We're back
to the Bleached Blond Bimbo Bondi. America's embarrassment Pam Bondi
continues to run and ruin the Dept. of Justice. Colby Hall (MEDIAITE) reports:
Attorney
General Pam Bondi defiantly defended the Trump administration when
asked whether the Department of Justice would investigate the alleged
security breach now known as Signalgate.
As
bipartisan pressure mounts over an apparent leak of classified
information that was inadvertently shared with The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey
Goldberg on an unsecured Signal app, attention has turned to whether the
irresponsible treatment of top-secret data merits a criminal
investigation. Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Forces
Committee, has already announced his intention to expedite the naming of
2an independent Inspector General to look into the matter.
At
the end of a Thursday morning press event to announce the arrest of an
MS-13 gang leader, the attorney general was asked, “Is DOJ involved at
this point? If so, why?, If not, why not?”
Bondi
defiantly defended the alleged breach, saying “Well, first, it was
sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released.” She
then immediately mimicked the very same White House talking points we’ve
heard from President Donald Trump, saying “And what we should be
talking about is it was a very successful mission. Our world is now
safer because of that mission. We’re not going to comment any further on
that.”
She then pivoted to a lamentation of older scandals that have long plagued Democrats.
“If
you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was at
Hillary Clinton’s home that she was trying to bleach bit. Talk about
that. that classified documents in Joe Biden’s garage that Hunter Biden
had access to,” said Bondi, rehashing two of the GOP’s favorite talking
points from the last few election cycles.
Do you get the many, many problems with that? That's why you don't put a bimbo in charge of the Justice Department.
Secondly,
you have no control over what Justice did before you were put in
charge. That shouldn't even be an issue. You are now in charge and you
should be doing your job which would be launching an investigation;
however, you don't know justice and you don't know the law and you
clearly don't even know how to buy a bra that actually fits.
Blond
Bimbo Bondi is an embarrassment and the all time worst Attorney General
the country has ever had. Do your job, Blond Bimbo, or quit. We're
not paying your salary for you to play Dumb Blond daily in public.
Thursday, March 27, 2025. Congress holds another hearing on the
Chump administration's security breach and Tulsi Gabbard has a new
excuse -- she was late to the chat. Senator Tammy Duckworth rightly
notes that all the officials in the chat should be fired immediately.
And much more.
Yesterday's snapshot covered the security breach that's
let Americans know just how unsafe things truly are. Without knowing
they had done so, many administration officials -- and the Vice
President -- did a group chat on the unsecure app Signal and discussed a
bombing that the US was about to carry out. All were at risk of being
exposed to unintended eyes since it is not a secure app but this was
especially an issue for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard
and National Security Advisor Michael Walz because they were using the
unsecure app while outside of the US -- at a hearing we'll be covering
in a few paragraphs below, US House Rep Jim Himes sarcastically termed the breach "a madcap Signal about an attack on Yemen while inside Russia."
Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added in and was privy to
all the information leading up to the bombing and after.
This
is information that is top secret and it doesn't matter if Convicted
Felon Donald Chump wants to say it's not classified or not. It was top
secret. Had Goldberg gone on ABC NEWS immediately and started
announcing, "We're about to bomb another country," the government would
have moved to shut down the broadcast or to abort the mission. They would not have wanted those
details out.
Though the
always delusional Rashida Tlaib didn't get it and wants to whine that
we're not!!! just not!!! discussing whether the bombing was a proper
response!!! That's not the issue and we're are yet again at a point
where the American people just cannot afford her stupidity. It's really
time for her to consider a post-Congress career.
A)
Nothing is stopping her from holding her own hearing exploring the pros
and cons of the bombing. It might be a 'committee' hearing of one --
but she can do that and I attended many tiny 'committees' made up only
of Democrats prior to the 2006 mid-terms.
B)
That is not the issue. It is not the big and most important issue.
Just as her stupidity has condemned the Palestinian people to more
violence and left blood on the hands of Genocide Rashida as a result of
her work to put Chump back in the White House, she's missing the point
today.
Our national
intelligence is the topic. This goes to the fact that the people in
these posts do not know what they are doing. Prior to their
confirmation hearings, I noted here of Trashy Garbage (Trina's longterm
name for Tulsi Gabbard), Pete Hegseth and others that Chump's going to
be responsible if we have an attack on our soil like 9/11 again. He's
going to be responsible. His unqualified appointees are going to be
responsible and the senators who voted to confirm these idiots are going
to be responsible.
I don't want another 9/11 -- no, American does. But we are at risk when idiots are put into national security positions.
Now
we've just seen that these idiots don't know enough to carry out a
secure chat. That's alarming and it should really lead us all to once
again grasp the need for experience in these positions.
Heads
should roll on this. Not living in Rashida World where crazy runs
free, I know we'll be damn lucky for this administration to take enough
accountability to fire even one of the idiots responsible.
If
that happens, it is all the more important that whomever is nominated
to be a replacement is qualified. That means no FOX "NEWS"
personalities, Congressional freaks, etc. The person needs to be
qualified. I may not like them and that's fine. But it is not fine for
America to do with seventy-seventh best because Chump wants to reward
his cronies.
Again,
Rashida needs to shut her damn mouth. No one needs her. DSA might
raise money for her to run for re-election as an open Socialist but
Democrats really aren't feeling like helping her campaign after her 2024
decision to put Chump in the White House.
So
Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing. It was a
nightmare. As we noted, three of the five government officials
appearing before the Committee had "intelligence" in their job title yet
all sported stupidity.
Wednesday,
it was time for the House Intelligence Committee to see the witnesses. Director National
Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA DIRECTOR John Ratcliffe, FBI Director
Kash Patel, National Security Agency Director Tim Haugh and Defense
Intelligence Agency Director Jeff Kruse. Yes, the same five who
appeared before the Senate Intel Committee.
US House Rep Jim Himes is the Ranking Member on the Committee.
Now
we come to learn that people in the most dangerous and sensitive jobs
on the planet put extremely specific predecisional discussions about a
military attack on Signal which could be intercepted by the Russians and
the Chinese. Everyone here knows that the Russians or the Chinese
could have gotten all of that information and they could have passed it
on to the Houthis who easily could have repositioned weapons and
altered their plans to to knock down planes or sink ships. I think that
it's by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots
right now.
Let's all take a moment to absorb that.
Ranking Member Jim Himes: Now
we come to learn that people in the most dangerous and sensitive jobs
on the planet put extremely specific predecisional discussions about a
military attack on Signal which could be intercepted by the Russians and
the Chinese. Everyone here knows that the Russians or the Chinese
could have gotten all of that information and they could have passed it
on to the Houthis who easily could have repositioned weapons and altered
their plans to to knock down planes or sink ships. I think that it's
by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots right
now.
Do
you get it? I'm sure community members do and even most drive-bys.
But I'm not sure everyone gets it. Rashida Tlaib clearly does not get
it.
Gang
of Rashida can't ever shut up about "her people." I'm sorry, I thought
she was an American. Americans aren't "her people"? I see she can
slash that red lipstick across her butt ugly face and scream for
the cameras about Palestinians and about immigrants if they're
immigrants who protested Israel. Don't see her doing much else. "Her
people"? If that's the case, she needs to get out of OUR Congress. She
has belittled this security breach and made clear that she doesn't give a
damn about American lives. She also made that clear when she worked to
elect Donald Chump. Rashida and Gang of Rashida need to be watched very
closely because they will destroy us all given the chance and given
their short-sighted and narcissistic ways. Rashida, you don't like the
bombing. Guess what, you're a member of Congress. Take it to
the f**king floor and protect Americans. Otherwise shut your damn mouth
because we're focused on saving the United States, unlike you, we love
this country, unlike you. Go tend to "your people" but stop pretending
that you are a US Congress woman because you're just a seat filler
marking time.
