President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#18,026
#18,026
hog88 said:
LOL, when was the last normal WH then?

BTW yes I agree he should resign but don’t play dumb and think any of the previous 4 WHs would fire him for this.
Click to expand...
I'd think he'd get canned under W. and possibly but not probably under Obama. Biden's and Trump's were are and circuses.
 
#18,027
#18,027
EasternVol said:
I'd think he'd get canned under W. and possibly but not probably under Obama. Biden's and Trump's were are and circuses.
Click to expand...
Huh. Under George the airstrikes were televised i.e. the information was released and everyone was told to expect shock and awe. I had my popcorn all ready to go.

You don't remember this?





Under papa George in 1991, more or less they were all told it was coming but they only had cameras at the rear, which you might be able to find video of aircraft launching.
 
Last edited:
#18,028
#18,028
LSU-SIU said:
Huh. Under George the airstrikes were televised i.e. the information was released and everyone was told to expect shock and awe.





Under papa George in 1991, more or less they were all told it was coming but they only had cameras at the rear, which you might be able to find video of aircraft launching.
Click to expand...

That's nice but it has nothing to do with this particular fiasco.
 
#18,029
#18,029
EasternVol said:
That's nice but it has nothing to do with this particular fiasco.
Click to expand...

It absolutely does or you weren't around at that time. The information for both starts of the war were given out to the media beforehand. Georgie Boy had them setting up video cameras in Baghdad. This was sloopy as this was not intended to disclosed, if it was disclosed as to the strikes. Either Trump has trust in the guy or he doesn't, the opsec was not good in any event imo as they let a reporter in on the convo.

Heck, to me the only thing of interest is what Vance is talking about, I tend to agree with him.
 
Last edited:
#18,030
#18,030
LSU-SIU said:
It absolutely does or you weren't around at that time. The information for both starts of the war were given out to the media beforehand. Georgie Boy had them setting up video cameras in Baghdad. This was sloopy as this was not intended to disclosed, if it was disclosed as to the strikes. Either Trump has trust in the guy or he doesn't, the opsec was not good in any event imo as they let a reporter in on the convo.

Heck, to me the only thing of interest is what Vance is talking about, I tend to agree with him.
Click to expand...
Dude I remember Vietnam and the body counts on the nightly news. Don't try to pretend you have an angle that others don't.
Internal briefings to senior Administration staff aren't at all the same as press releases to the media. Can you grasp that?
 
#18,031
#18,031
EasternVol said:
Dude I remember Vietnam and the body counts on the nightly news. Don't try to pretend you have an angle that others don't.
Internal briefings to senior Administration staff aren't at all the same as press releases to the media. Can you grasp that?
Click to expand...

I never pretended I had any angle that others didn't.... its on youtube. Duh. No, Bush would not have fired anyone for this as he liked people know when he was bombing them.

Internal briefings to senior Administration staff aren't at all the same as press releases to the media.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It appears to be cabinet speak, but it just comes down to whether Trump trust the guy or not. Its appears to be sloppy way of providing targeting info if that is what happened. I see nothing wrong with the rest, looks like general cabinet speak. The only thing of real interest here to me is Vance, I tend to agree with him. Something I spoke about in the Ukraine thread a year or two ago.

I would say its over dramatizing the situation if one were to claim "war plans", but something that may need to be addressed legally. He isn't really deny it, he is deny the whole "war plan" thing. In theory they could be discussing this in front of reporters... although they usually don't speak of specific targeting. Just my take.

If Trump trust him, he keeps him... if he doesn't trust him, he uses it as an opportunity to can him.
 
Last edited:
#18,033
#18,033
BowlBrother85 said:
It is the same.
Click to expand...

No, its not the same at all. What Hillary was doing was setting up her own e-mail server at home but this wasn't just cabinet discussions, further she was doing it to hide what she was really doing. Once she was caught she tried to hide the evidence by destroying (wiping it) the server. The only thing that could be a problem in this is "targeting info", if true. The rest is just normal cabinet discussion that I can see, although I don't think I have seen the whole thread in full. Sloppy yes, legally not the same that I can see but someone needs to post the whole thread. The only real problem legally here would be "targeting" info and even that can be classified by the department head in this situation.
 
Last edited:
#18,034
#18,034
LSU-SIU said:
No, its not the same at all. What Hillary was doing was setting up her own e-mail server but this wasn't just cabinet discussions, further she was doing it to hide what she was really doing. Once she was caught she tried to hide the evidence by destroying the server. The only thing that could be a problem in this is "targeting info", if true. The rest is just normal cabinet discussion that I can see, although I don't think I have seen the whole thread in full.
Click to expand...
It is the same.

Pete Hegseth was disclosing highly sensitive information on an unauthorized app. It's ridiculous how hard you are arguing this .... and you appear to be doing so with some degree of ignorance of the content of the group chat itself. Hegseth absolutely was discussing military strike targets. He should not have been doing so on Signal, because it is an unauthorized app, and he was doing that without knowing the precise identity of everyone included in the group chat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#18,035
#18,035
BowlBrother85 said:
It is the same.

Pete Hegseth was disclosing highly sensitive information on an unauthorized app. It's ridiculous how hard you are arguing this .... and you appear to be doing so with some degree of ignorance of the content of the group chat itself. Hegseth absolutely was discussing military strike targets. He should not have been doing so on Signal, because it is an unauthorized app, and he was doing that without knowing the precise identity of everyone included in the group chat.
Click to expand...

