politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
No heads will roll. What most stories miss is that the main reason they didn't use official channels for this (and most likely many of their other conversations as well) is that they don't want to comply with the Federal Records Act. They don't want there to be a record of a lot of the shit they're saying and doing and plan to do.
Yeah, I know why the guy came clean, but it would have been so much more useful if we stayed on the chat. Really a big missed opportunity.
OTOH he did stay on it as long as he could while still being able to protect himself by saying he didn't think it could be real and most likely a scam or attempt to entrap, plus the thread was basically over by then anyway.
Yep. If he stayed on the chat too long he would have been arrested for espionage and imprisoned for life.
The trump regime’s gross incompetence put him in a dangerous position.
Meanwhile, I suspect that someone on the inside quietly looped the journalist into the group as a way to expose what's been going on. If so, that person is in grave danger.
Mike Waltz invited him into the chat, so I find that unlikely.
I haven't found anything so far saying who invited him in. Just passive voice that he was "inadvertently" included. So in your source that it was Waltz, did it say whether he personally did it or was it one of his staff? I'd be interested to know how it happened. Did someone misunderstand who "JG" meant? (apparently it was just his initials). If so, who with the initials JG did they think they were inviting. I'd appreciate any link with that info if you have it.
It was his top aide I believe. I don't know I read it this morning having the same conversation with my little brother. This is the article, I would dig up the relevant part but I am about to head out the door.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/24/mike-waltz-signal-chat-resign-00246541
Thanks. From reading that it sounds like it was indeed Waltz himself. He is described as "the top aide" (who included Goldberg) .
Ah thanks!
Yeah I wasn't quite sure about that when I read it, I thought maybe that was synonymous with him but I wasn't sure.
They were a bit vague, I think because they don't know whether Waltz personally set up the chat or had someone under him do it for him. Either way he's the participant who is responsible for the invites. I'd just like more details on how it could have even happened that JG was added.
So many questions. Did Waltz (or underling) think the initials represented someone else they meant to add (and if so, who)? Did they just fat finger tapping on a list of names? Or maybe carelessly re-used a name list from some previous chat that JG was in? If it was an underling, did they know who JG was and deliberately added him in to leak the illegal avoidance of the Records Act that's been going on? It's all just so weird.
Yeah for sure. It's very weird.