It
took two months, but we finally have our first "gate" of the second
Trump administration: "Signalgate" — and it's a doozy. You are no doubt
aware by now that The Atlantic has published an article reporting that
the top national security officials known as the "Principals Committee"
were gathered together in a Signal group chat to discuss the impending
bombing campaign against the Houthi rebels in Yemen and accidentally
included the magazine's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, in the chat
without realizing it.
In
the chat, they discussed policy concerns about the campaign, slagged
the European allies, shared what experts say are by definition
classified battle plans, which included "precise information about
weapons packages, targets, and timing" and even mentioned the name of a
covert CIA officer. Goldberg published an article about it on Monday,
complete with screenshots of the chat, although he did not publish the
classified information or the name of the CIA officer. On Wednesday, the
Atlantic published more from the group chat:
That
these high-level national security officials were all using a
commercial app on personal phones that could easily be breached by
state-level actors is bad enough. (One of the members on the call,
special envoy Steve Witkoff, was actually in Moscow at the time.) But
considering their previous outrage at Hillary Clinton's use of a
personal email server, you would have thought that it would have crossed
the mind of at least one of them that this was dangerous. There is no
other way to interpret any of that except to assume that they commonly
use Signal for such discussions in contravention of every security
protocol in the U.S. government.
When
you think about it, though, why wouldn't they? Their leader stubbornly
refused to give up his own personal phone and made a fetish of blabbing
national security secrets since his first term. Recall that right after
he fired FBI Director James Comey, he had the Russian foreign minister
and ambassador over to the Oval Office for a chat where he shared some
very closely held classified information (which later turned out to be
about Israel). After he was out of office, he stole boxes full of
classified documents, stored them in his toilet and refused to give them
back. He was indicted for that but the Justice Department dropped the
charges when he won the election.
It's
outrageous -- what happened is outrageous to those of us with a brain
-- and that's regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. Isaac Schorr (MEDIAITE) notes:
National
Review executive editor Mark Wright called on President Donald Trump to
fire Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth over his divulgement of
“operational details” regarding the American strikes on Yemen’s Houthi
rebels over Signal earlier this month.
“The
whole story is a tale so clownish, so stunning, so outlandish that it
would seem to better fit into a gonzo satire of government ineptitude
such as Burn After Reading or Veep,” observed Wright regarding National
Security Adviser Mike Waltz’s adding of The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg
to the Signal group chat in which top officials — including Hegseth,
Waltz, and Vice President JD Vance — were discussing the plan for the
strikes.
“It goes without saying that Trump
won’t fire everyone involved in this debacle, which would include most
of his senior national-security staff,” continued Wright before laying
out his case for giving Hegseth the axe:
In my
view, the most egregious behavior was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s.
(The stupidest was National Security Adviser Mike Waltz’s adding of
Goldberg to the conversation in the first place.)
Pete
Hegseth — the top civilian in the Department of the Defense and a man
who has command authority over U.S. military operations worldwide —
texted information, over an unsecured channel, that “contained
operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including
information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and
attack sequencing.” That’s shocking, egregious, and totally outrageous.
President Trump should demand Pete Hegseth’s resignation. Today.
It really is that obvious. And that's why FOX "NEWS" has disappeared their own journalist Jennifer
Griffin. She's their expert on national security. And she's been
commenting on TWITTER but no air time for her on the 'news' network. Andrew Stanton (NEWSWEEK) observes, "The
Wall Street Journal wrote Wednesday in an Opinion column that Witkoff's
reported use of Signal while discussing sensitive topics such as the
conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine amounted to 'security
malpractice,' raising concerns about possible Russian surveillance." ABC NEWS adds, "Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer and top Senate Democrats from national security
committees wrote a letter to President Donald Trump seeking more
information about reports that members of his cabinet used the Signal
app to convene a group chat to 'coordinate and share classified
information about sensitive military planning operations' and mistakenly
included The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeff Goldberg." Amanda Castro (NEWSWEEK) reports, "The
Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker, is requesting
an expedited Inspector General probe of the Signal group chat leak. Republican
Wicker told reporters he was working with Democrat ranking member of
the committee, Sen. Jack Reed, to ask for the probe and to seek a
classified briefing on it."
Here's US Senator Adam Schiff speaking about the breach and the implications with Jen Psaki last night on MSNBC.
And here's Senator Tammy Duckworth speaking with Rachel Maddow last night.
As
Senator Tammy Duckworth notes, Hegseth doesn't know how to handle
classified information -- and Rachel outlines his earlier mishandling of
information. He is Secretary of Defense and, as Tammy Duckworth
notes, "he put those pilots in danger."
Back to yesterday's House Intelligence Committee hearing.
Ranking Member Jim Himes: It
took two months, but we finally have our first "gate" of the second
Trump administration: "Signalgate" — and it's a doozy. You are no doubt
aware by now that THE ATLANTIC has published an article reporting that
the top national security officials known as the "Principals Committee"
were gathered together in a Signal group chat to discuss the impending
bombing campaign against the Houthi rebels in Yemen and accidentally
included the magazine's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, in the chat
without realizing it. The two general officers sitting at
the table and the people who work for them know that if
they had set up and participated in the Signal chat, they would be
gone. And they know that there's only one response to a mistake of this
magnitude: You apologize, you own it and you stop everything until you
can figure out what went wrong and how it might not ever happen again.
But that's not what happened. The Secretary of Defense responded with a
brutal attack on the reporter who did not ask to be on the Signal
chain. Yesterday, our former colleague Michael Waltz did the same in
the White House and then went on FOX to call Jeff Goldberg a loser.
What do you think the people who work for you are seeing and learning
from that? Now, except for the last part, almost all of the Mayhem
slowly eroding our safety, our standing and our security in the world
has largely happened outside the IC. If you had a part in that -- and I
suspect you did: Thank you. I'll say it again and every time we see
each other over the next couple of years. You must protect the
thousands of patriots
Let's note a round of questioning.
Ranking
Member Jim Himes: If there's something I care as much about as the
national security of the United States, it's the power and prerogatives
of this Congress and its oversight duties. So I want to spend a minute
or so on yesterday's testimony in front of the Senate and direct these
questions in particular to Director Patel and Director Gabbard.
Yesterday, Senator Heinrich asked did this conversation -- referring to
the chat -- include information on weapons, packages, targets or
timing? Director Patel you said, "Not that I'm aware of." Director
Gabbard, you said the same in your answer. This morning, we learned
that the Signal chat included the following update -- forward looking
update -- from the Secretary of Defense:
“TIME NOW (1144): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.”
“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
1345:
‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @
his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch
(MQ-9s)”
“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
Ranking
Member Jim Himes: Do either of the directors want to reflect on their
testimony from yesterday in the context of what I just read?
FBI
Director Kash Patel: (One) I was not on that Signal chat. (Two) I
have not reviewed it. Uh (Three), as you just indicated, that was made
public this morning.
Ranking Member Jim Himes: But, Director, you didn't, prior to yesterday -- you were on the Signal chat, weren't you?
FBI Director Kash Patel: No.
Ranking Member Jim Himes: Did you review the material on the Signal chat?
FBI Director Kash Patel: No.
Ranking Member Jim Himes: Director Gabbard?
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: Yes,
Ranking Member, my answer yesterday was based on my recollection or the
lack of thereof on the details that were posted there. I, uh, was not
and the-the -- What was shared today reflects the fact that I was not
directly involved with that part of the Signal chat and replied at the
end reflecting the effects -- the very brief effects of -- that the
National Security Advisor had shared.
