The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans (https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/)
QuoteU.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. I didn't think it could be real. Then the bombs started falling.
By Jeffrey Goldberg
The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.
I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.
This is going to require some explaining.
The story technically begins shortly after the Hamas invasion of southern Israel, in October 2023. The Houthis—an Iran-backed terrorist organization whose motto is "God is great, death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews, victory to Islam"—soon launched attacks on Israel and on international shipping, creating havoc for global trade. Throughout 2024, the Biden administration was ineffective in countering these Houthi attacks; the incoming Trump administration promised a tougher response.
This is where Pete Hegseth and I come in.
On Tuesday, March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text-messaging services are capable of delivering. I assumed that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump's national security adviser. I did not assume, however, that the request was from the actual Michael Waltz. I have met him in the past, and though I didn't find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me, I did think it somewhat unusual, given the Trump administration's contentious relationship with journalists—and Trump's periodic fixation on me specifically. It immediately crossed my mind that someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. It is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.
I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine, or Iran, or some other important matter.
Two days later—Thursday—at 4:28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a Signal chat group. It was called the "Houthi PC small group."
A message to the group, from "Michael Waltz," read as follows: "Team – establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening."
The message continued, "Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx."
The term principals committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and the treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. It should go without saying—but I'll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.
One minute later, a person identified only as "MAR"—the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio—wrote, "Mike Needham for State," apparently designating the current counselor of the State Department as his representative. At that same moment, a Signal user identified as "JD Vance" wrote, "Andy baker for VP." One minute after that, "TG" (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, or someone masquerading as her) wrote, "Joe Kent for DNI." Nine minutes later, "Scott B"—apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, or someone spoofing his identity, wrote, "Dan Katz for Treasury." At 4:53 p.m., a user called "Pete Hegseth" wrote, "Dan Caldwell for DoD." And at 6:34 p.m., "Brian" wrote "Brian McCormack for NSC." One more person responded: "John Ratcliffe" wrote at 5:24 p.m. with the name of a CIA official to be included in the group. I am not publishing that name, because that person is an active intelligence officer.
The principals had apparently assembled. In all, 18 individuals were listed as members of this group, including various National Security Council officials; Steve Witkoff, President Trump's Middle East and Ukraine negotiator; Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and someone identified only as "S M," which I took to stand for Stephen Miller. I appeared on my own screen only as "JG."
That was the end of the Thursday text chain.
After receiving the Waltz text related to the "Houthi PC small group," I consulted a number of colleagues. We discussed the possibility that these texts were part of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds. I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.
The next day, things got even stranger.
At 8:05 a.m. on Friday, March 14, "Michael Waltz" texted the group: "Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes." (High side, in government parlance, refers to classified computer and communications systems.) "State and DOD, we developed suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners. Joint Staff is sending this am a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we will work w DOD to ensure COS, OVP and POTUS are briefed."
At this point, a fascinating policy discussion commenced. The account labeled "JD Vance" responded at 8:16: "Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake." (Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.) The Vance account goes on to state, "3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn't understand this or why it's necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message."
The Vance account then goes on to make a noteworthy statement, considering that the vice president has not deviated publicly from Trump's position on virtually any issue. "I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There's a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc."
A person identified in Signal as "Joe Kent" (Trump's nominee to run the National Counterterrorism Center is named Joe Kent) wrote at 8:22, "There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We'll have the exact same options in a month."
Then, at 8:26 a.m., a message landed in my Signal app from the user "John Ratcliffe." The message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations.
At 8:27, a message arrived from the "Pete Hegseth" account. "VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded."
The Hegseth message goes on to state, "Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don't get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC"—operations security. "I welcome other thoughts."
A few minutes later, the "Michael Waltz" account posted a lengthy note about trade figures, and the limited capabilities of European navies. "Whether it's now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president's request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans."
The account identified as "JD Vance" addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: "if you think we should do it let's go. I just hate bailing Europe out again." (The administration has argued that America's European allies benefit economically from the U.S. Navy's protection of international shipping lanes.)
The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: "VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It's PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space."
At this point, the previously silent "S M" joined the conversation. "As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn't remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return."
That message from "S M"—presumably President Trump's confidant Stephen Miller, the deputy White House chief of staff, or someone playing Stephen Miller—effectively shut down the conversation. The last text of the day came from "Pete Hegseth," who wrote at 9:46 a.m., "Agree."
After reading this chain, I recognized that this conversation possessed a high degree of verisimilitude. The texts, in their word choice and arguments, sounded as if they were written by the people who purportedly sent them, or by a particularly adept AI text generator. I was still concerned that this could be a disinformation operation, or a simulation of some sort. And I remained mystified that no one in the group seemed to have noticed my presence. But if it was a hoax, the quality of mimicry and the level of foreign-policy insight were impressive.
It was the next morning, Saturday, March 15, when this story became truly bizarre.
At 11:44 a.m., the account labeled "Pete Hegseth" posted in Signal a "TEAM UPDATE." I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command's area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.
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.)
According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time. So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.
I went back to the Signal channel. At 1:48, "Michael Waltz" had provided the group an update. Again, I won't quote from this text, except to note that he described the operation as an "amazing job." A few minutes later, "John Ratcliffe" wrote, "A good start." Not long after, Waltz responded with three emoji: a fist, an American flag, and fire. Others soon joined in, including "MAR," who wrote, "Good Job Pete and your team!!," and "Susie Wiles," who texted, "Kudos to all – most particularly those in theater and CENTCOM! Really great. God bless." "Steve Witkoff" responded with five emoji: two hands-praying, a flexed bicep, and two American flags. "TG" responded, "Great work and effects!" The after-action discussion included assessments of damage done, including the likely death of a specific individual. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has not been independently verified.
On Sunday, Waltz appeared on ABC's This Week and contrasted the strikes with the Biden administration's more hesitant approach. "These were not kind of pinprick, back-and-forth—what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks," he said. "This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out."
The Signal chat group, I concluded, was almost certainly real. Having come to this realization, one that seemed nearly impossible only hours before, I removed myself from the Signal group, understanding that this would trigger an automatic notification to the group's creator, "Michael Waltz," that I had left. No one in the chat had seemed to notice that I was there. And I received no subsequent questions about why I left—or, more to the point, who I was.
Earlier today, I emailed Waltz and sent him a message on his Signal account. I also wrote to Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, and other officials. In an email, I outlined some of my questions: Is the "Houthi PC small group" a genuine Signal thread? Did they know that I was included in this group? Was I (on the off chance) included on purpose? If not, who did they think I was? Did anyone realize who I was when I was added, or when I removed myself from the group? Do senior Trump-administration officials use Signal regularly for sensitive discussions? Do the officials believe that the use of such a channel could endanger American personnel?
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."
William Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, said that despite the impression created by the texts, the vice president is fully aligned with the president. "The Vice President's first priority is always making sure that the President's advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations," he said. "Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration's foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement."
