The Trump Presidency 2.0

[Ooh-Rah]

Reddit comments are always worth a read…

The Atlantic publishes full Signal thread with Hegseth, Waltz after Trump says texts not classified

 

[Kraut783]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904873322950644172

 

[amlove21]

I'm not gonna type this in all caps- but I am not fucking with you here. This message is not me being a dick or setting up a gotcha.

I just read the entire signal chat- @AWP in your estimation, can you make the case for a no-shit spillage there? OPSEC is a no brainer- times, places, actions. @GOTWA you mentioned Tulsi would have to take her OCA again when she said there was no spillage here- is there a specific section that's a home run? Again, I stress I am not joking, I have no clue as to how the IT game works except from end user.

I thought folks had seen the entire chat already, but the Atlantic drop was an hour ago. Are there any products on the thread? Did someone share a COF?

***I am not making this case***, but I will call the spin right now. Coupled with the already bubbling "Look at the actual messages- high-level officials having adult conversations about second- and third-order effects, the adults are back in charge, and the signal leak is better optics vs total cost of the scandal" narrative, people are 100% going to start nitpicking OPSEC vs spillage.

"It didn't say WHAT F-18s in WHICH package- the ATO isn't for release so of course we didn't specify, that's bad OPSEC but not what the Dems are making it seem." That's the next iteration of this one.

ETA- Watlz and other surrogates posting exactly what I said- "Waltz wrote on X "No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests." I didn't call it before it happened, but I also hadn't checked the news before I did... -1 to myself

 

[Cookie_]

"It didn't say WHAT F-18s in WHICH package- the ATO isn't for release so of course we didn't specify, that's bad OPSEC but not what the Dems are making it seem." That's the next iteration of this one.

Your example is pretty much in line with the reality of reactions.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904888948628877756

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904875629612331123

 

[amlove21]

Your example is pretty much in line with the reality of reactions.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904888948628877756

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904875629612331123

Yeah, it was out there before I said it—I just caught up on X—but that's going to be the line.

Now we will see if Goldberg overplayed his hand, got excited about what a civilian thinks is a dead-to-rights violation, has a history of bias, and got out over his skis.

 

[DA SWO]

I want the staffer who added Goldberg fired.
If Waltz added Goldberg, then I want to know the extent of their relationship.

 

[amlove21]

I want the staffer who added Goldberg fired.
If Waltz added Goldberg, then I want to know the extent of their relationship.

I think that's an interesting question- Goldberg has a super long history of (as graciously as I can here) slightly negative coverage on DJT. It's not like his name wasn't known, even to the dumbest staffer. But still...

.. why was he in anyone's contact list at all? What are the odds of the one person you end up adding to a group chat also just so happens to be a platformed journalist with a big following built from a career of obviously biased rhetoric?

I am going with Hanlon's razor (incompetence before maliciousness) on this one- while suspicious and it would be easy to connect those dots, sometimes the world is just weird and people are idiots. Some dumb staffer who had Goldberg's contact info saved in signal was breathlessly creating a group chat and hit the wrong contact. I also don't check every name on every huge group chat I am added to, so it probably went unnoticed.

 

[Cookie_]

Yeah, it was out there before I said it—I just caught up on X—but that's going to be the line.

Now we will see if Goldberg overplayed his hand, got excited about what a civilian thinks is a dead-to-rights violation, has a history of bias, and got out over his skis.

I think it's gonna be a bit of both. It seems like a pretty clear violation, but it isn't so egregious that there won't be successful circling of the wagons, especially if some staffers takes the fall.

I don't think the average person will understand that saying "we're launching F18s and Reapers at this time to strike at this time" could allow enemy actors the ability to work backwards and narrow down likely launch points/targets.

The new "focus" now will be why Waltz (or is staffer) added Goldberg and why not one single person verified who this unknown/non contributing name was. (You hit on this as i was typing).

 

[amlove21]

I think it's gonna be a bit of both. It seems like a pretty clear violation, but it isn't so egregious that there won't be successful circling of the wagons, especially if some staffers takes the fall.

I don't think the average person will understand that saying "we're launching F18s and Reapers at this time to strike at this time" could allow enemy actors the ability to work backwards and narrow down likely launch points/targets.

The new "focus" now will be why Waltz (or is staffer) added Goldberg and why not one single person verified who this unknown/non contributing name was. (You hit on this as i was typing).

Mind meld.

To your bolded- violation of what? What's the charge here- if we are firing people (I am in) and it's serious, I want charges because we have to rebaseline all these things. So what's the charge? And who specifically gets it?

 

[amlove21]

Annnnnnnd now this little kefluffle is over. Now it's a "scramble to the high ground" and "post everything bad Goldberg has ever written" and then this fizzles out. Agrumentum ad nauseum.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904917343169343991

 

[AWP]

I'm not gonna type this in all caps- but I am not fucking with you here. This message is not me being a dick or setting up a gotcha.

I just read the entire signal chat- @AWP in your estimation, can you make the case for a no-shit spillage there? OPSEC is a no brainer- times, places, actions. @GOTWA you mentioned Tulsi would have to take her OCA again when she said there was no spillage here- is there a specific section that's a home run? Again, I stress I am not joking, I have no clue as to how the IT game works except from end user.

