These are some wild times: There are so many more problems highlighted by this article, but yeah never thought I’d be reading about a military strike that included emojis in its orders. This also...
These are some wild times:
The only person to reply to the update from Hegseth was the person identified as the vice president. “I will say a prayer for victory,” Vance wrote. (Two other users subsequently added prayer emoji.)
Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded two hours later, confirming the veracity of the Signal group. “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” Hughes wrote. “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”
The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose.
There are so many more problems highlighted by this article, but yeah never thought I’d be reading about a military strike that included emojis in its orders.
This also reminds me of when there was an erroneous missile alert sent to Hawaii in 2018. We have people in charge of things who barely understand the technology they are wielding and clearly do not care about the impacts of such careless and reckless behavior.
This together with the unauthorised Starlink dish on the Whitehouse... really obvious that they're actively trying to circumvent any communication that could get audited by an independent body
The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose.
This together with the unauthorised Starlink dish on the Whitehouse... really obvious that they're actively trying to circumvent any communication that could get audited by an independent body
This is the real truth of it. At the end of the day, they will do everything in their power to hide what they are doing, absolve anyone and everyone from any future accountability, and milk the...
This is the real truth of it. At the end of the day, they will do everything in their power to hide what they are doing, absolve anyone and everyone from any future accountability, and milk the rest of us dry with scam and grift after scam and grift.
From the article:
All along, members of the Signal group were aware of the need for secrecy and operations security. In his text detailing aspects of the forthcoming attack on Houthi targets, Hegseth wrote to the group—which, at the time, included me—“We are currently clean on OPSEC.”
After screaming LOCK HER UP for 8 or 10 years, Trump and team continue to do the same thing, at an even worse scale. Every accusation is a confession.
I look forward to Fox News and talk radio covering this with the same vigor they went after Hillary’s email server and Hunter’s laptop. I’m sure Hannity will devote segments about this incompetent...
I look forward to Fox News and talk radio covering this with the same vigor they went after Hillary’s email server and Hunter’s laptop. I’m sure Hannity will devote segments about this incompetent security violation for at least 2 months.
My thinking is that if I was anyone in any US intelligence branch, armed forces or an informants in the field; I would be bugging the hell out and going to ground like my life depended on it. No...
My thinking is that if I was anyone in any US intelligence branch, armed forces or an informants in the field; I would be bugging the hell out and going to ground like my life depended on it. No one should be joining the military or cooperating with the US or even working for the government because there is no longer a foundation of information security.
Starlink is consumer tech with a good chunk of infrastructure outside anyones scope of control. Every adversary must have bought dozens of units on launch to reverse engineer, and finding ways to spoof/intercept that signal for a mitm. And starlink aside, you've still conducting confidential business on Signal. Another consumer service with no organisational controls. If someone injected a few instructions in a media file (see Jeff Bezos and his best friend/saudi prince) that was distributed among the countries leadership, well congratulations, the us government is a new social media platform.
If you've ever worked with secure channels, they tend to be clunky and bare bones and subject to a ton of scrutiny. Like an inter-institutional banking API can involve a half-dozen back end transactions to just get you through the door. Military is likely more. And while accountability has a lot to do with it, it's also all the layers that an attacker is going to have to break through while having limited tools at their disposal. My guess is that Elon spun some scrap about advanced encryption like that is all secure communication is. What they're doing is the equivalent of asking the shady guy who hangs out near ATMs to help change their banking password while using free public WiFi.
What's the relevance of Starlink? Pretty much all secure communications for all militaries run through commercial pipes. You can't just crack the most secure communications in the world just...
What's the relevance of Starlink? Pretty much all secure communications for all militaries run through commercial pipes. You can't just crack the most secure communications in the world just because they happen to traverse your infrastructure. This stuff could be routed through China without fear of imminent decryption.
It's more that they put a dish on the Whitehouse, suggesting they're deliberately trying to route around typical channels, and proper security, like with their use of Signal... It's also possibly...
It's more that they put a dish on the Whitehouse, suggesting they're deliberately trying to route around typical channels, and proper security, like with their use of Signal... It's also possibly just grift of using your buddy's service.
It was also unclear if Starlink communications were encrypted. At a minimum, the system allows for a network separate from existing White House servers that people on the grounds are able to use, keeping that data separate.
“It’s super rare” to install Starlink or another internet provider as a replacement for existing government infrastructure that has been vetted and secured, said Jake Williams, a vice president for research and development at Hunter Strategy, a cybersecurity consultancy. “I can’t think of a time that I have heard of that.”
It opens another avenue of access to Whitehouse communications.
I don't know which is more upsetting to me right now; the fact that the idiots in charge are so comically bad at OpSec, or the fact that there is so much insane shit happening that I had literally...
I don't know which is more upsetting to me right now; the fact that the idiots in charge are so comically bad at OpSec, or the fact that there is so much insane shit happening that I had literally zero awareness that we (the US) had bombed someone last week.
The former is without a doubt true. They're comically bad at assessing what their, now dwindling, soft power was worth. Their comments about how they hate freeloading Europe speaks volumes. The...
The former is without a doubt true. They're comically bad at assessing what their, now dwindling, soft power was worth.
Their comments about how they hate freeloading Europe speaks volumes. The USA could dictate sanctions, trade regulations, military targets, and the European continent would (mostly) happily follow.
They threw that away on some vague notion that Europe was just taking and taking and taking, entirely ignoring what they got in return. Soft power out the ass.
You could give them the benefit of the doubt -which I didn't- that this was just playing to their base, but these chats are fairly damning for anyone still left wondering: they truly think this is the case. And it's the dumbest take.
That's the thing I don't understand with these idiots. I mean, they love complaining about the Belt and Road Initiative giving China power over Africa but then decide to cancel US programs giving...
Soft power out the ass
That's the thing I don't understand with these idiots. I mean, they love complaining about the Belt and Road Initiative giving China power over Africa but then decide to cancel US programs giving us the exact same kind of power... thereby helping China. It's so fucking stupid.
As if we needed any more reason to absolutely resent this administration. I don't think they realise just how much more this pushes the EU to become more coherent. It'll still take more effort to...
They threw that away on some vague notion that Europe was just taking and taking and taking, entirely ignoring what they got in return. Soft power out the ass.