I have never seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I've never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion.
Conceivably, Waltz, by coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of "national defense" information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story. Harris asked them to consider a hypothetical scenario in which a senior U.S. official creates a Signal thread for the express purpose of sharing information with Cabinet officials about an active military operation. He did not show them the actual Signal messages or tell them specifically what had occurred.
All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place. Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law's definition of "national defense" information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose. If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF—most Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their home—or communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said. Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.
Hegseth, Ratcliffe, and other Cabinet-level officials presumably would have the authority to declassify information, and several of the national-security lawyers noted that the hypothetical officials on the Signal chain might claim that they had declassified the information they shared. But this argument rings hollow, they cautioned, because Signal is not an authorized venue for sharing information of such a sensitive nature, regardless of whether it has been stamped "top secret" or not.
There was another potential problem: Waltz set some of the messages in the Signal group to disappear after one week, and some after four. That raises questions about whether the officials may have violated federal records law: Text messages about official acts are considered records that should be preserved.
"Under the records laws applicable to the White House and federal agencies, all government employees are prohibited from using electronic-messaging applications such as Signal for official business, unless those messages are promptly forwarded or copied to an official government account," Jason R. Baron, a professor at the University of Maryland and the former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, told Harris.
"Intentional violations of these requirements are a basis for disciplinary action. Additionally, agencies such as the Department of Defense restrict electronic messaging containing classified information to classified government networks and/or networks with government-approved encrypted features," Baron said.
Several former U.S. officials told Harris and me that they had used Signal to share unclassified information and to discuss routine matters, particularly when traveling overseas without access to U.S. government systems. But they knew never to share classified or sensitive information on the app, because their phones could have been hacked by a foreign intelligence service, which would have been able to read the messages on the devices. It is worth noting that Donald Trump, as a candidate for president (and as president), repeatedly and vociferously demanded that Hillary Clinton be imprisoned for using a private email server for official business when she was secretary of state. (It is also worth noting that Trump was indicted in 2023 for mishandling classified documents, but the charges were dropped after his election.)
Waltz and the other Cabinet-level officials were already potentially violating government policy and the law simply by texting one another about the operation. But when Waltz added a journalist—presumably by mistake—to his principals committee, he created new security and legal issues. Now the group was transmitting information to someone not authorized to receive it. That is the classic definition of a leak, even if it was unintentional, and even if the recipient of the leak did not actually believe it was a leak until Yemen came under American attack.
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."
Shane Harris contributed reporting.
I can't help but think Hunter Biden did this.
The focus is understandably on Hegseth and Waltz, but it is equally incredible that the director of the CIA and the DNI were on the group chat and said nothing about the propriety of discussing such matters on Signal.
I wonder how it came to be. He has a name close to someone who should have been there or...?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 25, 2025, 03:45:39 AMThe focus is understandably on Hegseth and Waltz, but it is equally incredible that the director of the CIA and the DNI were on the group chat and said nothing about the propriety of discussing such matters on Signal.
As a journalist, I'd say Signal is one of very few channels of communication that are safe.
Well, until you meet Pete Hegseth, I guess.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 25, 2025, 03:45:39 AMThe focus is understandably on Hegseth and Waltz, but it is equally incredible that the director of the CIA and the DNI were on the group chat and said nothing about the propriety of discussing such matters on Signal.
Yeah - at least it's not Telegram. But here there are very, very regular warnings about the use of commercial messaging apps in Westminster and Whitehall from the intelligence agencies. But it's really endemic despite regular briefings and injunctions to stop it. Not to do with messaging apps so far (I don't think he was a big user) but Boris Johnson was a particular risk as when he was first an MP he used to provide his mobile number on his constituency updates - and didn't change his number for 20 years.
It's something I've also seen loads of times in a corporate setting - no matter how many times senior leaders are told by legal and InfoSec not to use them for business, they do.
I get that it's unpopular and does alienate them more from regular life but I do kind of think if you reach a certain level of seniority you should basically just have all your devices taken away from you. Almost as much as the security reasons just for the scheduling - as I say these apps and also emails create false urgency/are bad for prioritisation. It is insane to me that Marco Rubio gets pinged a message and then is saying who his deputy is for this.
I think part of it is generational - Blair was of the generation who never really had to get on top of email so never did. I imagine it's similar with Biden and Trump. Things are printed, there are meetings. They never see their diaries and almost never see anything that hasn't gone through at least one other person. The current generation have used email all their working life and use these apps in their personal/day-to-day. I hate it but I'm militant on keeping work and private life separate (never on the same phone) and not allowing work to encroach more than I'm comfortable with (one reason I'm a little dubious on bringing your whole self to work, is I think the trade off is often bringing your whole work life to yourself).
Watching some clips of the hearings today, Sen. Jon Ossoff was impressive as hell, and has strong signs of a bright political future. The biggest inhibition to his political career is that his Senate seat (Georgia) will always be at risk to hold on to.
Was curious how Fox was covering the story. Right down the middle.
Beeb mentioned a while back that there's a contrast between Fox News and Fox opinion, so I'm going to hunt for something on the magic realism side.
Guys no need to worry:
65 days of this BS so far,
Only another 1,396 days of the BS to go.
Does Hegseth look a lot like Timothy Olyphant or is it just me?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2025, 09:27:33 PMBeeb mentioned a while back that there's a contrast between Fox News and Fox opinion, so I'm going to hunt for something on the magic realism side.
After a brief search my impression is they're avoiding the story like an unvaccinated Texas child.
So Hegseth's response is that the journalist (Jeffrey Goldberg) is a liar because he reported on Trump's links to Russia, and it's all Biden's fault.
These are not serious people.
The Trump administration certainly has made The Peter Principle out to be utter farce. These folks surpassed their competence level long, long ago in their ascent to their current positions. White male mediocrity at its absolute "finest". Yikes.
That's not fair... they have a bunch of shitty white women too :P
...and a Tulsi for token non-white incompetence, too.
I have trouble with the notion that when Hillary did it that was white female incompetence.
The response after this became public was rather typical. Fake news. Erm. No. Bad journalist. No credibility.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2025, 10:47:11 PMI have trouble with the notion that when Hillary did it that was white female incompetence.
On that note, and maybe I'm biased, but this seems so much worse than the whole "but her emails!" affair.
Quote from: dist on March 26, 2025, 02:45:59 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2025, 10:47:11 PMI have trouble with the notion that when Hillary did it that was white female incompetence.
On that note, and maybe I'm biased, but this seems so much worse than the whole "but her emails!" affair.
Yes, but you see this time it's different. Because it's Republicans. Their missteps somehow never seem to incur the outcry or pushback that happen when Democrats do less egregious things. Imagine if Biden or Obama had hosted a sales event for [insert vendor of choice] on the White House lawn and then receved $100M for their coffers. Republicans were crying streams of crocodile tears over Obama's much less problematic post-presidency Netflix deal.
