3 ms·

Assuming this to be true, this conversation is over. "The Biden administration installed the Signal messaging app on CIA computers and approved it for official

by chasil 2y ago

Assuming this to be true, this conversation is over. "The Biden administration installed the Signal messaging app on CIA computers and approved it for official government use." https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/03/25/has-the-staffer-who-put-jeffrey-goldberg-on-the-signal-chat-been-exposed-n4938269 https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/03/25/has-the-staffer...

bb88 2y ago
It looks like it was approved only for CIA use with permissible use. Even though it was installed, did not mean it was suitable for all communications. Here's the important relevant quote: "It is permissible to use to communicate and coordinate for work purposes. Provided that any decisions that are made are also recorded through formal channels. So those were procedures that were implemented. My staff implemented those processes," Ratcliffe said. "My communications, to be clear, in a Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information," he added. https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-director-john-ratcliffe-defends-180306328.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-director-john-ratcliffe-defen...
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  It's reasonable /u/chasil doesn't know this, but obviously there's no chance that Ratcliffe doesn't know this. Really makes one think! "My communications weren't classified" — my is doing some work there.
  - bb88 2y ago
    The classified community is one built on trust -- fundamentally that you won't leak information to others, perceived enemies or otherwise. This extends to elected or appointed officials and federal judges ruling on classified matters. But honestly most of the people in the group will be loyal to the US regardless of leader's political affiliation. But what they do ask is that classified information remain secret -- particularly if you're in harms way.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    There's also the temporal issue. Communications are classified, or not, after their creation. So we might add: 'My communications weren't classified at the time I made them.'
    - bb88 2y ago
      That's a distinction without a difference. If you're in that intelligence community, you know exactly what is classified and what is not. I could imagine some information being so secretive it's not written down -- but instead passed verbally in person. If a CIA agent has intelligence on an Israeli operation, it's classified, regardless of whether it was written down or not.
flyingcircus3 2y ago
I think that there is a parallel story to this one that is equally as interesting. There is one group of consumers of this story who see the receipts provided by Jeffery Goldberg, along with confirmation of their authenticity from a spokesperson at the National Security Council, followed by admissions by cabinet member participants of the Signal chat in hearings before congress, and those consumers of all this news can only conclude that the evidence is about as conclusive as you can get that Jeffery Goldberg is telling the truth, that these people are sharing the names of active intelligence officers, and describing imminent plans of action of the US military. Then there is another group of consumers of this story, with the same access to all of the same evidence, and all of the same first person confirmations, who confidently declare the argument that this might be illegal null and void because Joe Biden allowed the CIA to use signal, and are persuaded away from accepting all of that evidence by articles with that contain such gems as "what the media wont tell you about the Atlantic hit piece", "Democrats talking points on this story quickly unraveled", and "help us continue to expose the lefts desperate attempts to manufacture scandals". How can propaganda be so effective that people lose the skill of object permanence?
- chasil 2y ago
  I have little doubt that Jeffery Goldberg is telling the truth. So, was he added to the conversation inadvertently, or was it deliberate? On the question of whether the use of the application was negligent, well, that is now moot.
  - rcpt 2y ago
    There is just no way this is deliberate. They have nothing to gain from this. We need to stop thinking these guys are playing 3D chess when they try to shove the pieces up their nose
    - forgotoldacc 2y ago
      Call me crazy, but they have lots to gain. They got to see whether a journalist would dare stand up against them knowing very well they risk being found with 50 terabytes of illegal porn on their computer then dying of a suicide with 2 shots in the back of the head. Turns out journalists aren't yet afraid of them. They also got a loyalty test with their own people. Everyone is saying "not my problem" and accepting no responsibility. They've passed that test. Then the final loyalty test is of their voters. When this first broke, the script was "Oof. This is bad. Heads will roll because of this." When it became apparent that, no, heads will not roll, the script amongst them changed. "This doesn't matter. Why would it matter? Everyone uses insecure things and makes mistakes. Why did the journalist embarrass our country?" It's very obvious that the breaking point with their base is very far away, assuming there is one. And the final result is seeing whether there will be consequences. A small time guy can get pinched for this and the president and everyone else will remain completely void of responsibility no matter what. But it's pretty obvious that even a small time guy won't be facing consequences. So they've gained something very valuable from this: the realization that there really are no consequences. They're going to keep pushing things like this and they'll get bigger and bigger each time. And each time it sets a new standard for a tolerable level of bad. And any time someone supportive of them starts to think "maybe this isn't good", they'll be quick to rush in and say "it's a nothingburger, just like the last thing they were whining about." And they'll fall back in line.
subjectsigma 2y ago
lol no, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about

