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...

Yes, he said that too.

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...

So Mike Waltz missed the memo? Or perhaps he was given bad information by the employee who set him up with the phone?

Glad you are taking Waltz at his word, because people who get caught doing something wrong never lie to try and minimize it. 

So Mike Waltz missed the memo? Or perhaps he was given bad information by the employee who set him up with the phone?

Glad you are taking Waltz at his word, because people who get caught doing something wrong never lie to try and minimize it. 

So, you want to argue against facts in the public domain based on no evidence?

You're simply stating he could be lying without any evidence to support that statement.

That's not being objective.  You could say maybe someone lied referring to anything said in the media or online. That's not an argument.  It's just being contrary and argumentative -- taking the opposing side of what's being said just to stir the pot.

So, you want to argue against facts in the public domain based on no evidence?

You're simply stating he could be lying without any evidence to support that statement.

That's not being objective.  You could say maybe someone lied referring to anything said in the media or online. That's not an argument.  It's just being contrary and argumentative -- taking the opposing side of what's being said just to stir the pot.

What facts? I posted evidence, go read the article about how they said Signal wasn't allowed anymore.

The point about him lying was only to push back on the idea that his claim Signal was allowed should be taken as proof on the basis he said so. Thats like letting a criminal go because he said he was allowed to take something from the store without paying. You don't take him at his word, you investigate.

Look at my reply, I clearly explored multiple explanations which could support his claim, not just angles assuming his guilt.

What facts? I posted evidence, go read the article about how they said Signal wasn't allowed anymore.

The point about him lying was only to push back on the idea that his claim Signal was allowed should be taken as proof on the basis he said so. Thats like letting a criminal go because he said he was allowed to take something from the store without paying. You don't take him at his word, you investigate.

Look at my reply, I clearly explored multiple explanations which could support his claim, not just angles assuming his guilt.

Yes, you did.

Seems like you're just posting to be included, not to actually add anything of substance -- objectively speaking.

Anyone can sit at a keyboard and post a bunch of "what ifs."  What if the Russians made him do it?  What if the journalist intentionally tried to get into a few dozen chat groups with the hope of randomly seeing something he could use against Trump, his cabinet, or to boost his own career?  What if someone formerly in Biden's or Obama's admin was helping the journalist invade the chat?

See?  None of the what-ifs really add anything other than sowing seeds of a narrative that probably isn't true because there's no evidence.

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

U keep telling urself that. Hahahhaha ur shovel must be getting dull.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

What facts? I posted evidence, go read the article about how they said Signal wasn't allowed anymore.

The point about him lying was only to push back on the idea that his claim Signal was allowed should be taken as proof on the basis he said so. Thats like letting a criminal go because he said he was allowed to take something from the store without paying. You don't take him at his word, you investigate.

Look at my reply, I clearly explored multiple explanations which could support his claim, not just angles assuming his guilt.

And read my "update" above.

Rules vs actual practice comes to mind.

Btw it came already installed on tulsi's dod issued phone. Why would a banned program be on there?





Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Mike Waltz claimed he didn’t have the journalist’s phone number on his contact list.  Assuming he is telling the truth, how did it get on by mistake and did someone tamper with his phone / Signal address book?

Secondly, FBI said to stop using SMS texts and recommended the use of Signal or WhatsApp following the compromise of our telecom infrastructure last year.

The NPR CEO is also the chairman of the board of Signal.
Coincidence perhaps but my spider sense is tingling.
This woman is a loyal and devoted far left true believer Check out her comments on the "truth"


 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mq6cOPVjJ1g?feature=share

Mike Waltz claimed he didn’t have the journalist’s phone number on his contact list.  Assuming he is telling the truth, how did it get on by mistake and did someone tamper with his phone / Signal address book?

Secondly, FBI said to stop using SMS texts and recommended the use of Signal or WhatsApp following the compromise of our telecom infrastructure last year.

Homeland said signal is secure too.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Maher testifies before congress. She has amnesia rather frequently..
We should defund NPR.

Maher testifies before congress. She has amnesia rather frequently..
We should defund NPR.

Amnesia is par for the DC course.

Her biggest problem is claiming that the posts she made about Trump being a racist, fascist, etc. just 4 or 5 years ago are opinions she would not post today.

She didn't say she doesn't feel that way, and that the posts were just her way of venting.  The deductive reasoning take-away is that she still thinks he's a fascist/racist, but she's smarter now and won't broadcast it where it can be used against her.

100% of the staff at NPR are Democrat voters.  Only 33% of the audience identifies as other than Democrat.