If this is not classified information, as many in the Trump administration have said, then release it to the public.
Quote from: dist on March 26, 2025, 02:45:59 AMOn that note, and maybe I'm biased, but this seems so much worse than the whole "but her emails!" affair.
I agree, though one could argue about the degree. Do you have any additional thoughts on the matter you'd like to share that depended on my answer?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2025, 03:28:51 AMIf this is not classified information, as many in the Trump administration have said, then release it to the public.
Tonto's new hero reads aloud from it if you're interested.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2025, 09:33:39 PMDoes Hegseth look a lot like Timothy Olyphant or is it just me?
That he looks good on TV is, I think, a not insignificant part of his appeal to Trump, from Sam Adler-Bell:
QuoteAs to why Trump picked him: First, he's Ivy League educated and looks like a movie star (neither of which Trump can resist), and second, while the rest of Fox News Channel was having its whirlwind romance with Ron DeSantis, Hegseth remained a Trump guy and said so on TV over and over.
Same with Vance's Ivy League education - there's no need to play it down with Trump. It's a big appeal to him.
QuoteYes, but you see this time it's different. Because it's Republicans. Their missteps somehow never seem to incur the outcry or pushback that happen when Democrats do less egregious things. Imagine if Biden or Obama had hosted a sales event for [insert vendor of choice] on the White House lawn and then receved $100M for their coffers. Republicans were crying streams of crocodile tears over Obama's much less problematic post-presidency Netflix deal.
I saw someone point out (this is maybe more for the Quo Vadis thread) that Gerry Connolly, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee last did a media round over a month ago. Again I don't necessarily think AOC and Sanders are "the" answer. But AOC ran for that position and House Democrats went for Connolly. As I say I don't think they're necessarily the answer but I can guarantee that AOC would be a bit more proactive.
Admittedly I believe Connolly has some health problems - but this just goes back to the Democrats not really having an issue with a 75 year old with cancer having a senior leadership role because it's their "turn".
Even with Connolly he's only just become ranking member having served on the Committee for 15 years - but there are other committees with Democrat ranking members for many years and sometimes over a decade. By contrast unless granted a waiver Republicans are limited to a maximum of three consecutive terms or six years as chair which I think is healthier and gives space for the young and hungry types. I get why seniority was useful politically for the Democrats, and particularly Southern Democrats, but I think that sort of thing is an issue. I think the days of very long holding onto those really crucial institutional levers of Congressional power and leadership, based on relationships (perhaps white Southern power gloved in Southern gentility/decorum) need to end.
The official WH take, straight from Lie-To-Us Barbie:
Quote"The American people should be grateful to these individuals and especially to President Trump for putting together such a competent and highly qualified team who are killing terrorists the Biden administration allowed to run wild in the Middle East
I have to admit, it is really impressive that Pete Hegseth and Scott Bessent (among others) are personally killing Houthi terrorists despite being thousands of miles from Yemen.
Still, the whole theme in this administration of demanding everyone express gratitude to them all the time has a real Riefenstahl tinge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2025, 04:58:40 AMI agree, though one could argue about the degree. Do you have any additional thoughts on the matter you'd like to share that depended on my answer?
No. For me, your message was a segway to possibly discuss and comment the false equivalency of weighting the use of Signal to discuss military operations and Hilary's email server scandal.
To juggle our memory a bit, this is how Wiki (sorry, I've to leave soon) introduces its article on the subject: "During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using a private email server for official public communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified."
In contrast to that, this is what the Signal chat contained (The Atlantic decided to publish some more since the administration maintains the messages didn't contain any classified info):
Quoteo, about that Signal chat.
On Monday, shortly after we published a story about a massive Trump-administration security breach, a reporter asked the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, why he had shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen on the Signal messaging app. He answered, "Nobody was texting war plans. And that's all I have to say about that."
At a Senate hearing yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, were both asked about the Signal chat, to which Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently invited by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. "There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group," Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Ratcliffe said much the same: "My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information."
President Donald Trump, asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, "It wasn't classified information."
These statements presented us with a dilemma. In The Atlantic's initial story about the Signal chat—the "Houthi PC small group," as it was named by Waltz—we withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.
The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.
Experts have repeatedly told us that use of a Signal chat for such sensitive discussions poses a threat to national security. As a case in point, Goldberg received information on the attacks two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions. If this information—particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen—had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face. The Trump administration is arguing that the military information contained in these texts was not classified—as it typically would be—although the president has not explained how he reached this conclusion.
Yesterday, we asked officials across the Trump administration if they objected to us publishing the full texts. In emails to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the White House, we wrote, in part: "In light of statements today from multiple administration officials, including before the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the information in the Signal chain about the Houthi strike is not classified, and that it does not contain 'war plans,' The Atlantic is considering publishing the entirety of the Signal chain."
We sent our first request for comment and feedback to national-security officials shortly after noon, and followed up in the evening after most failed to answer.
Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: "As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release." (The Leavitt statement did not address which elements of the texts the White House considered sensitive, or how, more than a week after the initial air strikes, their publication could have bearing on national security.)
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.
As we wrote on Monday, much of the conversation in the "Houthi PC small group" concerned the timing and rationale of attacks on the Houthis, and contained remarks by Trump-administration officials about the alleged shortcomings of America's European allies. But on the day of the attack—Saturday, March 15—the discussion veered toward the operational.
At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, "TEAM UPDATE:"
The text beneath this began, "TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch." Centcom, or Central Command, is the military's combatant command for the Middle East. The Hegseth text continues:
"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)"
Let us pause here for a moment to underscore a point. This Signal message shows that the U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg's cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi "Target Terrorist," was expected to be killed by these American aircraft. If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.
The Hegseth text then continued:
"1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)"
"1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier 'Trigger Based' targets)"
"1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched."
"MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)"
"We are currently clean on OPSEC"—that is, operational security.
"Godspeed to our Warriors."
Shortly after, Vice President J. D. Vance texted the group, "I will say a prayer for victory."
At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent the following text, containing real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa: "VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job." Waltz was referring here to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command; and the intelligence community, or IC. The reference to "multiple positive ID" suggests that U.S. intelligence had ascertained the identities of the Houthi target, or targets, using either human or technical assets.
Six minutes later, the vice president, apparently confused by Waltz's message, wrote, "What?"
At 2 p.m., Waltz responded: "Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend's building and it's now collapsed."
Vance responded a minute later: "Excellent." Thirty-five minutes after that, Ratcliffe, the CIA director, wrote, "A good start," which Waltz followed with a text containing a fist emoji, an American-flag emoji, and a fire emoji. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has not been independently verified.
Later that afternoon, Hegseth posted: "CENTCOM was/is on point." Notably, he then told the group that attacks would be continuing. "Great job all. More strikes ongoing for hours tonight, and will provide full initial report tomorrow. But on time, on target, and good readouts so far."
