DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans

I don't think anyone in this thread is uneducated. I think what it all boils down to is what we all have to one degree or another. Our human defense mechanism. A need to defend the side your on no matter what. The need to try and lessen the degree of what those on your side have done.

Agree. You've got this whole conversation twisted inside-out because you failed to trace it back to the beginning and apparently failed to read any of my other posts in this thread. I've said not one word about the media reporting the story nor disputed the fact that there should be accountability. I'm just saying y'all will be sadly disappointed if you think everyone is getting fired.

I responded to Damon's post that everyone should be fired for lying. I compared the four years of non-stop lies that received everything from applause to hiding in the bushes on your side. That's all. Then mgh thought it should be a pissing contest about who has lied more. That was the conversation.

All these people aren't getting fired.

As much as I'd love to sit down in person with a bunch of you characters and have a three dimensional conversation, maybe have a beer or two... OCD with his Four Loko, Daman with his diet cream soda, that can't happen here.

You're doing what almost all of us are guilty of from time to time -- plucking a response from the middle of a conversation and painting a picture that never existed.

The bottom line for me, I just don't know what accountability looks like at this point. The more I see, the more I think none of these dudes added this journalist. I think that is why they were all in such disarray for the first 48 hours. I think it may have been in intern as a joke, maybe an intern as not a joke. Maybe, hopefully not, a hack. They can't answer questions directly because they'd have to say "we don't know" and that would make them seem even more incompetent than anything else. Just a possibility. And read this: I'm not at all saying that is a valid excuse. That's actually worse (in my book) than if someone did this inadvertently.

He just made it obvious what he doesn't want to talk about. Have they finally figured out the American people don't believe the lies they're telling?

There was a couple other nuggets I heard driving into work this morning.

Goldberg still has other information that he didn't post yet-and after checking with the CIA won't post publicly.

On that group chat-they name a CIA operative, by name-I believe it is the person who verified that the subject was walking into the building and that the building was dropped.

There have been other group chats that have taken place on Signal-somebody might want to check the group lists

a lot of government issued phones do not even allow commercial apps like Signal-Where these people on personal phones or laptops?

I think the 2 are comparable but not the same
Nothing from hilary ever got out (that I am aware)

My personal opinion is that these people should be punished the sameway I wanted hilary punished
I never believed that she should be prosecuted
I don't believe any of these people should be either

I did feel that hilary should have been stripped of her security clearance
I feel that these people should lose their security clearance as well

Without their security clearance they cannot perform the duties of their job
Therefore they would need to be replaced

Not necessarily all of them
Clearly Waltz 100%

Without having read who posted what, I cannot say who else
But anyone sharing sensitive information

Additionally, anyone who lied to congress
As of now who lied is still debatable

The others should be severely reprimanded

Just my opinion

I just heard the highest sources at the pentagon that said no classified information was discussed. ok thats the answer everyone go about your business. Oh wait Hegseth is the highest source at the pentagon. ( I throw up a little bit in my mouth when I typed that ) . Hegseth is the definition of skeevy mook. It is pathetic he has the position he has. Our forces deserve better.

Waltz should be fired because he's clearly a moron (I believe he's the one that added the Atlantic editor).

Unfortunately, there are rules against sharing classified/secret info on unsecured channel. Most if not all of the people in the chat did just that. They broke the rules and there are appropriate punishments.

That should be the end of it, but we know that's not the case.

what did they find?

Gotta give a few points to the two Goper’s that actually showed up here. But subtract a dozen points for lame excuses and whataboutism. You guys crack me up.

people need to be fired. This is unacceptable. There are 0 acceptable excuses.

Also, why doesn't the government have their own private/secure chat?

Yes people need to be fired. And why didn’t this administration use a top secret form of communication? Stupidity. This is what Goper’s voted for. Stupidity.

Trump administration reply….nothing to see here, we are moving forward on eliminating the dept of education, lol Stupidity begets Stupidity.

it looks like they just released the group chat messages.

It now sounds & looks like a reporter need to get fired.





oof...

Reminds me of the Bill Clinton line... I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

Signal leak fallout continues: The Atlantic publishes Trump officials' chat messages on Yemen strikes
The White House is scrambling to explain how members of the administration accidentally shared military plans with a journalist on the group messaging app.

Dylan StablefordReporter
Updated Wed, March 26, 2025 at 4:43 PM EDT7 min read


The fallout continues over a security breach in which high-ranking members of the Trump administration accidentally shared plans about a forthcoming U.S. military attack on Yemen with the top editor of the Atlantic magazine on the Signal messaging app.

Military and intelligence experts, along with some members of Congress, have expressed shock over the inadvertent leak, leading to questions about national security protocols and the use of unsecured channels for sensitive information.

President Trump and U.S. intelligence officials have tried to downplay the security risks, and insist no classified material was shared.

What happened, exactly?

The Atlantic's editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed in an article published on Monday that he knew about U.S. airstrikes against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen hours before they happened, because he was added to a Signal group chat where members of the Trump administration appeared to be discussing such war plans.

