should add a European soccer style regulation to Division 1.

   That is one singular topic each. 

Any of the thousands of things a politician can do right or wrong, you clowns already have your opinion before it happens. 

[thegeneral 2,813]

11 minutes ago, edjr said:

   That is one singular topic each. 

Any of the thousands of things a politician can do right or wrong, you clowns already have your opinion before it happens. 

Why argue any of them is my question for you? 

Often people have their conclusion and just want to post a story about some person doing something and by golly that means all people who may hold some of the same loose ideals are wrong. Yeah that’s pretty dumb but hey people need hobbies.

In this case there seems to be an obvious conclusion - this guy focked up badly or someone hacked this chat which is even worse.

[TimHauck 2,524]

21 minutes ago, edjr said:

   That is one singular topic each. 

Any of the thousands of things a politician can do right or wrong, you clowns already have your opinion before it happens. 

What’s your opinion on this topic?

[SaintsInDome2006 264]

1 hour ago, jonmx said:

Did you miss the multiple assassination attempts on Trump and Supreme Court justices?  Are you not following all the violent attacks on Telsa car dealerships and owners?  Did you miss the Summer of Love and the hundreds of violent protests, murders, vandalism, and arson?  Are you are not aware of the swatting that has been going on against conservative journalists?

I just asked for an example as an attempt to reach a common agreed upon principle, any of these will do. Thanks.

[Sean Mooney 1,900]

47 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Just telling you the facts.  

And I'm telling you the facts...

 

you are the biggest bootlicking, ass-kissing weirdo here. 

[Tebok 226]

50 minutes ago, jbycho said:

Here you go what? The Atlantic? WTF? 

The texts went to the Atlantic journalist. Who the fock else would provide the details?

You wanted the attack details that were in the texts to the Atlantic journalist, and I provided you with the details you requested, so kindly STFU and stop being a moron for 5 focking seconds.

[Engorgeous George 2,009]

15 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Is your position that we can't take action against speech which incites violence until that violence is committed?

If so, that is like saying you can't take action against a person holding a gun to someone's head until they pull the trigger.

To my knowledge the courts have always applied an immediacy element, a proximity to the target element, and a present ability to carry out the encouraged violence element to incitement cases.  In other words were I to encourage a group of Alaskan quadraplegics to murder a federal government offiical living and working in Washington DC by opummeling he or she to death with large asian carp it would not be actionable incitement as they clearly lack the present ability to carry out the specific plan and tchen time and distance allows a cooling off period such that those folks are no longer incited widthin the meaning of the law.

[Engorgeous George 2,009]

15 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The comp for that would be a politician speaking in a public square calling on a throng of thousands of loyal followers to storm a nearby public building. That would have imminence & a specific threat of violence. Yes I’d agree that person could at least be arrested.

Correct.

[jerryskids 6,472]

I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but I'm also not a big believer in coincidences.

What I don't see being discussed much is the coincidence that the person mistakenly added to this chat is an Atlantic reporter with a long history of going after Trump, Russia Russia Russia, Many Fine People, etc.  Like, of all the people in the world, this guy gets added?

We're blaming Waltz, but did Waltz personally set up the chat?  Or was it a staffer of his?

[Engorgeous George 2,009]

14 hours ago, jerryskids said:

What is "a nearby Ted Cruz?"  I'm sorry, I thought we were having a serious discussion, but I'm inclined to agree with others that you've hit DEFCON 1 with your TDS and lack the ability to be objective.   

 

Maybe he was postulating multiple folks with that name, one of whom who may have been nearby, though who may not have been THE Ted Cruz she was referencing.

[Sean Mooney 1,900]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but I'm also not a big believer in coincidences.

What I don't see being discussed much is the coincidence that the person mistakenly added to this chat is an Atlantic reporter with a long history of going after Trump, Russia Russia Russia, Many Fine People, etc.  Like, of all the people in the world, this guy gets added?

We're blaming Waltz, but did Waltz personally set up the chat?  Or was it a staffer of his?

If Waltz was having a staffer set that up though that seems equally problematic. Like if you know war plans are going to be discussed and possibly shared over the text chain why would you not be doing that yourself and instead entrusting that to someone else?