It is still unclear why a journalist was added to the text exchange. Waltz, who invited Goldberg into the Signal chat, said yesterday that he was investigating "how the heck he got into this room."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2025, 08:13:21 AMThe official WH take, straight from Lie-To-Us Barbie:
Quote"The American people should be grateful to these individuals and especially to President Trump for putting together such a competent and highly qualified team who are killing terrorists the Biden administration allowed to run wild in the Middle East
I have to admit, it is really impressive that Pete Hegseth and Scott Bessent (among others) are personally killing Houthi terrorists despite being thousands of miles from Yemen.
Still, the whole theme in this administration of demanding everyone express gratitude to them all the time has a real Riefenstahl tinge.
Fighting terrorism is easy, but phones are hard.
Stolen from Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1jk7cl5/more_leaked_signal_chats_released/), more leaked Signal chats released:
(https://preview.redd.it/fqktmeua00re1.jpeg?width=308&auto=webp&s=82e19d728396d781c7de35a6eed8ab9c9aeb02bc)
Saw this one in my feed.
(https://i.imgur.com/yH9zfyl.png)
Meritocracy has elevated the best and brightest. We are blessed.
Quote from: fromtia on March 26, 2025, 10:31:18 AMMeritocracy has elevated the best and brightest. We are blessed.
At least they got rid of DEI to make sure only the "right" people get hired :P
Full chat log: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/
Use https://www.removepaywall.com/ if link doesn't work for you.
Also, fuck JD Vance.
(https://i.imgur.com/0bCAufe.png)
[...]
(https://i.imgur.com/BMLil0u.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/1Oj3Lwc.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/iNIzuTV.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4XveBY3.png)
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2025, 10:44:01 AMAlso, fuck JD Vance.
... snip ...
The only bright spot is who possibly wanted this chat to leak? That and talk of OPSEC is mentioned, so maybe the journalist was added intentionally or the person who did that was mislead by another into doing it.
So the possible bright spot is that it could show just how badly riven the 'administration' is?
And that's were my rational largely fails, because it's premise is the 'administration' could collapse into in-fighting without too many bad effect, but the likely larger downside is it could crater with even more disastrous effects than what we're currently seeing in it's day to day operation? :hmm:
Funny they accuse Europe when the Houthis situation is one created by Trump when he reneged on Obama's deal with Iran in his first mandate.
Iran is now a huge problem, there's a proxy war in Yemen between Saudi Arabia and Iran because of Trump's and Israel's policies. Now there's a fallout.
Without Iran and Russian weapons, it would be much less of a threat in this area. There would be regular inspections to Iran's nuclear facilities, which would have provided excellent cover for CIA operations. Relations would be tense, cold war style, but maybe not aggressive like now.
This is what happens when you have incompetent morons directing the biggest military force in the world.
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2025, 10:41:37 AMFull chat log: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/
Use https://www.removepaywall.com/ if link doesn't work for you.
I had already provided the full article and link a few messages prior.
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2025, 11:01:11 AMThe only bright spot is who possibly wanted this chat to leak? That and talk of OPSEC is mentioned, so maybe the journalist was added intentionally or the person who did that was mislead by another into doing it.
Goldberg mentioned in his first article that he had been added by "Michael Waltz".
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2025, 11:01:11 AMAnd that's were my rational largely fails, because it's premise is the 'administration' could collapse into in-fighting without too many bad effect, but the likely larger downside is it could crater with even more disastrous effects than what we're currently seeing in it's day to day operation? :hmm:
Nah, nothing will come out of this. Maybe someone will get shafted if it goes too far, but the situation is too hyper-polarized for anything major to happen. The right half of the country won't give a fuck, like they didn't about everything else. If politically this kind of mishaps have no price, there won't be any pressure to make a change or for in-fighting.
Agreed. Unfortunately it is going to take a tragedy caused by this sort of blundering before people on the right will care enough for changes to be made.
Right, the response on the right will just be "BUTBUTBUTBUT Hillary's email server!!!!!!111111 Hunter Biden Hunter BidenHunterBiden *froth*"
Quote from: dist on March 26, 2025, 11:14:26 AMQuote from: Syt on March 26, 2025, 10:41:37 AMFull chat log: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/
Use https://www.removepaywall.com/ if link doesn't work for you.
I had already provided the full article and link a few messages prior.
Oops. :(
(https://i.imgur.com/E06XyMZ.png)
:lol:
Yeah, but we all don't hold the lives of others in our hands.
The meme-o-sphere is delighted at this incident. From WWII to Star Wars, they're having a field day.
Quote from: viper37 on March 26, 2025, 11:03:12 AMFunny they accuse Europe when the Houthis situation is one created by Trump when he reneged on Obama's deal with Iran in his first mandate.
Iran is now a huge problem, there's a proxy war in Yemen between Saudi Arabia and Iran because of Trump's and Israel's policies. Now there's a fallout.
Maybe. I'm not sure you can really pin this on Trump. The Houthis have been around for ages. They took the capital over 10 years ago (and were pushed back). The incredibly bloody Saudi intervention in Yemen started then but Saudi was already involved - as was Iran - in the Yemeni civil war. Obama was regularly attacked from the left for the support given to Saudi in their war.
What's really striking about Iran is the extent to which so far they have actually been a bit of a paper tiger. They've taken a lot of hits. Even the strike on Saudi oil fields which I think the Houthis claimed but investigators actually think was Iran was a surprise - Trump didn't really respond. It's recognisable but I've read this was a profound shock to the Saudis who thought the American security guarantee would definitely kick in over attacks of oil infrastructure - not all, but a lot of recent Saudi policy is driven by the fact they feel they can't rely on the Americans and need to stand alone.
I also think we underestimate the agency of the Houthis here at our peril. They've got Iranian support and help doing this, but I don't think they're just an extension of Iran doing this in response to the war in Gaza has been a huge propaganda coup.
On the Europe stuff - the UK (and others like Denmark) did participate in the US operations against the Houthis in recent years and would probably do so again if asked. That might be better than "billing" Europe (but strikingly not Saudi, India etc).
They're obnoxious etc. But this is an example of where talk of European self-defence or America as an adversary meets the road of European capabilities right now because there was an EU coordinated naval mission to support the re-opening of the Red Sea and Suez. Over nine months it never exceeded three ships and the Greek contribution was made up of vessels that were over 25 years old and did not have sufficient technology to track or intercept some of the Houthi attacks. Although worth noting the Greek contribution was the third or fourth biggest behind only Italy and France. And it's true that the Red Sea is vastly more vital to European trade (particularly with China) than America. That's where we are now, it will take time to get to a position where European states are capable of defending key European strategic interests (which goes beyond just Ukraine and just Russia - it includes the Med and all of the MENA region). European leaders need to work out how they manage that vulnerability while building up - if they don't build up, or they ignore the vulnerablity and assume we're already fine then I think there could be some serious problems.
