White House inadvertently texted top-secret Yemen war plans to journalist

[jc456]

Its a nothingburger, but its all the dems have to whine about. The attack was a success, no American was injured, period.

Demofks say classified well gd damnit it is. Don’t you know. It’s always what they say that counts. Come on man

 

[Concerned American]

But… I though l thought the texts had no classified info and the whole story was a giant nothingburger

Which is it? It can’t be both

I made no claim of either. I stated that IF they were classified, where is your concern that an editor release classified info to the public? He apparently knew it was classified but released it anyway. The obvious mistake in the use of the app held no consequences--seems a teaching moment. You're more than welcome to link to ANYWHERE that I said it was a "Giant Nothingburger."

 

[irosie91]

But… I though l thought the texts had no classified info and the whole story was a giant nothingburger

Which is it? It can’t be both

it seems to me that it was official stuff----not to be
decided by some jerky reporter just HOW CLASSIFIED
IT IS----he was eavesdropping on stuff that was LIKELY
CLASSIFIED----even peeping tom activity is, at the very
least---a misdemeanor

 

[braalian]

I made no claim of either. I stated that IF they were classified, where is your concern that an editor release classified info to the public? He apparently knew it was classified but released it anyway. The obvious mistake in the use of the app held no consequences--seems a teaching moment. You're more than welcome to link to ANYWHERE that I said it was a "Giant Nothingburger."

My point is that if it was wrong for the reporter to publish it, then that is proof-positive that the contents were classified and it was a major **** up

If, as most conservative posters her are claiming, it was “nothing”, then there was nothing wrong with the reporter’s actions

You (and I’m using ‘you’ in the broad sense here) can’t say the reporter is committing borderline treason and simultaneously say the texts contained no war plans. That is impossible

 

[jc456]

My point is that if it was wrong for the reporter to publish it, then that is proof-positive that the contents were classified and it was a major **** up

You’re confused, if it was he wouldn’t have

If, as most conservative posters her are claiming, it was “nothing”, then there was nothing wrong with the reporter’s actions

It was nothing

You (and I’m using ‘you’ in the broad sense here) can’t say the reporter is committing borderline treason and simultaneously say the texts contained no war plans. That is impossible

I can say anything if you can

 

[braalian]

I can say anything if you can

So if the text contains no classified info, please explain how the reporter publishing it was wrong

 

[jc456]

So if the text contains no classified info, please explain how the reporter publishing it was wrong

It wasn’t

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

The Atlantic would never lie about Trump...lol

The Atlantic is a GARBAGE Liberal magazine. If Joe Biden did this, you would not hear a PEEP. But since the Atlantic HATES Trump then the reporter forced himself to reveal the contents to the world. Piece of dirt magazine.

 

[Concerned American]

My point is that if it was wrong for the reporter to publish it, then that is proof-positive that the contents were classified and it was a major **** up

If, as most conservative posters her are claiming, it was “nothing”, then there was nothing wrong with the reporter’s actions

You (and I’m using ‘you’ in the broad sense here) can’t say the reporter is committing borderline treason and simultaneously say the texts contained no war plans. That is impossible

Throughout the history of the country, battle plans have fallen into the hands of adversaries. It is not treason--it isn't something you want to happen, but it has happened in every conflict the US has ever been in. However, a citizen who knowingly makes those plans public knowledge is treasonous. Mistakes are made, but to intentionally publicize confidential information is criminal. If you are suggesting that the text didn't contain anything the editor couldn't reasonably publish, then it seems a case of sensationalism at worst.

 

[beagle9]

Only in the TDS mind... the mission was a success unlike Biden's evac from Afghanistan... you didn't say boo about that... and 13 Marines died.... only bad guys died in this strike...

The thing to be gotten in all of this, is how the left is infiltrating even the highest levels of security with the intent to possibly undermine our national security for the purpose of getting at Trump. They are doing it in hopes to get at his cabinet official's for whom are not 40 year career officials, and doing so with a good ole gotcha attempt .....

Yes mistakes will be made, but they can be dealt with in a decent manor. The left proves this is yet another attempt to indirectly get at Trump by way of his surroundings.

Were any good guys killed?.... no... so what the hell is wrong with you?....

