High level officials accidentally include Atlantic editor in group chat

79,403 Views | 1270 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by Sims
AgDev01
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BoydCrowder13 • 12:53p, 3/26/25
BoydCrowder13 said:
Take responsibility, maintain that ultimately it didn't matter and promise to do better. Being overly defensive and on the attack against the Atlantic makes it look worse.


It might have if principles were more important than principals but as you can see in this thread that simply doesn't apply to a large number of folks.
Reply Quote
annie88
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BoydCrowder13 • 12:57p, 3/26/25
Quote:
The scandal involving Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State went on for years.

And nothing happened to her did it? In fact, she doesn't even acknowledge it, shrugged it off just like she did four dead in Benghazi.

At least the Trump administration took responsibility for this mistake.

Eh they are not really taking responsibility. A lot of finger pointing, defensiveness, and scapegoating unnamed staffers.


No, they absolutely have. They couldn't be any clearer.

National security advisor Michael Waltz assumed "full responsibility" for a leaked Signal group chat of senior Trump officials that discussed plans for a forthcoming strike on the Houthis in Yemen.

"I take full responsibility. I built the group,"Waltz said on "The Ingraham Angle" Tuesday. "It's embarrassing. We're going to get to the bottom of it."

And most likely it was an unnamed staffer. But as he says, it's his responsibility. It's clear many of you do not understand how a communications department works. This was absolutely a **** up. But it's also dealing with human beings.

The cat is already out of the bag. The only thing they can do now is apologize, which they have done, and try to ensure it never happens again. There's no more blood they can give.

So what you said is completely false.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/national-security-advisor-mike-waltz-takes-responsibility-embarrassing-signal-chat-leak
Reply Quote
2 edits
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:01p, 3/26/25
Just want to point out, again, that we've been struggling with Yemen as one of the poorest countries in the world and ranked 105th in GDP for more than a decade.

And also that the 'Houthis' as a stateless organization who is engaged in privateering, disruption of commercial shipping and anti-ship missile and drone attacks on a US Navy.

This is all bugaboo nonsense.

For what purpose we will never know.
Reply Quote
JABQ04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to annie88 • 1:05p, 3/26/25
annie88 said:
JABQ04 said:
Yikes. Someone didn't say attention. Poor Jeff



I'm a little tired today what does this post mean?


Online militray OPSEC training. It was a waste of time of time but seemed appropriate here. It's a joke. The guy is the "facilitator" of your hour long class you have to do.
Reply Quote
amercer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:05p, 3/26/25
So this is the point where rational administration with some sense of self preservation would pick a sacrificial head to roll, and would move on.

Having half the cabinet (and the VP) doubling down on this is a gift to your opposition.
Reply Quote
ETFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:08p, 3/26/25


Complete joke of an admin. They can't handle the simplest, softball issues.

"Dissemination of this information, through the signal medium and the addition of a misidentified reporter was a mistake that could have jeopardized our troops, allies, and mission success. Luckily no such harm came to pass and we are taking every necessary step to be sure this doesn't happen again. Mike will be stepping down from his position as NSA"

Easy. Instead we have unqualified, weak men, and their weaker sycophantic base cheering on a denial tour. It's... completely baffling to any free-thinking person who gives two ****s about America.
Reply Quote
1 edit
ETFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to amercer • 1:10p, 3/26/25
amercer said:
So this is the point where rational administration with some sense of self preservation would pick a sacrificial head to roll, and would move on.

Having half the cabinet (and the VP) doubling down on this is a gift to your opposition.
I think it shows that these truly are unqualified, stupid people. There is no other explanation.


But, does lend some credence to the whole "using signal to bypass official channels and FOIA requests". But that's conspiracy land that I'm not super fond of.
Reply Quote
Prosperdick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RogerFurlong • 1:11p, 3/26/25
RogerFurlong said:
ETFan said:
annie88 said:
They've taken responsibility and are doing what they need to make sure this doesn't happen again, but it's not good enough for him because this is something he gets to rag on Trump for since the last two months have been so incredibly wonderful for our country.

