Questions…
Amid the fallout from the controversy over officials accidentally sharing military information with a journalist, President Donald Trump is standing by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg published a piece on Monday claiming he had been accidentally included in a group chat with high-profile Trump administration officials. According to the piece, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, State Secretary Marco Rubio, Waltz, and several others discussed plans for an airstrike on the Houthis in Yemen.
Goldberg claimed Waltz added him to the chat without knowing who he was, which has prompted criticism and calls for Waltz to resign.
Full article HERE from Town Hall.
One of the things that has come out is the phones were a turnover item from the previous administration, who used Signal for ‘off the record’ things.
It also appears that there were ‘phone lists’ already existing on those phones. And Waltz was NOT the individual who set up the meeting, it was one of his staffers, possibly Alex Wong.
My question is, WHY was a reporter’s number on a phone used by an NSC individual? I kinda doubt it was put there by a new employee, so who had the phone in the last administration?
How many ‘leaks’ from the last administration went to The Atlantic?
Yes, the discussion was what is known as ‘sensitive’ information, probably surrounding potential fallout/media takes/other government reactions. But nothing I’ve seen points to any classified information being discussed, contrary to what the MSM seems to be saying.
Was it a CF? Hell yes! Was it intentional? I doubt it.
But that goes back to my original question, why was the reporter on a Signal list of an NSC staffer?
I haven’t seen anyone asking that question…
On the other hand, it may have been intentional. What better way to judge on how foreign governments (both allies and enemies) would react on current topics then by have a “leak” that you control. Using a person that everyone knows hates the current administration to spread the “leak”.
WB
A bit too embarrassing for a test.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the previous administration had used that mode to get “information” out to “friendly” media. That said, from what I have been able to gather from some very old contacts which — trust me — you don’t want to know about there was nothing there which compromised anybody. And I rather like Wayne’s idea above — wish I’d thought of that myself…
Another possibility is that it was a trap for staffers, a kind of loyalty test; and someone (I suspect they know who) failed.
There are TWO possibilities:
1. Oh crap, what a F-up.
2. Seed planted.
Only time will tell.
I also assume the previous regime has extensive contacts with reporters.
My big question is, if they are reusing phones, why didn’t they reset or wipe them? I understand that to be the norm in both government and private industry…
The White House has a LARGE budget and lots of leeway, so it’s surprising they didn’t get new phones regardless – unless there is something very special about these phones, which is possible considering the environment they are being used in.
The editorial staff at the Atlantic needs to be charged and tried for deliberately leaking strategic Intel. How they got it needs to be addressed but the left’s media whores MUST be made to pay for willfully compromising US security for politics.
Pentagon Papers set a precedent.
“Precedent” = “Stupid decision some moron made years ago.”
Much ado about nothing.
I agree it probably used in other administrations as a stalking horse to see how an idea would be perceived. I doubt this will change the US’s plans for the invasion of Greenland. (joking)
🤣
Shhhhh! No, no, Greenland is a cover for grabbing Newfoundland, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Then we trade the Canadian government Greenland for the three provinces, with 90-day return rights on Newfoundland if we decide we don’t like it.
Please, keep your world domination plans straight. 😇
All- Good points… TXRed- Hush!!! 🙂
HRH Hillary, the pretender, had 30,000+ identified classified emails on a private server suspected to be hacked by Russia and or China. She erases the server in defiance of a Congressional oder, and the Intel Community and the Media do their best to cover it up.
Mike Waltz may have made a mistake, no apparent classified information was compromised, the attack mission was a success. Yet the dems and their lackeys are calling for his head.
The mostly-unasked question is actually, “WTF were high ranking officials doing, talking about foreign policy matters over cellular phones?!”
*Nothing* said over a smartphone, or within range of its microphone or camera, is secure. They’re backdoored at all three levels – hardware, firmware, and application software. Using Signal – itself a shady piece of software – is about like locking the doors of a car so it doesn’t get stolen… but it’s a convertible with the top down.
If I were the one inappropriately included in a sensitive group chat, I am fairly sure that I would advise the group of that and disconnect, NOT go straight into “tell the world” mode.
Maybe I am not from the same species as most journalists.
You have morals. They don’t. It’s that simple.
I’m with Dan – taking advantage of a security breach like this is verging on treason.
It definitely was an “F” up . Looks bad , was bad , and doesn’t inspire much confidence in how they’re doing their business. Signal? isn’t that like something a person would use to hide a fling with a girlfriend , sell some drugs , heck if I know , I don’t use messaging apps . All in the group chat should feel embarrassed , because it is embarrassing . These are all people well versed in security . Unprofessional A. F… !
72 cajillion dollars a year disappear into the 5-sided shithole on the potomac, and not one fucking project to develop an encrypted group-chat app? We have to use an off-the-shelf ‘free’ commercial product? You know what they say about ‘free’ on the internet…
But seriously, why does our military NOT have their own version of signal, coded in-house, to ensure secrecy against, like, chy-na?
Thirty years ago the Fed used “secure” phones with proprietary protocols and end-to-end encryption. They were moderately secure. But sound quality sucked, and they were bulky, and nobody wanted to use them after 3g cellular service became common.
“We’ll go to any lengths for security… well, as long as it doesn’t involve the tiniest bit of inconvenience.”