Orange man bad is what's wrong with them, and they don't even know why ... lol

TDS is real.

 

[beagle9]

My point is that if it was wrong for the reporter to publish it, then that is proof-positive that the contents were classified and it was a major **** up

If, as most conservative posters her are claiming, it was “nothing”, then there was nothing wrong with the reporter’s actions

You (and I’m using ‘you’ in the broad sense here) can’t say the reporter is committing borderline treason and simultaneously say the texts contained no war plans. That is impossible

Well then tell the leftist attack dogs to stop, and just like that it all goes away. No harm, no foul.

 

[struth]

Simply not true. If you are knowingly reckless with classified information, that is also illegal. Intent does not matter.

Being reckless with classified information is also illegal, even if you have no malicious intent. People in the military and the government get in trouble and lose their security clearances for accidently disclosing classified information. It happens fairly often.

Clinton and Biden were not aware that they did something wrong. Hegseth was. That is the difference. Hegseth was obviously copying information from a classified document into his cell phone. He knew that was illegal.


Doesn't matter. A cell phone is not an approved method for sharing classified information...even if everyone else on the phone call also has a security clearance.

So who are we gonna charge? I think the DOJ should charge Clinton, Biden, who else

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

The Atlantic is a GARBAGE Liberal magazine. If Joe Biden did this, you would not hear a PEEP. But since the Atlantic HATES Trump then the reporter forced himself to reveal the contents to the world. Piece of dirt magazine.

Biden would never do something this stupid. Hence, your hypothetical is meaningless.

And Biden hires competent people to run his government. Donald Trump does not. It's that simple.

 

[Concerned American]

Biden would never do something this stupid.

He shat on the pope. I think that is pretty stupid.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Cultist you aren't making sense. Are you saying all 9 justices are Trump cultist?

No, you idiot.

23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024)​

SupremeCourt.gov
https://www.supremecourt.gov › opinions
Jul 1, 2024 — Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

He thinks the supreme Court is a Trump cult

Most are.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No, dumbass. He went running to the presses is what he did.
It probably could be considered a crime.

As usual, you're FOS.

Goldberg says White House should deal with Signal ...​

BBC
https://www.bbc.com › news › live
5 days ago — Atlantic's Goldberg tells BBC White House should deal with Signal breach instead of attacking him · Trump downplays Signalgate but scandal shows ...


Trump did end up taking questions on the Signal group chat, and the president distanced himself from the scandal. Asked if he was sure no classified material was shared, he said “that’s what I’ve heard. I don’t know”.

It's a scaled back take, compared to what many in his administration said today - they've been adamant that no classified materials were shared.

That downplaying of the details in the group chat are what spurred The Atlantic to publish more messages from defence secretary Pete Hegseth today, Goldberg told the BBC.

Atlantic editor: It's 'farcical' to claim subterfuge in Signal leak​

USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com › news › politics › 2025/03/30
16 hours ago — The administration has claimed that no classified information was shared on the messaging app, which national security experts say is not safe ...

Goldberg then released screenshots of the messages, which included detailed information about drone targets, strike times and weaponry.

"If that's not the most sensitive information, the most secret information in the world I simply don't know what the meaning of classified or secret or top secret is," he told NBC.

Goldberg added that he wishes he was not forced to release the details of the plans, which were originally withheld from The Atlantic's reporting due to security concerns.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

the constitution is clear, the SC followed constitutional law.

Yes it is.
WHERE in the constitution does it give the president or anyone else immunity?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you idiot.

23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024)​

View attachment 1095320
SupremeCourt.gov
https://www.supremecourt.gov › opinions
Jul 1, 2024 — Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity.

It did not say he has "absolute immunity" at all.

It said if he was carrying out presidential actions, then he was immune from prosecution, but not from impeachment. Now, if he did something like, say, advertized Tesla cars on the White House lawn, that is NOT a presidential action. Things like that, he could be prosecuted for.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

It did not say he has "absolute immunity" at all.

It said if he was carrying out presidential actions, then he was immune from prosecution, but not from impeachment. Now, if he did something like, say, advertized Tesla cars on the White House lawn, that is NOT a presidential action. Things like that, he could be prosecuted for.

Page 6
We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.