As if we needed any more reason to absolutely resent this administration. I don't think they realise just how much more this pushes the EU to become more coherent. It'll still take more effort to actually fully tap into our potential but it's going to become more and more of a thing. And I think that fundamentally, that's the weakest point of Putin's strategy with the west. The assumption that facing adversary and conflict won't form lessons we'll learn from. The debt crisis, Brexit and Trumps first terms were already there - but the threat from Russia while the US is moving away from us is something else entirely.
And this is not without precedence either. German unification under Prussia becoming the German Empire comes to mind.
I wonder if this was a bad whistleblowing attempt by Michael Waltz. I do not know how Signal works, but if this journalist hadn’t specifically outed that Waltz invited him, was there any way for...
I wonder if this was a bad whistleblowing attempt by Michael Waltz.
I do not know how Signal works, but if this journalist hadn’t specifically outed that Waltz invited him, was there any way for the administration to figure out who did it? I think Signal wipes most logs of communication if you want. If so, the editor maybe shouldn’t have disclosed who invited him.
The fact that this thread exists at all is insane. But adding an experienced journalist to it seems very convenient; so convenient that it seems intentional. (Is there anyone in Trump’s administration with a similar name?). Waltz is Trump’s national security advisor; perhaps he understood how bad it was that these plans were being communicated over Signal but couldn’t push back against dear leader.
Edit: Seems like Waltz is an experienced combat veteran. He also worked for the Bush admin. It’s possible he’s not a diehard Trump loyalist, and he understood the danger these chats were putting soldiers in.
I hope we didn’t just lose somebody who would have stood up to Trump if he tried to use the military to perform a coup.
He could have answered the direct questions asked in Signal if that were what was actually going on. Or he could have sent screenshots of non-classified information to the reporter, rather than...
He could have answered the direct questions asked in Signal if that were what was actually going on. Or he could have sent screenshots of non-classified information to the reporter, rather than actually invite him and commit a crime in the process. He could have done half a dozen more things to blow a whistle. Including telling the reporter why he was invited in a DM, before inviting him.
Wishful thinking is nice and all but the man signed up for the job, it's worth assuming he wants to have it. We keep looking for some principled savior and I really think we have to stop painting that image onto people and squinting in hopes it lines up.
I think you're probably right, but I will say that having a journalist watch it unfold in real time is a lot more impactful - for the journalist themselves, for the story that motivates them to...
I think you're probably right, but I will say that having a journalist watch it unfold in real time is a lot more impactful - for the journalist themselves, for the story that motivates them to write, and for the headlines it generates. It'd be a lot easier to cast doubt on screenshots, too, compared to having an independent third party witness it all firsthand. The fact that the chat exists at all is already a crime, so that wouldn't strike me as a dealbreaker either.
Honestly, if this were somehow a whistleblower or deliberate leaker it's exactly what I've been asking for when I say people on the side of freedom and the rule of law need to understand the media better and start playing hardball!
Including telling the reporter why he was invited in a DM, before inviting him.
This is the key, for me. Give the reporter a heads up to protect yourself a little. Hell, send a separate message from a burner phone saying "The messages you're seeing are real, please treat the info on who added you as an anonymous source" if you want to maintain plausible deniability for it being nothing more than a mistake when the group members figure out you were the one who added the journalist.
Wishful thinking is nice and all but the man signed up for the job, it's worth assuming he wants to have it. We keep looking for some principled savior and I really think we have to stop painting that image onto people and squinting in hopes it lines up.
Yeah. It's almost a mirror universe Hanlon's razor - no need to assume noble reasoning when we live in a Four Seasons Total Landscaping world of incompetence. Even if this were somehow the point they chose to draw the line (and I don't think that's likely), it doesn't absolve them for all the blindingly obvious lines they happily crossed before this.
Could maybe have been a staffer with access to the device acting as a genuine whistleblower, I guess? That'd more explain the lack of a defensive request for anonymity or anything like that. It'd also be a beautiful example of why you maintain proper fucking security measures around your classified communication systems and devices in the first place.
I'm pretty sure giving the reporter a warning would protect both of them less. Everything about this situation already sounds like a crime; intentionally inviting someone to a conversation they...
Including telling the reporter why he was invited in a DM, before inviting him.
This is the key, for me. Give the reporter a heads up to protect yourself a little.
I'm pretty sure giving the reporter a warning would protect both of them less. Everything about this situation already sounds like a crime; intentionally inviting someone to a conversation they weren't supposed to be privy to would make Waltz's action all the more criminal, thereby increasing the legal exposure of both Waltz and Goldberg. Much better to say nothing and feign ignorance (assuming this wasn't simply a genuine fuck-up).
Very good point actually, particularly that knowing in advance it was genuine could've altered Goldberg's legal position too - maybe even put him in a situation where he would be compelled to...
Very good point actually, particularly that knowing in advance it was genuine could've altered Goldberg's legal position too - maybe even put him in a situation where he would be compelled to report it to the authorities as soon as he was informed.
I guess there's probably a decent amount here that only Waltz will ever know for certain, which bothers my innate curiosity, but at least we're better off than if we didn't even know there was a classified group chat to be curious about in the first place.
That's why answering questions after is also on the table, which he also didn't do. There's just zero evidence that Waltz is some noble figure in this that I can see. He could have refused to...
That's why answering questions after is also on the table, which he also didn't do.
There's just zero evidence that Waltz is some noble figure in this that I can see. He could have refused to share information in those chats, for example, allowed himself to be fired and gone the "write a book" route of every other fired Trump admin. He could have told a different reporter everything after firing. But he explicitly put troops lives and national security at risk instead (by using Signal at all)
Balance of probabilities I still agree with you, it was probably just a genuine mistake, but with @psi's point in mind I do think it's harder to be sure. If he had a brief flash of conscience but...
Balance of probabilities I still agree with you, it was probably just a genuine mistake, but with @psi's point in mind I do think it's harder to be sure. If he had a brief flash of conscience but still wanted to protect himself to the extent he goes down as "fuck up" rather than "traitor" in Trump's eyes, playing it as a mistake would be the way to go and we'd have no way of knowing.
Exposing the chats seems a lot more powerful than just refusing to participate, and more likely to trigger the kind of outcry that could at least possibly lead to some external oversight, too. I don't have a lot of hope there, but still, better than us not knowing, because it's not like those lives were going to be better protected otherwise.