Have they? lol at the rest

Piss poor leadership, top to bottom.

Was the mission a success or did we get anyone killed and give the houthis all of our military equipment.
That doesn't matter just like it didn't matter when our servicemen got killed and the taliban got our military equipment to use to kill future innocents. It also didn't matter when illegal aliens killed Americans.

What DOES matter is biological men can destroy women in sports and undress in their locker rooms, abortion on demand, and ZERO proof of identity when voting in our elections. C'mon, get with the program!!!
Reply Quote
annie88
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to amercer • 1:11p, 3/26/25
amercer said:
So this is the point where rational administration with some sense of self preservation would pick a sacrificial head to roll, and would move on.

Having half the cabinet (and the VP) doubling down on this is a gift to your opposition.


They're not doubling down they're telling the truth. Some of you just wanna see more in this than there is. they've admitted their **** up and they're working to make sure it doesn't happen again. And you don't know that someone's head might not roll. As I said earlier, there's no more blood to give.

But hey, it's giving the Democrats and TDSers something to get upset about since the last 2 1/2 months have been awesome.
Reply Quote
annie88
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 1:14p, 3/26/25
ETFan said:
amercer said:
So this is the point where rational administration with some sense of self preservation would pick a sacrificial head to roll, and would move on.

Having half the cabinet (and the VP) doubling down on this is a gift to your opposition.
I think it shows that these truly are unqualified, stupid people. There is no other explanation.


But, does lend some credence to the whole "using signal to bypass official channels and FOIA requests". But that's conspiracy land that I'm not super fond of.


You'd be surprised. Very intelligent and capable people can make mistakes. It isn't necessarily about being unqualified or stupid. It's about human error. We all think we wouldn't make a huge mistake like this, but in all honesty you just never know. and if you think you're about this, I would say many things to highly of themselves.

Technology can be good and bad as well. One good thing when you **** up like this is you'll never do it again. now, if you did do it again after a **** up like this, then we could talk about unqualified or stupid.
Reply Quote
annie88
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 1:15p, 3/26/25
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Just want to point out, again, that we've been struggling with Yemen as one of the poorest countries in the world and ranked 105th in GDP for more than a decade.

And also that the 'Houthis' as a stateless organization who is engaged in privateering, disruption of commercial shipping and anti-ship missile and drone attacks on a US Navy.

This is all bugaboo nonsense.

For what purpose we will never know.


It is. I often wonder if Chandler had truly gone to Yemen if this all would've been fixed years ago.
Reply Quote
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 1:16p, 3/26/25
The fact you're using The Bulwark as a source means you should never be taken seriously.

Nothing run by Bill Krystol should be considered seriously or legitimate about American politics.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
aginlakeway
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 1:16p, 3/26/25
ETFan said:
amercer said:
So this is the point where rational administration with some sense of self preservation would pick a sacrificial head to roll, and would move on.

Having half the cabinet (and the VP) doubling down on this is a gift to your opposition.
I think it shows that these truly are unqualified, stupid people. There is no other explanation.


But, does lend some credence to the whole "using signal to bypass official channels and FOIA requests". But that's conspiracy land that I'm not super fond of.

Which people do you think are stupid?

Curious ... why did you stop posting for 2+ years under this username?
Reply Quote
rgag12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:17p, 3/26/25
I was shocked Dems/the media are still foaming at the mouth over this nothing burger. Then I realized that Trump is president and that's what they do.

I had to remind myself that they impeached Trump over a normal phone call with Zelensky.
Reply Quote
amercer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to annie88 • 1:18p, 3/26/25
The secretary of defense and the VP are still sending out defensive tweets about it. Don't they have something better to do?

