Pete Hegseth, Trump Dept of Defense nominee…

[bamawriter]

That is beside the point, not only is it not a war plan its barely even information. Now you can debate whether it should have been done regardless, but in no sane universe is that a "war plan".

Over dramatization.

Like I said: you're going to handwave away anything that looks bad for Trump and Co

 

[BowlBrother85]

Says who? This is clearly DOD information which the Sec of Def has classification authority.

Once again ..... it was classified information at the time Hegseth (inadvertently) disclosed it to Goldberg .... and you can't retroactively declassify information. That post-facto defense you are leaning on doesn't fly. Hegseth's information didn't automatically become declassified just because he provided it to someone who didn't have security clearance to receive it. Hegseth mishandled classified information.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/26/politics/the-atlantic-publishes-signal-messages-yemen-strike/index.html

 

[LSU-SIU]

Isn't it illegal to 1) continue to access classified information once one does not have clearance for and 2) to release classified information one has not been authorized to do, regardless of the 1A?

Kind of surprised the app does not have a warning or notice of the nature of the communications. If so, I would think Goldberg has some legal issues, but have not heard anything indicating that.

Screw up all the way around. Have not heard the latest, but my understanding was a staffer was the one who inadvertently added Goldberg into the chat. I know nothing about the app, but have heard it because normal for government communications during the Biden admin. Does not relieve the current group of responsibility of knowing who the hell is on their chat, but they did not set the system up as some seem to indicate.

To have access to classified, you must have a clearance to the grade you have access to, and you have to have a need to know. Most of the people that got in trouble that I saw in my experience was low level military accidentally giving classified to the wrong person, but the wrong person still had a clearance.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Like I said: you're going to handwave away anything that looks bad for Trump and Co

Just as you handwave away anything that might doesn't look bad for Trump and Co.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Once again ..... it was classified information at the time Hegseth (inadvertently) disclosed it to Goldberg .... and you can't retroactively declassify information. That post-facto defense you are leaning on doesn't fly. Hegseth's information didn't automatically become declassified just because he provided it to someone who didn't have security clearance to receive it. Hegseth mishandled classified information.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/26/politics/the-atlantic-publishes-signal-messages-yemen-strike/index.html

Who said it was classified? And whether it was unclassified at the time of posting it?

>>>>>Again, I don't know either way.<<<<<

 

[GroverCleveland]

To have access to classified, you must have a clearance to the grade you have access to, and you have to have a need to know. Most of the people that got in trouble that I saw in my experience was low level military accidentally giving classified to the wrong person, but the wrong person still had a clearance.

So my question was, IF (and a big if as whether the stuff was classified, but for now assume it was) Goldberg is not authorized to receive it, but continues to access it by staying in the chat or remaining silent in his participation, has he broken any laws? I really do not know.

If he has disclosed classified information he supposedly received in this chat, did he break a law?

 

[05_never_again]

I fully believe that he was intentionally added, by whom? IDK

Why would he have been intentionally added?

 

[LSU-SIU]

So my question was, IF (and a big if as whether the stuff was classified, but for now assume it was) Goldberg is not authorized to receive it, but continues to access it by staying in the chat or remaining silent in his participation, has he broken any laws? I really do not know.

If he has disclosed classified information he supposedly received in this chat, did he break a law?

I don't see how, as he has no way of knowing generally speaking whether it was classified - if it had classified markings sure but otherwise not so much. They can retro classify material too, which is kind of strange thing to consider as well. Also, many times things are classified or part of documents of classified which are already in the public domain.

It gets tricky, because you read a classified document... than you watch the news and 80% of what was in the document is now on TV... can you talk about? Probably best to keep ones mouth shut.

 

[hog88]

Why would he have been intentionally added?

Lots of haters out there, hard to screen them all out. I'm sure someone in that chat was against the strikes and who better to let in than Goldberg. I'm sorry but I just can't see anyone making that kind of honest mistake.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Lots of haters out there, hard to screen them all out. I'm sure someone in that chat was against the strikes and who better to let in than Goldberg. I'm sorry but I just can't see anyone making that kind of honest mistake.

I lean this way as well even I've heard the it was an accident.

 

[lawgator1]

Isn't it illegal to 1) continue to access classified information once one knows they do not have clearance and 2) to release classified information one has not been authorized to do, regardless of the 1A?

Kind of surprised the app does not have a warning or notice of the nature of the communications. If so, I would think Goldberg has some legal issues, but have not heard anything indicating that.

Screw up all the way around. Have not heard the latest, but my understanding was a staffer was the one who inadvertently added Goldberg into the chat. I know nothing about the app, but have heard it because normal for government communications during the Biden admin. Does not relieve the current group of responsibility of knowing who the hell is on their chat, but they did not set the system up as some seem to indicate.

Sacrificial lamb?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Lots of haters out there, hard to screen them all out. I'm sure someone in that chat was against the strikes and who better to let in than Goldberg. I'm sorry but I just can't see anyone making that kind of honest mistake.

Its a strange thing here because generally I would say these things are classify but than if you actually see that the military is routinely giving the news opsec material beforehand over the last 30+ years... what is the big deal now? (see Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, etc)

I had my popcorn all read for Iraqi in 2003... it wasn't secret to anyone. Now all of a sudden its a problem.