Guy's still chosen to be part of the fascist administration, I've got no sympathy for him either way and no reason to think it was a change of heart, I can just see a more plausible path for it to have played out the same way if it were.
I'm just tired of finding the slightest possible (often imagined) hint that someone might stand up and make a principled objection and trying to carry water for it. Why twist ourselves up trying...
I'm just tired of finding the slightest possible (often imagined) hint that someone might stand up and make a principled objection and trying to carry water for it. Why twist ourselves up trying to imagine an option where he was noble? He's a 2020 election denier, opposed investigating Jan 6th, and while his votes did not always align 100% with the right he's basically always backed Trump. It is far more likely that he has continued along this line than that he's secretly, and badly, whistleblowing. He's the one that set the chats to expire, for example, committing another set of crimes. It was his chat.
I get you, and if it helps at all I am in no way interested in giving this guy any kind of absolution. I know your question was probably rhetorical, but honestly my primary drive for following the...
I get you, and if it helps at all I am in no way interested in giving this guy any kind of absolution. I know your question was probably rhetorical, but honestly my primary drive for following the thread of possibilities here is curiosity. It’s a big, important, fucking insane situation involving some utterly huge coincidences - trying to piece it back together helps scratch that itch it’s creating at the back of my brain.
I do understand considering all options, just not focusing on this one. It's also possible someone else grabbed his phone, sneakily added the reporter to both the contacts and the chat, and waited...
I do understand considering all options, just not focusing on this one. It's also possible someone else grabbed his phone, sneakily added the reporter to both the contacts and the chat, and waited for hilarity to ensue. But it's not the most likely option.
I am responding more to a pattern than just this incident - Justice Barrett rules or dissents with the liberals on the court once and we ignore every other case in the same term and start asking if she's the one. Mitch McConnell votes against a nominee and now we wonder if this is his face turn.
It's just a waste of energy for people who do not, as far as I can see, care about us.
I'm wondering the same thing, because this seems like a pretty massive oversight. I've never used Signal, but how easy would it be to accidentally add someone to a group?
I'm wondering the same thing, because this seems like a pretty massive oversight. I've never used Signal, but how easy would it be to accidentally add someone to a group?
You have to be in the existing group and add them explicitly or you have to create a new chat and add everyone you want into it, as far as I can tell. He was already a contact so it wasn't a case...
You have to be in the existing group and add them explicitly or you have to create a new chat and add everyone you want into it, as far as I can tell. He was already a contact so it wasn't a case of adding the wrong phone number at that point.
This is of course part of why you don't use Signal, so he's engaging in multiple illegal acts, not really "whistleblowing" on them by any standard
He added Goldberg just two days before starting the chat. That timing is just too perfect to me. That, and this is a level of incompetence that just genuinely beggars disbelief, even with how...
He added Goldberg just two days before starting the chat. That timing is just too perfect to me. That, and this is a level of incompetence that just genuinely beggars disbelief, even with how insane and incompetent this administration has been.
What strikes me though is that this feels like the most strategic option if it was intentional. Adding a highly influential journalist to the Signal chat from the start was probably the single most effective approach. As the editor-in-chief, Goldberg would have full control over writing and publishing the story, while also minimizing the number of eyes needed on the chat to verify its veracity and expediting publication.
By going this route and making it a leak, that makes this situation active, ongoing news that merits active reporting and scrutiny. The rest of the administration can't try to twist it as him lying or making stuff up, Goldberg directly saw it happen in real time. There are multiple people who can attest to its existence so they had to confirm it, and as active news, it's too salacious for media to ignore or bury to stay on the Trump admin's good side. It's far more effective than if he just quit and wrote a tell-all book or article. Those are a dime a dozen and haven't really done anything so far.
If it was intentional, this is probably the best move Waltz could make. The way I see it, this Signal chat would exist no matter what given the motives are almost certainly to keep the discussions off official records. If he didn't create it, someone else would have. If he does disagree with them, then exposing the chat like this may be the only move he could actually make that would have any impact at all.
That said, it could be a genuine mistake, especially given the general overall incompetence we've seen. I don't think we'll ever know for sure unless it was intentional and Waltz confirms it. And right now, it's smarter to say nothing since this would be treason, and the rest of the Trump admin almost certainly suspects him and are watching him closely. Hilariously, their general incompetence gives him a perfect cover though.
Side-note: I'm not trying to give Waltz absolution or claim he's a good person. I have no idea what kind of man he is, I've been trying to avoid politics lately because it gives me genuine homicidal rage. I just have this compulsion to understand why people do stuff, and why things unfold the way they do. It's something to do with my flavor of neurodivergence. So this isn't me being hopeful that there's a "sheep in wolf's clothing" in the Trump admin, just me picking apart the potential motives and thought processes. If it is an accident, it's one of the most perfect coincidences in history, and I find it hilarious that both options are equally viable.
I'd still say he'd have been best served by answering questions that could have led to the story being written differently, after the fact. It seems more likely to me that he was adding people for...
I'd still say he'd have been best served by answering questions that could have led to the story being written differently, after the fact. It seems more likely to me that he was adding people for the chat and fucked up somewhere, especially if he had no way of knowing if Goldberg's name would show up, or what Goldberg would do up on seeing the chat he was in. He also set the chats to delete which was an unnecessary bonus crime if this was just whistleblowing.
If it was coordinated and they're lying about it, well the conspiracy deepens. I just think it's much more likely that the people who couldn't even get their answer on whether this happened consistent - with the denial by Hegseth after the WH confirmation - are bad at technology.
If this was intentional, I think Waltz went into this with full expectations of coming out of this as one of the bad guys. Just behave business as usual, and do everything he'd do if there wasn't...
If this was intentional, I think Waltz went into this with full expectations of coming out of this as one of the bad guys. Just behave business as usual, and do everything he'd do if there wasn't a spy he invited, including setting some messages to auto-delete. Hell, he could have done that to make sure Goldberg, and by extension the public, knew that was a possibility. Unlikely, but not impossible.
To that end, it makes sense to me he wouldn't respond to Goldberg even afterwards. This leak reminds me of nature documentaries in a way: it's a key tenet to never interfere with the subjects as that can influence their behavior. If he did add Goldberg intentionally, Waltz wanted him to see the chat for what it was and build his own unbiased perspective. So, answering those emails would need to be done very carefully. It's easier and better to stay silent while the others try to do legitimate damage control, thus keeping all reporting genuine.