In my estimation, it is spillage. Specifying times and airframes would, should make it secret. I know you've seen ATO's, but I don't know if you ever saw the Excel spreadsheet used to break that document down into graphical chunks. Anyway, times and aircraft make up 2 of the 5 lines of data with radio freqs, location, and call sign the rest...as of 2021 at least. I would argue there's enough to warrant spillage.

That said, the SCG's matrix would tell us what information aggregates up to whatever classification level. None of us have that. Plus, if the SECDEF "declassified" it all with a wave of the hand...eh, it's unclassified. Done.

One other reason you can say it is spillage, bit of a strawman here, but "Would private snuffy catch a charge for releasing that info?"

The bigger problem is SECDEF saying they're clean on OPSEC and then demonstrating he has no idea what the word means.

 

[Cookie_]

Mind meld.

To your bolded- violation of what? What's the charge here- if we are firing people (I am in) and it's serious, I want charges because we have to rebaseline all these things. So what's the charge? And who specifically gets it?

This seems like an OPSEC violation and general spillage (unintentional or intentional TBD).
I'm not in that space like some of our other members, so I can't make a determination as to if charges are applicable or not.

I think if this situation happened at my level we'd have pretty decent peepee slaps from our 2 shop, if not outright jeopardize my ability to have a clearance.

If we're in a world where we remove political party from the equation and pretend everybody was a mid level enlisted/officer:

Waltz and Hegseth are the two that are closest to "you're fired". Waltz for adding the journo, Hegseth for sharing the actual information.
Gabbard and Ratcliffe might not rise to the level of fired, but it's concerning that our DNI/CIA director are ok with that information being shared over signal.
Everybody else gets off with a counseling.

 

[amlove21]

In my estimation, it is spillage. Specifying times and airframes would, should make it secret. I know you've seen ATO's, but I don't know if you ever saw the Excel spreadsheet used to break that document down into graphical chunks. Anyway, times and aircraft make up 2 of the 5 lines of data with radio freqs, location, and call sign the rest...as of 2021 at least. I would argue there's enough to warrant spillage.

That said, the SCG's matrix would tell us what information aggregates up to whatever classification level. None of us have that. Plus, if the SECDEF "declassified" it all with a wave of the hand...eh, it's unclassified. Done.

One other reason you can say it is spillage, bit of a strawman here, but "Would private snuffy catch a charge for releasing that info?"

The bigger problem is SECDEF saying they're clean on OPSEC and then demonstrating he has no idea what the word means.

I can tell you as the Ops Supe that had to answer why some of my dudes accidentally gmailed a couple COFs with enough borderline information that it pinged the security folks... no, they wouldn't catch a charge for that group text. They'd be strongly counseled and go through the appropriate Intel remediation, cause that's what we did.

To your bolded I 100% agree. My bet is it doesn't matter now that they're haveing the spillage/OPSEC definitional battle- he'll just walk it back. When are these people going to learn not to make any hard claims early in these things? Cause that's the move.

 

[amlove21]

This seems like an OPSEC violation and general spillage (unintentional or intentional TBD).
I'm not in that space like some of our other members, so I can't make a determination as to if charges are applicable or not.

I think if this situation happened at my level we'd have pretty decent peepee slaps from our 2 shop, if not outright jeopardize my ability to have a clearance.

If we're in a world where we remove political party from the equation and pretend everybody was a mid level enlisted/officer:

Waltz and Hegseth are the two that are closest to "you're fired". Waltz for adding the journo, Hegseth for sharing the actual information.
Gabbard and Ratcliffe might not rise to the level of fired, but it's concerning that our DNI/CIA director are ok with that information being shared over signal.
Everybody else gets off with a counseling.

Interesting, good post.

 

[DA SWO]

Funny fact.
Biden admin approved Signal for use by government officials, I wonder what level of classification it has?
Adding the Journo was a huge mistake.
The rest seems partisan, we told a shit to of people what was happening and I always assumed my data was compromised once given to NATO.

 

[Marauder06]

 

[ThunderHorse]

Using Whataboutism...what's worse the government participating in an investigation to smear a candidate and subvert an election or a strike authorization that if you didn't know the background on tells you nothing?

 

[Devildoc]

About 5, 6 pages on things that are WAYYYYYY beyond my mental calibration. BLUF for me: if it's wrong, corrective action (in whatever form) and drive on. Don't obfuscate, deflect, lie, or ignore.

 

[Cookie_]

Funny fact.
Biden admin approved Signal for use by government officials, I wonder what level of classification it has?
Adding the Journo was a huge mistake.
The rest seems partisan, we told a shit to of people what was happening and I always assumed my data was compromised once given to NATO.

We use Signal a ton. Always been told it's secure but we shouldn't send anything that would be considered any level of "controlled/classified" over it.

 

[AWP]

We use Signal a ton. Always been told it's secure but we shouldn't send anything that would be considered any level of "controlled/classified" over it.

I’d have to dig up the email, but CUI has to go through Teams. No alternative apps were provided so we’ve taken that to mean Teams is the only approved platform.