It Has Begun

All this hullabaloo going on….. It emboldens me to know that the very top levels of my government are participating in healthy debate. Wonder how long it’s been since that took place? All the mouthpieces can take a hike. They still sound like fools….. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Ha!

 

If it was so secret, why use a commercial app at all? Why not use the secure communication systems set up already?

Whenever you feel you've hit a brick wall, feel free to swap your position to the new party refrain "nothing in those chats was classified anyway"

 

You’re trying to skirt my point!

Sure. It was a mistake to use Signal, and another to include Goldberg. Mistakes they will learn from and surely not repeat.

But when I get an email that appears intended for another, I question my right to remain engaged in the communication, and ask the sender if I am the intended recipient, or if I should delete. In nearly all such cases, I receive an apology, an explanation that autofill replaced the intended recipient with my address, and a request to delete. Then I delete and move on with my life.

Not only did Goldberg not ask Waltz if he was the intended recipient, but he consciously decided to continue receiving communications that were obviously privileged and not meant for him. That he knew that they were not meant for him is evident from his maintained fly-on-the-wall silence throughout all that transpired. It was wrong, and Goldberg knew it.

Most importantly, Goldberg chose to make the nature of and much of the content of these exchanges available for consumption by all . . . That was a deliberate action, and a treasonous one.

 

They were not "obviously" priveliged. That's most of his article, how it was so absurd that communication would happen this way, he assumed it was fake until it was verified by the bombings.

Those conversations, if they were not in fact confidential (as the administration is now alleging) are supposed to be a matter of public record per the federal records and freedom of information acts.

If they were confidential, better this be exposed by a journalist than sat on by an adversary. This forces change.

 

That is utter bullcrap! The veil of plausible deniability will not prevent his conviction.

That's bullcrap too . . .

Exemption 5 under FOIA – Protects the integrity of the deliberative or policy-making processes within the agency by exempting from mandatory disclosure opinion, conclusions, and recommendations included within inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters.

• Example of information that may be withheld using Exemption 5: Draft documents and recommendations or other documents that reflect the personal opinion of the author rather than official agency position.

Wrong again . . . This plants an understanding of the policy and deliberative and decision-making processes in the minds of many potential adversaries instead of just a single one.

 

Oh man! Why didn't they just think of getting invited into top secret conversations? Truly, this will open a floodgate now that the concept of intercepting communications has been revealed to them.

It's entirely on the conversation starters for not using more secure methods to converse about such matters. The crux of Goldberg's story is: "why are they using such insecure communications that I got included accidentally?"

 

And again, they'll stand on the brakes on this practice. It was a mistake.

Goldberg's was intentional and, left to do it again, he would.

 

That you walked in on your mother taking a shower because she mistakenly left the door unlocked is an accident. That you stood there and watched and then blabbed about it to your friends is very intentional.

I bet your mother locks the door from now on after she reads about the incident on facebook.

 

All I want to know is how and why Goldberg was included in the group. Until how and why are answered, I'll view the rest of the debate points about the incident as nothing more than static.

 

That is a superb analogy.... And one that will keep me awake tonight.

 

I am betting that once the digital geeks get into the thing that they will find some chicanery has taken place. What do they call that? Spoofing a number or something? I know I have received bogus messages on my phone from names I am familiar with. Once even received a bogus message from myself…… There are no depths too low for the left to go to discredit this administration.

 

The how and why is entirely related to the officials conducting this business on an insecure commercial app instead of using proper channels, but no one wants to talk about that here I guess

 

Funny you should mention that, MD. I repeatedly get emails with attachments from two email addresses . . . one belonging to a CT member, and the other from his wife who I've dealt with as well (gift certificates for Christmas) . . . both of those accounts had been hacked around COVID time, and have long since been abandoned. I've never opened any of those attachments, and no longer open the emails from those addresses (straight to junk, they go).

 

Didn’t matter for Hillary. Why should it matter now? Why squeeze a boil until it gets infected? Short of the second coming nobody on the left will never ever acknowledge anything good coming from this administration….. So let’s just milk this for all it’s worth, right?? I have heard Waltz repeatedly apologize for the stupid mistake. Gene it’s been more than four years since I heard an administration official apologize for making a mistake. I found it quite refreshing actually.

 

AMEN

 

I like to go for the "shock and awe". Plus, I want to see if I can make Charley pee himself.

 

If he is anything like me…. That is a constant danger.

 

Undisputed facts already in evidence. Well except maybe the insecure part.

 

I’m your Huckleberry. Let’s go down the “confidential” info path again.
First, identify all the confidential information that this person has provided.

 

Apparently, there was none.