This was definitely a gamble if he did it intentionally, since as you said, he had no way of knowing how Goldberg would react. But as far as gambles go, I'd say this was a good one: journalists are naturally curious, and only a fool would ignore a potential story like this. Also, like you said, the Trump admin seem to be largely bad at technology. If someone did notice the extra user "JG" Waltz could easily play it as an accident and kick him or dissolve the chat. Even that alone could give Goldberg potential material for a story.
It's just fascinating to piece apart the potential logic. A genuine mistake is highly likely, but again, this is the best case scenario for such a mistake. It got leaked to the editor-in-chief of a major political magazine, and one who has enough integrity to NOT reveal major secrets that would endanger lives. Or worse yet, someone who would sell that information to foreign agents.
Instead it's exposed a MAJOR security breach in a way that can't be covered up, and can (hopefully) lead to action to prevent it from happening again. Again, even the fact it went to the editor-in-chief is a major boon since he'd likely have to look at the chat anyway to verify it was real, so that's one less pair of eyes on sensitive information.
I think that's incredibly conspiratorial. It's a lot of "but MAYBE he did it for this reason" to the point that it's not really piecing logic, it's inventing it. We can all write stories. It's...
I think that's incredibly conspiratorial. It's a lot of "but MAYBE he did it for this reason" to the point that it's not really piecing logic, it's inventing it.
We can all write stories. It's just not clear to me why multiple people want to write this fiction. Which is all this is
Obviously I can't speak for anyone else but part of me wants to believe it's intentional, because I want to believe there is someone with influence that has retained their scruples. Unfortunately,...
It's just not clear to me why multiple people want to write this fiction.
Obviously I can't speak for anyone else but part of me wants to believe it's intentional, because I want to believe there is someone with influence that has retained their scruples.
Unfortunately, both Occam's and Hanlon's razors mandate that I do not believe it. Accidentally tapping on the wrong contact on a touch screen is by far the most reasonable explanation unless other evidence comes out.
Instead it's exposed a MAJOR security breach in a way that can't be covered up, and can (hopefully) lead to action to prevent it from happening again.
Part of the reason that it's a major security breach is because accidents like this can happen. It should not be surprising, then, that an accident like this has happened.
even the fact it went to the editor-in-chief is a major boon
But I do want to believe. Really, the unlikelihood of that one point is the only reason I entertain the idea.
I don't think it's that conspiratorial. It feels like Occam's razor can go either way here: it being a genuine mistake is highly likely. But the fact it went to one of the most ideal people to be...
I don't think it's that conspiratorial. It feels like Occam's razor can go either way here: it being a genuine mistake is highly likely. But the fact it went to one of the most ideal people to be on the receiving end of such a leak, someone with the power to reveal the breach, is also a huge, very fortunate coincidence. Such a big and lucky coincidence that it being intentional feels more likely. I'm not sure how many better choices exist for this scenario.
Ultimately, it's not that convoluted: he added a major journalist to a chat that would exist no matter what, and just let him observe the chat unfold naturally. The most thought needed would be choosing which journalist to add for maximum impact. It's a simple, low-stakes move with a potential for high returns. At worst, the other Trump admins notice before it really kicks off and he claims it was a mistake, and no article is written and business continues as usual.
Unlikely as it is, it's not impossible. Even Goldberg himself seems uncertain on whether it's intentional or not, based on the wording he uses in the article (he literally describes his addition as "presumably by mistake" while highlighting the severity of the leak). Because this is such a big mistake, even with every other big display of incompetence, it's just... A whole new level of absurd. And also hilarious if it IS intentional, because that means he weaponized the rest of the admin's incompetence as the perfect cover.
It also ultimately doesn't matter so much as the fact the leak happened at all. This is genuinely one of the better outcomes for this scenario. If it was an accident, we're lucky it didn't go to someone with malicious intent.
...Also, it just occurred to me that this debate over whether it's intentional or not is even better because it can keep active discourse going for years among conspiracy theorists. That means even after the media inevitably moves onto the next story, this will hang around rather than fading to the background of public consciousness. Definitely unintentional, but hey, I'll take any good thing we can get.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't see how that would impede or intersect with the actual investigation, since again, whether it was intentional or not ultimately doesn't matter. The...
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't see how that would impede or intersect with the actual investigation, since again, whether it was intentional or not ultimately doesn't matter. The benefit of the debate is just making sure the public doesn't forget this happened.
It means if after investigation, now or in the future, there will still be large swathes of the public (should they buy into a conspiracy theory) believing the theory, instead of the truth. So...
It means if after investigation, now or in the future, there will still be large swathes of the public (should they buy into a conspiracy theory) believing the theory, instead of the truth. So they "won't forget" the way that people "won't forget" that the 2020 election was stolen.
It's not a good thing IMO. It probably won't make much of a difference, but conspiracy isn't positive. Truth is.
Again, not sure how that would impact it since whether intentional or an accident, a journalist got access to a chat with war plans on a commercial messaging app not meant to host classified or...
Again, not sure how that would impact it since whether intentional or an accident, a journalist got access to a chat with war plans on a commercial messaging app not meant to host classified or sensitive information. The how/why it happened doesn't change that truth, which is the part that really matters. It's a conspiracy that depends on this chat and its content being real. So long as people discuss about why it happened, they'll also be cognizant that it happened.
The Atlantic shared the complete screenshots after they stated that the intel was not classified. Basically calling them out in a rather brave way. People talk about the risks of the pilots but...
People talk about the risks of the pilots but personally? Insurgents often use human shields and it's not unthinkable they would've dragged ordinary civilians in the places if they knew of this, as well as targeting the pilots. Hurting American personnel, ordinary civilians, and making a mockery of the US strategy in the middle east.
So it turns out that identifying your strategic military decision makers while in plain language stating the administrations priorities, unpublished geopolitical positions, strategic...
So it turns out that identifying your strategic military decision makers while in plain language stating the administrations priorities, unpublished geopolitical positions, strategic considerations, rationale, messaging, intelligence capabilities, objectives at all levels and a play by play timeline of US assets in action of an operation conducted this week; all qualifies as "unclassified".
Yeah, and given how they've effectively mentioned that the fighter was going to his girlfriends house, it may be a warcrime as well. Don't worry though, they kept the Saudi oil facilities in mind....
