Pete Hegseth texted war plans to a reporter by accident

[jerryskids 6,473]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I don't use Signal, but I would think you are right about that.

I guess I still have that weird suspicion that the person accidentally added to a war plan chat was the editor of the Atlantic with a long history of anti-Trumpism.  

I suspect the Lefties will give me laugh emojis that I would dare suspect anything but that it was a complete accident, and that Goldberg is a hero for the way he handled it.  Smells a little like the Wuhan wet market lie to me.   

[The Real timschochet 6,157]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I guess I still have that weird suspicion that the person accidentally added to a war plan chat was the editor of the Atlantic with a long history of anti-Trumpism.  

I suspect the Lefties will give me laugh emojis that I would dare suspect anything but that it was a complete accident, and that Goldberg is a hero for the way he handled it.  Smells a little like the Wuhan wet market lie to me.   

Your suspicion is based on the fact that you don’t like liberalism. That’s it, you have no facts to go on. 

[Fnord 1,987]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I guess I still have that weird suspicion that the person accidentally added to a war plan chat was the editor of the Atlantic with a long history of anti-Trumpism.  

I suspect the Lefties will give me laugh emojis that I would dare suspect anything but that it was a complete accident, and that Goldberg is a hero for the way he handled it.  Smells a little like the Wuhan wet market lie to me.   

If you are saying he was added purposefully by someone within the Trump admin to expose what was going on, I have had the same thought. Saying Goldberg is a hero is hyperbolic, but I don't think he did anything wrong.

[GobbleDog 958]

On 3/28/2025 at 10:22 PM, Gepetto said:

Criminal? It was an error.

Leaking classified information is illegal. Intentional or not.

[jerryskids 6,473]

26 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Your suspicion is based on the fact that you don’t like liberalism. That’s it, you have no facts to go on. 

I had no facts that Covid came from the Wuhan Coronavirus Lab, rather only the coincidence that the virus came from Wuhan and Wuhan has a Coronavirus Lab.

22 minutes ago, Fnord said:

If you are saying he was added purposefully by someone within the Trump admin to expose what was going on, I have had the same thought. Saying Goldberg is a hero is hyperbolic, but I don't think he did anything wrong.

That's exactly what I'm speculating.

[Gepetto 1,263]

2 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

Leaking classified information is illegal. Intentional or not.

So what should be done about it?

Did Goldberg leak classified information too?

[jerryskids 6,473]

3 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

Leaking classified information is illegal. Intentional or not.

 

1 minute ago, Gepetto said:

So what should be done about it?

Unfortunately, Comey set precedent by letting Hillary off that the government doesn't care about protecting classified information.

[Sean Mooney 1,901]

I said this the other day but the belief is that they were looking to add someone in the administration with the initials J.G. and accidentally added Goldberg. Not sure if it just shows JG. If the person just clicked the wrong one. 

Either way- it should be telling that Waltz's Signal has Goldberg in it to be accessed. 

[Gepetto 1,263]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

I said this the other day but the belief is that they were looking to add someone in the administration with the initials J.G. and accidentally added Goldberg. Not sure if it just shows JG. If the person just clicked the wrong one. 

Either way- it should be telling that Waltz's Signal has Goldberg in it to be accessed. 

How's it telling? I think most likely Goldberg reached out in the past as he's a journalist he reports on what information he can gleam from people in government in D.C. and he was probably added to Waltz's phone as a contact rather than just keeping the phone number of Goldberg unknown to the phone.

[Sean Mooney 1,901]

3 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

How's it telling? I think most likely Goldberg reached out in the past as he's a journalist he reports on what information he can gleam from people in government in D.C. and he was probably added to Waltz's phone as a contact rather than just keeping the phone number of Goldberg unknown to the phone.

 

It's telling because no matter how much people are supposed to believe this antagonistic relationship...it is far chummier than portrayed. 

[Fnord 1,987]

11 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That's exactly what I'm speculating.

We will likely never find out.

[Engorgeous George 2,011]

11 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

Leaking classified information is illegal. Intentional or not.

Is there a mens rea aspect to the statute?  Does it have to be done intentionally, knowingly, or reckless, or perhaps even neglegently, or is it a strict liability offense?  If the information was not classified, as has been stated, would it be enough that he intended to release classified informaiton.  Maybe he would not be guilty of the crime, but of the inchoate offense of attempting to commit the crime even though it was impossible in fact.

[GobbleDog 958]

16 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Unfortunately, Comey set precedent by letting Hillary off that the government doesn't care about protecting classified information.

They let off Hillary, Trump, and Biden.  I'm not loyal to any party. Only want justice.

Always thought people in authority (police, judges, and politicians) should be held to higher standards, not lower as seems to be the norm. Heck, I'd settle for equal standards at this point.

