Pete Hegseth texted war plans to a reporter by accident

[Engorgeous George 2,014]

BTW, I would let the Irainians, the Yemenies, and the houthies all know that any counter measures will be met with massively disproportionate military and economic sanctions.  I would let them know that an act by one will be treated as an act by all.  Their actions ahve been acts of war.  If congress had any balls they would have already stated as much. 

[Engorgeous George 2,014]

4 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

"Occasionally" hysterical. 

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

I try to leave room that some are from time to time reasonable and genuinely concerned for our national security though I do recognize that political posturing and opportunism seems a substantial element in much of this kerfuffle.  Your mileage may vary.

[TimHauck 2,529]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

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

Lol, sheep

[BudBro 171]

Why has the reported not been arrested for leaking the coversation?  All he had to do was say "I don't think I should be on this text list, please remove me."

[squistion 1,877]

From Neo Folk singer Jesse Welles

Jesse Welles Signal Leak 2025

 

 

[RLLD 4,142]

2 minutes ago, BudBro said:

Why has the reported not been arrested for leaking the coversation?  All he had to do was say "I don't think I should be on this text list, please remove me."

There is no career benefit in doing that.

[MDC 7,025]

5 minutes ago, BudBro said:

Why has the reported not been arrested for leaking the coversation?  All he had to do was say "I don't think I should be on this text list, please remove me."

Why should he be arrested? He was invited to the conversation.

[Fnord 1,987]

7 minutes ago, BudBro said:

Why has the reported not been arrested for leaking the coversation?  All he had to do was say "I don't think I should be on this text list, please remove me."

Initially he did not leak any of the specifics of the plan. He waited to see if it was real, and when it turned out to be, he made public that he was put on the chat.

He's a reporter. He was given the story of a lifetime out of thin air by people he disagrees with that should know better than to have included him. He did nothing wrong whatsoever.

[thegeneral 2,822]

26 minutes ago, RLLD said:

29 minutes ago, BudBro said:

Why has the reported not been arrested for leaking the coversation?  All he had to do was say "I don't think I should be on this text list, please remove me."

There is no career benefit in doing that.

He is reporting on how poorly organized this guy is…you know the guy who runs DoD.

[thegeneral 2,822]

25 minutes ago, MDC said:

Why should he be arrested? He was invited to the conversation.

Additionally why is he being arrested…all the buttkissers are assuring us how it’s not important info

[RLLD 4,142]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

He is reporting on how poorly organized this guy is…you know the guy who runs DoD.

I surmise you may not have understood the initial question.  If you or I were on a call we understood we should not be, we might simply hang up.  or, we might apologize the let folks know they accidentally included us.  Later we might report on it, but first we would allow for those involved to be quoted, learn more about it etc....so we can accurately inform the American people.

This reporter, unsurpisingly, wanted to enrich his career and denigrate Trump, two things he likely craves.....

So, where it is true that this person says or writes something, we should first understand his qualities.....

[The Real timschochet 6,161]

12 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I surmise you may not have understood the initial question.  If you or I were on a call we understood we should not be, we might simply hang up.  or, we might apologize the let folks know they accidentally included us.  Later we might report on it, but first we would allow for those involved to be quoted, learn more about it etc....so we can accurately inform the American people.

This reporter, unsurpisingly, wanted to enrich his career and denigrate Trump, two things he likely craves.....

So, where it is true that this person says or writes something, we should first understand his qualities.....

If we were in a class on journalistic ethics, and this exact scenario was offered, I honestly don’t believe that any fault would have been found with Goldberg’s actions to date. In fact I think he has an obligation to the public to perform exactly as he has. 

[Fnord 1,987]

11 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I surmise you may not have understood the initial question.  If you or I were on a call we understood we should not be, we might simply hang up.  or, we might apologize the let folks know they accidentally included us.  Later we might report on it, but first we would allow for those involved to be quoted, learn more about it etc....so we can accurately inform the American people.

This reporter, unsurpisingly, wanted to enrich his career and denigrate Trump, two things he likely craves.....

So, where it is true that this person says or writes something, we should first understand his qualities.....

Goldberg was very open about thinking it was a hoax initially. Right up until the time things started exploding. At that point, he realized it was a real chat, with actual high level stakeholders, discussing matters via channels they are expressly forbidden to use under the exact circumstances in which it was used. He's a reporter. He did his job, and did it while protecting the sensitive information.

I seem to remember you being one that is not interested in one's "qualities" but simply the efficacy of their work. Which makes your last paragraph seem...... hypocritical.

