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
"We are currently clean on OPSEC" - man leaking information on a non-official channel while cosplaying as a military leader.
My daughter's daycare is more stringent on OPSEC for christ's sake.
It's like an email with a "If you're not the intended recipient please don't read and dispose of this message" footer levels of OPSEC.
Team Stupid
🇺🇸🌏👨🚀🔫👨🚀🌌
What does Ohio have to do with this?
Not anymore you ain't
If they were using Signal on personal phones, an unofficial channel on unofficial devices, they already weren't, even before they accidentally included a journalist in the chat.
Oh what the future holds
And don't forget, one of those phones was in Moscow!
One guy on the call was actually in RUSSIA at the moment of the text. What are the odds that Russia was monitoring the phone of a visiting American governmental figure?
By all accounts, Signal's encryption is robust, so they'd need spyware on the device to monitor the contents of the chat, or even to see who else was in the chat. Since these people were using their own personal devices and not government devices, there's a higher chance that Russia or China or some other power could have put spyware on their device. So that is a major lapse in security, and there's a chance it could have been spied on. But the person being physically in Russia shouldn't make it any easier for the Russian government to spy on the chat itself.
Clearly, they never were.
The US military got so lucky here.
They're lucky that the incompetence was exposed so early in the administration. Signal isn't allowed on government phones, apparently, so this was all done with personal devices. We've already seen how many people have compromised phones with something like Pegasus installed. This is why secure government phones exist in the first place. Who knows how long some foreign spy agency might have been reading the group chat if they hadn't done such a stupid leak.
They're lucky that the guy accidentally included in the group chat was a responsible journalist, not some rando who'd stay in the group chat and just keep leaking this stuff, or someone who might have chosen to sell access to China or North Korea or something.
They're lucky that the target was Houthi rebels, and not a near-peer nation state. Even with hours of advance warning, the Houthis probably wouldn't have been able to shoot down F-18s. But 3+ hours is plenty of time for a more advanced enemy to set up an ambush.
Can you imagine how it feels to be one of the F-18 pilots reading this article, knowing how close you could have come to getting killed?
Trump has always carried a personal phone, which he has always refused to allow intelligence agencies to sweep for spyware. Every bad actor in the world knows what he says the instant he says it.
I wouldn't be surprised of the NSA or a similar agency controls key cell "towers" near the White House and other places he often goes, Mar A Lago, etc. Even in normal times, that's just good practice, but with Trump it might allow them to do some filtering or drop data strategically.
Yeah, except now the NSA is being run by a MAGA loyalist, so they probably haven't figured that out yet. Besides, they're all Russian operatives, they're probably making it easier for the Commies to listen in.
The White House has been buggier than a tenement since the last HitlerPig administration.
Pretty well contradicts the testimony of Gabbard about no specifics
Gabbard testified that she couldnt recall if weapons systems (F-18s, Strike Drones) were mentioned, and she also testified that targets werent identified, yet the transcript reveals thatbthe target was a specific person, not a group or encampment.
She either lied/ covered up, or is so incompetent she didn't understand what a weapons system is or what constitutes a target. Or both.
My money is on both.