Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
So, about that Signal chat.
On Monday, shortly after we published a story about a massive Trump-administration security breach, a reporter asked the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth , why he had shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen on the Signal messaging app. He answered, “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.”
At a Senate hearing yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard , and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, were both asked about the Signal chat, to which Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic , was inadvertently invited by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group,” Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Ratcliffe said much the same: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”
President Donald Trump , asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, “It wasn’t classified information.”
These statements presented us with a dilemma. In The Atlantic ’s initial story about the Signal chat —the “Houthi PC small group,” as it was named by Waltz—we withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.
[ Read: The Trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans ]
The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.
Experts have repeatedly told us that use of a Signal chat for such sensitive discussions poses a threat to national security. As a case in point, Goldberg received information on the attacks two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions. If this information—particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen—had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face. The Trump administration is arguing that the military information contained in these texts was not classified—as it typically would be—although the president has not explained how he reached this conclusion.
Yesterday, we asked officials across the Trump administration if they objected to us publishing the full texts. In emails to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the White House, we wrote, in part: “In light of statements today from multiple administration officials, including before the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the information in the Signal chain about the Houthi strike is not classified, and that it does not contain ‘war plans,’ The Atlantic is considering publishing the entirety of the Signal chain.”
We sent our first request for comment and feedback to national-security officials shortly after noon, and followed up in the evening after most failed to answer.
Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: “As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be a an [ sic ] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [ sic ] — yes, we object to the release.” (The Leavitt statement did not address which elements of the texts the White House considered sensitive, or how, more than a week after the initial air strikes, their publication could have bearing on national security.)
A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was “completely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted.
[ Listen: Jeffrey Goldberg on the group chat that broke the internet ]
As we wrote on Monday, much of the conversation in the “Houthi PC small group” concerned the timing and rationale of attacks on the Houthis, and contained remarks by Trump-administration officials about the alleged shortcomings of America’s European allies. But on the day of the attack—Saturday, March 15—the discussion veered toward the operational.
At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, “TEAM UPDATE:”
The text beneath this began, “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Centcom, or Central Command, is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East. The Hegseth text continues:
- “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
- “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
Let us pause here for a moment to underscore a point. This Signal message shows that the U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg’s cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi “Target Terrorist,” was expected to be killed by these American aircraft. If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.
The Hegseth text then continued:
- “1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
- “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”
- “1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”
- “MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”
- “We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security.
- “Godspeed to our Warriors.”
Shortly after, Vice President J. D. Vance texted the group, “I will say a prayer for victory.”
At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent the following text, containing real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa: “VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.” Waltz was referring here to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command; and the intelligence community, or IC. The reference to “multiple positive ID” suggests that U.S. intelligence had ascertained the identities of the Houthi target, or targets, using either human or technical assets.
Six minutes later, the vice president, apparently confused by Waltz’s message, wrote, “What?”
At 2 p.m., Waltz responded: “Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”
Vance responded a minute later: “Excellent.” Thirty-five minutes after that, Ratcliffe, the CIA director, wrote, “A good start,” which Waltz followed with a text containing a fist emoji, an American-flag emoji, and a fire emoji. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has not been independently verified.
Later that afternoon, Hegseth posted: “CENTCOM was/is on point.” Notably, he then told the group that attacks would be continuing. “Great job all. More strikes ongoing for hours tonight, and will provide full initial report tomorrow. But on time, on target, and good readouts so far.”
It is still unclear why a journalist was added to the text exchange. Waltz, who invited Goldberg into the Signal chat, said yesterday that he was investigating “how the heck he got into this room.”
|
Attachments:
|
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
Hegseth announced the timetable of the attack over a vulnerable chat group 30 minutes to two hours before the attack, potentially giving Houthi leaders a chance to protect themselves and or shoot down US planes.
makes you wonder who in the group was sitting next to the melon felon sharing this chat for him to be so well informed ...
my guess is scuzzie wiles ...