[RLLD 4,142]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

If we were in a class on journalistic ethics, and this exact scenario was offered, I honestly don’t believe that any fault would have been found with Goldberg’s actions to date. In fact I think he has an obligation to the public to perform exactly as he has. 

We can agree to disagree on what is ethical journalism I surmise.  I find it rarely exists today, and this person is another example of how to not approach these situations.

[RLLD 4,142]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Goldberg was very open about thinking it was a hoax initially. Right up until the time things started exploding. At that point, he realized it was a real chat, with actual high level stakeholders, discussing matters via channels they are expressly forbidden to use under the exact circumstances in which it was used. He's a reporter. He did his job, and did it while protecting the sensitive information.

I seem to remember you being one that is not interested in one's "qualities" but simply the efficacy of their work. Which makes your last paragraph seem...... hypocritical.

I find th efficacy of his work in this instance to fall below journalistic standards, JMHO. But perhaps you like his approach here, why might you find his lack of follow up or verbal alert to those involved to be acceptable? The SPJ states they should do so.....so toodoes the Reuters Handbook, and BBC editorial guidlines.....but dont let standards for journalists interrupt your desire for the denigration of a political player you dislike....sacrificing standards for political aims seems to be part and parcel for liberalism today.

[Fnord 1,987]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I find th efficacy of his work in this instance to fall below journalistic standards, JMHO. But perhaps you like his approach here, why might you find his lack of follow up or verbal alert to those involved to be acceptable? The SPJ states they should do so.....so toodoes the Reuters Handbook, and BBC editorial guidlines.....but dont let standards for journalists interrupt your desire for the denigration of a political player you dislike....sacrificing standards for political aims seems to be part and parcel for liberalism today.

<--- That's for your last line.

I will not defend him not removing himself from the chat; if he did anything wrong, it was that. But he's a reporter. Reporters get stories from sources that shouldn't officially be talking to journalists. This is how the media is supposed to operate: speak truth to power.

I'd also retort that blaming the reporter for a gross lapse of OPSEC is a prime example of your desire to defend political players you like.

[RLLD 4,142]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

<--- That's for your last line.

I will not defend him not removing himself from the chat; if he did anything wrong, it was that. But he's a reporter. Reporters get stories from sources that shouldn't officially be talking to journalists. This is how the media is supposed to operate: speak truth to power.

I'd also retort that blaming the reporter for a gross lapse of OPSEC is a prime example of your desire to defend political players you like.

There is no reason to defend him for removing himself, that was a proper thing to do.  And then he sat on it, also appropriate.  But he failed to come back to them, so in terms of what he has to say....coupled with his past deficiencies, I would take anything he might state or write with heavy scrutiny. 

Now, setting all that aside, making the problem known was the right thing to do of course. This is not a Democrat presidency, so we know we will finally enjoy accountability.  See how nice that feels?

And then, rather than blame others......dance around it...... pretend it away..... or outright lie as liberals tend to do, they stood up and took accountability.  This my frined....is how adults act. I hope Democrats are paying attention, though I have no real hope they ever show such spine.

[MDC 7,025]

7 minutes ago, RLLD said:

There is no reason to defend him for removing himself, that was a proper thing to do.  And then he sat on it, also appropriate.  But he failed to come back to them, so in terms of what he has to say....coupled with his past deficiencies, I would take anything he might state or write with heavy scrutiny. 

Now, setting all that aside, making the problem known was the right thing to do of course. This is not a Democrat presidency, so we know we will finally enjoy accountability.  See how nice that feels?

And then, rather than blame others......dance around it...... pretend it away..... or outright lie as liberals tend to do, they stood up and took accountability.  This my frined....is how adults act. I hope Democrats are paying attention, though I have no real hope they ever show such spine.

Goldberg said he notified the WH that his story was going to run. He was under no obligation to give them any heads up at all. I don’t see what he did wrong here.

After the story dropped, Trump told the media he wasn’t aware of it and Hegseth insisted it was fake news and attacked Goldberg. Has anyone lost a job?

So much for accountability. 

[RLLD 4,142]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

Goldberg said he notified the WH that his story was going to run. He was under no obligation to give them any heads up at all. I don’t see what he did wrong here.

After the story dropped, Trump told the media he wasn’t aware of it and Hegseth insisted it was fake news and attacked Goldberg. Has anyone lost a job?

So much for accountability. 

He notified them? And that is enough for you? OK, I mean, if that is enough for you to then allow him to run his spot it certainly explains the lack of trust with the media......I mean, notifying is a half-assed act, and in this instance I see they amended their initial headline, smart on their part.

I would say sure, fire Hegseth f he wants....but then again 13 people died under the last admins leadership, no one fired.....but here...all the sudden, firing is back on the menu.....good to know causing death....not fireable...you must instead text the wrong person for firing.... you do you....

