Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many layers of physical controls and regular audits mostly.
So in other words... nothing stopped anyone from doing this either. Except the fear of potential punishment.
U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat
651–660 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat
#652Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because I don't know whether either of those are appropriate. There aren't many comparable breaches to this one. The closest in modern times may be Hillary Clinton's email server being used for government business. In that case, the FBI investigated and declined to bring charges, under the expectation that a jury would be unlikely to render a guilty verdict. Okay, fine. But the FBI investigated and laid out the facts…
Incorrect. "Clinton has said that she never used her personal email to send information that was marked classified at the time, although some of her emails had been retroactively classified. Comey says that's not true. Of 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in 2014, FBI investigators found 110 emails containing information that was classified at the time the email was sent. Eight of those were t…
Clinton argued at the time that such emails aren't and shouldn't be classified, since she didn't discuss any information sourced from the CIA, but only the publicly available news article. That seems to me to be at least a reasonable stance.
Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat
#653I began my career in a classified environment working on government satellite programs. In my first week on the job, I was told, explicitly, that if I shared Classified or Controlled Unclassified information over unapproved channels, I would be reprimanded—likely fired, or less likely, prosecuted. It was also made clear that safeguarding the nation's secrets from the carelessness of others was my responsibility, too.…
The problem is that most of those 18 people are just random folks picked on the premise of just one qualification: THey'd be Yes Man/Woman!! They aren't career professionals. I believe that explains the mess they've created and their incompetent approach to their duties. It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns.
Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat
#654Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that most of those 18 people are just random folks picked on the premise of just one qualification: THey'd be Yes Man/Woman!! They aren't career professionals. I believe that explains the mess they've created and their incompetent approach to their duties. It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns.
[flagged]
Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat
#655Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that most of those 18 people are just random folks picked on the premise of just one qualification: THey'd be Yes Man/Woman!! They aren't career professionals. I believe that explains the mess they've created and their incompetent approach to their duties. It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns.
[flagged]
Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat
#656Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that most of those 18 people are just random folks picked on the premise of just one qualification: THey'd be Yes Man/Woman!! They aren't career professionals. I believe that explains the mess they've created and their incompetent approach to their duties. It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns.
> It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns. The problem is that the people in control of the power to impeach are also picked for being yes men/women. It's yes-men all the way down by design.
He got the Supreme Court and the judiciary leaning his way in his first term. Congress is controlled by either his Republican primary candidates, or Republicans who are too afraid to cross him.
Now he’s purging from the federal branch anyone who is not completely ideologically loyal to him. That is the true purpose of Doge.
Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat
#657If anything, I'm a bit surprised that Jeff Goldberg burned this source. If anything, I'd suspect that he'd keep the channel open as long as he could. Or, he's got other channels that work better. All the same, I mean, wow. These guys are just morons here, there's really no other way around it. I'm trying to think of a charitable way to spin this and I've got nothing. Like, very clearly, these people are going to get…
One lawyer I follow on Bluesky mentioned the longer he stayed on more exposed he became to legal ramifications. Also, this involves national security which courts may treat differently than other issues. I am more surprised that he did not save this incident for a future book
Are you saying it's a crime for someone else to accidentally add you to their chat?
Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat
#658Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that most of those 18 people are just random folks picked on the premise of just one qualification: THey'd be Yes Man/Woman!! They aren't career professionals. I believe that explains the mess they've created and their incompetent approach to their duties. It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns.
[flagged]
Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat
#659Earlier quoted context omitted.
One lawyer I follow on Bluesky mentioned the longer he stayed on more exposed he became to legal ramifications. Also, this involves national security which courts may treat differently than other issues. I am more surprised that he did not save this incident for a future book
What legal ramifications? Are you saying it's a crime for someone else to accidentally add you to their chat?
Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat
#660I began my career in a classified environment working on government satellite programs. In my first week on the job, I was told, explicitly, that if I shared Classified or Controlled Unclassified information over unapproved channels, I would be reprimanded—likely fired, or less likely, prosecuted. It was also made clear that safeguarding the nation's secrets from the carelessness of others was my responsibility, too.…