Yeah, and given how they've effectively mentioned that the fighter was going to his girlfriends house, it may be a warcrime as well.
Don't worry though, they kept the Saudi oil facilities in mind. Truly heartwarming.
Well Tulsi straight up 100% “forgot” that they name dropped tomahawks and f-18s in the thread. Sad that we’re so far gone in Congress absolutely no consequences will come of it
Well Tulsi straight up 100% “forgot” that they name dropped tomahawks and f-18s in the thread.
Sad that we’re so far gone in Congress absolutely no consequences will come of it
Can't read it, but did they un-redact the CIA operative 's name or did they leave things like that unreleased? I linked the NYT analysis of the ones published but I don't know if it has everything
Can't read it, but did they un-redact the CIA operative 's name or did they leave things like that unreleased?
I linked the NYT analysis of the ones published but I don't know if it has everything
Name is still redacted: Currently the archive link is slow, which may be due to traffic, but still, should it work for you: https://archive.ph/T4RTF
Name is still redacted:
A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was “completely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted.
Currently the archive link is slow, which may be due to traffic, but still, should it work for you: https://archive.ph/T4RTF
Hegseth’s response is wild. Video. As an aside, is it standard to shorten quotations the way This abc article did ? When trying to find the full quotation and not a sane washed version I had a...
Hegseth criticized Goldberg as “a deceitful and highly discredited, so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again, to include the, I don't know, the hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia, or the fine people on both sides, hopes, or suckers and losers.”
When trying to find the full quotation and not a sane washed version I had a hard time finding one. Even the above is not the accurate transcript. Hegseth says something like, “the hoaxes of Russia Russia Russia. Or the fine people on both sides hoax or suckers and losers hoax.” And since I’m not a journalist I want to understand if truncating the quotation without denoting it is truncated is common practice or not.
I can’t stand listening to the voices of 99% of the administration so I rely on accurate transcripts.
The differences between the quote and your personal transcription don't appear to be truncations, but merely swapping of some soundalike words. This is a common transcription error, and it's way...
The differences between the quote and your personal transcription don't appear to be truncations, but merely swapping of some soundalike words. This is a common transcription error, and it's way more common the less sense (both in terms of meaning and grammar) the word makes in context. So I'm not surprised it occurred here.
Based on your comment and someone else’s I now get it lol. I guess what you said is key, when the statements are nonsensical the person transcribing has a lot of choices to make. The commas...
Based on your comment and someone else’s I now get it lol. I guess what you said is key, when the statements are nonsensical the person transcribing has a lot of choices to make.
The commas confused me the most. To me it was like: Russia. Russia. Russia (said like Jan Brady from the Brady Bunch). random words. Then, comma, “hopes”.
Reminded me of how Sarah Palin spoke or Miss South Carolina, “I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq and everywhere like such as,”
Since all of the admin speak with complete disregard to convention at this point I was like, “I could imagine him saying this verbatim and just not making any sense or having any cohesion.”
I still wish the transcriber had listened to make it make more sense by context, but that requires understanding what the speaker is even trying to say.
Unfortunately, whether the transcriber was automated or an underpaid human who has to rush through as much work as they can as fast as possible, this kind of error is pretty common.
Unfortunately, whether the transcriber was automated or an underpaid human who has to rush through as much work as they can as fast as possible, this kind of error is pretty common.
These are some wild times:
There are so many more problems highlighted by this article, but yeah never thought I’d be reading about a military strike that included emojis in its orders.
This also reminds me of when there was an erroneous missile alert sent to Hawaii in 2018. We have people in charge of things who barely understand the technology they are wielding and clearly do not care about the impacts of such careless and reckless behavior.
This together with the unauthorised Starlink dish on the Whitehouse... really obvious that they're actively trying to circumvent any communication that could get audited by an independent body
This is the real truth of it. At the end of the day, they will do everything in their power to hide what they are doing, absolve anyone and everyone from any future accountability, and milk the rest of us dry with scam and grift after scam and grift.
From the article:
After screaming LOCK HER UP for 8 or 10 years, Trump and team continue to do the same thing, at an even worse scale. Every accusation is a confession.
I look forward to Fox News and talk radio covering this with the same vigor they went after Hillary’s email server and Hunter’s laptop. I’m sure Hannity will devote segments about this incompetent security violation for at least 2 months.
Every accusation is an admission
My thinking is that if I was anyone in any US intelligence branch, armed forces or an informants in the field; I would be bugging the hell out and going to ground like my life depended on it. No one should be joining the military or cooperating with the US or even working for the government because there is no longer a foundation of information security.
Starlink is consumer tech with a good chunk of infrastructure outside anyones scope of control. Every adversary must have bought dozens of units on launch to reverse engineer, and finding ways to spoof/intercept that signal for a mitm. And starlink aside, you've still conducting confidential business on Signal. Another consumer service with no organisational controls. If someone injected a few instructions in a media file (see Jeff Bezos and his best friend/saudi prince) that was distributed among the countries leadership, well congratulations, the us government is a new social media platform.
If you've ever worked with secure channels, they tend to be clunky and bare bones and subject to a ton of scrutiny. Like an inter-institutional banking API can involve a half-dozen back end transactions to just get you through the door. Military is likely more. And while accountability has a lot to do with it, it's also all the layers that an attacker is going to have to break through while having limited tools at their disposal. My guess is that Elon spun some scrap about advanced encryption like that is all secure communication is. What they're doing is the equivalent of asking the shady guy who hangs out near ATMs to help change their banking password while using free public WiFi.
What's the relevance of Starlink? Pretty much all secure communications for all militaries run through commercial pipes. You can't just crack the most secure communications in the world just because they happen to traverse your infrastructure. This stuff could be routed through China without fear of imminent decryption.
It's more that they put a dish on the Whitehouse, suggesting they're deliberately trying to route around typical channels, and proper security, like with their use of Signal... It's also possibly just grift of using your buddy's service.
Elon Musk’s Starlink Expands Across White House Complex (gift)
It opens another avenue of access to Whitehouse communications.
At least the fucking Nazis documented everything with their bureaucracy. Our fascists won’t even do that.
I don't know which is more upsetting to me right now; the fact that the idiots in charge are so comically bad at OpSec, or the fact that there is so much insane shit happening that I had literally zero awareness that we (the US) had bombed someone last week.