[HotRod 65]

Goldberg is a rat.  He should have kept this mouth shut.

[MDC 7,025]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

He notified them? And that is enough for you? OK, I mean, if that is enough for you to then allow him to run his spot it certainly explains the lack of trust with the media......I mean, notifying is a half-assed act, and in this instance I see they amended their initial headline, smart on their part.

I would say sure, fire Hegseth f he wants....but then again 13 people died under the last admins leadership, no one fired.....but here...all the sudden, firing is back on the menu.....good to know causing death....not fireable...you must instead text the wrong person for firing.... you do you....

What else was Goldberg supposed to do?

I don’t necessarily think anyone should get fired for this. Just saying, there doesn’t seem to be any accountability when everyone involved spins and shoots the messenger.

63 service members died in Afghanistan on Trump’s watch, btw.

[RLLD 4,142]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

What else was Goldberg supposed to do?

I don’t necessarily think anyone should get fired for this. Just saying, there doesn’t seem to be any accountability when everyone involved spins and shoots the messenger.

63 service members died in Afghanistan on Trump’s watch, btw.

Oh, well, normal journalism would include an interview if allowed, question and answer so that a report can be produced that has all the relevant information. Otherwise you produce reports that are incomplete and inaccurate, and then later you have to revise or amend your reporting to make it accurate. As the legacy media has done repeatedly. But when your goal is to manipulate public sentiment, you do not follow those old ethical standards.

I cannot insist firing since I did not do so for Milley et al when those service members perished under their poor leadership, to now suddenly demand firing would be hypocritical, and I am trying to avoid that.

 

[TimHauck 2,529]

1 hour ago, BudBro said:

Why has the reported not been arrested for leaking the coversation?  All he had to do was say "I don't think I should be on this text list, please remove me."

Why?  The Director of National Intelligence and Director of the CIA said there was nothing classified in what he released 

[MDC 7,025]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Oh, well, normal journalism would include an interview if allowed, question and answer so that a report can be produced that has all the relevant information. Otherwise you produce reports that are incomplete and inaccurate, and then later you have to revise or amend your reporting to make it accurate. As the legacy media has done repeatedly. But when your goal is to manipulate public sentiment, you do not follow those old ethical standards.

I cannot insist firing since I did not do so for Milley et al when those service members perished under their poor leadership, to now suddenly demand firing would be hypocritical, and I am trying to avoid that.

 

I think you should be happy Goldberg brought this admin’s dangerous incompetence to light. Without his reportage there’s no telling how long Hegseth, JD, Tulsi etc. would’ve kept discussing confidential military operations over Facebook.  

[jbycho 486]

4 hours ago, HotRod said:

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.

Sure they could have. 

[jbycho 486]

4 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

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

Sure thing. 

[RLLD 4,142]

10 minutes ago, MDC said:

I think you should be happy Goldberg brought this admin’s dangerous incompetence to light. Without his reportage there’s no telling how long Hegseth, JD, Tulsi etc. would’ve kept discussing confidential military operations over Facebook.  

I am fine with it, as i stated. Since there is a Republican in office we can trust that legacy media will enthusiastically do their job, now.....so all those things they reported, and which we now know were false and simply protections for the Democrat president, will no longer be in place. In effect, we can now enjoy actual accountability for those in power, and I love it.

 

[MDC 7,025]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I am fine with it, as i stated. Since there is a Republican in office we can trust that legacy media will enthusiastically do their job, now.....so all those things they reported, and which we now know were false and simply protections for the Democrat president, will no longer be in place. In effect, we can now enjoy actual accountability for those in power, and I love it.

 

Seems like you’re more angry at Goldberg for making the admin look bad than the admin for having confidential conversations on an unsecured network. Also hard to say there’s accountability in this admin when Hegseth walks around calling it Fake News like a buffoon. 

Oh well. I bet they don’t keep using Signal, at least. 

[Voltaire 5,146]

2 hours ago, Fnord said:

Initially he did not leak any of the specifics of the plan. He waited to see if it was real, and when it turned out to be, he made public that he was put on the chat.

He's a reporter. He was given the story of a lifetime out of thin air by people he disagrees with that should know better than to have included him. He did nothing wrong whatsoever.

Agreed. He behaved reasonably. He was inadvertently given a great scoop, he kept a national secret quiet until the operation was over, he let them know he should be removed, and he reported it accurately. 

Nothing bad happened out of this fortunately, besides the embarrassment that security was so shoddy. The most important thing is the mission was not compromised; it went off without a hitch. The silver lining is lessons can be learned from it and move one.