 

[05_never_again]

Lots of haters out there, hard to screen them all out. I'm sure someone in that chat was against the strikes and who better to let in than Goldberg. I'm sorry but I just can't see anyone making that kind of honest mistake.

So what exactly is the angle? Someone in the chat is against the strikes (and Vance did express reservations but ultimately went along), let's include a journalist in the chat who hates Trump, and he'll write a piece about how there was discord in the Administration about striking the Houthis? What does Waltz gain from that?

If that was the motive, then why doesn't Waltz just give Goldberg a call, after the strikes and say "Hey, Vance was really against this." Seems cleaner than letting him in on a private chat among cabinet members, and you don't know where that conversation will go.

 

[hog88]

Its a strange thing here because generally I would say these things are classify but than if you actually see that military is routinely giving the news opsec material beforehand over the last 30+ years... what is the big deal now?

I had my popcorn all read for Iraqi in 2003... it wasn't secret to anyone. Now all of a sudden its a problem.

What PH posted was 100% wrong to send on that platform, there is no question about that and he should go.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I don't see how, as he has no way of knowing generally speaking whether it was classified - if it had classified markings sure but otherwise not so much. They can retro classify material too, which is kind of strange thing to consider as well. Also, many times things are classified or part of documents of classified which are already in the public domain.

It gets tricky, because you read a classified document... than you watch the news and 80% of what was in the document is now on TV... can you talk about? Probably best to keep ones mouth shut.

And I'm not 100% on this, but it seemed Goldberg announced it himself he received classified information. And also depends if the app provides that kind of notice as well, I guess. I'm doing some work for a major bank and every communication comes with threats and warnings about discussing anything in a call with outsiders.

 

[bamawriter]

Lots of haters out there, hard to screen them all out. I'm sure someone in that chat was against the strikes and who better to let in than Goldberg. I'm sorry but I just can't see anyone making that kind of honest mistake.

Several participants were identified by their initials (Gabbart, for instance). Why is it hard to believe that Waltz could have snagged the wrong JG?

 

[GroverCleveland]

Sacrificial lamb?

I do not think there is enough information to have an opinion on that.

 

[hog88]

So what exactly is the angle? Someone in the chat is against the strikes (and Vance did express reservations but ultimately went along), let's include a journalist in the chat who hates Trump, and he'll write a piece about how there was discord in the Administration about striking the Houthis? What does Waltz gain from that?

Goldberg isn't a journalist, he's a propagandist so he would be the perfect person to let in especially if you know some of the bigger names are in disagreement. He got a huge bonus by the bonehead move PH made.

 

[LSU-SIU]

What PH posted was 100% wrong to send on that platform, there is no question about that and he should go.

My question is why? I mean I knew basically when they were going to bomb and they had the news cameras all in place in 2003. Its up to the administration and DOD, now I think you have right to an opinion, but technically they could have posted the information on their website.

1. Is your opinion, which I tend to agree with.
2. Is their authority to do what they want there, nobody had a problem with the two Bushes though.

We literally had live cameras going more or less at a particular time for the shock and awe.

 

[05_never_again]

Goldberg isn't a journalist, he's a propagandist so he would be the perfect person to let in especially if you know some of the bigger names are in disagreement. He got a huge bonus by the bonehead move PH made.

What does Waltz gain from that? If that was the motive, then why doesn't Waltz just give Goldberg a call, after the strikes and say "Hey, Vance was really against this." Seems cleaner than letting him in on a private chat among cabinet members, and you don't know where that conversation will go.

 

[hog88]

Several participants were identified by their initials (Gabbart, for instance). Why is it hard to believe that Waltz could have snagged the wrong JG?

Per Walz he didn't have Goldbergs digits, they have never communicated so how could it have been an accident?

 

[05_never_again]

Per Walz he didn't have Goldbergs digits, they have never communicated so how could it have been an accident?

"I didn't have his number" and "I've never talked to him" is obviously a lie. However it seems possible that he accidentally added him. I've accidentally sent text messages to people that I didn't intend to. I'd be lying if I said I had never met that person, but sending them the message was an accident.

 

[bamawriter]

Per Walz he didn't have Goldbergs digits, they have never communicated so how could it have been an accident?

So the perpetrator not only had ill motives but also had access to Waltz's phone?

 

[hog88]

My question is why? I mean I knew basically when they were going to bomb and they had the news cameras all in place in 2003. Its up to the administration and DOD, now I think you have right to an opinion, but technically they could have posted the information on their website.

1. Is your opinion, which I tend to agree with.
2. Is their authority to do what they want there, nobody had a problem with the two Bushes though.

We literally had live cameras going more or less at a particular time for the shock and awe.

They could have announced it, posted it or printed flyers. But they didn't, they used a platform that couldn't be archived as required by law and PH sent information over that platform that was at that time surely confidential (not sure of correct classification) at a minimum.

 

[hog88]

"I didn't have his number" and "I've never talked to him" is obviously a lie. However it seems possible that he accidentally added him. I've accidentally sent text messages to people that I didn't intend to. I'd be lying if I said I had never met that person, but sending them the message was an accident.

Why lie? That make absolutely no sense, JG being added accidently because you have him in your contacts is 100% believable. If Walz didn't add him, someone did and it was intentional.