I thought I read somewhere initially that someone else was supposed to be on the message and they clicked the wrong person....but I can't find evidence of that now so I may be misremembering that. 

[TimHauck 2,524]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

If Waltz was having a staffer set that up though that seems equally problematic. Like if you know war plans are going to be discussed and possibly shared over the text chain why would you not be doing that yourself and instead entrusting that to someone else?

I thought I read somewhere initially that someone else was supposed to be on the message and they clicked the wrong person....but I can't find evidence of that now so I may be misremembering that. 

It’s a theory that they meant to add Jamieson Greer (same initials)

https://x.com/emilyjashinsky/status/1904226114160976159
 

 

[Sean Mooney 1,900]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

It’s a theory that they meant to add Jamieson Greer (same initials)

https://x.com/emilyjashinsky/status/1904226114160976159
 

 

That might be the name I read. 

 

[jerryskids 6,472]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

If Waltz was having a staffer set that up though that seems equally problematic. Like if you know war plans are going to be discussed and possibly shared over the text chain why would you not be doing that yourself and instead entrusting that to someone else?

I thought I read somewhere initially that someone else was supposed to be on the message and they clicked the wrong person....but I can't find evidence of that now so I may be misremembering that. 

I think you are reaching with the first paragraph.  Aside from the fact that the real classified meat was not discussed in that thread, it is unreasonable to expect a person at that high of a level to perform every low level task.  While I've never had classified clearance, I've been in plenty of meetings with proprietary and ITAR discussions that were set up by admins.

For the second paragraph, I've heard that as well, but since the administration seems to be in denial mode (or at least certainly was initially), it's hard to see who from the admin would have said such a thing.  

[jonmx 2,418]

35 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

And I'm telling you the facts...

 

you are the biggest bootlicking, ass-kissing weirdo here. 

Lol...i don't give a fuk what actual bootlickers say.  You use words in a way which means the opposite. You are a disgusting POS in my book.   You love actual authoritarianism.  Trump is tearing down the structures which permit authoritarianism.  Trump is securing freedom for future generations you dumbfuk. 

[Engorgeous George 2,009]

I think of war plans as being of far greater specificity than the general intent to initiate a punitive strike on known targets on a known date or time.  To my memory we have actually broadcast such information in the past so that civilians can flee the areas of punitive strikes.  The general information does not seem that sensitive to me, though what do I know. This is not to excuse what I consider an inexcusable error, an inexcuasable lack of caution and security awaremess. This is only to say that to me the term war plan connotes something more. To me it suggests units or assets to be deployed, the timing and specific direction of attacks on specified targets.  It conotes communication channels and frequencies.  It would include logistical support and intelligence both before, during, and after.  I think what we had here was some discussion of a punitive strike operation.  Now do I condem the reporter for his choice of words, no.  he was describing the matter in general terms and the administration is apparently grasping on to the excuse that his general term is not their specific term of art.

 

Now the foregoing is merely speculation by me.  i have never been asked to draft a war plan nor to maintain its confidentiality.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,782]

1 hour ago, edjr said:

Wait. Let me get this straight.

Rs think this is NBD
Ds think this is the worst thing ever. 

   

I’d say it’s in between. Someone should get fired, Or at least fall on their sword. For appearance sake. 

[The Real timschochet 6,144]

11 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I think of war plans as being of far greater specificity than the general intent to initiate a punitive strike on known targets on a known date or time.  To my memory we have actually broadcast such information in the past so that civilians can flee the areas of punitive strikes.  The general information does not seem that sensitive to me, though what do I know. This is not to excuse what I consider an inexcusable error, an inexcuasable lack of caution and security awaremess. This is only to say that to me the term war plan connotes something more. To me it suggests units or assets to be deployed, the timing and specific direction of attacks on specified targets.  It conotes communication channels and frequencies.  It would include logistical support and intelligence both before, during, and after.  I think what we had here was some discussion of a punitive strike operation.  Now do I condem the reporter for his choice of words, no.  he was describing the matter in general terms and the administration is apparently grasping on to the excuse that his general term is not their specific term of art.