Don’t be ridiculous. Entries like 1215, 1345, 1410 are not times. Those are winning lottery numbers found in Chinese fortune cookies. Nothing to see here. /s
Those are winning lottery numbers found in Chinese fortune cookies.
Rumor has it that Trump is going to deport owners of Chinese restaurants. And if their cookies are not made in the U.S.A. he will actually put tariffs on the cookies...!
Yes-- the dreaded "Cookie Tariffs"!
(Crouching Dragon, Tariffed Cookie"!)
#FortuneCookies #Tariffs !!!
Hegseth said last night that no one revealed war plans.
So what was that? The timetable for dropping water balloons on them?
This guy is a complete idiot! Those texts look like a timeline for when the F-18s are launched and when they are to begin dropping the bombs.
Tulsi Gabbard should know better, also. Wasn't the whole idea of her being NSA director because of her military background?
I always knew officers didn't pay attention in training...
There is a hearing going on right now where it has been demonstrated that the Houthis had the capability of shooting down US planes.
Uhh, no. Whole idea of her being NSA director was for her to cover Trump's ass and push his desires no matter the legality.
ok then
I suspect the member who wrote 2.1.11 to go into paroxysms of denial:
" Absolute fucking bullshit, explain how our "servicemen" could have been injured? this wasn't a fucking raid it was an aerial attack. explain how a group of goat herders are going to shoot down aircraft."
A general at the hearing today confirmed that the Houthis have advanced anti aircraft systems.
I thought it she was there to get her complexion repaired by pete ...
And yet you, nor the person that comment was directed at could provide an explanation.
Ooh they have advanced anti aircraft systems. So do many of our advisories. They aren't special in that aspect.
That 'person' is famous for deaf ears, blind eyes and plugged nostrils. Why waste the time answering vapid questions when they are dead squirrels in search of taxidermy?
That's one opinion.
Could it be that you can't provide the explanation? That's my opinion.
So why are YOU not calling for the arrest of Goldberg for leaking "war plans" on a public social site?
If it were a reporter friendly to republicans, you would have already had ten seeds out about it.
The White House still says nothing in the texts was classified...
oops ...
another premature action by the melon felon ...
It is now after the fact.
There is a major difference between having actionable information (a defined strike event, time,location,method) vs. after the fact where this information is now publicly known since the strike has now taken place.
Personally, I think this should have gone to Congress for investigation rather than public release. But with the Trump sycophants running Congress, I can see why releasing this to the public makes sense.
So then who cares?
Goldberg is looking for nothing but the spotlight over something that happened 2 weeks ago.
He is nothing more than an unethical loser that essentially should have taken himself out of the chat and let the other participants know that maybe he should not be there.
Instead......he puts out unclassified information 2 weeks out just to cause trouble for the Trump admin, and coincidentally s/, right before a senate hearing, then drop another group of texts right before a House hearing.
Democrats will never learn they are once again on the losing end of an issue.
If you think the texts were classified, why are YOU not calling for the arrest of Goldberg for leaking classified information on an unsecure social site?
Everyone should care that details of a planned strike were discussed in an entirely non-secure venue.
You are pretending as though national security is not something to take seriously ... that operational details of a pending military operation falling into the wrong hands does not compromise the safety of the military personnel.
And apparently you refuse to recognize that this information before the fact is actionable whereas after the fact it is publicly known. For example, before we took out Osama Bin Laden, the details were actionable and kept secure. After he was killed, the details were publicly known. See how that works?
At what point does basic logic break through the partisan fury to defend Trump at every turn?
And what these texts are missing is defined strike event, time, and location. Unless one is gullible enough to think those time indicators before each text are "strike times". The texts have been and still are unactionable.
What were these "details" and how did those "details" affect the success of the mission?
You should also ask the Biden admin the same question as they also approved of similar discussions on the same app, but since Biden has a D............
"You are pretending as though national security is not something to take seriously ."
You are wrong...again. My twenty years of service proves that.
"And apparently you refuse to recognize that this information before the fact is actionable whereas after the fact it is publicly known."
None of it was classified nor was it a national security issue. See how that works?