The former is without a doubt true. They're comically bad at assessing what their, now dwindling, soft power was worth.
Their comments about how they hate freeloading Europe speaks volumes. The USA could dictate sanctions, trade regulations, military targets, and the European continent would (mostly) happily follow.
They threw that away on some vague notion that Europe was just taking and taking and taking, entirely ignoring what they got in return. Soft power out the ass.
You could give them the benefit of the doubt -which I didn't- that this was just playing to their base, but these chats are fairly damning for anyone still left wondering: they truly think this is the case. And it's the dumbest take.
Whether the latter is just as bad is up to you.
That's the thing I don't understand with these idiots. I mean, they love complaining about the Belt and Road Initiative giving China power over Africa but then decide to cancel US programs giving us the exact same kind of power... thereby helping China. It's so fucking stupid.
As if we needed any more reason to absolutely resent this administration. I don't think they realise just how much more this pushes the EU to become more coherent. It'll still take more effort to actually fully tap into our potential but it's going to become more and more of a thing. And I think that fundamentally, that's the weakest point of Putin's strategy with the west. The assumption that facing adversary and conflict won't form lessons we'll learn from. The debt crisis, Brexit and Trumps first terms were already there - but the threat from Russia while the US is moving away from us is something else entirely.
And this is not without precedence either. German unification under Prussia becoming the German Empire comes to mind.
I have to assume some of it is intentional to divide the allies of our enemies.
We've been bombing the Houthis in Yemen more or less continuously since early 2024 IIRC.
I wonder if this was a bad whistleblowing attempt by Michael Waltz.
I do not know how Signal works, but if this journalist hadn’t specifically outed that Waltz invited him, was there any way for the administration to figure out who did it? I think Signal wipes most logs of communication if you want. If so, the editor maybe shouldn’t have disclosed who invited him.
The fact that this thread exists at all is insane. But adding an experienced journalist to it seems very convenient; so convenient that it seems intentional. (Is there anyone in Trump’s administration with a similar name?). Waltz is Trump’s national security advisor; perhaps he understood how bad it was that these plans were being communicated over Signal but couldn’t push back against dear leader.
Edit: Seems like Waltz is an experienced combat veteran. He also worked for the Bush admin. It’s possible he’s not a diehard Trump loyalist, and he understood the danger these chats were putting soldiers in.
I hope we didn’t just lose somebody who would have stood up to Trump if he tried to use the military to perform a coup.
He could have answered the direct questions asked in Signal if that were what was actually going on. Or he could have sent screenshots of non-classified information to the reporter, rather than actually invite him and commit a crime in the process. He could have done half a dozen more things to blow a whistle. Including telling the reporter why he was invited in a DM, before inviting him.
Wishful thinking is nice and all but the man signed up for the job, it's worth assuming he wants to have it. We keep looking for some principled savior and I really think we have to stop painting that image onto people and squinting in hopes it lines up.
I think you're probably right, but I will say that having a journalist watch it unfold in real time is a lot more impactful - for the journalist themselves, for the story that motivates them to write, and for the headlines it generates. It'd be a lot easier to cast doubt on screenshots, too, compared to having an independent third party witness it all firsthand. The fact that the chat exists at all is already a crime, so that wouldn't strike me as a dealbreaker either.
Honestly, if this were somehow a whistleblower or deliberate leaker it's exactly what I've been asking for when I say people on the side of freedom and the rule of law need to understand the media better and start playing hardball!
This is the key, for me. Give the reporter a heads up to protect yourself a little. Hell, send a separate message from a burner phone saying "The messages you're seeing are real, please treat the info on who added you as an anonymous source" if you want to maintain plausible deniability for it being nothing more than a mistake when the group members figure out you were the one who added the journalist.
Yeah. It's almost a mirror universe Hanlon's razor - no need to assume noble reasoning when we live in a Four Seasons Total Landscaping world of incompetence. Even if this were somehow the point they chose to draw the line (and I don't think that's likely), it doesn't absolve them for all the blindingly obvious lines they happily crossed before this.
Could maybe have been a staffer with access to the device acting as a genuine whistleblower, I guess? That'd more explain the lack of a defensive request for anonymity or anything like that. It'd also be a beautiful example of why you maintain proper fucking security measures around your classified communication systems and devices in the first place.
I'm pretty sure giving the reporter a warning would protect both of them less. Everything about this situation already sounds like a crime; intentionally inviting someone to a conversation they weren't supposed to be privy to would make Waltz's action all the more criminal, thereby increasing the legal exposure of both Waltz and Goldberg. Much better to say nothing and feign ignorance (assuming this wasn't simply a genuine fuck-up).
Very good point actually, particularly that knowing in advance it was genuine could've altered Goldberg's legal position too - maybe even put him in a situation where he would be compelled to report it to the authorities as soon as he was informed.
I guess there's probably a decent amount here that only Waltz will ever know for certain, which bothers my innate curiosity, but at least we're better off than if we didn't even know there was a classified group chat to be curious about in the first place.
That's why answering questions after is also on the table, which he also didn't do.
There's just zero evidence that Waltz is some noble figure in this that I can see. He could have refused to share information in those chats, for example, allowed himself to be fired and gone the "write a book" route of every other fired Trump admin. He could have told a different reporter everything after firing. But he explicitly put troops lives and national security at risk instead (by using Signal at all)
Balance of probabilities I still agree with you, it was probably just a genuine mistake, but with @psi's point in mind I do think it's harder to be sure. If he had a brief flash of conscience but still wanted to protect himself to the extent he goes down as "fuck up" rather than "traitor" in Trump's eyes, playing it as a mistake would be the way to go and we'd have no way of knowing.
Exposing the chats seems a lot more powerful than just refusing to participate, and more likely to trigger the kind of outcry that could at least possibly lead to some external oversight, too. I don't have a lot of hope there, but still, better than us not knowing, because it's not like those lives were going to be better protected otherwise.
Guy's still chosen to be part of the fascist administration, I've got no sympathy for him either way and no reason to think it was a change of heart, I can just see a more plausible path for it to have played out the same way if it were.