Ranking Member Jim Himes: So
it's your testimony that less than two weeks ago you were on a Signal
chat that had all this information on F18s and MQ9 Reapers and Targets
on strike and you, in that two week period, simply forgot that that was
there? That's you testimony?
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: My testimony is I did not recall the exact details of what was included there.
Ranking
Member Jim Himes: That was not your testimony. Your testimony was that
you were not aware of anything related to weapons, packages, targets
and timing.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: Uh,
as the testimony yesterday continued on, there were further, uh,
questions related to that where I acknowledged that there was, uh, a
conversation about weapons and, uh, uuuuhhhh, I don't remember the exact
wording that I used but I did not recall the specific details that were
included.
Ranking Member Jim Himes: Director
Gabbard, we've -- you've reasserted that there was no classified
information. I think we can all agree that that information shouldn't
have been out there. But let me ask you this, are you familiar with the
ODNI's classification guidance.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: I'm familiar.
Ranking
Member Jim Himes: I've actually got a copy right here. If I read you a
part of that guidance, I wonder if you could tell me the level of
classification indicated is? I'm reading from your classification
guidance. "The criteria is information providing indication or advance
warning that the US or its allies are preparing an attack." Do you
recall what your own guidance would suggest that be classified?
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: Uh,
I don't have the specifics in front of me but it would point to, uh,
what was shared would fall under the DoDs classification system and the
Secretary of Defense's --
Ranking
Member Jim Himes: Let me -- let me help you because there's a very
clear answer. I guess you don't have it but "Information providing" --
this is the ODNI guidance "Information providing indication or advance
warning that the US or its allies are preparing an attack should be
classified as top secret." Do you disagree with that?
Director
of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: I don't disagree with that. I
just point out that the DoD classification guidance is separate from the
ODNI's classification guidance --
Ranking Member Jim Himes: Do you think it would be materially different?
Director
of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: Ultimately the Secretary of
Defense holds the authority to classify or declassify
Ranking Member Jim Himes: Do you think it's likely that DoD guidance is different from what I just read?
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: I haven't reviewed the DoD guidance so I can't comment.
Ranking
Member Jim Himes: Director Gabbard, a lot of this suggests a lack of
sobriety. When there's punch emojis [in the Signat conversation
thread], fire emojis, it's a lack of sobriety. I don't mean that
literally. But I have one last question for you because I think people
really listen to what you have to say. You, on March 15th, as DNI
reTweeted a post from Ian Miles Cheong who is listed on RT --
that's RUSSIA TODAY's website as "a political and cultural commentator"
who has contributed content to RT since at least 2022. Director
Gabbard, do you think that it's responsible for you as head of the
intelligence community and the principal presidential intelligence
advisor to reTweet posts from individuals affiliated with Russia state
media?
Director
of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: That reTweet came from my
personal account and I would have to go back to look at the substance of
the Tweet.
Ranking
Member Jim Himes: Can I -- Just so that we don't have a lack of
confusion amongst our allies and, enemies and us-- can I ask perhaps
that you not say one thing on your personal account than you say
officially?
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: Uh, I maintain my First Amendment right to
There is so much wrong with the above.
First,
free speech isn't you reTweeting a propaganda outlet -- especially when
you're the Director of National Intelligence. There should not be a
centimeter of space between what she says as DNI and what she Tweets "as
a private person." You're not a private person, you idiot. You're the
head of intelligence for the US government. That she doesn't grasp
that may be the scariest thing about her statements.
Second,
most of us have been in meetings, right? I don't care whether it's
face-to-face or via some app or a conference call, if I'm in meeting, I
make sure I know who everyone in the meeting is. Tulsi appers to want
to push it off on Pete Hegseth. He clearly is responsible as is Waltz.
But everyone of the government participants are responsible.
Tulsi seems to believe she can get an excuse and a do-over by claiming she joined the chat late.
I've
walked in late to many a meeting and scanned the room as I sat down to
make sure I knew everyone and to immediately ask someone I didn't know
who they were.
She joined late so that's her excuse?
No.
She came in a group chat and it was her responsibility before saying a
word to see who the participants were on that chat. That comes with her
job.
What she seems to be arguing is, "I didn't know
a journalist was present so it's not my fault because everybody who
knows me knows that I just start spilling all the secrets the minute my
mouth opens so it's their job to make sure no one's put in front of me
that hasn't been cleared because I'm far too lazy to check anything out
myself."
They should all lose their jobs is what Senator Tammy Duckworth told Rachel last night on MSNBC and I think she's correct.
Tuesday's
Senate hearing, covered in yesterday's snapshot, included some strong
questions from Senator Jack Reed. Yesterday, his office issued the
following:
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Jack Reed
(D-RI), the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee today
joined Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and top Senate Democrats
on key national security committees in seeking information about members
of President Trump’s cabinet using the Signal app to convene a group
chat to “coordinate and share classified information about sensitive military planning operations.”
In a letter to President Trump,
the U.S. Senators sounded the alarm over the public discovery that the
Trump Administration has been sharing discussions of classified military
operations via unsecured text chains, jeopardizing national security,
and endangering the lives of American servicemembers. The letter was
also cc’ed to Attorney General Pam Bondi as well as numerous Trump
administration officials who were reportedly members of the Signal group
chat, including: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John
Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Director of National
Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Reed and Schumer, along with U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice
Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee; U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen
(D-NH), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; U.S.
Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland
Security Committee; U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of
the Senate Judiciary Committee; and U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE),
Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, are
pressing for answers to questions after The Atlantic revealed
that an unsecured text chain with at least 18 senior-level Trump
administration officials was used to coordinate and share highly
sensitive military planning and operations information. This reckless
operational security failure made a sensitive military mission
vulnerable to interception by U.S. adversaries, and was exposed after
the group inexplicably included a journalist, damaging our national
security and risking the lives of American servicemembers.
“We write to you with extreme alarm about the astonishingly poor judgment shown by your Cabinet and national security advisors,” the seven Senators wrote. “You
have long advocated for accountability and transparency in the
government, particularly as it relates to the handling of classified
information, national security, and the safety of American
servicemembers. As such, it is imperative that you address this breach
with the seriousness and diligence that it demands.”
The Senators note the willful or negligent disclosure of classified
information constitutes a criminal offense and call for Attorney General
Bondi to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation.
Additionally, the Senators demanded answers to ten questions, more
information about the “Houthi PC small group” chat, and if any other
classified information is currently being discussed on unsecured text
chains in a similar fashion by senior administration officials.
We have learned that members of your Cabinet recently convened a
group chat on the commercial messaging app “Signal” to discuss active,
highly classified military plans and operations, and that they
mistakenly included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic in this group.
The group, which was titled “Houthi PC small group,” apparently
encompassed at least 18 people including your Vice President;
Secretaries of Defense, State, and Treasury; National Security Advisor;
CIA Director; Director of National Intelligence; White House Chief of
Staff; and several other senior appointees.
Over the course of several days, this group chat reportedly
discussed operational plans, targets, and weapon systems for upcoming
U.S. military strikes in Yemen, and provided after-action battlefield
damage assessments. These messages allegedly provided detailed
intelligence about the movements and future locations of specific
military assets and personnel in active combat zones. The group chat
also contained extremely sensitive conversations between the Vice
President and Cabinet officials that could have a negative impact on our
diplomatic efforts with foreign allies and partners, particularly in
Europe. We are aware that the Director of National Intelligence, and
possibly others, appears to have been overseas while this group chat was
active, making the entire discussion more vulnerable to interception by
foreign adversaries. Inexplicably, throughout the days-long chat
conversation, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic remained in the group
chat and his presence was never questioned.