Also I've said it before but I think Vance is PM at this point. That first message is basically working towards Trump - here's what Trump says (with some very mild criticism) and it's Vance shaping the policy of what Trump wants/means. It's an extraordinary role for a VP - but I think this gets to my view that Trump is unchanged from his first term. He's chaotic (and likes the drama), he's got no focus, he only cares about loyalty - the difference is there's a cadre of smart, ideologically committed people the rung below who think they've worked out how to "drive" Trump or use Trump to drive their agenda (and I think they might have worked it out). They still have to deal with the 2am tweets careering in a new direction but no doubt that's a price worth paying for them.
In this world of deals, Khamenei might be cheaper to buy off than Trump. That's how this works in the Trumpian order of things, no?
I wouldn't underestimate Houthi agency - so the question may be how much are European countries (perhaps especially Germany where Israel is a "staatsrason") willing to sell out Israel? And I suspect the answer is not that much.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2025, 12:02:33 PMThey're obnoxious etc. But this is an example of where talk of European self-defence or America as an adversary meets the road of European capabilities
Yeah strongly agree, Europeans have started going in the right direction but lets get that Euro defense capability as robust as possible as quickly as possible. The "free loader" discourse isn't completely without merit.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2025, 12:02:33 PM- the difference is there's a cadre of smart, ideologically committed people the rung below who think they've worked out how to "drive" Trump or use Trump to drive their agenda
Yeah also strongly agree , theres a lot of nit wits who look good on Fox, or say cool angry stuff on the internet at the top but there seems to be layers underneath. I don't think they are all on the same page though, I think theres a lot of right wing projects attempting to execute their wish list at the same time. They saw the oppurtunity to attach to Trump and took it. Silicon Valley also, although they are latecomers, but they might be the most important.
Well, it's arguably Eisenhower's fault as the British & French did try and get more control over the Suez Canal but then got slapped down by Eisenhower for being imperialistic and empire building.
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2025, 11:01:11 AMThe only bright spot is who possibly wanted this chat to leak? That and talk of OPSEC is mentioned, so maybe the journalist was added intentionally or the person who did that was mislead by another into doing it.
Vance's comments in this chat are extraordinary on a number of levels.
First of all, he begins by disputing the decision made by his superior (the President) and suggesting that the Presidential order be delayed. That is far far beyond the constitutional authority of a VP.
Second, he presents his message in a grandstanding rhetorical style does sound like he is crafting a message to be leaked to third parties . Although maybe that's just him being his usual asshole self.
Third, he displays a grotesque ignorance of international trade and shipping that would be funny were it not the fact that he appears have real influence in policymaking. Waltz has to gently explain to him the basics of supply chains and container shipping routes. Vance is completely unaware that key commodities are traded on a global market and that supply constraints in one place impact prices elsewhere.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2025, 12:56:44 PMSecond, he presents his message in a grandstanding rhetorical style does sound like he is crafting a message to be leaked to third parties . Although maybe that's just him being his usual asshole self.
I'm starting to think that he's always always always putting on a facade towards others.
I'm hearing the principles in this during the Senate testimony, and all they say is that they don't recall. This didn't happen a year ago. It was just last week. Shouldn't they have better memory than this?
Ironically, that's the real lesson for people who are self-conscious about their background when they wish to mingle within the Ivies. Everything becomes a relentless masquerade.
In more ways than one, Piketty was right to point to Balzac as a guide to our times.
Witkoff was in Moscow when the chat happened :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Quote from: dist on March 26, 2025, 08:28:09 AMNo. For me, your message was a segway to possibly discuss and comment the false equivalency of weighting the use of Signal to discuss military operations and Hilary's email server scandal.
To juggle our memory a bit, this is how Wiki (sorry, I've to leave soon) introduces its article on the subject: "During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using a private email server for official public communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified."
This is how the article continues:
"During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using a private email server for official public communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified.[1] Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails were retroactively designated confidential by the State Department.[2][3][4][5] "From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification." "Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."[6]"
Quote from: fromtia on March 26, 2025, 12:26:44 PMYeah also strongly agree , theres a lot of nit wits who look good on Fox, or say cool angry stuff on the internet at the top but there seems to be layers underneath. I don't think they are all on the same page though, I think theres a lot of right wing projects attempting to execute their wish list at the same time. They saw the oppurtunity to attach to Trump and took it. Silicon Valley also, although they are latecomers, but they might be the most important.
Yeah - I have shifted a lot on Vance I didn't think he really mattered and I now think he's possibly the most important. I'm very struck by the role he's taken. I wonder if part of that is that lots of these seams on the right kind of converge on him. He has the Silicon Valley/Thiel side of things, he also has the nationalism, he also gestures towards a populism (not sure if I buy it) on other issues - plus he is, reportedly, very close to Don Jr so has an advocate in the family. But all of those strands of right-wing thought which is incoherent collectively kind of maybe converge on Vance?
Edit: Also I think he's just a bit more serious and thought through -even for me this is an exceptionally niche British analogy, but a little bit of the John McDonnell to Trump's Corbyn. To stick with niche British analogies - I think there'll be opportunity for the Democrats (if they can take it) in the pivot from "no downsides" to "the pain will be worth it".
QuoteSecond, he presents his message in a grandstanding rhetorical style does sound like he is crafting a message to be leaked to third parties . Although maybe that's just him being his usual asshole self.
This example is a bit mad and different. But I think after the first Trump administration it would make sense to assume everything would end up being leaked - Maggie Haberman will report on it at some point.
It reminds me of the Tory party during it's long internal fights with numerous WhatsApp groups and everyone writing long messages rallying the troops behind/shiving the leader, because the clear assumption was they will be screenshotted and leaked to the press. I'd certainly have that as my operating assumption if you were working for Trump again.
QuoteWell, it's arguably Eisenhower's fault as the British & French did try and get more control over the Suez Canal but then got slapped down by Eisenhower for being imperialistic and empire building.
:lol: Yeah - I have enjoyed the unexpected Eden-posting on the British internet. I did not think I'd ever see a day of Eden-posting. A bit like Germans wanting absolute clarity over everyone being keen on them building up a large army to march across Poland and possibly fight Russians - I would like it in writing that the Americans consider Suez and the Red Sea a European security concern :ph34r:
QuoteIronically, that's the real lesson for people who are self-conscious about their background when they wish to mingle within the Ivies. Everything becomes a relentless masquerade.
I agree - I don't want to be too kind on Vance but rather than a masquerade I think there is also something of the child of addicts in some of those character traits.
Quote from: PJL on March 26, 2025, 12:40:35 PMWell, it's arguably Eisenhower's fault as the British & French did try and get more control over the Suez Canal but then got slapped down by Eisenhower for being imperialistic and empire building.