I'm just tired of finding the slightest possible (often imagined) hint that someone might stand up and make a principled objection and trying to carry water for it. Why twist ourselves up trying to imagine an option where he was noble? He's a 2020 election denier, opposed investigating Jan 6th, and while his votes did not always align 100% with the right he's basically always backed Trump. It is far more likely that he has continued along this line than that he's secretly, and badly, whistleblowing. He's the one that set the chats to expire, for example, committing another set of crimes. It was his chat.
Why are we so determined to hope otherwise?
I get you, and if it helps at all I am in no way interested in giving this guy any kind of absolution. I know your question was probably rhetorical, but honestly my primary drive for following the thread of possibilities here is curiosity. It’s a big, important, fucking insane situation involving some utterly huge coincidences - trying to piece it back together helps scratch that itch it’s creating at the back of my brain.
I do understand considering all options, just not focusing on this one. It's also possible someone else grabbed his phone, sneakily added the reporter to both the contacts and the chat, and waited for hilarity to ensue. But it's not the most likely option.
I am responding more to a pattern than just this incident - Justice Barrett rules or dissents with the liberals on the court once and we ignore every other case in the same term and start asking if she's the one. Mitch McConnell votes against a nominee and now we wonder if this is his face turn.
It's just a waste of energy for people who do not, as far as I can see, care about us.
I'm wondering the same thing, because this seems like a pretty massive oversight. I've never used Signal, but how easy would it be to accidentally add someone to a group?
You have to be in the existing group and add them explicitly or you have to create a new chat and add everyone you want into it, as far as I can tell. He was already a contact so it wasn't a case of adding the wrong phone number at that point.
This is of course part of why you don't use Signal, so he's engaging in multiple illegal acts, not really "whistleblowing" on them by any standard
He added Goldberg just two days before starting the chat. That timing is just too perfect to me. That, and this is a level of incompetence that just genuinely beggars disbelief, even with how insane and incompetent this administration has been.
What strikes me though is that this feels like the most strategic option if it was intentional. Adding a highly influential journalist to the Signal chat from the start was probably the single most effective approach. As the editor-in-chief, Goldberg would have full control over writing and publishing the story, while also minimizing the number of eyes needed on the chat to verify its veracity and expediting publication.
By going this route and making it a leak, that makes this situation active, ongoing news that merits active reporting and scrutiny. The rest of the administration can't try to twist it as him lying or making stuff up, Goldberg directly saw it happen in real time. There are multiple people who can attest to its existence so they had to confirm it, and as active news, it's too salacious for media to ignore or bury to stay on the Trump admin's good side. It's far more effective than if he just quit and wrote a tell-all book or article. Those are a dime a dozen and haven't really done anything so far.
If it was intentional, this is probably the best move Waltz could make. The way I see it, this Signal chat would exist no matter what given the motives are almost certainly to keep the discussions off official records. If he didn't create it, someone else would have. If he does disagree with them, then exposing the chat like this may be the only move he could actually make that would have any impact at all.
That said, it could be a genuine mistake, especially given the general overall incompetence we've seen. I don't think we'll ever know for sure unless it was intentional and Waltz confirms it. And right now, it's smarter to say nothing since this would be treason, and the rest of the Trump admin almost certainly suspects him and are watching him closely. Hilariously, their general incompetence gives him a perfect cover though.
Side-note: I'm not trying to give Waltz absolution or claim he's a good person. I have no idea what kind of man he is, I've been trying to avoid politics lately because it gives me genuine homicidal rage. I just have this compulsion to understand why people do stuff, and why things unfold the way they do. It's something to do with my flavor of neurodivergence. So this isn't me being hopeful that there's a "sheep in wolf's clothing" in the Trump admin, just me picking apart the potential motives and thought processes. If it is an accident, it's one of the most perfect coincidences in history, and I find it hilarious that both options are equally viable.
I'd still say he'd have been best served by answering questions that could have led to the story being written differently, after the fact. It seems more likely to me that he was adding people for the chat and fucked up somewhere, especially if he had no way of knowing if Goldberg's name would show up, or what Goldberg would do up on seeing the chat he was in. He also set the chats to delete which was an unnecessary bonus crime if this was just whistleblowing.
If it was coordinated and they're lying about it, well the conspiracy deepens. I just think it's much more likely that the people who couldn't even get their answer on whether this happened consistent - with the denial by Hegseth after the WH confirmation - are bad at technology.
If this was intentional, I think Waltz went into this with full expectations of coming out of this as one of the bad guys. Just behave business as usual, and do everything he'd do if there wasn't a spy he invited, including setting some messages to auto-delete. Hell, he could have done that to make sure Goldberg, and by extension the public, knew that was a possibility. Unlikely, but not impossible.
To that end, it makes sense to me he wouldn't respond to Goldberg even afterwards. This leak reminds me of nature documentaries in a way: it's a key tenet to never interfere with the subjects as that can influence their behavior. If he did add Goldberg intentionally, Waltz wanted him to see the chat for what it was and build his own unbiased perspective. So, answering those emails would need to be done very carefully. It's easier and better to stay silent while the others try to do legitimate damage control, thus keeping all reporting genuine.
This was definitely a gamble if he did it intentionally, since as you said, he had no way of knowing how Goldberg would react. But as far as gambles go, I'd say this was a good one: journalists are naturally curious, and only a fool would ignore a potential story like this. Also, like you said, the Trump admin seem to be largely bad at technology. If someone did notice the extra user "JG" Waltz could easily play it as an accident and kick him or dissolve the chat. Even that alone could give Goldberg potential material for a story.
It's just fascinating to piece apart the potential logic. A genuine mistake is highly likely, but again, this is the best case scenario for such a mistake. It got leaked to the editor-in-chief of a major political magazine, and one who has enough integrity to NOT reveal major secrets that would endanger lives. Or worse yet, someone who would sell that information to foreign agents.
Instead it's exposed a MAJOR security breach in a way that can't be covered up, and can (hopefully) lead to action to prevent it from happening again. Again, even the fact it went to the editor-in-chief is a major boon since he'd likely have to look at the chat anyway to verify it was real, so that's one less pair of eyes on sensitive information.
I think that's incredibly conspiratorial. It's a lot of "but MAYBE he did it for this reason" to the point that it's not really piecing logic, it's inventing it.
We can all write stories. It's just not clear to me why multiple people want to write this fiction. Which is all this is
Obviously I can't speak for anyone else but part of me wants to believe it's intentional, because I want to believe there is someone with influence that has retained their scruples.