Literally all they had to do was have the high level people stop responding on social media and have the press secretary say something like: "this serious error was the result of a mistake made by a low level staffer who has been removed from her duties. The conversation was supposed to be about meeting organization but unfortunately veered into discussion of operational details that were inappropriate for this communication channel. The president has ordered renewed training and vigilance to ensure this can't happen again."
Reply Quote
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:18p, 3/26/25
This is noise from the left that should be ignored. Correct the process and move on.
Reply Quote
RogerFurlong
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to amercer • 1:27p, 3/26/25
I'm sure that would have calmed down the democrats. Good thinking!
Reply Quote
amercer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RogerFurlong • 1:31p, 3/26/25
RogerFurlong said:
I'm sure that would have calmed down the democrats. Good thinking!


How's the current approach working? Even republicans are calling for investigations.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Fdsa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to amercer • 1:31p, 3/26/25
amercer said:
The secretary of defense and the VP are still sending out defensive tweets about it. Don't they have something better to do?

Literally all they had to do was have the high level people stop responding on social media and have the press secretary say something like: "this serious error was the result of a mistake made by a low level staffer who has been removed from her duties. The conversation was supposed to be about meeting organization but unfortunately veered into discussion of operational details that were inappropriate for this communication channel. The president has ordered renewed training and vigilance to ensure this can't happen again."
. Ding ding….honestly, at this point the constant denial is worse than the actual event. I would like Pete a whole lot more if he just said "yep, I took that too far as I got excited about killing some terrorist."
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RogerFurlong • 1:31p, 3/26/25
RogerFurlong said:
I'm sure that would have calmed down the democrats. Good thinking!
Democrats love America and shudder at the thought of war plans being leaked.
Reply Quote
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to amercer • 1:32p, 3/26/25
They seem to have backed off of "no classified
Materials" and are now going with "I didn't see that part of the chat"

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
johnnyblaze36
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to amercer • 1:33p, 3/26/25
amercer said:
The secretary of defense and the VP are still sending out defensive tweets about it. Don't they have something better to do?

Literally all they had to do was have the high level people stop responding on social media and have the press secretary say something like: "this serious error was the result of a mistake made by a low level staffer who has been removed from her duties. The conversation was supposed to be about meeting organization but unfortunately veered into discussion of operational details that were inappropriate for this communication channel. The president has ordered renewed training and vigilance to ensure this can't happen again."
As a matter of fact they do-Pete is with armed forces in Hawaii as we speak and Vance just addressed a bunch of Marines at their Quantico base all within the last 30 minutes.

There's no telling how much higher military morale must be now under this administration compared to the last clown show they had to suffer under for four years.
Reply Quote
aggie93
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to annie88 • 1:34p, 3/26/25
annie88 said:
aggie93 said:



So wait. He got all hot and bothered about this. Couldn't get the information out there quick enough and now he's defending it by saying it wasn't classified?
He is saying almost exactly what he said yesterday only now it has been proven. Nothing classified and certainly no one was in danger. The secret source thing was completely out of thin air by Goldberg.

Still shouldn't have had Goldberg on the chat and don't know how that happened (most likely Waltz' COS who appears to have a Clinton connection) but in the end nothing about this had any impact on national security or endangering anyone.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
FCBlitz
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to titan • 1:36p, 3/26/25
titan said:


Quote:
In this case, this reporter got invited….the reporter receive the invite…..knowing it was a big invite and should've followed up with a "are you sure you meant to invite me" ? Follow up. The reporter didn't because he knew there were exploitation potential……which is how you can judge that he only had nefarious intent.
In fairness, not if he was just any reporter, rather than one with a record of spinning against like Goldberg. I can see a reporter or another not having nefarious intent, but just overwhelming "wow--interesting" curiosity and not being able to resist just listening for a while. Maybe never talk about it. After all, there is the other side--he might hear something evil and truly have an opening to act.