Just reading a history of Vietnam war by Max Hastings who thinks it was revenge for Brits refusing to join in helping the French in Vietnam which Ike needed to get Congress support. No idea if that stacks up.
I'm picking up a real Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos founder) vibe from Gabbard's testimony.
I was thinking Spaceballs.
"She's a bass"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2025, 06:43:09 PMI'm picking up a real Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos founder) vibe from Gabbard's testimony.
Crazy eyes?
Quote from: HVC on March 26, 2025, 07:24:21 PMCrazy eyes?
I saw a youtube that said an artificially deep voice is a tell a female is a pathological liar.
One more meme.
(https://i.imgur.com/dMtliBV.png)
^_^
The more I read of Vance's various texts and statements, the more I wonder how he became such an anti-European.
Has he secretly been hanging around Languish? Read EUOT too much? Did I fuck his wife?
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 25, 2025, 10:16:02 PMThe Trump administration certainly has made The Peter Principle out to be utter farce. These folks surpassed their competence level long, long ago in their ascent to their current positions. White male mediocrity at its absolute "finest". Yikes.
Was the racism really necessary?
Yes.
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2025, 06:36:49 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 25, 2025, 10:16:02 PMThe Trump administration certainly has made The Peter Principle out to be utter farce. These folks surpassed their competence level long, long ago in their ascent to their current positions. White male mediocrity at its absolute "finest". Yikes.
Was the racism really necessary?
Yet, cis het was forgotten, for some reason. :hmm:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 27, 2025, 08:02:18 AMQuote from: Tamas on March 27, 2025, 06:36:49 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 25, 2025, 10:16:02 PMThe Trump administration certainly has made The Peter Principle out to be utter farce. These folks surpassed their competence level long, long ago in their ascent to their current positions. White male mediocrity at its absolute "finest". Yikes.
Was the racism really necessary?
Yet, cis het was forgotten, for some reason. :hmm:
To be fair, emphasis might be on the genetic inferiority stemming from whiteness not from being a man in which case a trans man could also justifiably fall under the negstive distinction.
In societies largely shaped by inequality - and it would be quite something to argue current US isn't - there is a special brand of mediocrity that comes from people whose mediocre accomplishments - whatever they are - are magnified into success by belonging to groups that are historically favoured. Like being a man, in a sexist society. Or being white, in a racist society. This isn't to say that one can't be black and mediocre, or a woman and mediocre - but rather, that such mediocrity will usually not be rewarded with the success that mediocre white men enjoy, and certainly will not be expressed with the same arrogance that mediocre white men exude.
I would have thought that most of the Trump cabinet would appear as the perfect illustration of the concept.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 27, 2025, 08:18:38 AMIn societies largely shaped by inequality - and it would be quite something to argue current US isn't - there is a special brand of mediocrity that comes from people whose mediocre accomplishments - whatever they are - are magnified into success by belonging to groups that are historically favoured. Like being a man, in a sexist society. Or being white, in a racist society. This isn't to say that one can't be black and mediocre, or a woman and mediocre - but rather, that such mediocrity will usually not be rewarded with the success that mediocre white men enjoy, and certainly will not be expressed with the same arrogance that mediocre white men exude.
I would have thought that most of the Trump cabinet would appear as the perfect illustration of the concept.
So in certain situations you find it acceptable to assume a link between an individual's negative attributes and their race?
And that's why you lose elections. When people hear mediocre white men then don't think you're talking about privileged rich white men, but all white men. Just like if you say "thieving blacks" people don't think about black people who happen to be thieves but that you're calling all black people thieves (replace with whatever minority stereotype you want). Normalizing one while condemning another is odd. Yes you can go on about privileges, but you'll keep losing elections. You can be happy or you can be right. In this case happy means winning elections.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 27, 2025, 08:18:38 AMI would have thought that most of the Trump cabinet would appear as the perfect illustration of the concept.
I respectfully disagree. I think that concept applies to sort of "Gentlemen C Scholars" that traditionally filled out the Ivy League ranks and then floated effortlessly into high government positions, which they filled in undistinguished manner, leaning on the experienced permanent staff to perform up to an acceptable level of competence. Or to politically savvy glad-handers that know how to work club cloakrooms and get good with the political in crowd.
The Trump crowd is different for the most part. Marco Rubio - who is not white - is the closest to a mediocrity in the cabinet, and he is Trump's one sop to the normies. RFK Jr. is not a mediocrity; neither is Hohman or Hegseth or Ratcliffe or much of the rest. It is true that they lack competence and are completely overmatched by the responsibilities of their jobs. But these are not people Peter Principled up because they are inoffensive and well connected. They are fanatical culture warriors, chosen for fealty to a master, and with a dedicated program of vandalism. They are white men, in significant part because most people that fit that description are white men. But being white men in this context is secondary; Trump is perfectly happy to use as many Kash Patels and Tulsi Gabbards as he can find to achieve the same goals.
I totally agree. I think "mediocre white men" is largely a better description of the Democrats.
It seems to me utterly inadequate to describe the Republican Party. We are not seeing the results of mediocrity here, but something deeper and more malevolent.
I'd add it's one of the reasons I think we need to exile the political scientists, the social scientists, the behavioural economists, the policy nerds etc - because I do not think they're capable of comprehending the world right now. I think they were very shocked by Trump's success, they've been consistently surprised by what he's done and the outcomes and can't really convincingly explain any of it. The best explanation I've seen from that camp was the "whitelash" idea - but Trump's share of the white vote in 2016, 2020 and 2024 is unchanged, his increased support has come from Black and Hispanic voters. I think there's some recent work on 2024 and it looks like Trump won every category of male voters under 25 (so every race, education level etc) which is extraordinary (and I think the maleness and patriarchy matters). I think the far better contextualising, analytic frameworks, ways of understanding has come from the humanities - history and cultural studies have been a far better crutch for thinking than the data nerds.
Quote from: HVC on March 27, 2025, 08:33:54 AMAnd that's why you lose elections. When people hear mediocre white men then don't think you're talking about privileged rich white men, but all white men. Just like if you say "thieving blacks" people don't think about black people who happen to be thieves but that you're calling all black people thieves (replace with whatever minority stereotype you want). Normalizing one while condoning another is odd. Yes you can go on about privileges, but you'll keep losing elections. You can be happy or you can be right. In this case happy means winning elections.
This is actually a severe problem. White liberals tend to view white people much more negatively than any other group. Dramatically more negative.
https://prlicari.medium.com/white-liberals-view-other-races-more-warmly-than-they-do-whites-why-c7886d356af5
This is by itself a weird phenomena, most people don't hold their own group in contempt. Most moralizers use a simple: Us: good, Them: bad. form of thinking. Leftwing ones simply reverse it. Us: bad, Them: good.
I think this is a factor in Identity politics. If White people are the problem, and many white leftists believe this to be the case, then this is a problem for self esteem. The Solution: Calve off other identities.