Unfortunately, both Occam's and Hanlon's razors mandate that I do not believe it. Accidentally tapping on the wrong contact on a touch screen is by far the most reasonable explanation unless other evidence comes out.
Part of the reason that it's a major security breach is because accidents like this can happen. It should not be surprising, then, that an accident like this has happened.
But I do want to believe. Really, the unlikelihood of that one point is the only reason I entertain the idea.
I don't think it's that conspiratorial. It feels like Occam's razor can go either way here: it being a genuine mistake is highly likely. But the fact it went to one of the most ideal people to be on the receiving end of such a leak, someone with the power to reveal the breach, is also a huge, very fortunate coincidence. Such a big and lucky coincidence that it being intentional feels more likely. I'm not sure how many better choices exist for this scenario.
Ultimately, it's not that convoluted: he added a major journalist to a chat that would exist no matter what, and just let him observe the chat unfold naturally. The most thought needed would be choosing which journalist to add for maximum impact. It's a simple, low-stakes move with a potential for high returns. At worst, the other Trump admins notice before it really kicks off and he claims it was a mistake, and no article is written and business continues as usual.
Unlikely as it is, it's not impossible. Even Goldberg himself seems uncertain on whether it's intentional or not, based on the wording he uses in the article (he literally describes his addition as "presumably by mistake" while highlighting the severity of the leak). Because this is such a big mistake, even with every other big display of incompetence, it's just... A whole new level of absurd.
And also hilarious if it IS intentional, because that means he weaponized the rest of the admin's incompetence as the perfect cover.It also ultimately doesn't matter so much as the fact the leak happened at all. This is genuinely one of the better outcomes for this scenario. If it was an accident, we're lucky it didn't go to someone with malicious intent.
...Also, it just occurred to me that this debate over whether it's intentional or not is even better because it can keep active discourse going for years among conspiracy theorists. That means even after the media inevitably moves onto the next story, this will hang around rather than fading to the background of public consciousness. Definitely unintentional, but hey, I'll take any good thing we can get.
I strongly disagree that it's a good thing. It just means people won't hold them accountable, like with every other conspiracy.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't see how that would impede or intersect with the actual investigation, since again, whether it was intentional or not ultimately doesn't matter. The benefit of the debate is just making sure the public doesn't forget this happened.
It means if after investigation, now or in the future, there will still be large swathes of the public (should they buy into a conspiracy theory) believing the theory, instead of the truth. So they "won't forget" the way that people "won't forget" that the 2020 election was stolen.
It's not a good thing IMO. It probably won't make much of a difference, but conspiracy isn't positive. Truth is.
Again, not sure how that would impact it since whether intentional or an accident, a journalist got access to a chat with war plans on a commercial messaging app not meant to host classified or sensitive information. The how/why it happened doesn't change that truth, which is the part that really matters. It's a conspiracy that depends on this chat and its content being real. So long as people discuss about why it happened, they'll also be cognizant that it happened.
The Atlantic shared the complete screenshots after they stated that the intel was not classified. Basically calling them out in a rather brave way.
People talk about the risks of the pilots but personally? Insurgents often use human shields and it's not unthinkable they would've dragged ordinary civilians in the places if they knew of this, as well as targeting the pilots. Hurting American personnel, ordinary civilians, and making a mockery of the US strategy in the middle east.
So it turns out that identifying your strategic military decision makers while in plain language stating the administrations priorities, unpublished geopolitical positions, strategic considerations, rationale, messaging, intelligence capabilities, objectives at all levels and a play by play timeline of US assets in action of an operation conducted this week; all qualifies as "unclassified".
Very interested to see how this pans out.
Yeah, and given how they've effectively mentioned that the fighter was going to his girlfriends house, it may be a warcrime as well.
Don't worry though, they kept the Saudi oil facilities in mind. Truly heartwarming.
Well Tulsi straight up 100% “forgot” that they name dropped tomahawks and f-18s in the thread.
Sad that we’re so far gone in Congress absolutely no consequences will come of it
Can't read it, but did they un-redact the CIA operative 's name or did they leave things like that unreleased?
I linked the NYT analysis of the ones published but I don't know if it has everything
Name is still redacted:
Currently the archive link is slow, which may be due to traffic, but still, should it work for you: https://archive.ph/T4RTF
Worth noting, 12ft.io does not turn up its nose at links from The Atlantic like it does many other publications.
Thanks! I won't have time to dig in til later but I appreciate the link
Hegseth’s response is wild.
Video.
As an aside, is it standard to shorten quotations the way This abc article did ?
When trying to find the full quotation and not a sane washed version I had a hard time finding one. Even the above is not the accurate transcript. Hegseth says something like, “the hoaxes of Russia Russia Russia. Or the fine people on both sides hoax or suckers and losers hoax.” And since I’m not a journalist I want to understand if truncating the quotation without denoting it is truncated is common practice or not.
I can’t stand listening to the voices of 99% of the administration so I rely on accurate transcripts.
Maybe a misheard transcription error? Hoax to hopes
The differences between the quote and your personal transcription don't appear to be truncations, but merely swapping of some soundalike words. This is a common transcription error, and it's way more common the less sense (both in terms of meaning and grammar) the word makes in context. So I'm not surprised it occurred here.
Based on your comment and someone else’s I now get it lol. I guess what you said is key, when the statements are nonsensical the person transcribing has a lot of choices to make.
The commas confused me the most. To me it was like: Russia. Russia. Russia (said like Jan Brady from the Brady Bunch). random words. Then, comma, “hopes”.
Reminded me of how Sarah Palin spoke or Miss South Carolina, “I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq and everywhere like such as,”
Since all of the admin speak with complete disregard to convention at this point I was like, “I could imagine him saying this verbatim and just not making any sense or having any cohesion.”
I still wish the transcriber had listened to make it make more sense by context, but that requires understanding what the speaker is even trying to say.
Unfortunately, whether the transcriber was automated or an underpaid human who has to rush through as much work as they can as fast as possible, this kind of error is pretty common.
The Leaked Signal Chat, Annotated gift link to the NYT analysis
For some reason, I don't seem to have access to this article without an account even when using the supposedly gifted link; is that normal?
Depends on jurisdiction, country limits, etc etc, sometimes I think the system is just bugged.
so: archived
Thank you!
'Butt-Ery Males'