Goldberg said he received a Signal connection request on March 11 from someone whom he believed to be Michael Waltz, President Trump’s national security adviser. Two days later, Goldberg said he was added to a conversation with 18 members of the administration — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — where they talked about plans to bomb Yemen.

U.S. air and naval assets hit multiple Houthi targets in Yemen on March 15.

Goldberg said that he initially did not believe the Signal group chat was real. “I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans,” he wrote. "I have never seen a breach quite like this.

“It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal,” Goldberg added. “But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters — not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I’ve never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion."

Trump first told reporters on Monday that he knew nothing about the incident. Then, in a phone interview with NBC News, the president said he stood by Waltz.

“Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man," Trump said. The president suggested that a member of Waltz’s staff accidentally added Goldberg to the group.

Speaking to reporters at the White House Tuesday, Trump disparaged Goldberg and the Atlantic, calling the editor a “total sleazebag” and the 167-year-old publication a “failed magazine.”

What have people on the Signal group chat said?

In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday night, Waltz said he takes “full responsibility" for the “embarrassing” security breach, and that he built the group chat himself.

“I take full responsibility. … I built the group,” Waltz said. “My job is to make sure everything’s coordinated.”

But Waltz also said he doesn’t know how Goldberg was added to the chat.

"I can tell you for 100% I don't know this guy," Waltz said, adding that he had spoken to Elon Musk for help in finding out what happened.

Appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, Gabbard and Ratcliffe were grilled by Democrats over the breach, which they both sought to downplay

During a House Intelligence Committee hearing Wednesday, Gabbard acknowledged the inclusion of a Goldberg on the Signal chat was a “mistake,” but said no classified information was shared.

Speaking to reporters in Hawaii on Monday, Hegseth flatly denied sharing any sensitive military information.

“Nobody was texting war plans,” Hegseth said. “And that’s all I have to say about that.”

He reiterated those comments on Tuesday.

“Nobody’s texting war plans,” Hegseth said. “I know exactly what I’m doing.”

During a news conference in Kingston, Jamaica, on Wednesday, Rubio said he hoped "there’ll be reforms and changes made so this never — it’s not going to happen again. It can’t."

“Obviously, someone made a mistake. Someone made a big mistake and added a journalist. Nothing against journalists, but you ain’t supposed to be on that thing,” Rubio added.

What was the Atlantic’s response to denials that war plans were shared?

In the article published Monday, Goldberg did not reveal details of the strike plans, saying the information “could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel.”

But on Wednesday, the Atlantic published the full text thread from the Signal group under the headline: “Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal.”

“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,” Goldberg and colleague Shane Harris explained.

The messages include specific details on the timing of launches by U.S. military jets that were to strike Houthi targets.

The Atlantic said that the thread it published was the entire text chain except for the name of a CIA officer that it withheld at the agency’s request.

What are security experts and other officials saying?

Current, former intelligence officials and Democratic lawmakers have expressed shock over the breach, wondering how members of the Trump administration would be discussing security plans on Signal in the first place.

"This Signal chat situation sheds light on a sloppy and grossly incompetent national security strategy from the Trump administration," said Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that they'd be this reckless and careless with our national security,” Ned Price, a former CIA analyst who was deputy to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the Biden administration, told NPR.

Price said he had spoken to former national security officials and colleagues involved in military planning, adding, “It’s fair to say ... that heads are exploding.”

While most Republicans have avoided criticizing the administration over the breach, a few have spoken out.

Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday that the panel is calling for an independent investigation into the leak.

“Classified information should not be transmitted on unsecured channels — and certainly not to those without security clearances, including reporters. Period,” Rep. Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, wrote on X. “Safeguards must be put in place to ensure this never happens again.”


https://www.yahoo.com/news/signal-l...messages-on-yemen-strikes-170049670.html

Guess we will have to read it ourselves to determine what we think in terms of the intel it contains. I heard today that they named a CIA operative as he entered or left A building... So that's pretty bad all by itself. Maybe the truth will land somewhere in the middle of the two claims?

i posted it a little bit ago. it's not long at all. it's like 10 screenshots that I linked here in twitter.

Which of those 19 accounts on the thread (last two screenshots) was Goldberg's?

"you" is listed as "JG" that's Goldberg.

We do…just not via mobile device. Nobody should have been talking about this via cell phone app whatsoever.

How the hell does Hegseth put out a tweet like this when this is in the text chain??

WTH? Maybe he is drunk.

Yes, of course.

That's only slightly embarrassing on my part.

Concur. Good ol’ WhiskeyLeaks.

(I hope you can see the dark humor in that)

Nothing about this is good. That’s not me being political either.

Thank you for a succinct statement - much shorter than I would have acheived.

The idea this isn't classified material is beyond stupid.

just my opinion - but it speaks to the total impunity that Trump (and his sycophants) feel, to the point that they can lie and literally do whatever they want without any accountability or consequence. It speaks to a literal 'King Trump'.

I thought the Atlantic said that they still redacted a bunch of stuff that the CIA asked them to. For example, the name of the agent that was on the ground and confirmed the building dropped on the dude they wanted.

edit: Fate posted the good stuff. Nevermind.