[GobbleDog 958]

8 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Is there a mens rea aspect to the statute?  Does it have to be done intentionally, knowingly, or reckless, or perhaps even neglegently, or is it a strict liability offense?  If the information was not classified, as has been stated, would it be enough that he intended to release classified informaiton.  Maybe he would not be guilty of the crime, but of the inchoate offense of attempting to commit the crime even though it was impossible in fact.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/27/nx-s1-5341552/signal-leak-military-double-standard

"What typically happens in a spillage as serious as this is they're immediately fired," says Kevin Carroll, who served 30 years in the Army, followed by the CIA and then the Department of Homeland Security in the first Trump administration. 

He says there's no doubt what would have happened to an active-duty officer who had participated in the Signal chat. "They're processed for being kicked out of the military, and they're referred for criminal prosecution," he says.

A lawyer himself, Carroll has defended troops who accidentally leaked information. "I've defended spillage cases where people were going to be put out of the military or people were going to be turned out of their job within the military for violations that are just the smallest fraction of what just occurred," Carroll said.

Military officers who have sent battlefield assessments that were several years old have lost their jobs for passing the information over an unsecured channel, Carroll said. He defended a junior Marine Corps officer in court who sent urgent, potentially lifesaving information to fellow officers in Afghanistan from a non-classified email server and was relieved of duty.  Carroll says, for troops, seeing leadership share attack plans in advance on Signal but so far suffer no consequences is toxic to morale. That double standard is so common, he adds, that there's a phrase for it in the military: "different spanks for different ranks."

[jerryskids 6,473]

17 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Is there a mens rea aspect to the statute?  Does it have to be done intentionally, knowingly, or reckless, or perhaps even neglegently, or is it a strict liability offense?  If the information was not classified, as has been stated, would it be enough that he intended to release classified informaiton.  Maybe he would not be guilty of the crime, but of the inchoate offense of attempting to commit the crime even though it was impossible in fact.

Not exactly classified info, but perhaps a relevant story:  when I started work at an electronics firm out of college, the firm was maniacally protective of proprietary information.  All bags were checked leaving the building for instance.  The reason they treated it so seriously was because in the recent past, an employee stole proprietary trade secrets, the company sued him, and... they lost.  They lost because the defendant claimed that the company had not shown that they treated the info with appropriate importance, and the court ruled in their favor.  Actually, it might have been a criminal trial, it was before my time there.

Anyway, point is, if I played a lawyer on the internet and was defending Goldberg, I'd argue the pattern of Hillary, Trump, and Biden, along with the cavalier way Goldberg was added to the thread (allegedly), as evidence that the government has not shown a pattern of seriousness on this matter.

[SaintsInDome2006 276]

The administration’s national security leadership is using private email for classified discussions.

[SaintsInDome2006 276]

On 3/31/2025 at 1:10 PM, Engorgeous George said:

Is there a mens rea aspect to the statute?  Does it have to be done intentionally, knowingly, or reckless, or perhaps even neglegently, or is it a strict liability offense? 

There are multiple statutes,  with subsections for almost every conceivable situation. The original idea was that no one could ever under any circumstances have an excuse for exposing classified information.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,756]

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The administration’s national security leadership is using private email for classified discussions.

Good thing WaPo is on the case! 

I love how when it's a Democrat they don't report anything, but then get holier-than-though when it's Trump.  

[HotRod 65]

So same as Hillary 

[SaintsInDome2006 276]

50 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Good thing WaPo is on the case! 

I love how when it's a Democrat they don't report anything, but then get holier-than-though when it's Trump.  

IIRC NYT with the AP broke the Hillary email story. WaPo eventually had an email database where all the emails - & they obtained all the emails - were posted on a searchable database.

[MDC 7,024]

42 minutes ago, HotRod said:

So same as Hillary 

Lock them up!  

[Sean Mooney 1,901]

I'm sure the takes on this new Waltz story will be fair and balanced

[Engorgeous George 2,011]

20 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

There are multiple statutes,  with subsections for almost every conceivable situation. The original idea was that no one could ever under any circumstances have an excuse for exposing classified information.

It makes sense that these would be strict liability offenses.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,791]

See,  no one cares. 

[RLLD 4,141]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

See,  no one cares. 

And no one should care.  And to be clear, I know those on the right like to trot out Hillary and her server.....and I say so focking what to that as well.... I mean, trot it out when the left pretends stuff like this matters, ok with that.

But the only thing that really matters, so far, with Clinton is where she had people die because she is focking filth....the rest....just dont care.....

[5-Points 3,334]

Wow, look at that. Turns out Pete didn't do sh!t. 

Do you guys ever get tired of being wrong? 