"At what point does basic logic break through the partisan fury to defend Trump at every turn?"
At what point does basic logic break through the partisan fury to hate Trump at every turn?
When are you going to recognize that a Trump hating "journalist" leaked, as you put it, "national security" issues on a social site far more unsecure that the one the original conversation took place?
When will you call for his arrest for leaking those "national security" issues?
The administration response is that units werent named and targets werent specifically named.
Any prior discussion of timetables and weapons systems is classified. It may not be likely that the Houthis could have used the two hour warning to shoot down planes but it is not impossible, but just as importantly individual targets could have removed themselves to safer locations or bunkers.
Later in the texts Hegseth mentions that a Houthi leader was killed in a certain building. If this person had known an attack by the US may be coming in an hour or two he might not have been in that building when the missile hit.
Your posts here show total disregard for the importance of national security ... especially actionable information about a military operation.
It is disgusting.
For emphasis, as an example of the importance of keeping details of a strike secure.
If you were a Yemen target and you knew that a strike was being launched by the USA in two hours, would you move to a secure facility?
Looks like some will go to ridiculous levels to try to defend the Trump administration.
What is particularly sickening is when claimed vets try to downplay the significance of the Secretary of Defense, et. al., discussing a pending military strike on an unsecured remote venue.
Disgusting, actually. One would think that vets, of all people, would be incensed by such a disregard for national security. Especially since if they had been caught sharing such information they would likely face severe punishment.
Wrong. You are projecting your incorrect opinion onto me.
No one leaked anything until after two weeks after the fact, and it was a left wing "journalist" whose only goal is to "get Trump".
You still have not answered my question.
If you believe those texts were "national security" concerns, why have you not called for the arrest of the "journalist" for leaking them on an unsecure social site?
I have explained after the fact to you several times. Clearly you have no rebuttal so you just blindly pretend as though your argument was not destroyed.
Pathetic.
I have not seen these in any of the texts. But they do have the weather report.
Then it is obvious you have never served.
Doesn't matter if right then and there are months later. Many of your leftist friends are saying these documents are classified.
If it is still considered "national security", then it is illegal to leak it.
If they were classified, they would have a "declassify" date stamped on them, and even then, they are not always authorized for release.
You continue to try to excuse discussing a pending military operation on a non-secure venue and thus endangering those executing the operation.
Sickening.
Just stop. The desperation is getting more and more obvious with every rebuttal of your posts.
Where was your poutrage after 13 servicemembers were killed because of the incompetence of dementia Joe and his DEI hire VP?
No one was held accountable, no one took responsibility for this colossal failure. At least Ratcliff admitted the failure and took full responsibility. THAT, TiG, is leadership.
Where was your poutrage when Biden checked his watch several times when those 13 servicemembers were brought home in caskets?
Where was your poutrage when it was found that people with supposed Trump flags or signs were skipped by FEMA reps after devastating hurricanes hit their state?
One lowly person was fired, ie, the offering to the masses, but after it was shown it went much higher, no one else was fired.
Where was your poutrage when Biden also allowed non secure communications on the same app?
Where was your poutrage when it was shown LGTBARC++26KLM personnel used a chat app (maybe the same one as the current one being discussed) administered by the NSA for sensitive security matters, for sexually explicit messaging during the Biden admin and defended by them as "free speech"
Pure partisanship is sickening and sad.
Your attempt to excuse discussing a pending military operation on a non-secure venue and thus endangering those executing the operation is disgraceful.
Define that, because everything i show it is encrypted end to end, so define unsecure,
You need me to explain to you how a private sector app is not a secure venue for discussing a pending military operation? You actually think that mere encryption is sufficient for national security. Good grief man, not even Trump is trying to claim that this was proper for national security.
Learn about SCIFs, George. Here is a fine source for you to better understand the proper measures taken for national security.
What an ignorant response, because it is practical for everybody to be in the same place when this is going on. if you don't understand how encryption works in communication here is a good resource.
