(03-26-2025 09:40 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-26-2025 09:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Hillary was a different situation. We didn't find out about it until after she was out of the position, IIRC. So there was no need to resign or be fired, etc. And she wasn't prosecuted because there was not likely to be a conviction. For a conviction, I believe you have to show it was done knowingly to get around some law. So in that context, I don't believe that was done here either. So I doubt any laws were broke here. But the guys involved could certainly be fired or asked to resign and that would be entirely appropriate IMO.

Come on. She knew why she was using her own email server. She was doing government business outside of an authorize government communications system, which she knew was illegal. She also knew sensitive and possibly classified information was flowing through it as well. Don't be so obtuse.

This is Tom we're talking about. You know that's impossible. lol

(03-26-2025 09:40 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-26-2025 09:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Hillary was a different situation. We didn't find out about it until after she was out of the position, IIRC. So there was no need to resign or be fired, etc. And she wasn't prosecuted because there was not likely to be a conviction. For a conviction, I believe you have to show it was done knowingly to get around some law. So in that context, I don't believe that was done here either. So I doubt any laws were broke here. But the guys involved could certainly be fired or asked to resign and that would be entirely appropriate IMO.

Come on. She knew why she was using her own email server. She was doing government business outside of an authorize government communications system, which she knew was illegal. She also knew sensitive and possibly classified information was flowing through it as well. Don't be so obtuse.

No desire to rehash all this again...but my point is that this is different. She was gone from office when it was uncovered.

Quote: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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/...ail-system

(03-26-2025 09:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-26-2025 09:40 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-26-2025 09:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Hillary was a different situation. We didn't find out about it until after she was out of the position, IIRC. So there was no need to resign or be fired, etc. And she wasn't prosecuted because there was not likely to be a conviction. For a conviction, I believe you have to show it was done knowingly to get around some law. So in that context, I don't believe that was done here either. So I doubt any laws were broke here. But the guys involved could certainly be fired or asked to resign and that would be entirely appropriate IMO.

Come on. She knew why she was using her own email server. She was doing government business outside of an authorize government communications system, which she knew was illegal. She also knew sensitive and possibly classified information was flowing through it as well. Don't be so obtuse.

No desire to rehash all this again...but my point is that this is different. She was gone from office when it was uncovered.

Quote: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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/...ail-system

therefore, RW = CP...

#linkySockPuppets

To those of you saying Signal was inappropriate, what system would you say should have been used?

Participants were spread around the world at the time. Per testimony, Signal was approved for that type usage.

If there is a problem with Signal (I think there is), the issue is developing a suitable replacement, rather than not allowing the participants to communicate. As per info yesterday, the admin is now working on developing a better communication system.

IMO, the mistake was not using Signal, since no reasonable alternative has been identified, but instead, it was allowing a reporter into the chat.

THAT was a mistake (or deliberate sabotage) that requires an investigation.

As for whether that info should have been classified, there is no target identified, and no timing identified, per a general's testimony today.

Dude fcked up and hopefully learned a lesson. It's up to his boss on what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken. It's not really up to the court of public opinion, imo.

(03-26-2025 09:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Hillary was a different situation. We didn't find out about it until after she was out of the position

that makes it worse.

(03-26-2025 10:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  To those of you saying Signal was inappropriate, what system would you say should have been used?

Participants were spread around the world at the time. Per testimony, Signal was approved for that type usage.

If there is a problem with Signal (I think there is), the issue is developing a suitable replacement, rather than not allowing the participants to communicate. As per info yesterday, the admin is now working on developing a better communication system.

IMO, the mistake was not using Signal, since no reasonable alternative has been identified, but instead, it was allowing a reporter into the chat.

THAT was a mistake (or deliberate sabotage) that requires an investigation.

Very tough to say based on what you stated above. However, they should use a system that is government owned if they are going to have classified or highly sensitive data on it. This allows for automatic archiving of the communications as well, which is the law.