[Maximum Overkill 1,684]

On 4/1/2025 at 6:43 PM, Sean Mooney said:

I'm sure the takes on this new Waltz story will be fair and balanced

My favorite of many Tim Walz stories is when he took the young Gay Boy to an Indigo Girls Concert.  

How cute 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,756]

11 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Wow, look at that. Turns out Pete didn't do sh!t. 

Do you guys ever get tired of being wrong? 

Huh?  what do you mean?  Link?

[Mike Honcho 5,005]

18 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Wow, look at that. Turns out Pete didn't do sh!t. 

Do you guys ever get tired of being wrong? 

Not that anything will come of this, but...

Quote

 

Pentagon watchdog launches probe of Hegseth Signal messages

The acting Inspector General of the Defense Department will review Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s use of Signal in a group chat with other key national security officials to discuss military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen last month, the IG’s office announced on Thursday.

In a letter to Hegseth, Acting Inspector General Steven Stebbins wrote that the objective of the IG’s “evaluation” is to determine whether Hegseth and other Pentagon personnel “complied with DoD policies and procedures for the use of a commercial messaging application for official business.”

The probe will also examine whether Hegseth complied with classification and records retention requirements, the letter says. The review will take place both in Washington, DC and at US Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, it adds.

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,791]

Was the Afghanistan withdrawal ever investigated? I guess nothing came of it if it was. Except 13 coffins. 

[RLLD 4,141]

18 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Wow, look at that. Turns out Pete didn't do sh!t. 

Do you guys ever get tired of being wrong? 

If I might suggest,  it i unwise to believe what anyone in government says, legacy media as well.   We are in a tough spot. Normally we would have the media working for us, but in reality they work FOR Democrats and AGAINST Republicans.

So.... politicians and beaurocrats lie, and now so too does media. Often it can take months, and sometimes years, for the truth to be known. 

For now....read it all, trust none of it

[jonmx 2,420]

On 4/1/2025 at 4:32 PM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

There are multiple statutes,  with subsections for almost every conceivable situation. The original idea was that no one could ever under any circumstances have an excuse for exposing classified information.

The President can disclose whatever the fuk he wants to.  The law clearly excludes the Presidemt.  Also department heads who were responsible for establishing the classification level can declassify anything under their authority.  Charging a President or the even the Secretary of Defense would not go far.  

The purpose of classifying material is to protect the Executuve Branch.  All classifications levels are done within the executive branch.  They are the lone branch responsible for the security of the United States and if the heads of departments release material, it is the President's call to fire or discipline them.  

[5-Points 3,334]

On 3/31/2025 at 11:01 AM, Sean Mooney said:

I said this the other day but the belief is that they were looking to add someone in the administration with the initials J.G. and accidentally added Goldberg. Not sure if it just shows JG. If the person just clicked the wrong one. 

Either way- it should be telling that Waltz's Signal has Goldberg in it to be accessed. 

 

3 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Not that anything will come of this, but...

 

Waltz is the one to blame here, as well as Goldberg. 

Waltz added him to the chat erroneously, that's not on Pete. 

Goldberg, knowing he shouldn't be included, not only didn't say anything in the chat so he could be removed,  but revealed what was said in a chat in which he knew he shouldn't have been included. 

I still fail to see how this is Hegseth's fault. 

[Sean Mooney 1,901]

23 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

 

Waltz is the one to blame here, as well as Goldberg. 

Waltz added him to the chat erroneously, that's not on Pete. 

Goldberg, knowing he shouldn't be included, not only didn't say anything in the chat so he could be removed,  but revealed what was said in a chat in which he knew he shouldn't have been included. 

I still fail to see how this is Hegseth's fault. 

I never said it was Hegseth's fault. The only thing I did say he had any fault with was not double checking to make sure everything was what it needed to be and being too trusting. I balmed Waltz from the start and said he was the one.

Blaming Goldberg for anything is silly. He was the one that got added. He talked about the problems with him being included- intentionally or not- and kept everything mostly basic. Then the Trump team decided to continually assault him and lie about stuff so he threw his receipts on the table. 

[5-Points 3,334]

13 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I never said it was Hegseth's fault. The only thing I did say he had any fault with was not double checking to make sure everything was what it needed to be and being too trusting. I balmed Waltz from the start and said he was the one.

Blaming Goldberg for anything is silly. He was the one that got added. He talked about the problems with him being included- intentionally or not- and kept everything mostly basic. Then the Trump team decided to continually assault him and lie about stuff so he threw his receipts on the table. 

I wasn't insinuating you did anything wrong. I merely quoted your post because it explained that Waltz was the one who focked up, not Pete. 

Goldberg not speaking up and letting everyone know he was included when he shouldn’t have been speaks to his lack of character. He knew he shouldn’t be seeing what he was seeing but he clammed up until it was too late. Then spilled the beans about sh!t he shouldn’t have known. He's a doosh for doing that.