Encryption - Wikipedia
This is now laughable. SCIFs are commonly used to handle remote communication. Each member of the group will be in a SCIF local to them.
Hello? Obviously you (and those who vote up your post) did not read the link. And obviously you (and those who vote up your post) do not understand that encryption alone is insufficient for federal secure communication.
The texts don't reflect a time or dates for an operation. Just a time the messages were sent.
Much like some are going to ridiculous levels to spread bullshit.
What venue? When was this military strike? According to the texts all that information is missing.
If you, when you were active, discussed a pending military strike on an improperly secured group chat —especially when a reporter was accidentally included—, what would happen to you if this was discovered?
It is absolutely laughable at this point, If they are in SCiF's local to them.........they are using an encrypted communication between the two. LOLOLOLOLOL
So you again show that you do not understand what a SCIF is even though I provided you a link. You think that a SCIF is merely encrypting communication and nothing more.
It is your choice to post such foolishness. It is your choice to refuse to learn.
I'm not the one posting foolishness you comment ignorance is here for all to see. a SCIF is a Room, it does nothing to protect the communication once it leaves the room. do you not understand this? or do you think the SCIF magic?
I notice you are stacking up a pile of unanswered questions. But I'll continue.
Communications are carried out over several different platforms. Both secure and unsecure.
So, how did Goldberg access the chat software? To be invited he had to have an account so he would have to be vetted with the proper clearance. Why would a blogger have that kind of clearance? Now that brings another question. IF he were properly vetted - Why did he share the information?
No, it is not strictly a room. A SCIF is a room or a special container established for the purposes of secure communication. SCIFs are often built in the homes of high-ranking officials; For example, a SCIF can be built in the corner of a basement. There are SCIFs on government sites and SCIFs distributed around the world.
Good grief man, you continue to post nonsense.
There is no comparison to the encryption used in private sector apps like Signal to that used by SCIFs and no comparison of standard public internet communications to classified VPNs that run on a private government air-gapped network.
In general, do you actually, seriously believe that the Signal app is as secure as government SCIF communications merely because the Signal app uses encryption? Surely even basic common sense would tell you that if this were the case, the Trump administration would be making this claim. Obviously, right?, Signal is NOT properly secured for discussing military plans.
Seriously? You post this utter nonsense?
Are you trying to imply that this discussion was not a failure of national security? If so, Trump would love to have your argument because he needs one right now.
How ridiculous. Blatant denial of reality.
Irrelevant. You keep deflecting because you know you cannot answer my question:
If you, when you were active, discussed a pending military strike on an improperly secured group chat —especially when a reporter was accidentally included—, what would happen to you if this was discovered?
Your deflection from the point not withstanding describe how the Commnication is protected by the SCIF once it leaves the room?
Worked at Stratcom as a youngster, know what a SCIF is, deflect away or answer the question that you are trying so desperately to avoid, HOW DOES THE SCIF PROTECT THE COMMUNICATION ONCE IT LEAVES THE ROOM?
They show this being built in Frank's house when he becomes POTUS in "House of Cards". I understand what you're talking about. I was also thinking of the Cone of Silence in Get Smart
multiple press conferences and official statements to contain the damage is damning evidence enough in and of itself ...
that would probably be an improvement over the trump administrations efforts towards national security ...
Looks like some on here don't know how SCIFs work.
So it's a room.
And before you challenge me to what a SCIF is, you might want to reassess that.
Secret clearance for 20 years and my son runs several SCIFs around the country.
I know what they are.
You still have not answered my question
To wit,
Why are you not calling for the arrest of Goldberg for leaking what you believe is classified information, or a national security concern?
If you think SCIFs do not protect communication then you can count yourself among those.
They don't outside the SCIF, That is the part that you are desperately trying to deflect from.
If you consider a phone booth a room then sure, think of any SCIF as a room. A SCIF is a 'room' that varies in size from that supporting a single person to an entire group.
Then you should know how they work. Apparently you do not.
If you do not see the difference in hardening of the facility and the communications of a SCIF vs the use of the public internet with an app that uses encryption then you do not know how they work.
