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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by mullingitover »

chrisco255 wrote: post #835
adrr wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think they’ll get prosecuted? I am willing to bet money that congress won’t even have hearings on it.

None of what they said was actually classified, and if the conversation included the president and vice president, then they inherently decide what is and is not classified. The power of the executive branch is vested in the president.

Doesn’t matter, they were conducting government business on a clandestine private system with the intent of evading public records laws. Literally the crime they endlessly accused Clinton of.

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

#892

Post by uppost »

chrisco255 wrote: post #833
Galanwe wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The U.S. doesn't need a new constitution. If you don't like the current president, you vote for a new one in 4 years. That's how it works.

[flagged]

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

#893

Post by gizzlon »

fransje26 wrote: post #867
aucisson_masque wrote: post #839

How is trump staff using signal for classified military actions different from Clinton use of private email account ? Back then he said she should be put in jail but now he is downplaying it. How can Americans take this guy seriously is beyond my mind.

I would argue that at least Signal is end-to-end encrypted. By default, email is not. Now, how secure and backdoor-proof that encryption is, is an other story..

Encryption doesn't really help when you add "random" people to your group ..

Also, I haven't followed the email thing, but emails are by design insecure, so one should hope stuff like this was not discussed over emails (regardless server..)

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

#894

Post by pathOf_aFineMan »

nla wrote: post #882
mandeepj wrote: post #583

Earlier 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.

On the subject of a 'shack of clowns,' now do the Afganistan withdrawal.

Kind of off topic as that was the previous Trump administration, but they were also a 'shack of clowns'

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

#895

Post by gspr »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #840
gspr wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how this subthread devolved into arguing about Europe's attached bottlecap regulations and that the GDPR has resulted in lots of very annoying cookie banners. So in the US you have a corrupt, authoritarian takeover of a society – and in Europe you have well-meaning, but somewhat annoying, regulations that still need some work to function perfectly.

The cookie banners were never mandated by GDPR, that's entirely the industry's fault and intent - dark UX patterns to try and annoy the user into agreeing, or a silent protest to the perceived overbearing nature of the GDPR. They could've just respected a browser's do-not-track header but chose not to. The EU legislators should've done that too, that is, dictate a standardized method for people to opt in.

Oh I agree. I'm just saying, either way that discussion goes, it just's not even the same order of severity magnitude as a corrupt authoritarian takeover.

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

#896

Post by stogot »

tehjoker wrote: post #780
petre wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it's a good thing there's not an Abdul-Malik al-Houthi in the administration, as they might have included the wrong person on the private group chat.

They should add one then, because the operation described is illegal under international law and should not have been executed. They are punishing Yemen for resisting the US backed Israeli genocide in Gaza. It is ghastly.

I have empathy for civilians, but you’re having empathy to self-declared murders and terrorists. It’s in their Houthi motto. That’s ghastly

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

#897

Post by stogot »

rahkiin wrote: post #471
mullingitover wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most pundits feel like this administration is trying to keep things out of FOIA and discoverability reach which has its own problems. I don't think we need to ponder so hard about this. This administration is headed by a man who kept stolen TS/SCI national secrets in a bathroom at his house. A fish rots from the head.

Keeps*. He took them back some weeks ago

Where was this reported?

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

#898

Post by ttyprintk »

dragonwriter wrote: post #102
alistairSH wrote: post #73

Even worse, Trump wasn't aware of this leak (or denies knowledge of it) until questioned at a press conference earlier today. And instead of promising an investigation, the best he can do is throw some weak insults at The Atlantic. BUTTERY MALES indeed.

> Trump wasn't aware of this leak (or denies knowledge of it) until questioned at a press conference earlier today. Trump routinely denies knowledge of things he doesn't want to talk about, even things that he has previously demonstrated knowledge about. It's a standard deflection that he never gets called out on or significant pushback on the implications of his claimed lack of knowledge, so he keeps doing it.

To circumlocute his habitual evasion, try offering an active phrasing: “Do you have a replacement in mind for Secretary Hegseth?” would be one way to prevent the passive-aggressive “I don’t really know Peter B. Hegseth”. When Trump “doesn’t know” someone, it’s a very final thing.

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

#899

Post by kristiandupont »

whiplash451 wrote: post #814
franga2000 wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European law is a patchwork of suboptimal solutions to hard (but often self-imposed) problems. The US meanwhile doesn't try to solve them at all. Yes, the bottle caps annoy me, but if the beverage companies stuck to the much more recyclable glass bottles we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Yes, the GDPR popups annoy me, but the law also punishes companies for being creepy exploitative bastards. If they ha…

I don't dismiss the problem, I dismiss the solution. Yes, plastic bottles (and caps) are likely a major environmental disaster. The alternative to regulation is innovation: force bottle makers to invest x% of their profit or revenue into actual research on plastic recycling or capture.

>The alternative to regulation is innovation

That's a very easy but hand-wavy thing to say.

How exactly would your suggestion work? Are the companies supposed to share their findings from this forced research with the world? What happens if they happen to discover something that doesn't help with the plastic problem but does improve their bottom line somehow? I can't see this functioning in any way whatsoever.

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

#900

Post by codingbot3000 »

inamorty wrote: post #811
somenameforme wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grass isn't always greener. I think the core underlying issue at all of this is social divides within countries. When groups of people become sufficiently antagonistic towards one another, it really enables widespread corruption because people will actively blind themselves (or handwave away) to the wrongs of "their side" and magnify the wrongs of "the other side" with no limits to the hyperbole. And Europe is mo…

But public perception doesn’t necessarily reflect actual levels of corruption. Having dodgy planning approved is not the same as buying a seat at the head of the government for a quarter billion dollars.

I'd say US corruption is now more transparent than EU corruption :D

That was once different, with Berlusconi at the helm in Italy while owning the major TV outlets.

Post reply on HN