Democrats seek criminal probe over group chat on Houthi strike

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, you have been trolling.

Because I'm not talking about the same thing you are, even though you were told this numerous times?

 

[Rawley]

She received a few emails on her own server,

?? She received all her emails on her own server. She didn't even have a State Dept email account.

which was probably more secure than the State Department one, which was being hacked on a regular basis by the Russians, Chinese and Iranians.

How do you figure that?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/27/chinese-hackers-nab-60-000-emails-in-state-department-breach-00118547

Sources: State Dept. hack the 'worst ever'

Overlooked in the controversy over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, is the fact that suspected Russian hackers have bedeviled State Department's email system for much of the past year and continue to pose problems for technicians trying to eradicate the intrusion.

www.cnn.com

No hypocrisy at all.

Hillary didn't conduct active military plans on a public messaging service.

No, but she stored over 2,000 emails that contained classified information on her unsecure server.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Because I'm not talking about the same thing you are, even though you were told this numerous times?

You are trolling. Get on subject, skippy.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

?? She received all her emails on her own server. She didn't even have a State Dept email account.

How do you figure that?

No, but she stored over 2,000 emails that contained classified information on her unsecure server.

No, she did not.

And what happened then has nothing to do with the Signal fiasco now. Fire thema all.

 

[Rawley]

No, she did not.

Read FBI Director James Comey's Speech on the Hillary Clinton Email Probe

The FBI recommends that no charges be brought against Clinton

time.com

And God know how many classified emails were in the 30,000 she deleted.

And what happened then has nothing to do with the Signal fiasco now. Fire thema all.

Sure it does She intentionally set up her private unsecure server and ran classified material through it for years.

The Signal fiasco a one time, unintentional mistake.

Comey concluded "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

 

[JoeB131]

She received all her emails on her own server. She didn't even have a State Dept email account.

That isn't correct, and if you can't find out basic facts, I'm not sure there's much point talking to you.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Read FBI Director James Comey's Speech on the Hillary Clinton Email Probe

The FBI recommends that no charges be brought against Clinton

time.com

And God know how many classified emails were in the 30,000 she deleted.

Sure it does She intentionally set up her private unsecure server and ran classified material through it for years.

The Signal fiasco a one time, unintentional mistake.

Comey concluded "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

She is gone all of these years later.

We are talking about Signal now, and nothing back then matters now.

You 'whataboutism' is nothing.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Read FBI Director James Comey's Speech on the Hillary Clinton Email Probe

The FBI recommends that no charges be brought against Clinton

time.com

And God know how many classified emails were in the 30,000 she deleted.

Sure it does She intentionally set up her private unsecure server and ran classified material through it for years.

The Signal fiasco a one time, unintentional mistake.

Comey concluded "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

A "one time mistake" until the next time, and there will be a next time very soon.

 

[MagicMike]

From the CISA Mobile Communications Best Practice Guidance dated Dec 18, 2024:

"Adopt a free messaging application for secure communications that guarantees end-to-end encryption, such as Signal or similar apps."

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mobile-communications-best-practices.pdf

So the Deep State encourages the Trump administration to use Signal, which has been proven to be susceptible to be compromised by hackers. Then a leftist "journalist" somehow gets invited into the chat by some unknown Deep State operative within the Trump Administration.

How was this whole thing not a setup to entrap the President and his cabinet?

If a POTUS and his entire cabinet can be so easily "trapped" (as you say) then that sure indicates a pretty high level of incompetence stretching all the way to the top.
But of course nobody was "trapped." We've just got a bunch of incompetent clowns at the highest levels of our government now.
By the way....there's really no such thing as a "deep state."

 

[JoeB131]

If a POTUS and his entire cabinet can be so easily "trapped" (as you say) then that sure indicates a pretty high level of incompetence stretching all the way to the top.
But of course nobody was "trapped." We've just got a bunch of incompetent clowns at the highest levels of our government now.
By the way....there's really no such thing as a "deep state."

Why would the Deep State encourage the use of Signal when the government has its own more secure messaging app?

the reason they probably used Signal was to avoid compliance with the Records Act.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You are trolling. Get on subject, skippy.