[✘]
Wrong. You keep repeating this utter nonsense. No doubt using the Trump tactic of keep repeating bullshit until people believe you.
Again, George, since you apparently refuse to understand the technical aspects, just use common sense. If SCIFs provide no better security than Signal then there would be no issue, right? Nobody would be scrambling to try to defend these actions.
But they are. You see that, right? You do not see Trump even trying to claim that Signal is as secure as SCIFs do you?
Your posts are ridiculous.
I suggest you put forth some links that support your utterly absurd notion that Signal is as secure as using SCIFs for remote communications.
Signal is so unsafe that it is loaded on the directors phone at the CIA for his use. By the CIA. LOL i wonder how it works in a SCIF with a faraday cage?
You are insinuating I don't know. Show me where I said that.
Apparently you do not understand where George is coming from so you go to your normal tactic of insults.
George is saying that the minute someone walks out of a SCIF, they can run to the nearest friendly journalist like Schiff did every day during the Trump impeachment hoax.
That is where the communication is no longer secure.
Show me where I insinuated this.
The desperation in your posts are coming more and more clear.
The SCIF protections include the communications network between the SCIFs. I have stated this numerous times now. You keep pretending that SCIF communication uses the public internet like Signal. You are dead wrong. It uses private government networks like SIPRNet or JWICS which use NSA Type 1 Encryption (top secret). Signal is nowhere close.
Your posts continue to make utterly absurd claims.
Even the secured video teleconference system that is a backup in lieu of a SCIF uses a private government network:
BULLSHIT!
We have been discussing the technical communication. What a pathetic lie.
[✘]
I stated how thing actually work.
Not a blatant denial. Pointing out your flawed "knowledge" is only a denial on your part.
It's very relevant. You just can't answer the questions. As you deflect to idiotic nonsense. You CAN'T answer a single question I or others have ask. And it seems that you don't know what you are talking about, your are running off of misinformation and there are your partisan attitudes.
Yet again, you offer nuh-uh with no argument.
This was a major security breach and your comments are all over the map trying to pretend otherwise.
[deleted][✘]
Next!!!!
Should be, but like so many other things the Trump haters don't worry about facts when making their lame accusations. Although a good weather report and "target terrorist" does narrow it down to a couple hundred.
Again, Mistake, yes
Sensitive material, probably
Highly classified, Nope. You can't even compare this to the phone calls Israel made before bombing Gaza at the start of the war.
Rational response. See what happened and put things in place to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Irrational response. Try to keep the story alive and milk it for all it is worth, including trying to make it alot more than it was.
You ignore the major national security breach and instead focus on the technicality of whether this sensitive information was highly classified. It is as if you do not care that Hegseth, et. al. engaged in a serious breach of security protocol and potentially endangered the lives of military personnel in an operation.
And worse, the idea that this is likely not the first time such lax national security measures were taken by members of this administration.
Pathetic partisanship trying to defend Trump on a serious matter.
Since none of them are named Hillary, they don't care.
Retired Gen Barry McCaffery was just on tv saying that if these texts were done by a lower level military official they would be relieved of their duties and court martialed.
-
But since they are Trump appointees nothing will happen.
By who?
The DNI that accidentally put this idiot on the chat, or the idiot that engaged in "a serious breach of security" and lax national security measures") by posting the thread on X?
My guess is you feel the poor little "journalist" that could have backed out of the chat, said nothing and no one would be talking about it today, is simply an innocent bystander and all the blame goes to those with an R next to their names.
The exact leftist response here so they don't have to talk about democrat failures......
and there are many.
And the fabricated freak out over this whole think shows just that. Hell, any putz with connectivity can pull weather reports for anywhere in the world.
And that is exactly what we are seeing now. NOTHING in the texts are classified. But that' snot stopping the left from blathering on and on with that bit of fiction.
This is a snooze fest at the highest level.
When I was stationed aboard aircraft carriers during the first Gulf War, we had journalists on board reporting live as aircraft was taking off from the deck.
