Post New

...U.S. war plans for military strikes in Yemen to a reporter.

The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.

I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.

B-b-b-b-ut her emails!

The gross incompetence of these guys is definitely going to get us killed one way or another.

Gift article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/...

The gross incompetence of these guys is definitely going to get us killed one way or another.

Take heart.

It may also be a contributing factor in their self defeat.

But when they’re dangling over the abyss due to their own incompetence, our efforts may be required to give them the proper, legal, intelligent shove.

THIS ONE, I CALL 100% INCOMPETENCE.

The problem is, so many of these people are products of the bloody SmartPhone - Texting-Social media culture.

Ive said it before - Cyborg Culture is destructive.

Texting?

Pick up the phone and talk to someone .

If Hillary or Obama's man had done this, my side would go nuts times 100

Me: ...Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.

Well, the republicans here are silent but there's lots of media attention on this one today (see below). Let me quote from the original article:

Conceivably, Waltz, by coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of “national defense” information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story. Harris asked them to consider a hypothetical scenario in which a senior U.S. official creates a Signal thread for the express purpose of sharing information with Cabinet officials about an active military operation. He did not show them the actual Signal messages or tell them specifically what had occurred.

All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place. Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law’s definition of “national defense” information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose. If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF—most Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their home—or communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said. Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election for using a private email server and King Donald has repeated hundreds of times that she belongs in prison. At least one poster here has said the same.

Yet here we are.

Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the Signal group chat was just fine and dandy because nothing bad happened... that we know of.

Umm, Hillary Clinton would like a word.

Axios: "Heads should roll": Congress erupts over stunning Trump admin leak

ABC News: Messages with Yemen war plans inadvertently shared with reporter appears 'authentic': Official

NYT: Hegseth Disclosed Secret War Plans in a Group Chat
Newsweek: Pete Hegseth Sent Secret War Plans to Journalist by Accident: Report

The Hill: Moulton: Hegseth a danger to US, servicemembers

Politico: ‘Amateur hour’: Washington aghast at Trump administration’s war plan group chat

Variety: Trump’s Defense Secretary Accidentally Texted War Plans to The Atlantic: ‘I Didn’t Think It Could Be Real,’ Editor Says

Military Times: Top Trump officials accidentally shared war plans with media

Funny, I don't see anything on Fox News.

For those who may have just read the post, groaned, and perhaps clicked the recommend link, I encourage you to actually read the article.

This wasn't just some one off text message. This was an entire planning and execution thread for an attack by US military on foreign soil. This is cabinet members and the Vice President having highly classified (likely Top Secret) discussions on an open source messaging app. These kinds of discussions should be happening on tightly controlled US government computer systems in a SCIF. But these guys are basically sending encrypted texts over their smart phones while they are gos-knows-where. For all we know they were reading and sending these messages while waiting in line to check out at a grocery store. (OK - probably not that - most of these guys wouldn't know a grocery store if they got locked in one for days. More likely while sitting in some fancy restaurant with the waiter looking over their shoulder.)

Every last one of them has violated the espionage act by this action. Every last one of them should be fired from their positions in the government, have their security clearances revoked, and be banished from any government positions permanently. You can be sure they all would have been apoplectic had anything similar happened during the Obama or Biden administration.

Thank heavens the leak happened to a man of some considerable integrity who looked at it with a critical eye and then kept it quiet just in case it was real. Then he had the courage to go public with the information - again maintaining the confidentiality of certain critical information as needed.

Oh - and to tie in with the impeachment thread running - this would be an impeachable offense for the one guy on the thread who can't be fired. Violating the Espionage Act would almost certain qualify as a "high crime or misdemeanor". And if it weren't a violation of their due process rights, I wouldn't cry if they were all loaded on a plane and delivered to El Salvador without stopping in a court room first.

--Peter

ptheland: For those who may have just read the post, groaned, and perhaps clicked the recommend link, I encourage you to actually read the article.

I have to say I am disappointed and somewhat stunned no one here is discussing this. And I believe I posted a gift link; normally there's a paywall for The Atlantic.

Maybe people have lost their ability to be outraged by the Trump administration.