If its cabinet meeting info, there is nothing wrong with using Signal as long as its not classified. Technically, the cabinet could be discussing it in front of reporters.

precise identity of everyone included in the group chat.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That is sloppy but that is all I can see, as I am not sure record retention is necessary for cabinet level discussion??? The only thing I can see as a potential problem is "targeting info", but the guy that apparently disclosed this part, is the same guy in charge of the classification to start with.

Its not the same at all, at least if I believe what they claim happened - I haven't seen the whole thread.

Pete Hegseth was disclosing highly sensitive information on an unauthorized app.
Click to expand...

If it classified than Signal can't be used, record retention might be an issue depending on who he was communicating with.
 
#18,036
#18,036
I've been out of the loop on the Hegseth hubbub. I read a USA Today article a moment ago.

Administration officials had a convo over encrypted texts about attacking Houthis in Yemen. Once the attack Before the attack started more texts were exchanged to let everyone know. More texts as attack commenced. One of the people on the group convo was a journalist.

Is that an accurate summation?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and LSU-SIU
#18,037
#18,037
McDad said:
I've been out of the loop on the Hegseth hubbub. I read a USA Today article a moment ago.

Administration officials had a convo over encrypted texts about attacking Houthis in Yemen. Once the attack started more texts were exchanged to let everyone know it had begun. One of the people on the group convo was a journalist.

Is that an accurate summation?
Click to expand...

It was encrypted but it was before the attack, the journalist is saying targeting info was provided but he hasn't posted it. The person who sent the targeting info is the head of agency i.e. classification authority.

 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and McDad
#18,038
#18,038
LSU-SIU said:
It was encrypted but it was before the attack, the journalist is saying targeting info was provided but he hasn't posted it. The person who sent the targeting info is the head of agency i.e. classification authority.

Click to expand...

Is there any evidence the targeting info claimed by the journalist resulted in the targets being warned and moving positions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and LSU-SIU
#18,039
#18,039
McDad said:
Is there any evidence the targeting info claimed by the journalist resulted in the targets being warned and moving positions?
Click to expand...

Not that I have seen. Maybe immaterial though, meaning classified shouldn't be sent over Signal. (not saying this was classified) I actually think it should be a wake up call to watch where they are speaking.

To me what is interesting is Vance's comments. I like him more every day.
 
#18,040
#18,040
LSU-SIU said:
Not that I have seen. Maybe immaterial though, meaning classification shouldn't be sent over Signal. (not saying this was classified) I actually think it should be a wake up call to watch where they are speaking.

To me what is interesting is Vance's comments.
Click to expand...
Signal, although encrypted, is not approved for use by our government for officials to discuss sensitive information?
 
#18,041
#18,041
LSU-SIU said:
Not that I have seen. Maybe immaterial though, meaning classification shouldn't be sent over Signal. (not saying this was classified) I actually think it should be a wake up call to watch where they are speaking.

To me what is interesting is Vance's comments. I like him more every day.
Click to expand...
what were Vance's comments?
 
#18,042
#18,042
LSU-SIU said:
If its cabinet meeting info, there is nothing wrong with using Signal as long as its not classified. Technically, the cabinet could be discussing it in front of reporters.



That is sloppy but that is all I can see, as I am not sure record retention is necessary for cabinet level discussion??? The only thing I can see as a potential problem is "targeting info", but the guy that apparently disclosed this part, is the same guy in charge of the classification to start with.

Its not the same at all, at least if I believe what they claim happened - I haven't seen the whole thread.



If it classified than Signal can't be used, record retention might be an issue depending on who he was communicating with.
Click to expand...
The disconnect here is that you are in ignorance of what was disclosed in the group chat.

www.nytimes.com

Hegseth Disclosed Secret War Plans in Group Chat With Atlantic Journalist

The conversation among the defense secretary and other national security officials on a commercial messaging app mistakenly included the editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Pete Hegseth DID disclose strike target information in the group chat. This is at least the 3rd time you have been told this.


Per the Pentagon, Signal is not an authorized app for such disclosures.
 
#18,043
#18,043
McDad said:
what were Vance's comments?
Click to expand...

Sounded like he was disagreeing with the President, he wanted to delay things. From my pov, the solution there isn't going to be dropping bombs. The Saudis have been dropping bombs on Yemen for a decade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#18,044
#18,044
BowlBrother85 said:
The disconnect here is that you are in ignorance of what was disclosed in the group chat.

www.nytimes.com

Hegseth Disclosed Secret War Plans in Group Chat With Atlantic Journalist

The conversation among the defense secretary and other national security officials on a commercial messaging app mistakenly included the editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Pete Hegseth DID disclose strike target information in the group chat. This is at least the 3rd time you have been told this.


Per the Pentagon, Signal is not an authorized app for such disclosures.
Click to expand...

We don't know for sure if he did disclose targeting information. Hopefully the investigation will shed some light onto the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737, whodeycin85 and 85SugarVol
#18,045
#18,045
BowlBrother85 said:
The disconnect here is that you are in ignorance of what was disclosed in the group chat.

www.nytimes.com

Hegseth Disclosed Secret War Plans in Group Chat With Atlantic Journalist

The conversation among the defense secretary and other national security officials on a commercial messaging app mistakenly included the editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Pete Hegseth DID disclose strike target information in the group chat. This is at least the 3rd time you have been told this.


Per the Pentagon, Signal is not an authorized app for such disclosures.
Click to expand...

Okay, as stated for discussion I said I will assume. Jesus.

Per the Pentagon, Signal is not an authorized app for such disclosures.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The person that disclosed it doesn't work for Pentagon, the Pentagon works for him. The White House has authorized use of the app for cabinet discussions, see tweet.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top