No one cried about "national security", or giving up war plans"
It is obvious, democrats are desperate to get something, anything, on Trump.
They have failed at every turn.
That meeting should have taken place in a SCIF, not with a private sector app. The Trump Administration is entirely too lax with national security ... this is likely not the only time something like this has happened with them.
For me this has nothing to do with politics. I realize you do not believe it possible for a human being to NOT be partisan given your obvious partisan thinking, but you are yet again wrong.
This is a national security issue and everyone should be concerned rather than desperately trying to defend Trump and deflect blame.
Blind, sickening partisanship.
Yes, in this case it is reasonable speculation based on logic. Note the adjective 'likely'.
We do that too in social forums.
Contribute to the topic instead of whining about posts where we opine rather than simply post proven facts.
I guess we should all be greatful that the plans went off without a hitch this time
If that were true I would not have suggested fixing it so that it doesn't happen again. Another example of not letting facts get in the way of the narrative. Although I am not sure this even rises to major but at least it is not being referred to as highly classified.
Is there a problem with being accurate in a statement? Why do some folks keep on trying to sell something that is not true?
IF that is true they should plug the hole. Has it been verified or is it enough to say " likely"
That should be a bumper stickers for all the Trump haters.
I've had them with my platoon on patrols in Afghanistan as well. I imagine they heard some of the same information they heard aboard your vessel. Not a word about the operations was said. I guess that's the difference between journalists we had then and the bloggers we see now.
They are pathetically scrambling to find something that isn't there.
There wasn't this much outrage when the head of the CIA was outed in Afghanistan by Barry or Joe releasing who killed Bin Laden to the world making them and their families all targets to a terrorist organization, the hypocrisy is just fucking awesome!
Flailing and failing
And like the energizing bunny they just keep on going.
And they've been doing it since 2015.
The most serious thing about this is not the information contained within the texts themselves, but the fact that the security culture surrounding the use of a not-approved device/platform to communicate on. The DoD had released instructions to NOT communicate via this method just prior to this happening. What kind of person, in any government, would send those details via text? Answer: One who does not have a concept of the Seriousness of their job.
I agree, so, in the words of Trump, lesson learned. Don't let it happen again.
"this is likely not the only time something like this has happened with them."
You keep saying this so how about some proof.
"Wrong...your posts heavily say otherwise.
"This is a national security issue"
If that is true, will ask again. Why haven't you called for the arrest of the "journalist" for leaking "national security" issues oin an unsecure social site?
Blind, sickening partisanship
How about Trump leads us down this road by not hiring dumbfucks to begin with or is that too much to ask of Mr. Superlative?
Where was your poutrage over these dumbasses?
I left it all to you.
If i recall there was no lefty outrage when biden said in a nationally televised interview that our stores of 155 mm artillery shells were depleted.
meh, it still would've been the Democrats fault if it hadn't ...
Okay, we're go for mission launch. What mission? Where?
Hegseth is posting progress reports on an unknown mission. Seems like what Goldberg intercepted doesn't include enough specifics to be actionable. How is that revealing war plans?
Yes, there was, indeed, a serious security breach. But that has nothing to do with what the group discussed.
What Goldberg did was not journalism. Goldberg tried to create a news story that wasn't there. And much of Goldberg's disclosures have been based either on his own ignorance or his presumed ignorance of his audience.
This article reminds me of the Maddow show about Trumps tax returns. A lot of build up with a nothing burger at the end.
Anonymous sources and CNN reporter.
Yea..that is where the left gets their "facts".
Those of you that are veterans should remember that a mention of ANYTHING operational can be pieced together with other information that has already been disseminated
Having only briefly worn a boy scout uniform even I know that.
forget it. trump supporting vets relinquished their patriotism to america by reneging their oath of service in supporting him ...
So other than a text chat that was not leaked until 2 weeks later by Goldberg, what other information was already disseminated?
These stupid MFers spent all day yesterday lying, and claiming they never discussed weapons platforms, timing, targets, etc. all the while knowing that Goldberg had the damned conversation recorded in these texts. So, I don’t know what they expected today.
