please show where the journalist said they chose not to disseminate so as not to put anyone in danger...

Go read the original article by the journalist. He didn't release the specific sensitive information which could have compromised the mission.

you need to keep up
signal is approved for use...

Not according to the Pentagon
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability

The journalist chose not to disseminate any details of the conversation so as not to put anyone in danger. 5 seconds of fame? Do you not understand what journalists do as a profession? You expect a journalist to be handed a story about incompetence and possible corruption and just sit on it? So much for accountability for government, guess that is only a standard when democrats are in power huh?

Hahahha nice try. Swooooossshhhh

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You missed the point, the biggest issue here is that the app Signal was used to share this information. Just like a private server, using a private messaging service means official conversations do not get documented properly, it makes it an off the books conversation not subject to keeping records.

If Signal were an approved app for having classified text messages then this wouldn't be nearly as big a story, it would be a dumb accident story.

"I missed the point"? Or ur example once again is poor? Hahahah, lets keep playing.

Btw, signal is approved. So ur blindly following what the media is saying is wrong again.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

watch the more current interview of him in person on tv where he said he didn't release it because he thought it was fake...

Go read the original article by the journalist. He didn't release the specific sensitive information which could have compromised the mission.

once again, watch the video i posted where waltz was saying what he was instructed
i posted it so you wouldn't make dumb statements...

Not according to the Pentagon
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability

 maybe it's all BS?
https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/the-case-for-deception-in-operational-success/
====
Deception in Military History
There is an inarguably long and rich history of deception in warfare.
 From the early records of military history, deception played an integral part in multiple successful operations,.....
==========

maybe it's all BS?
https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/the-case-for-deception-in-operational-success/
====
Deception in Military History
There is an inarguably long and rich history of deception in warfare.
 From the early records of military history, deception played an integral part in multiple successful operations,.....
==========

So, it would take a very stable genius to "leak" disinformation to a journalist in order to give it credibility and ensure our enemies believe it's real?

Sounds like a plan.

The fake news has lied more and more since 2016. How many "bombshells", "sources", etc...

Now like usual, theyre focused on the wrong person (hegeseth).

Ill take tulsi's word over the fake news. No details in the chat.

But fools will believe the fake news still.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The fake news has lied more and more since 2016. How many "bombshells", "sources", etc...

Now like usual, theyre focused on the wrong person (hegeseth).

Ill take tulsi's word over the fake news. No details in the chat.

But fools will believe the fake news still.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

My problems with the story are:

1.  the journalist knew he was in a chat room he was mistakenly
     allowed to access, but he didn't leave before reading things he
     should not have;

2.  This incident was made public by the journalist and his editors.
     The media company should have contacted the WH and
     reported the incident in order to help protect sensitive info,
     not turn it into a story with themselves as part of it.
     If they had found a classified document someone left at a Starbuck's,
     they would have been in trouble if they hadn't returned it.
     Knowingly publishing classified info is a good way to be in legal
     trouble as well has have any press access to the WH revoked.

3.  Nobody at the WH should be commenting on the authenticity of
     any leaked data, be it classified or just sensitive.  There are rules
     in place to stop such info from being propagated.

4.  There should be an experienced tech managing any comms the
     cabinet members use.  Part of that includes capturing and preserving
     the discussions for the official record.  most chat apps allow users to
     download a transcript of conversations.

5.  With all the money spent each year, the government can afford a
     secure server to run their own apps rather than a 3rd party product.
     If necessary, contract with an app's owner to install it on closed servers
     to prevent unauthorized users from accessing it.

6.  Along with secured servers, they need to employ a self-managed VPN
     so nobody outside that organization can possibly connect to the server.
     VPN use is standard in many businesses to give employees access to
     private information outsiders should not have and to more easily access
     apps as if they are connected to the company's local network.

7.  This story should have never seen the light of day.  It only serves our
     enemies who are always looking for ways to access things they should
     not.

Hegseth and Waltz screwed up and should've known better from the Hillary scandal.  They deserve the flak they are getting for having the chat and adding the journalist to it.

Should they get prosecuted or fired for it?  No.  Hillary set the standard and Hegseth and Waltz are doing an otherwise good job.

Begs the question should there be a more convenient classified messaging system to make this more efficient, without needing a SCIF?  I'm surprised there isn't one up already.

Hegseth and Waltz screwed up and should've known better from the Hillary scandal.  They deserve the flak they are getting for having the chat and adding the journalist to it.

Should they get prosecuted or fired for it?  No.  Hillary set the standard and Hegseth and Waltz are doing an otherwise good job.

Begs the question should there be a more convenient classified messaging system to make this more efficient, without needing a SCIF?  I'm surprised there isn't one up already.