White people are the problem
White
men or the problem
White
straight men are the problem
White
straight cis gendered men are the problem
White
straight cis gendered neurotypical men are the problem
I can't help but wonder if the increased satisfaction that some people feel in adopting a new identity is tied to no longer being a part of a group they don't care for.
Of course, they still have some racial bias, even if it is unconscious. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liberals-present-themselves-as-less-competent-in-interactions-with-african-americans
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2025, 09:44:28 AMI totally agree. I think "mediocre white men" is largely a better description of the Democrats.
It seems to me utterly inadequate to describe the Republican Party. We are not seeing the results of mediocrity here, but something deeper and more malevolent.
I'd add it's one of the reasons I think we need to exile the political scientists, the social scientists, the behavioural economists, the policy nerds etc - because I do not think they're capable of comprehending the world right now. I think they were very shocked by Trump's success, they've been consistently surprised by what he's done and the outcomes and can't really convincingly explain any of it. The best explanation I've seen from that camp was the "whitelash" idea - but Trump's share of the white vote in 2016, 2020 and 2024 is unchanged, his increased support has come from Black and Hispanic voters. I think there's some recent work on 2024 and it looks like Trump won every category of male voters under 25 (so every race, education level etc) which is extraordinary (and I think the maleness and patriarchy matters). I think the far better contextualising, analytic frameworks, ways of understanding has come from the humanities - history and cultural studies have been a far better crutch for thinking than the data nerds.
"It's the economy, stupid"* Liberals have moved away from progressive economic goals. Which makes sense since their donors are just as rich as the conservative ones. If you cant be progressive economically and you still want to be progressive generally all that's left is to be progressive socially. Thus Democrats are now seen as caring more about social progressiveness. Which fine, you can be socially progressive too, but when people are paying a dollar an egg they don't care about that. Now conservatives leaders don't give a shit either, but they've come up with a clever plan never before seen in politics. They lie. So on the one hand you're disenchanting white voters while not picking up and minority voters, who on the whole generally have more population in lower economic classes and thus care much more about the cost of living. Democrats need to spend more time not just fight the conservative rot you see now but showing that they're a alternative economically too.
* just to be extra, extra clear i'm just using the quote, not calling you stupid :hug:
Quote from: Norgy on March 27, 2025, 03:19:52 AMThe more I read of Vance's various texts and statements, the more I wonder how he became such an anti-European.
Has he secretly been hanging around Languish? Read EUOT too much? Did I fuck his wife?
Did you fuck his couch?
(https://i.imgur.com/3oGUbTd.png)
"BUT HILLARY!!!!!1111"
Looking forward to the next few dozen Benghazi investigations. :P
Quote from: Norgy on March 27, 2025, 03:19:52 AMThe more I read of Vance's various texts and statements, the more I wonder how he became such an anti-European.
Has he secretly been hanging around Languish? Read EUOT too much? Did I fuck his wife?
I do think you're actually quite close to the truth there.
Well.
Except maybe with your fucking.
As far as I know.
Never can tell with Norgy, maybe on that legendary visit to London.
:lol:
As far as I can tell, no Indian-American was involved. :unsure:
To continue on the "but Hilary's emails"...
Quote from: WPWaltz and staff used Gmail for government communications
By John Hudson
Members of President Donald Trump's National Security Council, including White House national security adviser Michael Waltz, have conducted government business over personal Gmail accounts, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post and interviews with three U.S. officials.
Sign up for Fact Checker, our weekly review of what's true, false or in-between in politics.
The use of Gmail, a far less secure method of communication than the encrypted messaging app Signal, is the latest example of questionable data security practices by top national security officials already under fire for the mistaken inclusion of a journalist in a group chat about high-level planning for military operations in Yemen.
A senior Waltz aide used the commercial email service for highly technical conversations with colleagues at other government agencies involving sensitive military positions and powerful weapons systems relating to an ongoing conflict, according to emails reviewed by The Post. While the NSC official used his Gmail account, his interagency colleagues used government-issued accounts, headers from the email correspondence show.
Waltz has had less sensitive, but potentially exploitable information sent to his Gmail, such as his schedule and other work documents, said officials, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe what they viewed as problematic handling of information. The officials said Waltz would sometimes copy and paste from his schedule into Signal to coordinate meetings and discussions.
The use of personal email, even for unclassified materials, is risky given the premium value foreign intelligence services place on the communications and schedules of senior government officials, such as the national security adviser, experts say.
NSC spokesman Brian Hughes said he has seen no evidence of Waltz using his personal email as described and said on occasions when "legacy contacts" have emailed him work-related materials, he makes sure to "cc" his government email to ensure compliance with federal records laws that require officials to archive official correspondence.
"Waltz didn't and wouldn't send classified information on an open account," said Hughes.
When asked about a Waltz staffer discussing sensitive military matters over Gmail, Hughes said NSC staff have guidance about using "only secure platforms for classified information."
Waltz has also created and hosted other Signal chats with Cabinet members on sensitive topics, including on Somalia and Russia's war in Ukraine, said a senior administration official. The existence of those groups was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Sunday.
Hughes said that Signal "is approved and in some cases is added automatically to government devices." He acknowledged that it is not supposed to be used for classified material and insisted Waltz never used it as such.
Waltz's creation of a Signal group chat that discussed sensitive information and included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic and a prominent critic of President Donald Trump, has rankled the president and frustrated other Cabinet members whose communications were exposed on the chat.
Publicly, Trump has strongly backed Waltz, but on Wednesday he met with Vice President JD Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and others to discuss whether to keep him on. A day later, he informed aides he was not firing Waltz, but it was largely out of a desire to avoid giving the "liberal media a scalp," said a senior administration official.
"This incident badly damaged Waltz," said the official, who noted that the national security adviser was told after the meeting that he needed to be more deferential to Wiles. The Wednesday meeting was first reported by the New York Times.
Data security experts have expressed alarm that U.S. national security professionals are not more readily using the government's suite of secure encrypted systems for work communications such as JWICS, the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System.
Most concerning, however, is the use of personal email, which is widely acknowledged to be susceptible to hacking, spearfishing and other types of digital compromise.
"Unless you are using GPG, email is not end-to-end encrypted, and the contents of a message can be intercepted and read at many points, including on Google's email servers," said Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
National security experts have expressed alarm over the administration's denial that the leaked Signal chat contained classified information.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's comments in the Signal chat detailed the sequencing, timing and weapons systems in advance of the Trump administration's March attack on Houthi militants in Yemen, potentially jeopardizing U.S. airmen headed into harm's way.
In the chat, Waltz offered a brief but highly specific after-action report of the strikes, revealing that the military had "positive ID" of a senior Houthi leader "walking into his girlfriend's building" — pointing to what intelligence sources would later confirm was Israeli surveillance capabilities shared with the United States. Israeli officials expressed frustration that their capabilities were made public.