Let us be clear, if any American military servicemember,
intelligence official, or law enforcement officer committed such an
egregious breach of operational security and endangered the lives of
their comrades downrange, they would be investigated and likely
prosecuted.
We write to you with extreme alarm about the astonishingly poor
judgment shown by your Cabinet and national security advisors. You have
long advocated for accountability and transparency in the government,
particularly as it relates to the handling of classified information,
national security, and the safety of American servicemembers. As such,
it is imperative that you address this breach with the seriousness and
diligence that it demands.
Our committees have serious questions about this incident, and
members need a full accounting to ensure it never happens again.
Moreover, given that willful or negligent disclosure of classified or
sensitive national security information may constitute a criminal
violation of the Espionage Act or other laws, we expect Attorney General
Bondi, copied here, to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation
of the conduct of the government officials involved in improperly
sharing or discussing such information. We also ask that you immediately
direct relevant officials to preserve records of these communications
and any other discussions of government business occurring on any
messaging application. Some of the messages in the Signal chat were
apparently set to disappear after a certain period of time – a potential
violation of both the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records
Act.
We hereby request answers to the following:
1. Please provide a complete and unredacted transcript of
the “Houthi PC small group” chat for review by our appropriate
committees in a secure setting.
2. Please provide a complete list of all personnel who
participated in or had access to the “Houthi PC small group” chat.
3. What dates was the “Houthi PC small group” established
and when was the last message transmitted to the Signal group chat?
4. Were there any other individuals, in addition to
Jeffrey Goldberg, who were erroneously included in the “Houthi PC small
group” chat?
5. Did any U.S. government personnel access the “Houthi PC small group” chat using personal communication devices?
6. Were any personnel who participated in or had access
to the “Houthi PC small group” chat traveling overseas while the group
chat was active? If yes, on which devices did group members operate
while accessing the group chat?
7. Did any individuals transfer classified information,
including operational war plans, from classified systems to unclassified
systems, and if so, how?
8. Has the intelligence community conducted a damage
assessment of the potential leakage of classified and sensitive
information via the “Houthi PC small group” chat and subsequent
reporting?
9. Are any Cabinet level officials, their deputies or
other designees, or White House officials using Signal or other
commercial products to discuss classified or sensitive information or
any communications subject to statutory recordkeeping requirements?
10. If so, how is the Administration ensuring that it meets
its statutory requirements with regard to these conversations?
You and your Cabinet are responsible for the safety and security
of the American people, as well as our military servicemembers and
intelligence personnel in the field. We expect your Administration to
address this dangerous lapse in security protocol—whether intended or
not—with the utmost seriousness, and to uphold the ethic of
accountability that our nation holds sacred. We must work together to
ensure this does not happen again, and we look forward to reviewing the
forthcoming reports.
Sincerely,
I was hoping to squeeze in another
hearing in this snapshot. There's really not room. Maybe we'll pick up
tomorrow or maybe Ava and I'll work it into our piece for THIRD this
weekend. I'm also still looking for a video segment from Rachel's
Monday show. I am not finding it at MSNBC but if I can, I will put it
in Friday's snapshot.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray
(D-WA), Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair, and Congresswoman
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations
Committee, issued the following joint statement after the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) moved to unlawfully hide how the agency
directs agencies to spend taxpayer dollars. OMB hid this information by
destroying a website that publicly displayed all of these decisions, known as apportionments.
“Federal law is unequivocal: OMB must publish the agency’s
legally-binding budget decisions. Congress enacted these requirements
over a Democratic President’s objections on a bipartisan basis because
our constituents, and all American taxpayers, deserve transparency and
accountability for how their money is being spent. Taking down this
website is not just illegal it is a brazen move to hide this
administration’s spending from the American people and from Congress. We
call on OMB to immediately restore access to the website and resume
compliance with this most basic, bipartisan transparency requirement.”
Apportionments are legally binding budget decisions issued by OMB
under title 31 of the U.S. Code. These documents are final, decisional,
and legally binding on agencies, and officials responsible for violating
an apportionment may be subject to administrative discipline, including
suspension without pay and termination, and the knowing and willful violation of an apportionment carries with it criminal penalties under the Antideficiency Act.
The 2022 bipartisan appropriations bills instated a requirement for
OMB to publicly post in an accessible format all approved apportionments
within two business days, along with any footnotes, an explanation for
those footnotes. The following year, Congress made those requirements
permanent. Those bipartisan requirements have been carried out for the
last three years without incident—allowing lawmakers and the public to
track OMB’s legal-binding budget decisions.
As of March 24, however, OMB’s apportionments database was taken down
with no notice or explanation, and reporting indicates the website was
destroyed in defiance of the bipartisan requirements enshrined in
federal law that OMB maintain the site.
Importantly, there have never been national security concerns
associated with this statutory requirement, and the law requires OMB to
make any classified documentation referenced in any apportionment
available at the request of the Chair or Ranking Member of any
appropriate congressional committee. Classified programs are frequently
addressed in public statutory language, including in the recently passed
Republican full year continuing resolution, with classified annexes
available on a need-to-know basis.
Hagatha Greene is ticked off.
The old crone, the young woman, the evil queen, sweet Snow. It's a tale
that dates back forever because there are always some hags who hate the
young pretty one.
Rep.
Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) slammed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(D-N.Y.) as a “woman that has really no life experience.” Lauren Irwin (THE HILL) reports:
Greene
levied the attack on Ocasio-Cortez, who has positioned herself as a
leading voice for the Democratic Party as its voters grow more
frustrated with the Trump administration, during an appearance Tuesday
on “The Eric Bolling Show.”
“This
is a woman, she’s never been married, she has no children, she’s never
had a job other than working in a bar, and that was short term for what
we understand, she’s never run a business,” Greene said. “This is a
woman that has really no life experience and has no life wisdom because
she’s never done any of those things.”
Poor
old hag. Marjorie is one to talk. First of all, if AOC's "never had a
job other than working in a bar," working in a bar would be her first
job. It would not be her last. She's served in the US Congress for
some time (in fact, two years longer than Haffy Greene). Second, we all
know lazy fat ass MTG worked for her parents, right? After ten years
of doing that job, big girl decided to work part-time as a trainer
because with all the hail damage on those legs, Madge couldn't work full
time as a trainer since she couldn't attract enough clients. Then she
indulged her crazy for a few years. Then she came to Congress and
started catting around thereby breaking up her marriage to Perry
Greene. Should she really be commenting on AOC not being married since
MTG went to Congress four years ago as a family values type and quickly
kicked out her husband? She's got that strange guy now in her life.
Lauren Boebert -- former MTG friend but now bitter foe -- tells everyone
who will listen that Marje's boy toy is gay and he certainly comes off
that way. She's flabby, fat and wrinkled so she may have to pay for it
these days.
That could also explain her bitter and catty attacks on AOC.
They gave Chump a second term. That's the horror we live with every day.
And stop a moment with us.
You've
seen Chris Hayes 'analyze' the results and what happened. You've seen
THE NATION do the same -- the Marxist NATION because Katrina put a
Marxist in charge. You've seen corporate media analyze and YOUTUBE
analyze and you've seen a lot of lying. A lot.
Us? We feel like THE RESIDENCE's Cordelia Cupp because we stuck to reality.
A
lot of people flat out lied and did so intentionally. After every
election cycle, for example, you get regressive Dem A who uses their
hatred of this or that civil right to insist that this cost the election
and the Democratic Party has just gone too far left for the country!