 

Now the foregoing is merely speculation by me.  i have never been asked to draft a war plan nor to maintain its confidentiality.

You sound like Bill Clinton. Pending military operations are clearly classified. Call them war plans, don’t call them war plans, who the fock cares? 

[Mike Honcho 5,000]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

I liked how in the hearing they said nothing was classified then wouldn’t answer if it would be a legal issue if Goldberg released it all.

Ironically in the deportation case the DOJ of this administration is claiming that publicly available flight records that a judge requested are highly classified state secrets.   

[Sean Mooney 1,900]

28 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I think you are reaching with the first paragraph.  Aside from the fact that the real classified meat was not discussed in that thread, it is unreasonable to expect a person at that high of a level to perform every low level task.  While I've never had classified clearance, I've been in plenty of meetings with proprietary and ITAR discussions that were set up by admins.

 

On some level war plans of some kind were discussed in the Signal thread. That is indisputable at this point. 

I am not saying I wouldn't trust a staffer to do certain things- prepare a press release, work on a speech, getting me the paperwork or file or something on some issue I need sure. But setting up what is to be an insulated text chain between me and higher ups as we discuss war plans of some kind on a strike we are planning to initiate? I'm not letting that up to a staffer. And this scenario (if it is what you seem to imply) is exactly why...

[Mike Honcho 5,000]

22 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

On some level war plans of some kind were discussed in the Signal thread. That is indisputable at this point. 

I am not saying I wouldn't trust a staffer to do certain things- prepare a press release, work on a speech, getting me the paperwork or file or something on some issue I need sure. But setting up what is to be an insulated text chain between me and higher ups as we discuss war plans of some kind on a strike we are planning to initiate? I'm not letting that up to a staffer. And this scenario (if it is what you seem to imply) is exactly why...

You really don't even have to get past this from what I understand.  They were conducting govt. business in an app that days earlier the Pentagon said they are not allowed to use for non-public govt business. 

Quote

 

But according to a Pentagon “OPSEC special bulletin” seen by NPR reporters and sent on 18 March, Russian hacking groups may exploit the vulnerability in Signal to spy on encrypted organizations, potentially targeting “persons of interest”.

Signal uses end-to-end encryption for its messaging and calls. It is also an “open source” application, meaning the app’s code is open to independent review for any vulnerabilities. The app is typically used as a secure method to communicate.

The Pentagon-wide memo said “third party messaging apps” like Signal are permitted to be used to share unclassified information, but they are not allowed to be used to send “non-public” unclassified information.

Full Story

 

So the who set up the chat, who invited whom, doesn't matter. Someone should have said hey, we can't be using this we need to use a secure messaging platform. Bunch of 

[jbycho 482]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You really don't even have to get past this from what I understand.  They were conducting govt. business in an app that days earlier the Pentagon said they are not allowed to use for non-public govt business. 

So the who set up the chat, who invited whom, doesn't matter. Someone should have said hey, we can't be using this we need to use a secure messaging platform. Bunch of 

Agreed. Liberals are idiots. 

[CaptainObvious1 270]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1904891297216799088

In the Senate worldwide threats hearing just yesterday, Sen. Martin Heinrich asked: "Precise operational issues were not part of this conversation?" Tulsi Gabbard replied: "Correct."

Pete Hegseth shared launch times in the Signal war plans chat.

Oh noes

[Strike 5,090]

The entire chat message chain has been released.  As suspected, it's a nothingburger. 

[jbycho 482]

3 minutes ago, CaptainObvious1 said:

Oh noes

Whatever will we do? 

[MDC 7,016]

 

Hegseth’s Own Words Come Back to Haunt Him After Texting War Plans

Mon, March 24, 2025 at 3:13 PM EDT

 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth probably regrets mistakenly sending the Trump administration’s classified plans to attack Yemen to Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, not least because he’ll have to eat his own words.

In 2016, while working for Fox News, Hegseth repeatedly criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for storing classified information on a private email server at her home. In one instance, Hegseth pointedly asked: “How damaging is it to your ability to recruit or build allies with others when they are worried that our leaders may be exposing them because of their gross negligence or their recklessness in handling information?”

