The problem with Hillary wasn't really the email server; at most this could get a peon doing the same fired for not CC'ing them to the national archives. For Secretary of State that's a nothingburger.
The problem was her deleting half of them after learning they would be subpoenaed (anticipatory obstruction), then later deleting them again after being served the subpoena. She went out of her way to purposely use her phone in top secret areas - intentional, not even negligence. And negligently failed to secure her private SCIF of top secret info. These are all things that normal people go to jail for.
This reporter being added to the Signal chat seems to be a simple accident (not negligence) and they only discussed at most Secret info, which isn't required to stay in a secure area.
This reporter being added to the Signal chat seems to be a simple accident (not negligence) and they only discussed at most Secret info, which isn't required to stay in a secure area.
Hard to say. If it was discussing operational details and information that was gained via TS means (SI, etc) then technically it all could have been under TS.
Agree 100% about Hillary.
How the fuck does someone invite a journalist into the group chat and no one notices? Crazy
The reporter's only implication any of it was Top Secret is that some of it "could conceivably have been used" (past tense) by adversaries. First of all there's worlds of unclassified data a Trump-hater could conceive could be used against us. Second of all, what a weak statement from somebody who claims they consulted security experts for the story.
And a CIA officer's name is not classified unless they are a secret agent, which this guy is certainly not. In fact I bet it's a well-known person the author purposely withheld for the narrative.
CIA is anal as fuck about releasing the names of just about anyone who works there. The head of what used to be called the Directorate of Operations (DO) and is now the NCS (National Clandestine Service) -- the spying division -- used always be undercover, for instance. A very large percentage of CIA employees have a random cover name they use for interagency emails, etc.
"What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing."
I don't think this is particularly serious, but it is, nonetheless stupid as fuck and a huge mistake.
If CIA cared that much they'd tell their people not drive to work with their phones in the car. Google/Apple, telecom, and insurance companies know who nearly every employee is.
Trump-hating author says he's shocked. Uses nebulous terms like "conceivably" and "information about". Attack already happened so there's no problem giving at least a few specifics on what was said and yet there's no details at all, only characterizations of it. No 'first we're going to bomb this outpost, then this one'?
Because that kind of detail was not in there. Obviously.
The problem with Hillary wasn't really the email server; at most this could get a peon doing the same fired for not CC'ing them to the national archives. For Secretary of State that's a nothingburger.
The problem was her deleting half of them after learning they would be subpoenaed (anticipatory obstruction), then later deleting them again after being served the subpoena. She went out of her way to purposely use her phone in top secret areas - intentional, not even negligence. And negligently failed to secure her private SCIF of top secret info. These are all things that normal people go to jail for.
This reporter being added to the Signal chat seems to be a simple accident (not negligence) and they only discussed at most Secret info, which isn't required to stay in a secure area.
Hard to say. If it was discussing operational details and information that was gained via TS means (SI, etc) then technically it all could have been under TS.
Agree 100% about Hillary.
How the fuck does someone invite a journalist into the group chat and no one notices? Crazy
The reporter's only implication any of it was Top Secret is that some of it "could conceivably have been used" (past tense) by adversaries. First of all there's worlds of unclassified data a Trump-hater could conceive could be used against us. Second of all, what a weak statement from somebody who claims they consulted security experts for the story.
And a CIA officer's name is not classified unless they are a secret agent, which this guy is certainly not. In fact I bet it's a well-known person the author purposely withheld for the narrative.
CIA is anal as fuck about releasing the names of just about anyone who works there. The head of what used to be called the Directorate of Operations (DO) and is now the NCS (National Clandestine Service) -- the spying division -- used always be undercover, for instance. A very large percentage of CIA employees have a random cover name they use for interagency emails, etc.
I was basing my statement on these quotes:
https://archive.is/4X5JZ
"What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing."
I don't think this is particularly serious, but it is, nonetheless stupid as fuck and a huge mistake.
If CIA cared that much they'd tell their people not drive to work with their phones in the car. Google/Apple, telecom, and insurance companies know who nearly every employee is.
Trump-hating author says he's shocked. Uses nebulous terms like "conceivably" and "information about". Attack already happened so there's no problem giving at least a few specifics on what was said and yet there's no details at all, only characterizations of it. No 'first we're going to bomb this outpost, then this one'?
Because that kind of detail was not in there. Obviously.