I've been talking about the reaction by Democrats to the topic of the thread: the chat blunder.

You sent it off the rails when you made a claim that I was defending something MAGA-style when I was not. Not only was it untrue that I was defending anything at all, it was off topic. And the MAGA reference could be construed as an ad hominin. To top it off, you refuse to substantiate your claim.

The only one trolling here is you.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I've been talking about the reaction by Democrats to the topic of the thread: the chat blunder.

You sent it off the rails when you made a claim that I was defending something MAGA-style when I was not. Not only was it untrue that I was defending anything at all, it was off topic. And the MAGA reference could be construed as an ad hominin. To top it off, you refuse to substantiate your claim.

The only one trolling here is you.

No, you are engaged in MAGA-style deflection.

Let's have a criminal investigation of the leak.

That is distressing.


And on the side: any accusations about ad hominems from MAGA is very amusing.

Just be polite.

 

[struth]

‘Democratic lawmakers called for criminal investigations Wednesday into the conduct surrounding a sensitive group chat in which high-ranking Trump officials discussed military action against the Houthis.

Senate and House Democrats underscored the Espionage Act in letters to the Trump administration as they called for either Attorney General Pamela Bondi or a special counsel to review the activity of the Signal group chat, which has set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill.

The existence of the group chat was revealed by The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who reported he was accidentally added to the chat. On Wednesday, The Atlantic published the chat that included information about the attacks ahead of “the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, argued in a letter Wednesday that conduct in the group chat was “likely” a violation of the Espionage Act. “This situation is perhaps one of the most humiliating and dangerous national security breaches in modern American history,” Raskin said in the letter to Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, adding that the episode put the lives of American servicemembers at risk.’

Democrats seek criminal probe over group chat on Houthi strike - Roll Call

Democratic lawmakers called for criminal investigations Wednesday into the conduct surrounding a Signal chat discussing military action.

rollcall.com

Very good.

The incompetence and reckless disregard for security protocols is in fact criminal.

Does anyone that these dems seriously?

 

[Rawley]

That isn't correct, and if you can't find out basic facts, I'm not sure there's much point talking to you.

I posted Comey's report on the investigation. It was over 2,000 classified emails. You can stop kissing CLinton's Koo Koo, she's been irrelevant for more than a decade.

 

[Rawley]

She is gone all of these years later.

We are talking about Signal now, and nothing back then matters now.

You 'whataboutism' is nothing.

GOt it. Not surprising you want the law applied differently to Republicans. It's how your cult rolls.

 

[Polishprince]

They may well have a point here. An enemy journalist for the unamerican Atlantic got a hold of possibly sensitive communications. I suppose it might have just been a forgivable mistake.

But maybe not.

There could possibly be a seditious piece of shit in the federal government that did this on purpose.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I posted Comey's report on the investigation. It was over 2,000 classified emails. You can stop kissing CLinton's Koo Koo, she's been irrelevant for more than a decade.

Than do not "whataboutism" with her.

We are talking about serious MAGAt errors right now.

 

[Rawley]

Than do not "whataboutism" with her.

We are talking about serious MAGAt errors right now.

It's called precedent. Highlights the stark difference how your cult chooses to treat administration officials differently depending on whether they are a Republican or a Democrat.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, you are engaged in MAGA-style deflection.

That's not what you said. You said I was engaged in MAGA-style defense. When I asked you what I was defending, you refused to answer.

Let's have a criminal investigation of the leak.

Maybe there will be and maybe there won't. Nothing we say here will have any bearing on that.

That is distressing.


And on the side: any accusations about ad hominems from MAGA is very amusing.

I didn't accuse you of an ad hominem, I said it could be construed that way.

In either case, at the very least, your comment itself was a deflection in that it didn't address the argument itself, it addressed what you assumed to be my motive for making it.

The frequent MAGA references also mean you further assume that I'm a Trump supporter. An assumption that takes quite a leap considering I haven't said a word about Trump, his administration or even MAGA.

Just be polite.

Who are you talking to? Where was I not polite?