In the same segment, Hegseth also remarked on the recklessness and danger of Clinton’s actions.

“The people we rely on to do dangerous and difficult things for us rely on one thing from us: That we will not reveal their identity, that we will not be reckless with the dangerous thing they are doing for us. That’s the national security implications of a private server that’s unsecured,” Hegseth said.

Later, in 2023, Hegseth spoke on Fox News about classified documents found at President Biden’s home (which Biden cooperated with investigators to return, unlike Trump). 

“If at the very top, there’s no accountability … then two tiers of justice exist,” Hegseth said, comparing Biden to a Navy sailor who was jailed for photographing classified areas of a submarine.

All of this exposes Republican double standards when it comes to classified information. Hegseth’s 2016 attacks on Clinton’s server seem quaint compared to sharing military plans outside of government communications on a Signal chat with a journalist present, as Hegseth did.

Hegseth’s attacks on Biden’s lack of accountability for his handling of classified documents were hypocritical even without Monday’s revelations, as Trump faced no legal consequences for keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and refusing to return them. In keeping with Hegseth’s own statements, should he, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and everyone else in the Signal chat face accountability for discussing secret military plans outside of government servers and channels?

 

[HotRod 65]

8 minutes ago, CaptainObvious1 said:

Oh noes

From someone with a military background I would not want this kind of ops data made public prior to the attack.  It jeopardizes the mission and endangers lives.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,782]

It’s too bad Hegseth lived up to the immature part of his image. 

[jbycho 482]

2 minutes ago, HotRod said:

From someone with a military background I would not want this kind of ops data made public prior to the attack.  It jeopardizes the mission and endangers lives.

What are the exact mission details? 

[TimHauck 2,524]

Portnoy pretty spot on here

 

https://x.com/stoolpresidente/status/1904904332345999537
 

 

[HotRod 65]

26 minutes ago, jbycho said:

What's the exact mission details? 

That manned F-18s will be conducting strikes.  If the Houthis had advance warning of this they could have taken these strikes out and killed American service members.

[Mike Honcho 5,000]

38 minutes ago, jbycho said:

What are the exact mission details? 

Other than the fact that there was a bombing mission about to happen? 

[seafoam1 2,745]

10 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Other than the fact that there was a bombing mission about to happen? 

Oh no. Now what? Are you scared? 

[Engorgeous George 2,009]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

You sound like Bill Clinton. Pending military operations are clearly classified. Call them war plans, don’t call them war plans, who the fock cares? 

I don't care.  i was merely opining on the nature of the semantic dispute between the White House and the Atlantic.  BTW, pending military plans are not classified.  We generally know the gist of them.  In fact Congress is suppose to declare War, a plan to go to war, which is some plan.  the logistical specifics of said plans are classified, and should be.  In the instant case we got close to specifics.  We did have description of assets, although not the amount of said assets to be used.  We did have inception times, though we did not have targets or vectors of attack.I have stated i don't know whether war plans is the proper term for the information carelessly, even recklessly leaked.  I have condemed the irresponsibility of the parties involved.  You, however, seem in a mood to try to dispute what I wrote, but you seem to lack the comprehension to take all of what I wrote as a whole.

 

I happen to agree the Administration's "it depends on what the meaning of is, is" is Clintonesque and ultimately unproductive.  Were I in charge I would take the L and not try to ameiiorate it by arguing semanticvs.  They are hurting themselves and are keeping the story alive to their own detriment.  That exhibits a lack of experience, a lack of political acument.

 

 

I note this may be the first time in my life I have constructed a sentence with "is" written three times in a row.

[Engorgeous George 2,009]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

The entire chat message chain has been released.  As suspected, it's a nothingburger. 

It is an indication that those involved have a long way to go on the learning curve.  Fortunately, in thjis instance it had absolutely zero military ramifications though the political fallout, the criticism is more or less merited, if occassionally hysterical.

[seafoam1 2,745]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

It is an indication that those involved have a long way to go on the learning curve.  Fortunately, in thjis instance it had absolutely zero military ramifications though the political fallout, the criticism is more or less merited, if occassionally hysterical.

"Occasionally" hysterical. 

That's hysterical in it's own right when talking about leftists.