They
spew their lies knowingly and they get on TV and online at 'magazine'
sites and it happens every four years. If you're like us, you long ago
realized that it's all a game. Why do we say that? If the candidate
was really too left, flairs would have gone up because pre-election
polling would have shown that the candidate was grossly out of step with
the country. You can also just use common sense buecase no true
Democrat running for president in a general election is ever going to be
too left for the American people -- or at least not in our lifetimes.
Then
you get the other group and we're a little more forgiving of them.
They lie to try to keep the party titled left (however small that tit
may be). And we're more forgiving on them because they are in the
minority and only one or two will break through in corporate media while
the bulk will have to make the point online. But they argue, "This
candidate didn't _____ and it cost them ____!"
For
2024, that type of liar would be anyone whining -- yes, whining --
about Gaza because the reality was and remains that the Democratic Party
was never of one mind on Gaza. Any presidential candidate was going to
have to walk a tight rope when it came to that issue.
But
the scramble after the election -- especially in the first two months
after -- is never about reality, it's about scoring points and trying to
force the party in the direction you want them to move.
Which
is why it's liars to the left of us, liars to the right, stuck in Chump
Land here we are. And we'll be stuck somewhere even worse if we don't start
dealing with reality.
Over
the weekend, MEIDASTOUCH NEWS' Ben Meiselas did a segment exposing the
liar running for judge in Wisconsin, Brad Schimel, noting how the man
that Musk was
backing had repeatedly lied and insisted he wasn't MAGA. Ben observed,
"Here's the thing, if you're Trumpy, just say you're Trumpy. Let the
voters decide."
Exactly. Couldn't agree with Ben more.
Also over the weekend, THE
BULWARK did a segment entitled "President AOC!? VP BERNIE!? Dem
Influencer Under Fire for FLIRTY LIES! (w/ Jessica Burbank) | FYPod" and
let's note the introduction:
Tim Miller: I'm Tim Miller.
Cameron Casky: And I'm Cameron Casky
Tim Miller: And
we're here with yet another friend of Cameron -- unclear if they're
bisexual -- so far all of Cam's friends have been bisexual, I think.
And so I'm very excited to meet her. She, I can tell, from a brief
social media glance is Marxist adjacent which is exciting We're going to
hit all -- we're going to hit the whole ideological spectrum over the
next two weeks because I think we have a MAGA guest coming next week.
So I'm very excited to meet Jessica Burbank. What's up girl?
Jessica Burbank: Thanks for not calling me liberal. You've got a good political education if you've know that.
Tim Miller: I'm the lib now. I'm the lib. And you guys are different.
Do you see what they did there?
No?
Well
they didn't pull a Chris Hayes. Last week, on MSNBC, Chris brought on
the disgusting Waleed Shahid. The Socialist hates Kamala Harris and
worked overtime to demolish her chances at becoming president (which,
use your logical skills, means he worked to put Chump back in the White
House). Chris is fully aware of that and he's known Waleed is a
Socialist forever and a day. But there was Waleed, brought on to talk
the state of 'our party.' No.
If you're a Trumpy, say you're a Trumpy. If you're a Marxist, own that as well.
But they won't do it. They cover for each other.
If
a Socialist wants to weigh in on the Democratic Party why can't they be
honest that they're not Democrats and why do hosts like Chris Hayes lie
for them?
We
analyzed the Kamala Harris campaign in real time which is why we didn't
have to scramble to figure out what went down when she lost. A network
of Socialists joined together to lie about her, to pose as Democrats,
to use their programs to pretend that these people were Democrats.
Now, as in THE RESIDENCE, new pieces of evidence and new angles emerge over time.
Kshama Sawant.
Not
being women who grow out our armpit hair and then braiding it, we
really
didn't know or care about Sawant. She was just another freak. A little
uglier than most, but nothing that stood out to us. She stood out to
some people -- like Kyle Kulinski who's been bringing her on his YOUTUBE
program for over 11 years. You know Kyle, the trickster, who, with Cenk
started a group for Socialists but called it "Justice Democrats"
because without the lie most of them couldn't have gotten elected.
Sawant? She's a psycho freak who accomplishes
nothing and never will. She managed to make it onto a city council,
Seattle, where she got the year book credit (a Socialist makes it onto a
city council!) but she did nothing. A foul looking freak, she was part
of Socialist Alternative.
She left them. She infiltrated DSA -- Democratic Socialists of America.
And
when we learned that last week, a lot of things started making sense. A
writer at THE NATION insisted they told us about her infiltration in
2023. We don't remember that. A friend at THE PROGRESSIVE said the
same thing. We told both of them that what we recalled of that
conversation was how the wrong elements were joining DSA and steering it
from its original purpose. We could be a lot more concrete than that
-- and were on the phone -- but we don't want out the two who were
warning us all along and who were the first to explain to us that
Katrina vanden Heuvel (co-owner of THE NATION, bad writer, everyone she
touches dies, etc etc) was determined to sink Kamala's campaign -- told
us that back in July.
So Arm Pitty Sawant and her freak followers infiltrated DSA and that's how they ended up pulling this nonsense.
They
did in 2000 as well. That's when Ralph Nader was going to save them
and the country. Nader, of course, helped lead to the Iraq War.
This
go round has led to even worse. In Chump Land, everyone's in the cross
hairs -- children, women, people of color, immigrants, veterans,
farmers, seniors, scientists, journalists, attorneys, go down the
list.
Wednesday, March 25, 2025. One embarrassment after another for Chump
and his administration as directors appear before the Senate and, look,
over there, crazy ass Rashida Tlaib yet again playing the village idiot
and missing the point.
Clearly,
if you listen to what he said, he's parsing the words. The Secretary of
Defense is parsing the words because he's angry when people make
mistakes
Again, the question: Is he drunk?
The
boozehound's drinking has caused numerous problems for him throughout
his life and work and it is so bad that he swore that, if confirmed of
Secretary of Defense, he wouldn't drink.
Is he drunk?
Housnia Shams (IRISH TIMES) notes, "House
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has labelled Pete Hegseth 'the most
unqualified person to lead the Pentagon,' after a report suggested the
Defense Secretary and other Trump administration officials mistakenly
leaked secret plans about military strikes in Yemen to a journalist." Erik De La Garza (RAW STORY) notes former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg posted to social media, “From
an operational security perspective, this is the highest level of
f---up imaginable. These people cannot keep America safe.” To CNN, Pete
Buttigieg offered, "Our current secretary of Defense
hadn’t shown a lot of evidence of . . . running a large organization
or, let alone running a large organization well, and he got put in
charge of the largest organization in the United States of America and
the most important organization in the world, which is the U.S.
Department of Defense,"
Yesterday,
the Senate Intelligence Committee held an open hearing that was
previously planned and ended up being the first hearing in which those
involved in the security breach were before Congress.
The
witnesses were Tulsi Gabbard the Director of National Intelligence,
Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash
Patel, NSA Director Tim Haugh and Defense Intelligence Agency Director
Jeff Kruse. Despite three out of five witnesses having the term
"intelligence" in their job title, the five served up a lot of
stupidity. Repeatedly.
In case anyone is late to the party, let's note this from Committee Vice Chair Senator Mark Warner's opening remarks:
Vice
Chair Mark Warner: Yesterday, we stunningly learned that senior members
of this administration and according to reports, two of our witnesses
here today, were members of a group chat that discussed highly sensitive
and likely classified information that supposedly even included
‘weapons packages, targets and timing,’ and included the name of an
active CIA agent. Putting aside for a moment that classified
information should never be discussed over an unclassified system, it's
also just mind boggling to me that all these senior folks were on this
line and nobody bothered to even check, security hygiene 101. Who are
all the names? Who are they? Well, it apparently includes a journalist.
