3 ms·

This is just an attempt at damage control over the Goldberg-in-the-chat thing, isn't it?

by bediger4000 2y ago

gsibble 2y ago
[flagged]
- bediger4000 2y ago
  > There was no classified data transacted That is almost certainly false. Goldberg didn't show us any, to be sure, but he also noted he left out a lot of what went on in the chat.
  - donnachangstein 2y ago
    > That is almost certainly false. Goldberg didn't show us any So your proof is no proof was provided? Do you call this "proof by omission"?
    - twobitshifter 2y ago
      So you want Goldberg to release the classified information? The journalist is the only one who knew what he was doing.
      - thomquaid 2y ago
        He never said he had classified information. He said he witheld sensitive information which is related to an ongoing investigation (and not related to Houthi airstrikes).
        jjulius 2y ago
        >He said he witheld [sic] sensitive information... You said, two minutes ago, that he published the messages[1]. I don't know that you're arguing in good faith here. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478529
        thomquaid 2y ago
        The hearing today said the messages are not classified, and wouldnt be, given it is a cabinet meeting convo. They said what was withheld by the journalist was sensative information. Sensative is not Classified, Classified is not Sensative. The Sensative material withheld is about an unrelated matter, suggested to be an investigation, supposedly. Im not sure what faith has to do with it. The media is saying there are classified leaks, but the public leaks arent classified or sensitive. The journalist can publish facts showing classified or sensative information if they want to, but so far the only facts in evidence are no classification occurred.
        crtasm 2y ago
        >The journalist can publish facts showing classified or sensative information if they want to now done, enjoy the read.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - llm_nerd 2y ago
    A surprise attack in a hostile country, especially one using manned aircraft, is 100% classified, 100% of the time, for plainly evident reasons. Unless they discount that Goldberg knew about this attack in advance, which they have not done, they absolutely broached classified information. Of course per Goldberg it was much worse. An active intelligence officer was in the chat group. Specific human targets (this was an assassination of members of Houthi) were detailed, as were specific ordnance and weapons used. We'll see the story change quickly in coming days. Goldberg will release more information -- they say it is unclassified -- and immediately the story will kneejerk that he is a traitor putting the country in danger, or maybe that Trump waved his magic wand and declassified it in real time, etc. It's going to be hard for the cult to keep up with whatever the shifting talking points are. I see that they've already embraced the "somehow he hacked into the group!" narrative that Waltz has shifted to this evening after previously admitting to erroneously inviting him to the group. Soon Goldberg will have burgled Waltz' house and nefariously added himself.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      The attack was not a surprise. The US has been bombing Yemen endlessly, but it fell of the news cycle when this failed to have much of an impact on their blockade of the Red Sea, which was paused only thanks to the cease fire with Gaza/Israel. Anyhow, after Israel returned to bombing, the Houthis resumed that blockade, and Trump announced plans to continue and escalate such actions and direct another carrier there. Similarly the weapons used are unlikely to have varied - mostly just HARM and TLAMs, perhaps backed by more Hellfires from Predators. And finally the targets are also self evident - Houthi leaders, who we've been regularly targeting throughout this entire thing. Granted I couldn't tell you the exact time the latest bombs would land, though by cross referencing the time the additional carrier arrived I could have given you a pretty good ballpark!
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - thomquaid 2y ago
    That is not true. Today at the hearing, the CIA director said there was no classified material. He was questioned if the event was a "huge mistake", and answered "No." The journalist published the messages. The messages take almost no time to read and are very short. See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/live/SNJF-hi4rus?t=7547s https://www.youtube.com/live/SNJF-hi4rus?t=7547s Lots of lies about these leaks.
    - jjulius 2y ago