A SCIF hasn't been required for up to Secret information.  Many top officers in the military have an encrypted phone (STE) in their homes.  It requires a landline connection, but it's convenient and managed by security personnel who update the encryption keys often.

For mobile phones, there are STE-like cell phones, but they require a secure network to connect properly.  It's similar to a VPN that isolates the traffic from the carrier's network.

The big thing is trying to satisfy everyone's needs.  Some want to use a PC or Macbook to do their work.  Others do everything on a smartphone, tablet or other mobile device.  All this means the apps need to be written and maintained for every brand and model of every type of device.  That's a big deal seeing how often manufacturers introduce new updated models.

Then factor in that the bulk of their work is probably done via unclassified machines, devices and software apps.  When they then connect to the more secure network or app, there has to be a way to share data from the unclassified side.  This problem has perplexed integrators and systems engineers for decades.  how do you keep classified from accidentally being written to a device that also processes and stores unclassified info?  How do you share unclassified info to the sensitive network or app without risking a virus being uploaded, copied, emailed or otherwise shared?

Sometimes we spend more time trying to administer, manage, and do clean-ups on digital devices than we spend dong actual work.  One person's carelessness can require hundreds of devices to be reinstalled with the OS and all data after a malicious piece of code gets passed around.  i remember how much work the Code Red virus created for us.  not only are the systems down, but any data that was backed up before the infection is lost.  Max pain.

I remember the stories of Hillary telling her staff to send her classified info across unclassified Blackberry devices and networks because she was traveling in another country, and the classified Blackberry was unable to connect.  That represents a real problem.  People will cut corners to get things done when the proper methods are not working.

Whiskeyleaks and these dang DUI hires. Clowns.

Whiskeyleaks and these dang DUI hires. Clowns.

Close enough for government work.   

Update

Report that was released on 3/14/25 says signal is not to be used for classified comms. But there is and never has been any enforcement for those using it incorrectly.

So we circle back to was any info "classified" in the grp chat?

The reporters story is now changing cause his 1st story of targets mentioned was false.

Now hes saying that a spooks name whos in the target area was mentioned by the head of the agency. Like the head of the spook agency knows agents names. Thats like the CEO of Safeway knowing a random cashiers name who works in hawaii.

I still think that hes lying cause his intent is to harm this admin and get an atta boy. He got caught lying, so hes making up more stuff.

Tinfoil time

A staffer whos wife was an atty to prosecute J6 people was the one who set up the group chat. Which i thought may happen cause how often does a department head have time to do things like this. They have staffers do stuff like this.

18 people in the chat
Some with just a first name or just initials. No full name.

So everyone in the chat trust that the chat leader did their due diligence and everyone in the group is supposed to be in it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Update

Report that was released on 3/14/25 says signal is not to be used for classified comms. But there is and never has been any enforcement for those using it incorrectly.

So we circle back to was any info "classified" in the grp chat?

The reporters story is now changing cause his 1st story of targets mentioned was false.

Now hes saying that a spooks name whos in the target area was mentioned by the head of the agency. Like the head of the spook agency knows agents names. Thats like the CEO of Safeway knowing a random cashiers name who works in hawaii.

I still think that hes lying cause his intent is to harm this admin and get an atta boy. He got caught lying, so hes making up more stuff.

Tinfoil time

A staffer whos wife was an atty to prosecute J6 people was the one who set up the group chat. Which i thought may happen cause how often does a department head have time to do things like this. They have staffers do stuff like this.

18 people in the chat
Some with just a first name or just initials. No full name.

So everyone in the chat trust that the chat leader did their due diligence and everyone in the group is supposed to be in it.

One of the most important reasons for having specific procedures for these things, such as using your last name/first initial and office symbol, let's everyone know who is reading and posting.  if a  participant doesn't have the correct username format, it's a flag that someone may be there who shouldn't be.

The chat names we had were all pre-defined since they had to be added to an access list to connect to the rooms.  if you don't know the correct names or know the proper format, it's really difficult to guess.

Simple things can solve lots of potential problems.

One of the most important reasons for having specific procedures for these things, such as using your last name/first initial and office symbol, let's everyone know who is reading and posting.  if a  participant doesn't have the correct username format, it's a flag that someone may be there who shouldn't be.

The chat names we had were all pre-defined since they had to be added to an access list to connect to the rooms.  if you don't know the correct names or know the proper format, it's really difficult to guess.

Simple things can solve lots of potential problems.

There should be first and last names used.  There were 2 Brians, Scott B, S M, Jacob, and a TG.

Hegseth just stated what I said above about no details.

So seems like a nothing burger.

Hmmmm.....

Hahahha nice try. Swooooossshhhh

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You forgot a rebuttal. Should I assume you don't have one?