And no matter how much the Secretary of Defense or others want to
disparage him, this journalist had at least the ethics to not report
everything he heard. The question I raise is: everybody on this
committee gets briefed on security protocols. They're told you don't
make calls outside of SCIFs of this kind of classified nature. Director
Gabbard is the executive in charge of all keeping our secrets safe.
Were these government devices? Or were they personal devices? Have the
devices been collected to make sure there's no malware? There’s plenty
of declassified information that shows that our adversaries, China and
Russia, are trying to break in to encrypted systems like Signal. I can
just say this. If this was the case of a military officer, or an
intelligence officer, and they had this kind of behavior, they would be
fired. I think this is one more example of the kind of sloppy, careless,
incompetent behavior, particularly towards classified information, that
this is not a one off or a first time error.
Let's stay with Senator Mark Warner for a moment and note some videos capturing and commenting on his round of questioning.
Ben Meiselas covers Mark's questions and covers Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's questioning in the video below.
I'm not seeing Senator Michael Bennet in the coverage so let's cover one of his exchanges.
Senator
Michael Bennet: Director Ratcliffe, it sounds to me like your
testimony today and the Secretary -- the DNI's testimony, there was
nothing wrong at all with the Signal thread you were on that it didn't
include any targeting information or battle sequence -- that is your
testimony? That's your testimony? And I'm a little staggered that that
as your view, Director Ratcliffe. Does the CIA have any rules about
handling classified information -- yes or no?
Director John Ratcliffe: Yes.
Senator
Michael Bennet: Thank you, Director Ratcliffe. Do you agree, Secretary
of Defense Pete Hegseth said this morning when asked by members of the
press what had happened, he said this morning in Hawaii that ATLANTIC
editor in chief Jeff Goldberg is a quote "deceitful and highly
discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of providing
hoaxes time and time again." Do you share that evaluation the Secretary
of Defense's evaluation of Jeff Goldberg as a journalist?
Director John Ratcliffe: Senator, I didn't see those comments. I don't know Jeffrey Goldberg
Senator Michael Bennet: So do you share that view of the Secretary of Defense?
Director John Ratcliffe: I don't -- I don't have a view --
Senator
Michael Bennet: Okay. Do you -- do you -- Assuming that he has that
view, I'm curious about whether -- You are the CIA Director, okay? This
has happened. We know it's happened. Did Jeff Goldber somehow -- was it
a hoax? Did he create a hoax that allowed him to become part of this
Signal thread?
Director John Ratcliffe: I-I-I --
Senator
Michael Bennet: Please answer the question. Don't -- Don't insult the
intelligence of the American people. Did he invite himself to the
Signal thread?
Director John Ratcliffe: I don't know how he was invited. But clearly --
[cross talk]
Senator Michael Bennet: Clearly, it was what? Finish your sentence please.
Director John Ratcliffe: I-I-I -- Clearly, he was added to the Signal group. I don't --
Senator
Michael Bennet: You don't know that the present National Security
Advisor invited him to join the Signal thread? Everybody in America
knows that. Does the CIA Director not know that?
Director John Ratcliffe: I've seen conflicting reports about who added, uhm, the reporter to the Signal message
Senator
Michael Bennet: Do you think that it's appropriate that there was a
reporter added -- especially one that the Secretary of Defense says is
"deceitful and highly discredited" a "so-called journalist who's made a
profession of peddling hoaxes over and over again"? Is your testimony
that it was appropriate that he was added to this Signal thread?
Director John Ratcliffe: No. Of course not.
Senator Michael Bennet: Why -- why did you -- You're the CIA Director.
[Cross talk]
Senator
Michael Bennet: You-you answered the question. Let me ask you: When
he was added to the thread, you're the CIA Director. Why didn't you
call out that he was present on the Signal thread?
Director John Ratcliffe: I don't know if you use Singal messaging app --
Senator Michael Bennet: I do. I do. But not for classified information. Not for targeting --
Director John Ratcliffe: Neither do I, Senator. Neither do I, Senator --
Senator Michael Bennet: Well that's what your testimony is today
Director John Ratcliffe: It absolutely is not, Senator.
Senator Michael Bennet: No, I'm saying --
Director John Ratcliffe: At the beginning when I said that I was using it as permitted, it is permissible.
Senator
Michael Bennet: I agree that is your testimony. I agree that's your
testimony. You asked me if I use it and I said not for targeting, not
for classified information.
Director John Ratcliffe: And I don't know
Senator
Michael Bennet: I also know Jeff Goldberg. I don't use it to
communicate with him. But you thought it was appropriate. By the way,
I think he's one of the more outstanding journalists in America. But
I'm shocked to find him on a thread that he's reading in the parking lot
of a grocery store in Washington, DC and your testimony as the Director
of the CIA is that it's totally appropriate.
Director John Ratcliffe: No.
Senator Michael Bennet: Is it appropriate that the president's --
Director John Ratcliffe: No, no, that is not what I said.
Senator Michael Bennet: Go ahead, please.
Director John Ratcliffe: When did I use the word appropriate
Senator Michael Bennet: Well go ahead please
Director John Ratcliffe: I didn't --
Senator Michael Bennet: Everybody in America --
Director John Ratcliffe: No
Senator Michael Bennet: There's nothing to see here is your testimony
Director John Ratcliffe: I never said that.
Senator
Michael Bennet: This is just a normal day at the CIA where we chat
about this kind of stuff over Signal. In fact, it's so normal that the
last administration left it here for us. That's your testimony today?
[cross-talk]
Senator Michael Bennet: That's your testimony.
Director John Ratcliffe: No that's not my testimony, that's what you said.
Senator Michael Bennet: I heard you say it. Let me ask you one last thing, I'm out of time
[cross-talk]
Senator
Michael Bennet: Is it appropriate, did you know that the president's
Middle East advisor was in Moscow on this thread while you were, as
Director of the CIA, participating in this thread? Were you -- were
you aware of that? Are you aware of that today?
Director John Ratcliffe: I'm not aware of that today.
Senator
Michael Bennet: This sloppiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for
our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work for them is
entirely unacceptable. It's an embarrassment.
Director John Ratcliffe: Senator --
Senator Michael Bennet: You need to do better. You need to do better.
Again, intelligence was something the intelligence witnesses did not bring with them for the hearing.
Since
CIA Director John Ratcliffe is so confused as to whether or not one of
the people in that chat was in Russia at the time of the chat, let's
help him out by noting Joanne Stocker and Emmet Lyons (CBS NEWS) have reported:
President Trump's Ukraine and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff was in
Moscow, where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, when he was included in a group chat with more than a dozen other top administration officials — and inadvertently, one journalist — on the messaging app Signal, a CBS News analysis of open-source flight information and Russian media reporting has revealed.
Russia
has repeatedly tried to compromise Signal, a popular commercial
messaging platform that many were shocked to learn senior Trump
administration officials had used to discuss sensitive military
planning.
Witkoff
arrived in Moscow shortly after noon local time on March 13, according
to data from the flight tracking website FlightRadar24, and Russian
state media broadcast video of his motorcade leaving Vnukovo
International Airport shortly after. About 12 hours later, he was added
to the "Houthi PC small group" chat on Signal, along with other top
Trump administration officials, to discuss an imminent military
operation against the Houthis in Yemen, according to The Atlantic
magazine editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who was included on the chat for
reasons that remain unclear.
U.S. lawmakers, both Democrats
and Republicans, have questioned the use of the commercial
communications platform for the conversation, which Goldberg revealed
Monday in his own report for The Atlantic.