      >He was questioned if the event was a "huge mistake", and answered "No." He then proceeded to, a few sentences later, admit that it was a mistake. Edit: Regarding your edit, I saw the clip earlier. He absolutely admits it was a mistake after Ossoff asks him. Right here - https://x.com/Acyn/status/1904567023923089696 https://x.com/Acyn/status/1904567023923089696 And if you're gonna lament people lying, at least get your house in order first[1]. >The journalist published the messages. This is patently false. As of the time of my making this comment, Goldberg has still withheld the messages containing the details of the plan of the attack. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478553
      - thomquaid 2y ago
        CIA director explained that nothing could have been classified because classification authority rests with the secretaries involved themselves. In the journalists opinion, war plans should be classified. Fortunately, we dont rely on Journalists to make that determination. Fortunately, good journalists do not harm air missions. Unfortunately, bad journalism creates political illusions. The journalist said he withheld sensative information that the senate hearing today emphasized was regarding an ongoing investigation, and not about war plans. If the whole government is lying, hopefully the journalist is good and publishes facts instead of opinions Edit: in your clip, CIA director says 'they characterized it as a mistake', not 'he'.
        jjulius 2y ago
        >The information Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth disclosed in the Signal chat of top Trump national security officials was highly classified at the time he wrote it, especially because the operation had not even started yet, according to a US defense official familiar with the operation and another source who was briefed on it afterward. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/26/politics/the-atlantic-publishes-signal-messages-yemen-strike/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/26/politics/the-atlantic-publish...
- threeseed 2y ago
  > There was no classified data transacted Goldberg is highly respected and has gone on the record to say that it was. The obvious solution here is that if the Trump administration believe it isn’t classified then they simply need to release the transcript. And it’s implausible that a chat room with Secretary of State, Defense, VP, National Security Advisor etc discussing the Houthis would not be classified.
- jjulius 2y ago
  >There was no classified data transacted. Have you seen the full conversation yet?
- defrost 2y ago
  A US public watchdog is now sueing for action to be taken. The people in the chat group included Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, various other Trump administration officials and aides and notably Secretary of State Marco Rubio. As American Oversight lawyers pointed out in their lawsuit Tuesday, Rubio is also the acting archivist of the United States and, as such, “is aware of the violations” that allegedly occurred. The lawsuit, brought by the watchdog group American Oversight, requests that a federal judge formally declare that Hegseth and other officials on the chat violated their duty to uphold laws around the preservation of official communications. Those laws are outlined in the Federal Records Act and, according to lawyers for American Oversight, if agency heads refuse to recover or protect their communications, the national archivist should ask the attorney general to step in. ~ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-hegseth-sued-over-signal-text-debacle_n_67e2f9b5e4b074f0c26efadc https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-hegseth-sued-over-signal... There are four areas of damage here at least: * Advance knowledge of US bombings and action was conveyed to a journalist (who didn't know if this was 'real' until the bombs he read about were dropped at the date, time, and locations he read about (and redacted from his reporting)) * Records of thes chats are not being preserved as required by US law for archives, transparency, etc. * Diplomatic damage via raw opinions of allies shared. * Reputational damage .. the USofA is now seen as having a meritless day drinking political hire as DoD head who is clueless about "OpSec" .. etc. Time will tell how this buttery Signals chat plays out .. it's certainly given many other countries more fuel to ridicule the USofA, it's hard to believe these clowns are our partners in global "intelligence".
timewizard 2y ago
Damage control for the insane Senate hearings today.
- refurb 2y ago
  Amazing how the Senate can hold a hearing for something happened yesterday, but are apparently helpless to hold hearing about the dozens of other things that actually impact American's lives like housing, healthcare, etc.
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    Some of the people were already set to appear. This was not a scramble to get answers.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      The article release was timed so that they'd have to answer questions about it.