Not a smidgen of bias.

Yes, you did.

Seems like you're just posting to be included, not to actually add anything of substance -- objectively speaking.

Wrong.

Anyone can sit at a keyboard and post a bunch of "what ifs."  What if the Russians made him do it?  What if the journalist intentionally tried to get into a few dozen chat groups with the hope of randomly seeing something he could use against Trump, his cabinet, or to boost his own career?  What if someone formerly in Biden's or Obama's admin was helping the journalist invade the chat?

See?  None of the what-ifs really add anything other than sowing seeds of a narrative that probably isn't true because there's no evidence.

You look at this story with a conclusion first and then seek an explanation to support that conclusion. Waltz admitted it was a mistake, even Trump made a statement admitting it shouldn't have happened but you only explore avenues minimizing the chat and attacking the journalist

On top of that the arguments in defense of what happened contradict each other. On the one hand we are told that the chat didn't contain war plans or anything classified but on the other hand the journalist should be investigated. If the conversation were on an approved app and contained nothing secret then why attack the journalist for publishing a story instead of quietly reporting it to the Pentagon?

And read my "update" above.

Rules vs actual practice comes to mind.

Btw it came already installed on tulsi's dod issued phone. Why would a banned program be on there?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

This is why I covered two possibilities earlier, that the memo didn't circulate sufficiently or that it was a rule disregarded on a large scale.

Signal is an application that allows for messages to automatically erase themselves after a certain period of time. This means that a government employee wishing to avoid rules requiring documentation of communications to be avoided. Did they choose Signal for this specific reason? Who knows but the same thing can be said of Hillary Clinton's home email server. How much benefit of the doubt should we give here when it comes to handing out discipline?

You look at this story with a conclusion first and then seek an explanation to support that conclusion.

Wrong.

You can't read my, nor anyone else's, mind.  But it never seems to stop you from stating what someone else is thinking.

Wrong.

You can't read my, nor anyone else's, mind.  But it never seems to stop you from stating what someone else is thinking.

I could have said "You SEEM look at this story with a conclusion first and then seek an explanation to support that conclusion." but then you would complain about me using qualifiers.

I could have said "You SEEM look at this story with a conclusion first and then seek an explanation to support that conclusion." but then you would complain about me using qualifiers.

How many comments have you tried to defend by parsing them?  This is another example where you just post without thinking.

And you are still trying to pretend to read my mind.  How do you know if I would complain about your qualifiers?  Have you graduated from mind reader to psychic who's able to see into the future?

 

You like to argue so much, now you're arguing about things you think I'm going to say!

Funny how your accusations and opinions of me are definitive een though after being called out for your mind reading abilities you change it to something less definitive.

You really need to start thinking before posting.  Your emotions SEEM to be driving you.   

This is why I covered two possibilities earlier, that the memo didn't circulate sufficiently or that it was a rule disregarded on a large scale.

Signal is an application that allows for messages to automatically erase themselves after a certain period of time. This means that a government employee wishing to avoid rules requiring documentation of communications to be avoided. Did they choose Signal for this specific reason? Who knows but the same thing can be said of Hillary Clinton's home email server. How much benefit of the doubt should we give here when it comes to handing out discipline?

Signal has been used by many in the DOD. Refer to my post about about it. So that's why they used it. "Common practice".  again, read my post above, I addressed this.

Also, refer to the post about the diff between setting up a server and using signal.

Re-read my prior post cause you obviously didn't.

Mike Waltz claimed he didn’t have the journalist’s phone number on his contact list.  Assuming he is telling the truth, how did it get on by mistake and did someone tamper with his phone / Signal address book?

Secondly, FBI said to stop using SMS texts and recommended the use of Signal or WhatsApp following the compromise of our telecom infrastructure last year.

Waltz also said he didn't know the journalist but there are photos of them together. There is a difference between know and met of course but he could be lying to try and minimize his role.

How many comments have you tried to defend by parsing them?  This is another example where you just post without thinking.

And you are still trying to pretend to read my mind.  How do you know if I would complain about your qualifiers?  Have you graduated from mind reader to psychic who's able to see into the future?

 

You like to argue so much, now you're arguing about things you think I'm going to say!

Funny how your accusations and opinions of me are definitive een though after being called out for your mind reading abilities you change it to something less definitive.

You really need to start thinking before posting.  Your emotions SEEM to be driving you.   

Interesting that you have transitioned from debating the issue to complaining about my debate style. Are you deflecting from a weak argument?