Which leads me to other questions...

Are these government issued or personal devices that they used to send and receive the messages? If it is a personal device then it is highly inappropriate as they could have other apps on their device that has the ability to spy on them, including stealing usernames/passwords and/or data from other apps such as Signal. What kind of protection does the personal device use to keep others from accessing the device? If it is government issued then is the device locked down from installing apps and/or versions that haven't been vetted by the government and added to their approved list?

What kind of password requirements are there for Signal? Does it use multifactor authentication in order to access it or can anyone log in if they have the proper username and password?

Did they archive these messages as required by law?

Since the government is using it there really should be a "government" version of the app that connects to different back end infrastructure than the average person does (hence, not having a reporter invited to the group chat). It should also be locked down so only government owned equipment can reach the "government" instance of the application. Clearly it is using shared infrastructure with the average person thus I really question why any administration approved it for sensitive/classified communications. There is a reason why Google created a "government cloud" to keep them separated from their private business cloud.

lulz, this makes the most sense....

(03-26-2025 10:45 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  lulz, this makes the most sense....

Put down the paint chips, skippy.

(03-26-2025 10:38 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-26-2025 10:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  To those of you saying Signal was inappropriate, what system would you say should have been used?

Participants were spread around the world at the time. Per testimony, Signal was approved for that type usage.

If there is a problem with Signal (I think there is), the issue is developing a suitable replacement, rather than not allowing the participants to communicate. As per info yesterday, the admin is now working on developing a better communication system.

IMO, the mistake was not using Signal, since no reasonable alternative has been identified, but instead, it was allowing a reporter into the chat.

THAT was a mistake (or deliberate sabotage) that requires an investigation.

Very tough to say based on what you stated above. However, they should use a system that is government owned if they are going to have classified or highly sensitive data on it. This allows for automatic archiving of the communications as well, which is the law.

Which leads me to other questions...

Are these government issued or personal devices that they used to send and receive the messages? If it is a personal device then it is highly inappropriate as they could have other apps on their device that has the ability to spy on them, including stealing usernames/passwords and/or data from other apps such as Signal. What kind of protection does the personal device use to keep others from accessing the device? If it is government issued then is the device locked down from installing apps and/or versions that haven't been vetted by the government and added to their approved list?

What kind of password requirements are there for Signal? Does it use multifactor authentication in order to access it or can anyone log in if they have the proper username and password?

Did they archive these messages as required by law?

Since the government is using it there really should be a "government" version of the app that connects to different back end infrastructure than the average person does (hence, not having a reporter invited to the group chat). It should also be locked down so only government owned equipment can reach the "government" instance of the application. Clearly it is using shared infrastructure with the average person thus I really question why any administration approved it for sensitive/classified communications. There is a reason why Google created a "government cloud" to keep them separated from their private business cloud.

My understanding is there is no system currently available to the fed gov that is better than Signal, so until that is developed or provided, they have no choice.

As to your question about device access, 16 of the 18 participants were in their offices. The other two were overseas, All those in their offices have Signal pre-loaded on their computers. I have no idea about being overseas, but I would assume you have to use your phone.

As to access, my understanding from the hearing testimony is that access is a 2 step process, with the second step being a code number only provided to the user.

(03-24-2025 02:16 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-24-2025 02:14 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-24-2025 02:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Wow...who would have thought something like this could happen? With trump only employing the best and brightest!

Petey was probably loaded.

Clearly he isn't the one who started it.

It was probably one of his staffers who included the reporter in the group chat. That's just my guess.

What concerns me is why did a staffer have an anti Trump contact in his phone. To me it is obvious this person was leaking to this reporter. The left soliciting espionage. This is criminal. Same old bs with Progressive scumbags.

Having worked in both the Biden and Obama administrations I can tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt that they used every option available to them (including platforms much less safe than Signal) to subvert FOIA and intentionally keep comms off the government grid.