That's
pretty clear cut and it does not speak well for the head of a US
'intelligence' agency to not know that fact when appearing before a
Senate Committee to provide testimony.
But he
obviously had a lot on his mind and well he should. And since the CIA
Director was so addled and confused when appearing before the Committee,
let's note this from the same CBS NEWS report:
During
the group discussion on Signal, Goldberg reported, Ratcliffe named an
active CIA intelligence officer in the chat at 5:24 p.m. eastern time,
which was just after midnight in Russia. Witkoff's flight did not leave
Moscow until around 2 a.m. local time, and Sergei Markov, a former Putin
advisor who is still close to the Russian president, said in a Telegram
post that Witkoff and Putin were meeting in the Kremlin until 1:30 a.m.
Having
outed a CIA operative in the chat himself, the CIA Director is clearly
under stress. A smart stress relief? Finding a new job, one you're
actually qualified for. Possibly an underwear model for products geared
towards middle-aged men?
Now
when she covered this security breach on her MSNBC program Monday,
Rachel Maddow noted that this security breach can impact intelligence
other countries want to share with us. This security breach could
result in them not wanting to share since the message being sent is that
the US intelligence leaders are too damn stupid to follow basic
security protocols that have long been in place to protect information
from falling into the wrong hands.
So
we're going to stay with the Senate and stay with a hearing from
yesterday, but this is from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearing. The Committee was hearing from the three nominees: Reed
Rubinstein to be Legal Advisor for the State Dept, Kevin Cabrera to be
the US Ambassador to Panama and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
to be the US Ambassador to Israel. From that hearing, we're noting this
exchange:
Senator
Cory Booker: The second question that I have is that THE JERUSAALEM
POST reported that the Trump administration's pivot to Russia is making
our allies -- including Israel -- wary of sharing intelligence --
fearing that doing so could expose their assets. There's precedent for
this concern. On May 10, 2017, while meeting with the Russian Foreign
Minister and Ambassador to Washington in the Oval Office, Trump shared
intelligence about an Islamic State threat with specifics that came from
a spy embedded in the terrorist group on behalf of Israel. The Israel
press reported that Trump's leak had placed that person's life at risk
and cut off Israel from his intel. Now fast-forward, yesterday we
learned that the highest ranking officials in the Trump administration
-- including the National Security Advisor, the head of the CIA, the
Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State and others
discussed sensitive and imminent military operations in a commercial,
unclassified messaging app and accidentally included a reporter in that
chat. This seems to be a pattern and practice of the administration to
be using unclassified platforms for these kind of communications. So I
deeply value our relationship with Israel. I know you do. Does it
concern you that our close allies are now hesitant to share intelligence
because they fear the Trump and its top intelligence officials can't be
trusted and are continuing to give evidence to that effect.
Former
Governor Mike Huckabee: Senator, with appreciation for the question, I
can only tell you that I've seen some news reports but not detailed and
I have no knowledge of what has actually happened. If confirmed, I
will work diligently with the president and all of my colleagues to, uh,
ensure that there is integrity in all that is done. And I have
confidence the president will charge me with that responsibility.
Yes,
Donald Chump already had a bad image when it came to classified and
secret information -- a bad image that also includes his questionable
storage of top secret and classified papers at his tacky Florida
whorehouse. And this latest scandal? Doesn't help anyone to trust that
he can handle intelligence that needs to be closely guarded.
Lets
go back to the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing and we'll note
this exchange between Senator Jack Reed and Director John Radcliffe and
this is regarding what the witnesses claim was in the thread -- that
they can remember -- as opposed to what's really in the thread which
Goldberg could release to settle the matter. ("I don't feel I can
answer that question here," Tulsi Gabbard told Senator Mark Kelly
earlier in the hearing.).
Senator Jack Reed: One further point, if you are not
aware of any classified information on the-the discussions back and forth,
would it be appropriate for the author [Jeffrey Goldberg] to release the entire text of
what he heard or transcribed?
Director John Radcliffe: I think the author has released -- my understanding
essentially, almost all of the information as it’s been related to me. I
don’t know what calculation the author made with regard to what
information would be released or not --
Senator Jack Reed: Well he --
Director John Radcliffe: -- but again, I can again confirm
that with respect to the communications that were related as to me,
there was no classified information.
Senator
Jack Reed: According to the article, quote, "the message contained
information
that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence
operations," and the author did not disclose that information. So the
question would be if he disclosed everything he heard, in your view --
Director John Radcliffe:: That wouldn’t be classified information. I know the
context of what that is, and I think the author said "might be
interpreted as related to intelligence information." It was not classified information.
Senator Jack Reed: So it goes back to my point, if he released all this
information he did not release, he could do so without any liability at
the federal level.
Director John Radcliffe:: I think you’re asking for a legal -- a legal answer that I’m not able to give you --
Why
were you discussing these events on Signal? That's a question Senator
Jack Reed asked the witnesses. It's a good question. A possible
answer? Josh Marshall (TPM) explains:
Especially
in the national security domain, many things the government does have
to remain secret. Sometimes those things remain secret for years or
decades. But they’re not secrets from the U.S. government. The U.S.
government owns all those communications, all those facts of its own
history. Using a Signal app like this is hiding what’s happening from
the government itself. And that is almost certainly not an unintended
byproduct but the very reason for the use. These are disappearing
communications. They won’t be in the National Archives. Future
administrations won’t know what happened. There also won’t be any
records to determine whether crimes were committed.
This
all goes to the fundamental point Trump has never been able to accept:
that the U.S. government is the property of the American people and it
persists over time with individual officeholders merely temporary
occupants charged with administering an entity they don’t own or
possess.
Think this is hyperbole? Remember that
when Trump held his notorious meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki
in 2019 he confiscated his translator’s notes and ordered him not to
divulge anything that had been discussed. Remember that Trump got
impeached over an extortion plot recorded in the government record of
his phone call with President Zelensky. An intelligence analyst
discovered what had happened and decided he needed to report the
conduct. These aren’t hypotheticals. They’ve already happened. And he’s
even been caught. Which is probably one reason there’s so much use of
Signal.
Graff
added, in reference to the group chat, “This is clearly not a Signal
thread that anyone had any intention of preserving — as they are legally
required to do! — under federal records law.”
Oddly
enough, at least one member of the White House’s team seemed vaguely
aware of all of this. According to The Atlantic’s reporting, the Signal
group chat started on March 13. One day later, Director of National
Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — one of the officials included in the group —
published a tweet that read, “Any unauthorized release of classified
information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such.”
Eleven
days later, the next question is whether such alleged violations really
will be “treated as such.” In theory, an independent Justice Department
could open an inquiry into whether senior administration officials
crossed any legal lines.
The
fallout from the explosive scandal of high-ranking military and
intelligence officials in the Trump administration leaking highly
classified war plans to a reporter in an unsecured Signal group chat
continues to spread — but President Donald Trump is firmly standing
behind National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, saying that he "learned his
lesson."
But Trump seems more keen to defend Waltz than he does Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, according to onlookers.
"Why
is everyone in MAGA going after Waltz when it was @PeteHegseth @SecDef
that sent all the classified stuff?" posted former Rep. Adam Kinzinger
(R-IL), a longtime conservative critic of the president.
In
fact, some sources and Trump insiders say there might be a very good
reason for that, which is that Trumpworld and the GOP at large would
rather, if worst comes to worst, Hegseth be set up to take the fall
while Waltz escapes unblemished.
"A Trump ally
told me that the discussion right now is over whether Pete Hegseth will
need a pardon ... not Waltz, even if he becomes the fall guy," wrote
investigative political reporter Tara Palmeri.