Is that what it speaks to? Tell me what would be different if this was the Biden admin?

Nevermind, I'll tell you:
Nobody would say anything except Karine Jean-Pierre. She would say... "no comment", "no comment", "I'm not going to talk about matters of national security", "no comment", "I told you our stance yesterday", "no comment".

Don't act like this would be any different with any admin in history -- we all know it wouldn't.


*Note: for anyone that just skims comments, I didn't say this was good.

WOW are you really saying this admin is just like all others in history?

I disagree 100%.

I'll pass on commenting on Biden in such black and white terms - just because I think after Obama (Mostly due to the R's desire not to pass anything that would allow Obama to have success even when it was adopting or in line with R poloicy agenda) politics and the political divide widened. So you have Trump and Biden to consider in the same 'bucket'. And I suspect the Dems and left media might try hard to paint this as a nothing burger, I don't believe they would be successful so we can agree to disagree here.

But having passed on Biden/Trump ... I think ANY administration in history would have absolutely taken this issue seriously. People would have been fired and/or demoted. Absolute worst case security clearance withdrawn pending an insight/oversight review. . . . Some of that may have been a little 'for show', but I absolutely believe the further you go back in time the more seriously and earnestly the issue would have been addressed and tackled. Both sides of the aisle.

Are you really that dense that you can't comprehend simple statements? I'll break the three sentences down for you right after someone else commits to teaching you to tie your shoes. Wait, velcro, right? You definitely seem like a velcro guy.

Well you know how it goes. Some people are born with that God given ability to predict what would have been done by others. They already know what another administration would have done in the exact same circumstances. Hard to argue with a made up scenario. Unless of course you understand that it's simply made up in someone's mind.

Well, if that's what you believe, maybe you can search through history and find any example. Make sure all that happens within 72 hours and before any investigation.

Oh, speaking of investigation. The clearly biased activist judge Boasberg just "randomly" got his fourth Trump case! That would be like me winning the pick-3 four times in four tries. So don't worry -- you'll get your pound of flesh. When all else fails, you dems still have lawfare.

You mean the same judge Bush appointed? That "biased activist judge"? The one they are refusing to turn over evidence to while calling him names as you parrot them?

I think you're looking at this through EXTREMELY rose-colored glasses. The only people that have ever been held to account for this type of situation have been the rank and file. Nothing happened to Hillary (plus we didn't even talk about all the other people that apparently did the same thing as she did, such as several of her predecessors). Nothing happened to Trump with the Mar-a-Lago boxes of info. Nothing happened other than him doing an "aw shucks" after he was found doing the same thing.


We have a well-established precedent of not holding top leadership accountable for following these important rules. The only difference in this situation is the extra layer of stupidity in terms of how it all went down.

@ Fate and @ Oober

Maybe - I mean, I don't know that we've had such a case where such hight level incompetenace has been exposed red handed? Show me something as incontrovertible as this and maybe I can adjust my opinion accordingly. An instance as black and white with the proof of the mishandling of classifed information relating to military operations ... signed and in the perpetratorsown hand.

On Hilary with her emails and with Benghazi she faced the storm, was interviewed by the FBI and while you can claim they were friendly or suggest it was covered up, fine but Comey was a registered Republican all his life. It's really easy to call them RINOs when they stand up for something that doesn't suit but folks like Mueller and Liz Cheney ( and Comey) were all cosidered R's... But whether you want to say it was a cover up or BS ... she went through that wringer. She faced questions for 11 hours on Bengazi. That's nothing like what we are seeing now.

Acknowledged - it's a brief momement to judge anything by right now. 72 hours. Maybe things will change over the next couple of weeks but I doubt it based on the Republicans circling the wagons.

So one of the two defying a subpoena for those documents for over 6 months while the FBI was doing everything in their power to get him to turn them over willingly without having to issue a search warrant is "doing the same thing"?

Hmmmm.....

This just makes me feel even more depressed about my current position.

/discussion

Rules are for the common people to follow. Those in charge don't have to follow them because they are the ones in charge.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Technically, although I may not be completely accurate with the military appropriate lingo, "war plans" were not disclosed, as I suspect a "war plan" is several hundred pages.

Operational details that probably were classified were disclosed.

As I said before, I did not have sexual relations with that woman. (if you do not define the "act" as "sexual relations")

The right will say no "war plans", no this or that, but the fact is information that was contained in the war plan was disclosed in the signal chat before the attack took place.

That is the problem.

"Attack plans" would have been more accurate and it seems that's the only thing these people have to cling to at this point. There's still zero doubt these were classified details.

I heard a retired General-not some talking head from the right or left yesterday on the way home.
He basically said whoever is talking about war plans vs attack plans didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

Attack plans are operational as it happens plans discussing target strike teams/apparatus, targets, outcome, etc.

This is even more classified-it should have been with a very limited group-top secret on a need to know basis, handled in the Situation Room.

There should not have been 19 people on the chat over a commercial app.

Also, he said if it was his mission and he somehow know there were doing this on signal-he would have called every thing off as soon as he knew