Respect. But the inviter should immediately spur the thought, WTF they want me for? Hell I work in that space…..I get a SIGNAL invite from Walz or Hegspeth I am tearing arse down the hall to the SES and saying WTF WTH do they want me to dial in for?
Reply Quote
Fdsa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggie93 • 1:42p, 3/26/25
aggie93 said:
annie88 said:
aggie93 said:



So wait. He got all hot and bothered about this. Couldn't get the information out there quick enough and now he's defending it by saying it wasn't classified?
He is saying almost exactly what he said yesterday only now it has been proven. Nothing classified and certainly no one was in danger. The secret source thing was completely out of thin air by Goldberg.

Still shouldn't have had Goldberg on the chat and don't know how that happened (most likely Waltz' COS who appears to have a Clinton connection) but in the end nothing about this had any impact on national security or endangering anyone.
y'all need reading and listening comprehension help. Go back and listen to Ratcliffe…he is covering his own a$$. He didn't say anything about what Pete did.
Reply Quote
ETFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 1:42p, 3/26/25
Rapier108 said:
The fact you're using The Bulwark as a source means you should never be taken seriously.

Nothing run by Bill Krystol should be considered seriously or legitimate about American politics.
It's a video of the press secretary and a quote, all direct evidence. I'm not sure what you want? You can just watch what she said and ignore who tweeted it?

Reply Quote
amercer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:44p, 3/26/25
Again guys, Goldberg stayed on the chat because he assumed it was a troll and wanted to see where it was going. He figured it was some project veritas bull**** that was trying to get him to say/do something dumb.

When the bombs started falling he figured out it was real.
Reply Quote
Prosperdick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 1:44p, 3/26/25
Rapier108 said:
rgvag11 said:
The scandal involving Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State went on for years.
What happened with Clinton's server was far beyond a single chat event on Signal.

The amount of information on it, and how long it was accessible to anyone is comparing a teaspoon of sand to a dump truck full; and Clinton's sever was the dump truck.

This is not going to be the end all victory you people think it is going to be.
Reply Quote
ETFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aginlakeway • 1:44p, 3/26/25
aginlakeway said:
ETFan said:
amercer said:
So this is the point where rational administration with some sense of self preservation would pick a sacrificial head to roll, and would move on.

Having half the cabinet (and the VP) doubling down on this is a gift to your opposition.
I think it shows that these truly are unqualified, stupid people. There is no other explanation.


But, does lend some credence to the whole "using signal to bypass official channels and FOIA requests". But that's conspiracy land that I'm not super fond of.

Which people do you think are stupid?

Curious ... why did you stop posting for 2+ years under this username?
Yes, very curious! Never mind the fact I've been here 11+ years and I owe TAMU a lot of money. Life happened brother.

Heg, Waltz, Vance, the press secretary, Trump, and everyone defending, deflecting, and minimizing this. HTH
Reply Quote
aggie93
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fdsa • 1:44p, 3/26/25
Fdsa said:
aggie93 said:
annie88 said:
aggie93 said:



So wait. He got all hot and bothered about this. Couldn't get the information out there quick enough and now he's defending it by saying it wasn't classified?
He is saying almost exactly what he said yesterday only now it has been proven. Nothing classified and certainly no one was in danger. The secret source thing was completely out of thin air by Goldberg.

Still shouldn't have had Goldberg on the chat and don't know how that happened (most likely Waltz' COS who appears to have a Clinton connection) but in the end nothing about this had any impact on national security or endangering anyone.
y'all need reading and listening comprehension help. Go back and listen to Ratcliffe…he is covering his own a$$. He didn't say anything about what Pete did.
Actually that's all I have really done because the hype is crap. Listened to him yesterday and today and read the messages. Seemed very consistent to me. What wasn't consistent was the hype though, that was clearly filled with lies from the reporter who had the text messages. Completely irresponsible misinformation and of course unethical of him not to say he was added to the call in the first place.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
Fdsa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggie93 • 1:49p, 3/26/25
aggie93 said:
Fdsa said:
aggie93 said:
annie88 said:
aggie93 said:



So wait. He got all hot and bothered about this. Couldn't get the information out there quick enough and now he's defending it by saying it wasn't classified?
He is saying almost exactly what he said yesterday only now it has been proven. Nothing classified and certainly no one was in danger. The secret source thing was completely out of thin air by Goldberg.