We are so fcuked.

despite his thoughtful actions, the only one here to get seriously prosecuted will be the journalist.
count The Atlantic among the few non-cowering media groups. become a paid subscriber if you want at least 1 such reliably left around.

i'll go out on a limb and reveal the hegseth group chat password : maga2024!
https://www.vox.com/2020/12/16/22179065/trump-twit...

I should be able to give your post 2 recs. One for the plea to support quality journalism and one for the password reveal.

weatherman: ...count The Atlantic among the few non-cowering media groups. become a paid subscriber if you want at least 1 such reliably left around.

I, too, am an Atlantic paid subscriber.

First, commonone, thank you for gifting this article.

The incompetence, hubris, and stupidity of this administration is on full display. Shocking, yet not surprising.

This begs the question about how long our enemies have been monitoring the nongovernment encrypted chat app, Signal.

If any of our allies were foolish enough to share security information with this administration, that just stopped.

The Trump administration has endangered our military service personnel as well as our country.

What moronic imbeciles, from the top down, including the obsequious Republican politicians that genuflect before Trump.

And I believe I posted a gift link;

You did. Thank you for that.

--Peter

Also of note during the unsecure war talks, vice president Vance said King Donald was confused and they were not on the same page: “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

Immediately after the article broke, the Vance team issued a statement to confirm that the vice president, in fact, was in lock-step with the president and had his nose firmly planted in Trump's ass right this minute.

Well, maybe not in those exact words.

Also, why in the hell would you hold talks over a Signal group chat except to illegally evade the presidential records act (which applies to Vance, as well)?

B-u-u-u-t her emails!

Still waiting for republicans to chime in here.

And waiting.

If any of our allies were foolish enough to share security information with this administration, that just stopped.

What do you mean? Our ally, Russia, gets all of the security information it wants, direct from the (orange) horse's mouth.

Pete

B-u-u-u-t her emails!

Still waiting for republicans to chime in here.

Apparently Faux News is still working on telling them what to think.

Thanks for the link. A truly stunning, imbecilic display of total incompetence.

Hillary, emails..............

Spin it, MAGA, spin it.

I never watch Fox, has this even been discussed on Fox ?

Oh yes, I also got an uneasy feeling from the back and forth about how Europe was going
to pay us back for keeping the shipping lanes open. So everything in Trump admin is
transactional, we do nothing without getting some type of payback. And if no payback
is publicly announced, I think it's safe to assume that Trump grifted the payback into
his secret account.

Yeah, this stinks to high heaven.

Is Hegseth back on the bottle? Or just an idiot, totally out of his depth?

Is Hegseth back on the bottle? Or just an idiot, totally out of his depth?

Yes.

Is Hegseth back on the bottle? Or just an idiot, totally out of his depth?

Why struggle with "or" when the freedom of "and" is available?

--Peter

UpNorth Joe: I never watch Fox, has this even been discussed on Fox ?

Fox Snooz is saying that it is against the law to discuss classified matters, including war plans, on non-classified, non-government platforms. And a serious national security risk. Signal is easily hacked and could well have been compromised by foreign intelligence services. They're saying that the phones should be seized by the FBI and a major counter-intelligence investigation is needed. And they're saying that vice president Vance, SecDev Hegseth, secretary of state Rubio, DNI Gabbard, and the others on the unsecure chat should resign in disgrace.

Just kidding.

Here's what they're saying:

Watters: Yeah, they accidentally leaked something to the media.

Jessica: They didn't leak it. They invited him in.

Watters: At least they didn’t have a server and acid wash it.

Hegseth, questioned briefly in Hawaii, said: “So you are talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who has made a profession of peddling hoaxes.”

Umm.

Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, confirmed the Signal group. “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.”

No doubt the republican calls for resignation and investigation are coming in 3-2-1.

Just kidding.

Is Hegseth back on the bottle? Or just an idiot, totally out of his depth?

Some of the media reports I've seen describe National Security Adviser Waltz as the one who set up the chat and accidentally invited Goldberg. Politico is reporting speculation that he'll be the one that ends up having to fall on his sword:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/24/mike-walt...