[RLLD 4,142]

13 minutes ago, MDC said:

Seems like you’re more angry at Goldberg for making the admin look bad than the admin for having confidential conversations on an unsecured network. Also hard to say there’s accountability in this admin when Hegseth walks around calling it Fake News like a buffoon. 

Oh well. I bet they don’t keep using Signal, at least. 

I do hold  certain contempt for his past reporting which was also improper, and demonstrates he is more interested in activism than informing, so I still hold a poor perspective of him.  But this was absolutely something he should have reported on, and he did, in his own way of course.

And yes, there is accountability, it is entirely refreshing after fours years of liberal lying, gaslighting and no accountability for anything to see someone step up and actally do it

I welcome the change, I can say that I hope Democrats watch and do the same, but we know they never will

[thegeneral 2,822]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

I surmise you may not have understood the initial question.  If you or I were on a call we understood we should not be, we might simply hang up.  or, we might apologize the let folks know they accidentally included us.  Later we might report on it, but first we would allow for those involved to be quoted, learn more about it etc....so we can accurately inform the American people.

This reporter, unsurpisingly, wanted to enrich his career and denigrate Trump, two things he likely craves.....

So, where it is true that this person says or writes something, we should first understand his qualities.....

I surmise I am not sure what you are talking about. This reporter did nothing wrong. Pete and his underlings did. He is doing his job and exposing that these people are now lying. 

[thegeneral 2,822]

40 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Why?  The Director of National Intelligence and Director of the CIA said there was nothing classified in what he released 

Exactly

[RLLD 4,142]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

I surmise I am not sure what you are talking about. This reporter did nothing wrong. Pete and his underlings did. He is doing his job and exposing that these people are now lying. 

He did the right thing, he just failed to uphold the standards of proper journalism in confirming and that is why they had to of course change their subject line.  I have no problem with the accountability, we only ever get it from media when a Republican is in the WH, so this is nice. Of course he could have more than notified, he could have interviewed and sought more information so as to properly inform the public,...but that wasnt really his goal here. 

[Engorgeous George 2,014]

2 hours ago, Fnord said:

Initially he did not leak any of the specifics of the plan. He waited to see if it was real, and when it turned out to be, he made public that he was put on the chat.

He's a reporter. He was given the story of a lifetime out of thin air by people he disagrees with that should know better than to have included him. He did nothing wrong whatsoever.

I agree he did nothing morally or legally wrong.  I would go so far as to say he provided a public service in bringing to light the shamefully cavalier security practices of the inexperienced Cabinet.  I would argue he conflated, a bit, the import of the information disclosed by refering to them as war plans but the story here, to me, is frankly the incompetence of the officials involved in allowing this mistake.

[thegeneral 2,822]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

He did the right thing, he just failed to uphold the standards of proper journalism in confirming and that is why they had to of course change their subject line.  I have no problem with the accountability, we only ever get it from media when a Republican is in the WH, so this is nice. Of course he could have more than notified, he could have interviewed and sought more information so as to properly inform the public,...but that wasnt really his goal here. 

He did exactly what I would expect and want a reporter to do.

These dudes focked up, and are now making it worse. 

[thegeneral 2,822]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

I agree he did nothing morally or legally wrong.  I would go so far as to say he provided a public service in bringing to light the shamefully cavalier security practices of the inexoperienced cabinet.  I would argue he conflated, a bit, the import of the information disclosed by refering to them as war plans but the story here, to me, is frankly the incompetence of the officials involved in allowing this mistake.

Yep

[jbycho 486]

Looks like all you liberal nutjobs just bought into more fake news. 

[MDC 7,025]

9 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I do hold  certain contempt for his past reporting which was also improper, and demonstrates he is more interested in activism than informing, so I still hold a poor perspective of him.  But this was absolutely something he should have reported on, and he did, in his own way of course.

And yes, there is accountability, it is entirely refreshing after fours years of liberal lying, gaslighting and no accountability for anything to see someone step up and actally do it

I welcome the change, I can say that I hope Democrats watch and do the same, but we know they never will

Let me know when someone loses a job, or when JD, Hegseth, Tulsi etc. explain wtf they were doing discussing a military operation on Signal in the first place. 

[BudBro 171]

2 hours ago, MDC said:

Why should he be arrested? He was invited to the conversation.

He released the "classified" info to the public, which would include our enemies.  He didn't have to release the info.  He seems to be the one who needs charged with a crime.

[TimHauck 2,529]

18 minutes ago, BudBro said:

He released the "classified" info to the public, which would include our enemies.  He didn't have to release the info.  He seems to be the one who needs charged with a crime.

Lol, sheep