Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#751

Post by Galanwe »

rcpt wrote: post #672
cjohnson318 wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't punishment or prosecution be suggested. I've worked with classified information, and I would have been held accountable for my actions, why shouldn't they? I'm tired of this Too Important To Have Consequences business. It defeats the whole purpose of having qualifications, and security, and rules of any kind.

Anything less than criminal prosecution would be an abomination of justice.

Well once you've stated that the president is immune and can pardon whoever for whatever, there's really not much to do. The US needs a new constitution to enforce this, otherwise the very concept of justice cannot exist.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#752

Post by sureglymop »

dyauspitr wrote: post #731
Folcon wrote: post #717

I'm an external individual to the US, but I must admit that some of the sentiments being expressed here in this thread and elsewhere about the lack of accountability deeply concern me, it reminds me of many things I saw growing up and still see today in south asia. Independent of anything else, I do see the overton window shifting in the US, the most subtle of which are norms and expectations around acts of corruptio…

Yes, unfortunately we’re already at that point. Republicans and their base close ranks so effectively that it’s essentially a safe haven for all sorts of corruption and serious crime. The voters won’t punish them at the ballot and they’ve essentially captured all sources of checks and balances.

It's Republicans and Democrats. You're in this position in the first place because you have no real political diversity. It's not gonna change in that two party system either.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#753

Post by bigbacaloa »

Folcon wrote: post #717

I'm an external individual to the US, but I must admit that some of the sentiments being expressed here in this thread and elsewhere about the lack of accountability deeply concern me, it reminds me of many things I saw growing up and still see today in south asia. Independent of anything else, I do see the overton window shifting in the US, the most subtle of which are norms and expectations around acts of corruptio…

[dead]

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#754

Post by reverius42 »

ulfw wrote: post #660
joshuamerrill wrote: post #457

I 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.…

Trump can't fire any of them. Fox News doesn't have enough TV people to poach. Where else did he find his cabinet from?

Trump won't fire any of them, because nothing they've done displeases him, and displeasing Trump (rather than violating a law, for instance) is the only way to get fired by him.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#755

Post by nobodywillobsrv »

Why don't we see appropriate questions? Like how was the number added accidentally? It would have had to be in the contacts already? Was it? That seems highly unlikely. It's the ATLANTIC! Why would they have the Atlantic in their contacts.

And Signal is not an approved app afaik.

The whole thing just seems like it is highly likely it is fake/engineered.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#756

Post by tempestn »

nobodywillobsrv wrote: post #755

Why don't we see appropriate questions? Like how was the number added accidentally? It would have had to be in the contacts already? Was it? That seems highly unlikely. It's the ATLANTIC! Why would they have the Atlantic in their contacts. And Signal is not an approved app afaik. The whole thing just seems like it is highly likely it is fake/engineered.

You find it implausible that someone highly placed in the government would have the editor of a major news publication in their contacts?

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#757

Post by belter »

fpoling wrote: post #733
Folcon wrote: post #717

I'm an external individual to the US, but I must admit that some of the sentiments being expressed here in this thread and elsewhere about the lack of accountability deeply concern me, it reminds me of many things I saw growing up and still see today in south asia. Independent of anything else, I do see the overton window shifting in the US, the most subtle of which are norms and expectations around acts of corruptio…

> because this is death to entrepreneurship This does not follow. Even in highly corrupt authoritarian countries entrepreneurship can flourish. Just consider Turkey or Russia. In such places one quickly learn whom to pay with corruption payouts becoming business expenses.

> one quickly learn whom to pay with corruption payouts becoming business expenses

Exactly also already happening in the US and with Law Firms.

"Trump rescinds executive order after law firm agrees to provide $40m in free services" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/20/trump-rescin...

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#758

Post by belter »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #680
cjohnson318 wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't punishment or prosecution be suggested. I've worked with classified information, and I would have been held accountable for my actions, why shouldn't they? I'm tired of this Too Important To Have Consequences business. It defeats the whole purpose of having qualifications, and security, and rules of any kind.

Do you honestly think that (a) Trump's Justice Department would prosecute any of these offenses, and (b) even if so, that Trump wouldn't just pardon anyone involved?

The corruption is now, total and absolute. A complete Nero Court like the decadent days of the end of the Roman Empire.

"Trump’s crypto empire set to expand with new stablecoin and investment fund offerings" - https://apnews.com/article/trump-crypto-world-liberty-truth-...

"...Witkoff and his father, Trump’s special diplomatic envoy Steve Witkoff, helped launch World Liberty Financial with Trump and his sons last year. Under the terms outlined on the company’s website, a Trump-owned company has the “right to receive 75% of the net protocol revenues” from World Liberty Financial after expenses..."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18077789-dying-every-day

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#759

Post by nopelynopington »

garfield_light wrote: post #588
nopelynopington wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump has already been president and already demonstrated to us that he will not leave power peacefully. He's openly discussing serving a third term. I think it's highly unlikely that the transfer of power will happen peacefully unless 1) he dies in office (of natural causes) Or 2) the republicans win in 2028 and a different republican president is sworn in.

The real test will be the midterms.

I had a read of the upcoming seat changes in the midterms. Most of them look likely to remain the same colour, with only a handful flippable. And even then there are a few previously flipped to Dem that might revert. Could easily have even more red Senate or Congress in two years

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#760

Post by StackRanker3000 »

jimbokun wrote: post #656
ModernMech wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It’s Trump’s one true talent. 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.

I’m going to respectfully disagree with you there. Trump’s success as a politician is solely down to three factors.

Firstly, he has an insatiable desire for attention, admiration, and generally benefitting himself. That’s what causes his drive.

Secondly, he has no scruples or adheres to any morals or ethics whatsoever, he is completely ruthless. This allows him to do and say whatever serves him the most in any given situation.

Lastly, he has a specific type of charisma that has purchase with a certain segment of the people.

That’s is the full extent of it. He has no other skills or useful attributes. Anything else, especially if it’s at all technical or practical, comes from the people he’s surrounded himself with.

To interact with your point, he’s not even particularly adept at enlisting sycophants. Remember his first administration, when numerous aides and associates had both public and private disagreements with him (as one example out of many, I’ll refer to Rex Tillerson calling him a ”fucking moron”). The reason things are different this time is that another set of people are running the show, and they’ve realized that including old establishment Republicans, that have to at least pretend to be serious members of society, would have been a barrier to their agenda.

Turning the judiciary red across the country is especially not something you can attribute to Trump. It’s been a systematic effort by the Republicans (and adjacent organizations such as the Heritage Foundation) over the span of decades. He just happened to be in the position to make the appointments.

Post reply on HN