Next, they’ll spend the day claiming that F-18s, Tomahawks, and MQ-9 drones are not weapons platforms.
OMG! My former supervisor (MAJOR MAGA TURD) is next door saying that what was texted was not war plans because bombing the shit out of somebody is not "war"
He's a former 2nd Lt in the Army....
This is one of the key things Trump supporters are doing in their pathetic and sickening attempt to defend the administration. They are playing word games while ignoring the serious fact that discussing the details of a pending military operation compromises the success of the operation and could put those executing the operation in more danger.
Yeah, that’s silly. First of all is “war plans” even some kind of technical term with an official definition? Or just a generic lay description of what was happening? We will see arguments back and forth on that pointless point for probably forever.
And regardless of any of that, the people in that hearing yesterday swore up and down that they did not discuss specific weapons or weapons platforms, did not discuss timing of attacks, and so on. And they clearly did.
I saw mention of a an F-18, bombs, times when what was supposed to happen where...yeah....nothing to see folks move along
“And they clearly did.”
Undeniable. Parsing words after the fact only diminishes their argument.
I will reiterate: The fact that they held this discussion out of bounds of the prescribed channels (and on a proscribed platform) is the elephant in the room that everyone is trying to distract the public from. This slipshod use of a publicly available platform shows a severe lack of care on the part of all the participants.
How many other communications were held on similar platforms by these and other members of the administration?
Thanks Joe!!
Swoosh goes the birdie. Look at him fly. Fly, Birdie! Fly!
Department of Defense prohibited the use of signal:
The Biden admin said it was just fine to use
Biden-era guidance encouraged use of Signal app by senior officials: 'Best practice' | Fox News
Which one takes precedence? The recommendation that one use such a platform (granted, it was the Agency to go to about all things IT/cyberish), or the DoD directly and explicitly prohibiting it? I believe the reason that the DoD proscribes Signal is because the inability to maintain a chain of custody on all official communications. All official communications must be recorded. These are quite obviously official communications, no matter how they look like a teenagers bedroom antics.
The DoD is in the executive branch so they will follow what the executive branch decides.
To a limit. DoD personnel are typically patriots whose loyalty is first to the nation and our constitution and not a human being occupying the presidency.
Cellphones can be hacked, and then it does not matter if the communications are end-to-end encrypted.
And it is the same during current times.
Unless you imagine something different.
I wrote in the present tense. I did not use the term 'were' or equivalent.
Of course all that will be ignored by the Trump haters.
For everyone trying to excuse this by pointing to the Dec 18, 2024 CISA guidance informing officials to use apps with encryption on their personal devices during a Chinese cyber attack, note that there was already agency-specific guidance within the DoD that prohibited the use of private sector apps like Signal for "non-public DoD information."
Here's the agency-specific memo - Use of Unclassified Mobile Applications in Department of Defense
Excerpt:
primary function, are NOT authorized to access, transmit, process non-public DoD
information. This includes but is not limited to messaging, gaming, and social media
apps. (i.e., iMessage, WhatsApps, Signal).
What Hegseth (as Secretary of Defense, no less) posted about a pending military operation on Signal is definitely "non-public DoD information."
There's really no defending this shit.
No, but it does not stop MAGA frantically trying.
Where's the "Tea Party" and the "support our troops" crowd?
Tea Party went full MAGA and any Trump appointee can do no wrong. Trump can do no wrong and Republicans can do wrong unless they criticize Trump.
This carelessness is not making America great, it's not supporting our troops, it's not making us safer.
I'm not even mad at anyone over the text thing. I don't need anyone to resign. But we can't even talk about what should be done better because these people are too interested in defending themselves over something they clearly didn't realize was a problem.
Maybe these people needed to be told not to discuss this stuff via chat. Or maybe it's done all the time and we're just now finding out about it. I doubt any of them came up with the idea themselves. But we're all frozen because they can't even admit to what they clearly talked about.