Pete Hegseth, Trump Dept of Defense nominee…

[hog88]

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

It very well could have been Walz, IDK but no way am I buying he was added by accident. If he was why not just admit that you screwed the pooch and fat fingered him in, that is believable.

 

[bamawriter]

It very well could have been Walz, IDK but no way am I buying he was added by accident. If he was why not just admit that you screwed the pooch and fat fingered him in, that is believable.

They've lied about the entire thing. Why not lie about how Goldberg was added?

 

[LSU-SIU]

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.

I am not saying the platform is able to carry classified (confidential or above), but it can carry anything else. Now they should be still archiving records and something I brought up when this initial started. I have no information that they are not being archived, now just because you can delete something doesn't mean it can't be archived (?) But that could be a violation of law, but that is not a biggie but not sure that is the case??? Go and do a FOIA for e-mails in the 90s and early 00s, you probably won't get many back at the military level - how do I know that? Because they didn't have archive systems, only short term backups and those rarely worked from my experience. Now according to law, they are suppose to be archived, but nobody had the capacity back at that time.

PH sent information over that platform that was at that time surely confidential

I would assume its whatever classification he elects it to be if he is the classification authority of the material i.e. DOD.

Okay, so in 2003 the U.S. puts together their operation against Iraq, I would assume parts are everywhere from opsec to top secret. On the day of the attack every news agency has their cameras going i.e. declassified. To a lesser extent, this also happened in 1991.

Its up to the administration to determine what is releasable to the public.

If the planes were carrying Venezuelans, my guess is if the administration kept the information classified the nuts would be pissed. And that might be coming.

 

[05_never_again]

It very well could have been Walz, IDK but no way am I buying he was added by accident. If he was why not just admit that you screwed the pooch and fat fingered him in, that is believable.

When is the last time you heard a politician admit they made a mistake, even a believable one? A photo will exist of a politician smiling and shaking hands with someone, and they'll still come out and say "I never met them." They lie as easily as they breathe.

If Goldberg was intentionally added by Waltz or someone on his staff, I still don't follow a potential motive. You speculated it was because JG was the perfect person to let in to see that prominent figures in the admin were in disagreement about these strikes. If that is the case, why not call JG after the strikes and say "Hey, Vance was really against this and expressed reservations, ranted against Europe, etc." That seems way cleaner than letting him in on a sensitive conversation.

 

[hog88]

They've lied about the entire thing. Why not lie about how Goldberg was added?

There is some logic to their lying about the chat and the information shared in it. There is no logic whatsoever in lying about not having Goldbergs contact information and he somehow was accidently added.

 

[hog88]

When is the last time you heard a politician admit they made a mistake, even a believable one? A photo will exist of a politician smiling and shaking hands with someone, and they'll still come out and say "I never met them." They lie as easily as they breathe.

If Goldberg was intentionally added by Waltz or someone on his staff, I still don't follow a potential motive. You speculated it was because JG was the perfect person to let in to see that prominent figures in the admin were in disagreement about these strikes. If that is the case, why not call JG after the strikes and say "Hey, Vance was really against this and expressed reservations, ranted against Europe, etc." That seems way cleaner than letting him in on a sensitive conversation.

Because all that would allow him to do is print another story sourced by anonymous people, he's famous for those fabricated stories. This time he would have hard documented proof.

 

[GroverCleveland]

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

Hate to say it, but yeah, he acts a little too much like he enjoys playing SecDef.

 

[OHvol40]

There is some logic to their lying about the chat and the information shared in it. There is no logic whatsoever in lying about not having Goldbergs contact information and he somehow was accidently added.

They lie to give apologists an avenue to contort the truth into something more benign. Seems to have worked to some degree. Then again, criminals learn at a young age to never admit guilt, so it could also be that simple

 

[hog88]

They lie to give apologists an avenue to contort the truth into something more benign. Seems to have worked to some degree. Then again, criminals learn at a young age to never admit guilt, so it could also be that simple

 

[bamawriter]

There is some logic to their lying about the chat and the information shared in it. There is no logic whatsoever in lying about not having Goldbergs contact information and he somehow was accidently added.

I would think there's a ton of reason to lie.

"Gee, Donnie. I have no idea how the number of that hostile journalist got in my phone. You know I'd never talk to him without your permission."