If they decide that a scalp is necessary, it wouldn't surprise me if it was Waltz - because his position doesn't require confirmation. Neither the Administration nor the Senate itself wants another cabinet-level confirmation right now, so if a head rolls, it's probably his.

Some interesting direct quotes from some of the current "players", when they went after Hillary:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fired-on-t...

"Apparently, the standard operating procedure inside the Clinton secretary of state office was to send emails that couldn't otherwise be printed to the maid to print them out of a secure area, or from a secure area, and then hand them off," Hegseth said just one day before the 2016 election. "Any security professional — military, government or otherwise — would be fired on the spot for this type of conduct, and criminally prosecuted, for being so reckless with this kind of information."

"Neither she nor any of these other people are going to be above the law," Rubio said in a Fox News segment posted to his official Twitter account. "Whether it's her, or Eric Holder for what he did on Fast and Furious, we're going to hold people accountable."

""Mishandling classified information is a still a violation of the Espionage Act," Ratcliffe said in a Fox News clip from 2016."

No and yes.

No, because he was never sober.

Yes, because he was over his depth when he was a talking head on Faux News. Now he has access to top secret information that he can text to his friends and go ain't I cool, he is like a T-ball player trying out for MLB.

Some of the media reports I've seen describe ...

I highly recommend reading the article directly in The Atlantic at the top of the thread. It's a gift link, so no subscription is required. Everyone else is commenting on the article without adding anything to what you can read there for yourself. And yes, Goldberg himself says it was Waltz that invited him to a conversation on Signal.

The question that everyone seems to be avoiding is: Why is this conversation happening on Signal? It should be happening on approved secure systems with the appropriate recordkeeping in place.

Isn't that Federal government 101? Didn't someone else get lambasted for failing to use government systems that keep the legally required records?

--Peter

I read most of the article early today before events distracted me. What I think no one has pointed out is that in Signal, you can set a time where the thread is deleted. All of these conversations are by law to be preserved. Now, why someone would think this conversation needed to be deleted seems to rest on Signal being used. See Grok's last paragraph, but I'm impressed with this Grok thing, Wish it wasn't associated with Musk.


What are the legal problems with the Houthi operation being discussed on Signal?

4 posts 15 web pages

Your question likely refers to the reported incident where senior Trump administration officials discussed U.S. military plans for strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen on the encrypted messaging app Signal, inadvertently including a journalist in the chat. Based on available information up to March 24, 2025, here are the potential legal problems associated with this situation:
Unauthorized Disclosure of Classified Information: The U.S. government classifies military operation details, such as targets, timing, and weaponry for strikes like those against the Houthis on March 15, 2025. Discussing such details on Signal—a commercial, non-government-approved platform—could violate laws like the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793). This law prohibits the willful communication of national defense information to unauthorized persons, including through negligence if it risks exposure. If the chat included specifics (e.g., “targets, weapons, and attack sequencing,” as reported by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic), and a journalist accessed it, this could constitute an unauthorized disclosure, even if accidental.

Use of Non-Secure Communication Channels: Federal regulations, including those under the National Security Act and policies from the National Security Agency (NSA) and Department of Defense (DoD), mandate that classified information be transmitted only via approved, secure systems (e.g., JWICS or SIPRNet). Signal, while encrypted, is not certified for classified discussions because it lacks government oversight, auditability, and protection against device vulnerabilities. Using it for operational planning could breach these regulations, potentially leading to administrative penalties or criminal charges if it’s deemed reckless or willful.

Operational Security (OPSEC) Violations: Beyond legal statutes, discussing sensitive plans on Signal undermines OPSEC, a military protocol to prevent adversaries from gaining actionable intelligence. If Houthi forces or their Iranian backers intercepted the chat (unlikely but possible if devices were compromised), it could endanger U.S. troops or mission success. While not a direct “legal” issue, OPSEC breaches can trigger investigations under military law (e.g., Uniform Code of Military Justice) for officials like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who reportedly participated.