by chasil 2y ago

bb88 2y ago

It looks like it was approved only for CIA use with permissible use. Even though it was installed, did not mean it was suitable for all communications. Here's the important relevant quote: "It is permissible to use to communicate and coordinate for work purposes. Provided that any decisions that are made are also recorded through formal channels. So those were procedures that were implemented. My staff implemented those processes," Ratcliffe said. "My communications, to be clear, in a Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information," he added. https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-director-john-ratcliffe-defends-180306328.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-director-john-ratcliffe-defen...

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
It's reasonable /u/chasil doesn't know this, but obviously there's no chance that Ratcliffe doesn't know this. Really makes one think! "My communications weren't classified" — my is doing some work there.
- bb88 2y ago
  The classified community is one built on trust -- fundamentally that you won't leak information to others, perceived enemies or otherwise. This extends to elected or appointed officials and federal judges ruling on classified matters. But honestly most of the people in the group will be loyal to the US regardless of leader's political affiliation. But what they do ask is that classified information remain secret -- particularly if you're in harms way.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  There's also the temporal issue. Communications are classified, or not, after their creation. So we might add: 'My communications weren't classified at the time I made them.'
  - bb88 2y ago
    That's a distinction without a difference. If you're in that intelligence community, you know exactly what is classified and what is not. I could imagine some information being so secretive it's not written down -- but instead passed verbally in person. If a CIA agent has intelligence on an Israeli operation, it's classified, regardless of whether it was written down or not.

flyingcircus3 2y ago

I think that there is a parallel story to this one that is equally as interesting. There is one group of consumers of this story who see the receipts provided by Jeffery Goldberg, along with confirmation of their authenticity from a spokesperson at the National Security Council, followed by admissions by cabinet member participants of the Signal chat in hearings before congress, and those consumers of all this news can only conclude that the evidence is about as conclusive as you can get that Jeffery Goldberg is telling the truth, that these people are sharing the names of active intelligence officers, and describing imminent plans of action of the US military. Then there is another group of consumers of this story, with the same access to all of the same evidence, and all of the same first person confirmations, who confidently declare the argument that this might be illegal null and void because Joe Biden allowed the CIA to use signal, and are persuaded away from accepting all of that evidence by articles with that contain such gems as "what the media wont tell you about the Atlantic hit piece", "Democrats talking points on this story quickly unraveled", and "help us continue to expose the lefts desperate attempts to manufacture scandals". How can propaganda be so effective that people lose the skill of object permanence?

chasil 2y ago
I have little doubt that Jeffery Goldberg is telling the truth. So, was he added to the conversation inadvertently, or was it deliberate? On the question of whether the use of the application was negligent, well, that is now moot.
- rcpt 2y ago
  There is just no way this is deliberate. They have nothing to gain from this. We need to stop thinking these guys are playing 3D chess when they try to shove the pieces up their nose
  - forgotoldacc 2y ago
    Call me crazy, but they have lots to gain. They got to see whether a journalist would dare stand up against them knowing very well they risk being found with 50 terabytes of illegal porn on their computer then dying of a suicide with 2 shots in the back of the head. Turns out journalists aren't yet afraid of them. They also got a loyalty test with their own people. Everyone is saying "not my problem" and accepting no responsibility. They've passed that test. Then the final loyalty test is of their voters. When this first broke, the script was "Oof. This is bad. Heads will roll because of this." When it became apparent that, no, heads will not roll, the script amongst them changed. "This doesn't matter. Why would it matter? Everyone uses insecure things and makes mistakes. Why did the journalist embarrass our country?" It's very obvious that the breaking point with their base is very far away, assuming there is one. And the final result is seeing whether there will be consequences. A small time guy can get pinched for this and the president and everyone else will remain completely void of responsibility no matter what. But it's pretty obvious that even a small time guy won't be facing consequences. So they've gained something very valuable from this: the realization that there really are no consequences. They're going to keep pushing things like this and they'll get bigger and bigger each time. And each time it sets a new standard for a tolerable level of bad. And any time someone supportive of them starts to think "maybe this isn't good", they'll be quick to rush in and say "it's a nothingburger, just like the last thing they were whining about." And they'll fall back in line.

subjectsigma 2y ago

lol no, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about