 

[n_huffhines]

The reference to Chairry is an all timer. What a sofa to hump that would be.

 

[DaddyChad]

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

Classified, confidential, sensitive, whatever. There is zero way Goldberg should’ve been in that conversation. Someone’s head needs to roll over this. I’m pro Trump all the way but you can’t preach accountability and have this crap happen.

Is there not some more secure way these interactions can happen remotely as well? Sorry if already discussed

 

[lawgator1]

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

I would have thought that IF it was caused by a staffer error we'd have heard that quite some time ago. That it is floated now is ..... odd.

 

[whodeycin85]

Sacrificial lamb?

Actually Walz himself said that's it was not a staffer and took full responsibility...

 

[BowlBrother85]

Classified, confidential, sensitive, whatever. There is zero way Goldberg should’ve been in that conversation. Someone’s head needs to roll over this. I’m pro Trump all the way but you can’t preach accountability and have this crap happen.

Is there not some more secure way these interactions can happen remotely as well? Sorry if already discussed

Truth.

 

[Vol737]

The reference to Chairry is an all timer. What a sofa to hump that would be.

View attachment 730683

Yeah, I was going to say it’s very easy to accidentally add someone to a group chat, but given that this synopsis says it then asks you to confirm a person one intends to add, then it’s harder to explain it away. I read this as you have to confirm each member individually at the time you add them.

 

[DaddyChad]

Really questionable that this was accidental to me. NSA director added this guy to the chat but doesn’t know him?

1)he’s FOS
Or
2)someone else added him to his contacts or changed one of his contacts numbers to Goldberg.

 

[Vol737]

Classified, confidential, sensitive, whatever. There is zero way Goldberg should’ve been in that conversation. Someone’s head needs to roll over this. I’m pro Trump all the way but you can’t preach accountability and have this crap happen.

Is there not some more secure way these interactions can happen remotely as well? Sorry if already discussed

Yeah, this is shizz that drives me crazy about Trump (admin), et al. The entire admin from Trump down has to be more dialed in, pragmatic and situationally aware. It would help them immensely.

 

[DaddyChad]

Actually Walz himself said that's it was not a staffer and took full responsibility...

Am I crazy or was the way he answered some of the questions just weird??? Like something about his language and body language makes me think he’s not telling the whole story.

 

[DaddyChad]

Yeah, this is shizz that drives me crazy about Trump (admin), et al. The entire admin from Trump down has to be more dialed in, pragmatic and situationally aware. It would help them immensely.

Agree with this part of it. I think Trump has solved a lot since getting elected. This though, no arguing looks bad.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yeah, I was going to say it’s very easy to accidentally add someone to a group chat, but given that this synopsis says it then asks you to confirm a person one intends to add, then it’s harder to explain it away. I read this as you have to confirm each member individually at the time you add them.

It makes more sense probably if a handful of people got added at once. Easier to make the mistake that way. Easier for the rest of the chat to miss it.

 

[DaddyChad]

It makes more sense probably if a handful of people got added at once. Easier to make the mistake that way. Easier for the rest of the chat to miss it.

Why was this guy in anyone’s contacts though? Given his criticism of Trump and his administration? It just doesn’t make sense that anyone would have him in their contacts.

 

[Vol737]

It makes more sense probably if a handful of people got added at once. Easier to make the mistake that way. Easier for the rest of the chat to miss it.

Yeah, if all the members populated at one time after adding them and it then asked to confirm, it would probably pretty easy to just start clicking “confirm” down the line as one might be certain they selected all the right people. I’m going to assume Signal is built to confirm or decline each person that was added individually.

 

[n_huffhines]

Why was this guy in anyone’s contacts though? Given his criticism of Trump and his administration? It just doesn’t make sense that anyone would have him in their contacts.

I don't think it's hard to imagine an innocent scenario where somebody would have his contact info. Trump has a million enemies, it's hard to keep track, and you don't get a spot in the admin and then go "let me purge my rolodex now."

 

[DaddyChad]

I don't think it's hard to imagine an innocent scenario where somebody would have his contact info. Trump has a million enemies, it's hard to keep track, and you don't get a spot in the admin and then go "let me purge my rolodex now."

Maybe I’m behind bc I’m on vacation but wasn’t it verified that Walz added him? Then Walz acted like he doesn’t know the guy??? Again apologies if I’m wrong and behind; been driving for the past two days