President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#18,228
#18,228
BowlBrother85 said:
Once again .... it ceased to merely be a cabinet discussion when Jeffrey Goldberg was added to the chat. Goldberg does not have the security clearance to be given that information. This is like the 5th time I have said that.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the continued redundancy you constantly share w/us during the day.
 
#18,231
#18,231
LSU-SIU said:
That was not the intent... what happens if the maid listened in the conversation? Nobody has to talk about cabinet information which this clearly was.



No security clearance is needed, this has been told to you multiple times now by multiple people.
Click to expand...

They were discussing a surprise military attack against a terrorist group. Even if they never discussed specific times and weapons, in what insane world should anyone be a part of that conversation without clearance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, hog88 and NorthDallas40
#18,233
#18,233
LSU-SIU said:
Yes it does it was cabinet discussion, they are going to say its privileged or similar.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't .... because it wasn't merely a cabinet discussion when they invited Goldberg into the chat. I don't care what their defense is, sensitive information was disclosed to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it. That is gross negligence. Intent does not matter.
 
#18,235
#18,235
bamawriter said:
They were discussing a surprise military attack against a terrorist group. Even if they never discussed specific times and weapons, in what insane world should anyone be a part of that conversation without clearance?
Click to expand...

That was the sloppiness or possibly the intent of one of the parties or assistants.

in what insane world should anyone be a part of that conversation without clearance?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Technically no clearance was required, it was not deemed classified.
 
#18,237
#18,237
LSU-SIU said:
That was the sloppiness or possibly the intent of one of the parties or assistants.



Technically no clearance was required, it was not deemed classified.
Click to expand...
It met the criteria of being sensitive information. Clearance was required to receive it. You are wrong, coming and going.
 
#18,238
#18,238
BowlBrother85 said:
No, it doesn't .... because it wasn't merely a cabinet discussion when they invited Goldberg into the chat. I don't care what their defense is, sensitive information was disclosed to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it. That is gross negligence. Intent does not matter.
Click to expand...

Jesus man this isn't complex. It was private communications which someone invited apparently, apparently it might have been a lawyer for one of the cabinet members. That was clearly not the intent going on. Its Presidential privilege information.
 
#18,239
#18,239
BowlBrother85 said:
It met the criteria of being sensitive information. Clearance was required to receive it. You are wrong, coming and going.
Click to expand...

No, the White House says it was not classified, the guy is free to publish what he has about that thread.

Why would someone need a clearance to view unclassified material?
 
#18,240
#18,240
LSU-SIU said:
Jesus man this isn't complex. It was private communications which someone invited apparently, apparently it might have been a lawyer for one of the cabinet members. That was clearly not the intent going on. Its Presidential privilege information.
Click to expand...
Intent does not matter. You are right. It's not complicated. This was gross negligence on the part of Trump's cabinet. Goldberg should not have been in that chat.
 
#18,242
#18,242
BowlBrother85 said:
Intent does not matter. You are right. It's not complicated. This was gross negligence on the part of Trump's cabinet. Goldberg should not have been in that chat.
Click to expand...

You can have the bold opinion but the rest of what you keep posting over and over is nonsense.

tenor.gif
 
#18,244
#18,244
LSU-SIU said:
No, the White House says it was not classified, the guy is free to publish what he has about that thread.

Why would someone need a clearance to view unclassified material?
Click to expand...
It doesn't work that way. If Goldberg had posted the information he received on the internet as soon as he received it, the security of a military operation would have been compromised. Hence, it was sensitive information. The White House can't declassify it post-facto as a defense to the gross negligence of their cabinet in handling sensitive information.
 
#18,245
#18,245
BowlBrother85 said:
It doesn't work that way. If Goldberg had posted the information he received on the internet as soon as he received it, the security of a military operation would have been compromised. Hence, it was sensitive information. The White House can't declassify it post-facto as a defense to the gross negligence of their cabinet in handling sensitive information.
Click to expand...

You can claim its sensitive information, I said its not classified per the White House. The agency head has classification authority.
 
#18,247
#18,247
BowlBrother85 said:
Then why couldn't/wouldn't she discuss what was said? If it wasn't classified, why isn't she at liberty to discuss the content of the chat in specific details? As Sen. Mark Warner said to her, "You can't have it both ways."
Click to expand...
As I outlined earlier on the differing levels of classification the lowest level, CUI which stands for controlled unclassified information, still likely shouldn’t be openly discussed in a public forum. However she should have asserted that and if they go to closed session then I’d guess it could be discussed. But absolutely nobody wants to go closed session these days since there are no cameras or reporters to grand stand for. That comment applies to both parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and McDad
#18,248
#18,248
LSU-SIU said:
You can claim its sensitive information, I said its not classified per the White House. The agency head has classification authority.
Click to expand...
It was sensitive in nature as defined by the United States government. The White House is trying to use a post-facto defense to the mishandling of information. No Republican would accept this as a defense from a Democratic Party administration.
 
#18,249
#18,249
NorthDallas40 said:
As I outlined earlier on the differing levels of classification the lowest level, CUI which stands for controlled unclassified information, still likely shouldn’t be openly discussed in a public forum. However she should have asserted that and if they go to closed session then I’d guess it could be discussed. But absolutely nobody wants to go closed session these days since there are no cameras or reporters to grand stand for. That comment applies to both parties.
Click to expand...
Didn't Warner specifically ask her if she wanted to do that .... and she said "No."
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top