Potential Espionage Act Violation: Legal experts, as noted in posts on X and news reports, have suggested that National Security Adviser Michael Waltz (who allegedly initiated the chat) and others could face scrutiny under the Espionage Act. A key threshold is whether their actions showed “gross negligence” in handling classified information, a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Accidentally adding a journalist might not meet the “intent” requirement for espionage, but it could still prompt a Department of Justice probe, especially given public and congressional outrage (e.g., Senator Chuck Schumer’s call for an investigation).

Accountability and Chain of Command Issues: If the chat involved Vice President JD Vance, Hegseth, Waltz, and others coordinating strikes without proper documentation or oversight, it might violate internal White House and DoD protocols. The Presidential Records Act requires official business to be preserved, and casual Signal use could skirt this, though it’s a civil rather than criminal matter. More critically, bypassing secure channels risks miscommunication or unauthorized decisions, potentially implicating participants in any resulting operational failures.

Context and Caveats
What Happened: On March 11, 2025, Waltz reportedly added Goldberg to a Signal group named “Houthi PC small group,” where officials discussed the March 15 strikes. Goldberg saw detailed plans two hours before bombs fell, as reported by The Atlantic and confirmed as “authentic” by the White House.

Why It’s a Problem: The exposure compromised secrecy, embarrassed the administration, and raised questions about competence. The Houthis, already retaliating (e.g., attacking the USS Harry S. Truman on March 16), didn’t need the leak to respond, but it could embolden adversaries or strain allies’ trust.

Legal Uncertainty: No formal charges have been reported by March 24, 2025. Prosecutors would need to prove intent or gross negligence, which is tricky given the “inadvertent” addition of Goldberg. Political pressure might drive an investigation, but outcomes are speculative.

In short, the legal problems stem from mishandling classified information, using an unapproved platform, and risking national security—potentially violating the Espionage Act and federal security protocols. The incident’s fallout depends on whether it’s treated as a sloppy mistake or a prosecutable breach.

See Grok's last paragraph, but I'm impressed with this Grok thing, Wish it wasn't associated with Musk

That it is associated with Musk has one very clear positive:

It can’t be accused of being a commie left wing, insane reporter for the failing Washington Post.

I’m going to push back on the thread title. While a reporter being included in the discussion may have been accidental, there was nothing accidental about using Signal for classified information.

You’d think that one of these guys would say something about moving the conversation to a properly secure channel. Yet not one of them did.

That’s how arrogant they are (not unusual for any politician, of course) and how little respect they have for the law and for the espionage skills of those who would like to see the US fail.

—Peter

You’d think that one of these guys would say something about moving the conversation to a properly secure channel. Yet not one of them did.

Which infers that this is the way they’ve been communicating from the start. Otherwise, someone on the call would have asked why the call wasn’t being made on a government secure line like we always do?

Lord knows how much classified information was leaked to our enemies over the last couple of months by these idiots.

The question that everyone seems to be avoiding is: Why is this conversation happening on Signal? It should be happening on approved secure systems with the appropriate recordkeeping in place.

I believe Musk was promoting Signal, and likely still is. Expect him to chime in that Signal is very safe and secure since it's "end-to-end" encrypted. I assume that means the communications, even if intercepted, can't be decrypted, at least not without an inordinate amount of computing power.

That said, if even one of the phones used was an insecure non-gov't issued phone (*), it would still - presumably - be a violation of security.

--
(*) - But I'd wager that there'll be some imminent retconning proclaiming that Signal has been the preferred remote meeting platform since Jan 21, and can be securely used even on private phones. ...I wonder who ultimately controls just what a gov't issued and secured phone is? Gabbard?

Spin it, MAGA, spin it.

Birl, MAGA, Birl! (With apologies to the Drill Baby Drill aficionados.)
--
Origin of birl:
1715–25; perhaps blend of birr and whirl, influenced, in some senses, by birle

Bruce Coville, an author and publisher of audiobooks that I follow over on BlueSky, raised an interesting point that I haven't seen mentioned before.

Most important thing about the Pete Hegseth Signal chat scandal not yet being discussed much is this: you can bet the farm that this was not the first time these fools have illegally used Signal to keep a conversation out of government records. You can bet the farm this didn't happen just once!

Maybe Congress should look into that. Hahaha, just kidding.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.