Hegseth, Ratcliffe, and other Cabinet-level officials presumably would have the authority to declassify information, and several of the national-security lawyers noted that the hypothetical officials on the Signal chain might claim that they had declassified the information they shared. But this argument rings hollow, they cautioned, because Signal is not an authorized venue for sharing information of such a sensitive nature, regardless of whether it has been stamped โtop secretโ or not.
This is the admission by the writter that it was not classified NDI. The people posting the conversation have the authority to declassify this information. So, posting it here suggests that it was declassified, or better stated, not classified. If he information is not classified, the use of Signal is fine. Signal is not authorized for classified information, but since the information is not classified, who the fuck cares if they used Signal. That's the whole point. The lawyer in this statement argues that it may be inappropriate, or that the excuse "rings hollow" but he's an opinionated fuckwit for the Atlantic. Who gives a fuck what his opinion is?
Hegseth is right. The Atlantic, particularly this writer, is constantly posting bullshit. He lists out several instances. And, in his own piece, he writes that this, too, is a bunch of bullshit.
No. I said that the writer, Jeffery Goldberg, explained that this was not NDI because the people in the conversation can declassify information and i then said no one gives a fuck about the opinion of the anonymous LAWYER at the Atlantic, who said that their excuse "rings hollow".
Learn to read.
And as for Jeffery Goldberg and his thoughts on classified info, Hillary Clinton did steal and destroy classified documents and used a personal server to avoid disclosures of state department level actions, what did Jeffery Goldberg think about that?
Oh, the "talking point" is going to be exactly what Jeffry Goldberg stated. This was not classified NDI. This was a conversation about the situation in the gulf re the Houthis.
You need to do better than that. Although attacking the journalist is the official defence at the moment, well done for falling into line. Maybe post that he had an affair 10 years ago, that might make it ok for some reason
No. The "official defense" is exactly what Jeffrey Goldberg himself said would be the defense.
Hegseth, Ratcliffe, and other Cabinet-level officials presumably would have the authority to declassify information,
And, it's also notable that Jeffery Goldberg is openly hostile to Trump and his administration and is constantly posting stories that start off salacious, but turn out to be nothing but lies. Do you acknowledge what Hegseth said about Goldberg's previous ventures into bullshit "news" stories that turned out to be "fake news"? This exact reporter has openly referred to Trump as a rayciss Nazi. Do you think that might affect his bias, just a little?
The Atlantic, itself, talks about their intentions to persuade the reader if it the "facts" fall outside of reality.
How many times does a reporter, who is openly hostile to Trump and his administration, have to get the story wrong before he is discredited?
Yesterday I "presumably" thought the SOD, VP and 7 or 8 other high ranking cabin officials wouldn't use signal, wouldn't discuss classified information in signal including war plans, and wouldn't have accidentally added a random journalist to their group.
That's Jeffery''s attempt to frame the coming retort in a way to diminish it. These people absolutely have the authority to declassify the information being discussed on Signal. Yes. The use of the word "presumably" is fucking laughable, I agree. Goldberg knows damn well these people have that authority.
But look at you, desperately trying to grab at anything to prop up this bullshit story.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 5 points 1 monthMar 25, 2025 07:14:57 ago (+5/-0)*
This is the admission by the writter that it was not classified NDI. The people posting the conversation have the authority to declassify this information. So, posting it here suggests that it was declassified, or better stated, not classified. If he information is not classified, the use of Signal is fine. Signal is not authorized for classified information, but since the information is not classified, who the fuck cares if they used Signal. That's the whole point. The lawyer in this statement argues that it may be inappropriate, or that the excuse "rings hollow" but he's an opinionated fuckwit for the Atlantic. Who gives a fuck what his opinion is?
Hegseth is right. The Atlantic, particularly this writer, is constantly posting bullshit. He lists out several instances. And, in his own piece, he writes that this, too, is a bunch of bullshit.
[ + ] big_fat_dangus
[ - ] big_fat_dangus 3 points 1 monthMar 25, 2025 07:17:23 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Sal_180
[ - ] Sal_180 [op] -3 points 1 monthMar 25, 2025 07:27:33 ago (+0/-3)
Must be difficult to make up an excuse when haven't been given the official bullshit line yet. Well done for trying though
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 3 points 1 monthMar 25, 2025 07:32:43 ago (+3/-0)*
Learn to read.
And as for Jeffery Goldberg and his thoughts on classified info, Hillary Clinton did steal and destroy classified documents and used a personal server to avoid disclosures of state department level actions, what did Jeffery Goldberg think about that?
https://www.northernpublicradio.org/2016-10-24/atlantic-editor-on-acrimony-in-u-s-i-have-to-imagine-that-it-actually-gets-worse
He endorsed Hillary and called Trump a Nazi.
Oh, the "talking point" is going to be exactly what Jeffry Goldberg stated. This was not classified NDI. This was a conversation about the situation in the gulf re the Houthis.
[ + ] Sal_180
[ - ] Sal_180 [op] -3 points 1 monthMar 25, 2025 07:37:20 ago (+0/-3)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 3 points 1 monthMar 25, 2025 07:41:29 ago (+3/-0)*
And, it's also notable that Jeffery Goldberg is openly hostile to Trump and his administration and is constantly posting stories that start off salacious, but turn out to be nothing but lies. Do you acknowledge what Hegseth said about Goldberg's previous ventures into bullshit "news" stories that turned out to be "fake news"? This exact reporter has openly referred to Trump as a rayciss Nazi. Do you think that might affect his bias, just a little?
The Atlantic, itself, talks about their intentions to persuade the reader if it the "facts" fall outside of reality.
How many times does a reporter, who is openly hostile to Trump and his administration, have to get the story wrong before he is discredited?
[ + ] Sal_180
[ - ] Sal_180 [op] -3 points 1 monthMar 25, 2025 07:48:21 ago (+0/-3)
Yesterday I "presumably" thought the SOD, VP and 7 or 8 other high ranking cabin officials wouldn't use signal, wouldn't discuss classified information in signal including war plans, and wouldn't have accidentally added a random journalist to their group.
"presumably" ๐
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 4 points 1 monthMar 25, 2025 08:38:51 ago (+4/-0)
But look at you, desperately trying to grab at anything to prop up this bullshit story.
[ + ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic
[ - ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic 1 point 1 monthMar 25, 2025 12:48:46 ago (+1/-0)