This is just an attempt at damage control over the Goldberg-in-the-chat thing, isn't it?

gsibble 2y ago

[flagged]

bediger4000 2y ago
> There was no classified data transacted That is almost certainly false. Goldberg didn't show us any, to be sure, but he also noted he left out a lot of what went on in the chat.
- donnachangstein 2y ago
  > That is almost certainly false. Goldberg didn't show us any So your proof is no proof was provided? Do you call this "proof by omission"?
  - twobitshifter 2y ago
    So you want Goldberg to release the classified information? The journalist is the only one who knew what he was doing.
    - thomquaid 2y ago
      He never said he had classified information. He said he witheld sensitive information which is related to an ongoing investigation (and not related to Houthi airstrikes).
      - jjulius 2y ago
        >He said he witheld [sic] sensitive information... You said, two minutes ago, that he published the messages[1]. I don't know that you're arguing in good faith here. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478529
        thomquaid 2y ago
        The hearing today said the messages are not classified, and wouldnt be, given it is a cabinet meeting convo. They said what was withheld by the journalist was sensative information. Sensative is not Classified, Classified is not Sensative. The Sensative material withheld is about an unrelated matter, suggested to be an investigation, supposedly. Im not sure what faith has to do with it. The media is saying there are classified leaks, but the public leaks arent classified or sensitive. The journalist can publish facts showing classified or sensative information if they want to, but so far the only facts in evidence are no classification occurred.
        crtasm 2y ago
        >The journalist can publish facts showing classified or sensative information if they want to now done, enjoy the read.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  A surprise attack in a hostile country, especially one using manned aircraft, is 100% classified, 100% of the time, for plainly evident reasons. Unless they discount that Goldberg knew about this attack in advance, which they have not done, they absolutely broached classified information. Of course per Goldberg it was much worse. An active intelligence officer was in the chat group. Specific human targets (this was an assassination of members of Houthi) were detailed, as were specific ordnance and weapons used. We'll see the story change quickly in coming days. Goldberg will release more information -- they say it is unclassified -- and immediately the story will kneejerk that he is a traitor putting the country in danger, or maybe that Trump waved his magic wand and declassified it in real time, etc. It's going to be hard for the cult to keep up with whatever the shifting talking points are. I see that they've already embraced the "somehow he hacked into the group!" narrative that Waltz has shifted to this evening after previously admitting to erroneously inviting him to the group. Soon Goldberg will have burgled Waltz' house and nefariously added himself.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    The attack was not a surprise. The US has been bombing Yemen endlessly, but it fell of the news cycle when this failed to have much of an impact on their blockade of the Red Sea, which was paused only thanks to the cease fire with Gaza/Israel. Anyhow, after Israel returned to bombing, the Houthis resumed that blockade, and Trump announced plans to continue and escalate such actions and direct another carrier there. Similarly the weapons used are unlikely to have varied - mostly just HARM and TLAMs, perhaps backed by more Hellfires from Predators. And finally the targets are also self evident - Houthi leaders, who we've been regularly targeting throughout this entire thing. Granted I couldn't tell you the exact time the latest bombs would land, though by cross referencing the time the additional carrier arrived I could have given you a pretty good ballpark!
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- thomquaid 2y ago
  That is not true. Today at the hearing, the CIA director said there was no classified material. He was questioned if the event was a "huge mistake", and answered "No." The journalist published the messages. The messages take almost no time to read and are very short. See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/live/SNJF-hi4rus?t=7547s https://www.youtube.com/live/SNJF-hi4rus?t=7547s Lots of lies about these leaks.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    >He was questioned if the event was a "huge mistake", and answered "No." He then proceeded to, a few sentences later, admit that it was a mistake. Edit: Regarding your edit, I saw the clip earlier. He absolutely admits it was a mistake after Ossoff asks him. Right here - https://x.com/Acyn/status/1904567023923089696 https://x.com/Acyn/status/1904567023923089696 And if you're gonna lament people lying, at least get your house in order first[1]. >The journalist published the messages. This is patently false. As of the time of my making this comment, Goldberg has still withheld the messages containing the details of the plan of the attack. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478553
    - thomquaid 2y ago
      CIA director explained that nothing could have been classified because classification authority rests with the secretaries involved themselves. In the journalists opinion, war plans should be classified. Fortunately, we dont rely on Journalists to make that determination. Fortunately, good journalists do not harm air missions. Unfortunately, bad journalism creates political illusions. The journalist said he withheld sensative information that the senate hearing today emphasized was regarding an ongoing investigation, and not about war plans. If the whole government is lying, hopefully the journalist is good and publishes facts instead of opinions Edit: in your clip, CIA director says 'they characterized it as a mistake', not 'he'.
      - jjulius 2y ago
        >The information Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth disclosed in the Signal chat of top Trump national security officials was highly classified at the time he wrote it, especially because the operation had not even started yet, according to a US defense official familiar with the operation and another source who was briefed on it afterward. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/26/politics/the-atlantic-publishes-signal-messages-yemen-strike/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/26/politics/the-atlantic-publish...
threeseed 2y ago
> There was no classified data transacted Goldberg is highly respected and has gone on the record to say that it was. The obvious solution here is that if the Trump administration believe it isn’t classified then they simply need to release the transcript. And it’s implausible that a chat room with Secretary of State, Defense, VP, National Security Advisor etc discussing the Houthis would not be classified.
jjulius 2y ago
>There was no classified data transacted. Have you seen the full conversation yet?
defrost 2y ago
A US public watchdog is now sueing for action to be taken. The people in the chat group included Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, various other Trump administration officials and aides and notably Secretary of State Marco Rubio. As American Oversight lawyers pointed out in their lawsuit Tuesday, Rubio is also the acting archivist of the United States and, as such, “is aware of the violations” that allegedly occurred. The lawsuit, brought by the watchdog group American Oversight, requests that a federal judge formally declare that Hegseth and other officials on the chat violated their duty to uphold laws around the preservation of official communications. Those laws are outlined in the Federal Records Act and, according to lawyers for American Oversight, if agency heads refuse to recover or protect their communications, the national archivist should ask the attorney general to step in. ~ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-hegseth-sued-over-signal-text-debacle_n_67e2f9b5e4b074f0c26efadc https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-hegseth-sued-over-signal... There are four areas of damage here at least: * Advance knowledge of US bombings and action was conveyed to a journalist (who didn't know if this was 'real' until the bombs he read about were dropped at the date, time, and locations he read about (and redacted from his reporting)) * Records of thes chats are not being preserved as required by US law for archives, transparency, etc. * Diplomatic damage via raw opinions of allies shared. * Reputational damage .. the USofA is now seen as having a meritless day drinking political hire as DoD head who is clueless about "OpSec" .. etc. Time will tell how this buttery Signals chat plays out .. it's certainly given many other countries more fuel to ridicule the USofA, it's hard to believe these clowns are our partners in global "intelligence".

timewizard 2y ago

Damage control for the insane Senate hearings today.

refurb 2y ago
Amazing how the Senate can hold a hearing for something happened yesterday, but are apparently helpless to hold hearing about the dozens of other things that actually impact American's lives like housing, healthcare, etc.
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  Some of the people were already set to appear. This was not a scramble to get answers.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    The article release was timed so that they'd have to answer questions about it.