I would be very surprised if the Trump team used personal phones. We do have the ability to talk classified on specific cell phones but they're not really used for messaging. My unclass gov phone is controlled by my IT including all applications, messaging apps, etc on the phone. Signal doesn't require a password but you can require a pin to be used to access and of course someone would have to physically have access to the gov phone and be able to get into it, which is nearly impossible. You're not getting Signal messages remotely. The encryption is beyond even what the best AI can crack right now. FBI has had an immense amount of ass pain just trying to decrypt iphone passcodes which insanely difficult and orders of magnitude easier than decrypting Signal messages.

I've seen the messages. I don't think anything in there was TS much less compartmented. That's nothing but an attempt to make them look bad. But they definitely teetered the line on S/NF. And POTUS acknowledge it was a screw up and that they'll not make the same mistake again. It's amazing that when you're winning everyday the smallest of missteps becomes the only news story.

This is all they really have that could maybe, possibly, might, be a legitimate complaint.

This was dumb and careless for sure.... Should there be some consequence - yea probably. Do that and move on.

(03-26-2025 10:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  To those of you saying Signal was inappropriate, what system would you say should have been used?

Participants were spread around the world at the time. Per testimony, Signal was approved for that type usage.

If there is a problem with Signal (I think there is), the issue is developing a suitable replacement, rather than not allowing the participants to communicate. As per info yesterday, the admin is now working on developing a better communication system.

IMO, the mistake was not using Signal, since no reasonable alternative has been identified, but instead, it was allowing a reporter into the chat.

THAT was a mistake (or deliberate sabotage) that requires an investigation.

As for whether that info should have been classified, there is no target identified, and no timing identified, per a general's testimony today.

Agreed. Now Signal may not be a good platform, but it is one that has been used for a while. The real problem is adding the reporter. Just sloppy.

(03-26-2025 11:23 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  This is all they really have that could maybe, possibly, might, be a legitimate complaint.

This was dumb and careless for sure.... Should there be some consequence - yea probably. Do that and move on.

The only problem I see is why this fool's contact was in whomever set up the chat's phone. I would need an explanation on that one. The other stuff was nothing but, "Hey, everything we planned is taking place".

(03-26-2025 11:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-26-2025 10:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  To those of you saying Signal was inappropriate, what system would you say should have been used?

Participants were spread around the world at the time. Per testimony, Signal was approved for that type usage.

If there is a problem with Signal (I think there is), the issue is developing a suitable replacement, rather than not allowing the participants to communicate. As per info yesterday, the admin is now working on developing a better communication system.

IMO, the mistake was not using Signal, since no reasonable alternative has been identified, but instead, it was allowing a reporter into the chat.

THAT was a mistake (or deliberate sabotage) that requires an investigation.

As for whether that info should have been classified, there is no target identified, and no timing identified, per a general's testimony today.

Agreed. Now Signal may not be a good platform, but it is one that has been used for a while. The real problem is adding the reporter. Just sloppy.

Why did someone have an anti Trump reporter in their phone? This wasn’t just carelessness. Imo

(03-26-2025 10:45 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  lulz, this makes the most sense....

There is a conspiracy to latch onto for every situation.
The fact is, these folks are amateurs. They were hired, not for their competence, but for their lack there of. No one should be surprised and Trump supporters should applaud them; this is precisely what they voted for…

(03-26-2025 11:45 AM)No Bull Wrote:  Why did someone have an anti Trump reporter in their phone? This wasn’t just carelessness. Imo

Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer?

YAWN...

Already a non story.

Move on to your next exploding diarrhea moment lefties.

(03-26-2025 12:00 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-26-2025 11:45 AM)No Bull Wrote:  Why did someone have an anti Trump reporter in their phone? This wasn’t just carelessness. Imo

Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer?

I don’t think so. I mean I don’t have my ex wife in my phone, or my ex boss who I served as a whistleblower against. This has to be chased down and explained. Imo