Still shouldn't have had Goldberg on the chat and don't know how that happened (most likely Waltz' COS who appears to have a Clinton connection) but in the end nothing about this had any impact on national security or endangering anyone.
y'all need reading and listening comprehension help. Go back and listen to Ratcliffe…he is covering his own a$$. He didn't say anything about what Pete did.
Actually that's all I have really done because the hype is crap. Listened to him yesterday and today and read the messages. Seemed very consistent to me. What wasn't consistent was the hype though, that was clearly filled with lies from the reporter who had the text messages. Completely irresponsible misinformation and of course unethical of him not to say he was added to the call in the first place.


I don't believe anyone has an issue with Ratcliffe at this point once there was a realization the CIA agent he listed was not acting under cover.
Reply Quote
Ag-Yoakum95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 1:49p, 3/26/25
ETFan said:
Rapier108 said:
The fact you're using The Bulwark as a source means you should never be taken seriously.

Nothing run by Bill Krystol should be considered seriously or legitimate about American politics.
It's a video of the press secretary and a quote, all direct evidence. I'm not sure what you want? You can just watch what she said and ignore who tweeted it?

And thankfully there is an ignore feature on this site so we can all ignore your crap commentary.
Reply Quote
aggie93
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fdsa • 1:59p, 3/26/25
Fdsa said:
aggie93 said:
Fdsa said:
aggie93 said:
annie88 said:
aggie93 said:



So wait. He got all hot and bothered about this. Couldn't get the information out there quick enough and now he's defending it by saying it wasn't classified?
He is saying almost exactly what he said yesterday only now it has been proven. Nothing classified and certainly no one was in danger. The secret source thing was completely out of thin air by Goldberg.

Still shouldn't have had Goldberg on the chat and don't know how that happened (most likely Waltz' COS who appears to have a Clinton connection) but in the end nothing about this had any impact on national security or endangering anyone.
y'all need reading and listening comprehension help. Go back and listen to Ratcliffe…he is covering his own a$$. He didn't say anything about what Pete did.
Actually that's all I have really done because the hype is crap. Listened to him yesterday and today and read the messages. Seemed very consistent to me. What wasn't consistent was the hype though, that was clearly filled with lies from the reporter who had the text messages. Completely irresponsible misinformation and of course unethical of him not to say he was added to the call in the first place.


I don't believe anyone has an issue with Ratcliffe at this point once there was a realization the CIA agent he listed was not acting under cover.
Yes, his Chief of Staff was not an undercover operative. It was shocking considering this was such a well researched story built on accuracy that Goldberg just couldn't figure that out. Oh, we need to go along with all his other narratives though.

Awesome.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
wtmartinaggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:01p, 3/26/25
How is this different than the email gate thing with Clinton? It seems like if we want people held accountable for keeping classified information and creating the opportunity for a security breach, we should be consistent.

When Hegseth was being pitched for SECDEF, people were up in arms when I said his lack of relevant inexperience and exposure to how his new job works would be his downfall. This is what I was talking about.

Regardless of whether you want to believe, to the folks that matter in terms of our overall security (allied counterparts, spy agencies, foreign assets) everyone just lost a lot of trust in our upper echelon's ability not to blunder (even by accident) when it matters.
Reply Quote
Fdsa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggie93 • 2:02p, 3/26/25
I believe someone asked him not to release the name. CIA employees typically don't want their actual name tied to the agency as it can take away future opportunity.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.