A
senior administration official told POLITICO on Monday afternoon that
they are involved in multiple text threads with other administration
staffers on what to do with Waltz, following the bombshell report that
the top aide inadvertently included Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey
Goldberg in a private chat discussing a military strike on Houthis.
“Half
of them are saying he’s never going to survive or shouldn’t survive,”
said the official, who like others was granted anonymity to discuss
internal deliberation. And two high-level White House aides have floated
the idea that Waltz should resign in order to prevent the president
from being put in a “bad position.”
“It was
reckless not to check who was on the thread. It was reckless to be
having that conversation on Signal. You can’t have recklessness as the
national security adviser,” the official said.
Senator Jon Ossoff's exchange got a lot of media attention. We'll note this C-SPAN clip that the senator posted to YOUTUBE.
Some can't do anything right.
Take Politics of Destruction Rashida Tlaib -- the Socialist in the House of Representatives.
Because she is just that damn stupid.
She really is.
This is not about the politics of the strike or was it right or wrong.
You can certainly have that hearing.
This
was about the US government failing to secure a chat that was a live
chat about an impending strike the US government was carrying out.
Many
have noted that Chump's intelligence choices were not up for the job --
noted it before they were confirmed. We've now got one example making
the very clear.
That's what we're talking about now. And it matters because there can't be a next time.
Rashida
Tlaib really needs to go somewhere and sit down. She's one of the most
hated people in the country and she's earned that hate. Her stupidity
means no one pays much attention to her.
For a discussion of the actual issues at play, you can refer to the below video where Ben spoke with Susan Rice.
Elon Musk's approval rating is "falling through the floor" among Democrats, according to CNN's chief data analyst Harry Enten.
Enten
said on Monday's CNN News Central that Musk's net favorable rating has
dropped from +24 to -19 overall from 2017 to 2025, and that his change
in favorability rating among Democrats has been even more significant in
that period.
[. . .]
The
billionaire entrepreneur and Tesla owner is leading the Department of
Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been tasked by Republican
President Donald Trump with slashing federal spending and shrinking the
federal workforce.
The "special government
employee" has spearheaded mass layoffs and terminations of federal
contracts, as well as the dismantling of federal agencies, including the
U.S. Agency of International Development. Musk's actions have sparked a
backlash, with demonstrators gathering outside Tesla showrooms for
nonviolent protests. Meanwhile, Tesla vehicles and property have been
vandalized and destroyed across the country.
Two
months into Donald Trump's second term, conservative leaders in the
tech industry — some of whom are advising the administration — are in a
state of turmoil. They are bristling at how the president's chaotic
governing, unusual even by the standards of Trump 1.0, is making it
increasingly difficult to run their companies.
"None
of my friends who voted for Trump are happy right now. Everyone is
annoyed," says Reggie James, the founder of Eternal, a new-media company
backed by Andreessen Horowitz. "When tech people got involved in the
government, they thought Trump was going to take more of a surgical
approach and act less like a wrecking ball."
Several
Silicon Valley executives I spoke to — some of whom requested anonymity
for fear of retribution — echoed this sense of disappointment, in
particular at the havoc the Department of Government Efficiency has
wreaked throughout the federal government. "We were all on board for a
more business-friendly presidency, but in the end, the whole industry of
crypto and AI got rug pulled," says the partner of a top-tier venture
firm directly involved in the Trump administration. "The people
surrounding Trump are all scamsters. They are getting rich off our
votes, our dollars, and our time."
While the tech
industry at large remains relatively liberal, especially among
rank-and-file employees, many influential players warmed to Trump in
recent years. They include high-profile venture capital firms like
Andreessen Horowitz and Peter Thiel's Founders Fund, the hosts of the
popular tech podcast "All-In," as well as billionaire CEOs like Mark
Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, who donated to and had prime seating at
Trump's second inauguration. But in recent weeks — amid herky-jerky
tariffs, mass government layoffs, and a shaky stock market — some
influential pro-Trump players are growing impatient and disenchanted.
While
his right-wing superiors flee from him -- they aren't cronies, Musk
doesn't invent, he buys and then ruins -- others are wiping their hands
of Musk for good. Antonio Pequeño IV (FORBES) explains:
Elon
Musk’s X, formerly known as Twitter, has experienced a dropoff in U.S.
user traffic since November’s presidential election, while rival social
media platform Bluesky’s traffic has increased since then, according to
data from digital market intelligence company Similarweb, though X is
still significantly more popular than its competitor.
X’s
daily web visits (calculated on a month-by-month basis) are down an
average of 8.4% compared to November, after briefly spiking during the
election and largely plateauing in the proceeding days, while average
daily active users per month on the platform are down 7.2% to 25 million
in that same window of time, according to Similarweb.
Meanwhile,
Bluesky maintained a post-election boom in daily web visits and daily
active users (calculated on a month-by-month basis), with Similarweb
reporting average daily web visits are up 21.5% compared to November
while average daily active users are up 2.3% to 1.5 million.
Bluesky
has mostly managed to keep its number of daily active users above 1.5
million since the election, marking a roughly threefold jump since the
start of November, when active users numbered around 540,000.
The
FBI under President Donald Trump has now set up a task force to take on
threats against Tesla, the electric vehicle company owned by his top
adviser Elon Musk.
On Monday, recently appointed FBI director Kash Patel confirmed the news of the task force in an X post.
"The
FBI has been investigating the increase in violent activity toward
Tesla, and over the last few days, we have taken additional steps to
crack down and coordinate our response," Patel wrote.
I'm
sorry but I'm confused. First off, wasn't Musk tasked with saving the
government money? Why are we catering to him with a task force?
Am
I mistaken or wasn't he the richest hate monger on the face of the
planet? Why does he need US tax payers to foot the bill for a task
force for him?
I
didn't whine or object when Donald Chump cut off security for Hunter
Biden. He never should have had it to begin with. He wasn't a
president. And having the Secret Service protect him led to so many
problems. They knew about the hookers, for example. That's not law
enforcement. Looking the other way while someone's doing drugs or doing
hookers or doing both.
No.
That's
not what our tax dollars are for. I don't like John Bolton but if
someone can make an argument for why he needs secret service protection,
do so. There may be a reason.
But
whether the kid's last name is Chump or Biden or Obama or what have
you, no, it's not the job of the American taxpayer to foot the bill for
this nonsense. And that's before you factor in that most of these
people -- like Musk himself -- can more than handle the expense of a
bodyguards.
Musk
was supposed to protect our tax dollars -- that was the lie. And now
we're having to fork over money to protect him and his product?
Just
a week after President Donald Trump stood in front of the White House
lawn to participate in a sales pitch for Elon Musk’s Tesla cars, a
member of his cabinet has now made a second plea for the American people
to buy into the ailing company.
U.S. Commerce
Secretary Howard Lutnick said on Wednesday that the stock for the brand
owned by Trump’s biggest financial donor (that is set for a ninth
straight weekly decline) will “never be this cheap” and that people
should “buy Tesla”. The shocking pitch from the man who himself owns
Tesla stock through his brokerage form Cantor Fitzgerald, has sparked
debate as to whether or not his comments were illegal.
“When
people understand the things he’s building, the robots he’s building,
the technology he’s building,” Lutnick told FOX, “people are going to be
dreaming of today.”
Ethics experts have picked
up on the comments and say that Lutnick, a cryptocurrency enthusiast
who appeared on Trump’s reality show ‘The Apprentice’ before being
appointed as U.S. Commerce Secretary, broke a 1989 law prohibiting
federal employees from using “public office for private gain” which
includes a ban on “endorsements.”
We were going to cover immigration but the snapshot's already too long, we'll try to grab the topic tomorrow.