U.S. officials say Trump is much more upset about the inclusion of a liberal journalist on a confidential group chat than he is about exposing secrets to foreign adversaries. But White House officials have found Waltz's denials increasingly hard to believe.
Waltz, who added Goldberg to the chat, told Fox News: "I take full responsibility. I built the group." But he has subsequently said Goldberg's contact information was "sucked into" his phone somehow and that he's never met or talked to the journalist despite a newly circulated photo of the two men near each other at an event at the French ambassador's residence in Washington.
"He's telling everyone that he's never met me or spoken to me. That's simply not true," Goldberg told "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
"This isn't 'The Matrix.' Phone numbers don't just get sucked into other phones," he added.
Waltz, the first Green Beret elected to Congress and an adviser to former vice president Dick Cheney, has long pontificated about the importance of classified information and harshly criticized the Justice Department for not pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton for using a private email server as secretary of state.
"What did DOJ do about it? Not a damn thing," Waltz wrote on social media in June 2023. The FBI investigated Clinton's use of the private server and concluded no criminal charges were warranted. FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi have given no indication that Trump officials' use of Signal for sensitive information will be investigated, with Bondi saying the material shared was not classified.
While most Trump administration officials have downplayed the Signal breach publicly, some have acknowledged it was a significant mishap.
"Obviously, someone made a mistake. Someone made a big mistake," Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters during a trip last week to Jamaica.
Rubio and his staff, who have years of experience with classified intelligence from his former role as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, are known for taking operational security seriously, said a senior U.S. official.
Rubio noted that his contributions in the Signal chat were minimal.
"Just speaking for my role, I contributed to it twice," Rubio told reporters. "I identified my point of contact, which is my chief of staff, and then later on ... I congratulated the members of the team."
On Sunday, Trump dismissed the controversy as a politically motivated attack. "I don't fire people because of fake news and because of witch hunts," he said.
Hughes, the NSC spokesman, said that "Mike serves at the pleasure of President Trump and the President has voiced his support for the National Security Advisor multiple times this week."
While Democrats have seized on the incident as evidence of incompetence, some in the MAGA wing of the Republican Party have assailed Waltz as a George W. Bush-aligned neoconservative, circulating a video from 2016 in which he condemned Trump as a draft-dodger, saying "Stop Trump now."
"The chattering of unnamed sources should be treated with the skepticism of gossip from people lacking the integrity to attach their names," Hughes said.
When asked about the senior aide's use of Gmail for highly sensitive topics, Hughes said it is "unreasonable to ask for comment on an email you refuse to provide for my review." The Post accepted the emails on the condition that it would not disclose the materials in full.
A key mark in Waltz's favor is that the breach was discovered by a left-of-center media outlet and not conservative media, officials said.
"The one thing saving his job is that Trump doesn't want to give Jeff Goldberg a scalp," said a second administration official. "Despite all of Trump's attacks on the 'fake news,' he still reads the papers, and he doesn't like seeing this stuff."
For being Trump's national security adviser, Michael Waltz really has no idea about online security. I couldn't help but laugh at the idea that he and others around him use Gmail accounts to conduct government business. What a bunch of arrogant idiots.
We use gmail/Google at work because "Microsoft was too expensive".
Which is rather shit.
Waltz clearly should never had this job. Neither should Hegseth. I really have a pet peeve about that wanker.
Four of the six companies I've worked for have used Google Workspace for email and documents but, you know, we paid for it and the company controlled the workspace.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 02, 2025, 08:48:58 AMFour of the six companies I've worked for have used Google Workspace for email and documents but, you know, we paid for it and the company controlled the workspace.
Yes (I'd add that if it's a personal Gmail account and he's ever touched any of Google AI tools then it is ingested for learning - you can control that with an enterprise account). Even then probably not a free-for-all, so I believe US government devices allow use of Signal (and did under Biden too) but still not the place for sharing military plans.
To be honest the stuff about passwords etc is something I suspect you could probably find for a lot of politicians and senior officials in many countries - on it's own I don't think that's too surprising or worrying. But this team don't inspire confidence on that front like not re-using passwords or not using personal devices, accounts, numbers to share classified information.
Having said that we've just got a court case in the UK right now of GCHQ worker being prosecuted who went into work, attached their personal device to their work device and extracted secret material. Obviously that's bad and throw the book at them...But I do expect GCHQ to have slightly better security than that :ph34r:
Houthi rebels shoot down 7 US military Reaper drones worth $334m, in recent weeks (https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360666149/houthi-rebels-shoot-down-7-us-military-reaper-drones-worth-334m-recent-weeks)
US$200M.
It's a New Zealand article.
I believe we are seeing the effects of the leaks.
Quote from: viper37 on April 25, 2025, 08:51:23 AMHouthi rebels shoot down 7 US military Reaper drones worth $334m, in recent weeks (https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360666149/houthi-rebels-shoot-down-7-us-military-reaper-drones-worth-334m-recent-weeks)
US$200M.
It's a New Zealand article.
I believe we are seeing the effects of the leaks.
I think that it is far likelier that we are seeing the results of a greatly increased optempo. I've heard of no recent leaks of classified data on the Reapers.
FBI director says Wisconsin judge arrested for allegedly obstructing ICE (https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/politics/fbi-director-wisconsin-judge-arrested/index.html)
QuoteJudge Hannah Dugan is facing two charges for obstruction and concealing the individual from arrest, a law enforcement official told CNN.
"We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest," Patel's post read before it was quickly deleted. "Thankfully our agents chased down the perp on foot and he's been in custody since, but the Judge's obstruction created increased danger to the public."
[...]
The Journal-Sentinel cited an email from Chief Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Carl Ashley, which said that "they were asked whether they had a warrant, and the agents presented the warrant as well as their identification." The chief judge wrote that the ICE agents were told to wait until the court hearing had concluded.
Fucked. Totally and completely FUBAR.
I have no other words
I know they often get portrayed as one big, happy, blue fash family, but I wonder when state and local law enforcement are going to finally have enough and start actively blocking the feds from doing shit like this.
Good point
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 25, 2025, 11:14:35 AMI know they often get portrayed as one big, happy, blue fash family, but I wonder when state and local law enforcement are going to finally have enough and start actively blocking the feds from doing shit like this.
If you squint and look carefully thin blue line it starts looking pretty red. Why would they interfere? Unless it becomes a weird police dick measuring contest where egos are on the line. States rights are only a thing when slavery is involved.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 25, 2025, 11:14:35 AMI know they often get portrayed as one big, happy, blue fash family, but I wonder when state and local law enforcement are going to finally have enough and start actively blocking the feds from doing shit like this.
I don't know all of the details, but it seems very possible that the judge is guilty as charged.
https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-signal-chat-dirty-internet-line-6a64707f10ca553eb905e5a70e10bd9d
QuoteHegseth had an unsecured internet line set up in his office to connect to Signal, AP sources say
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2025, 12:19:42 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 25, 2025, 11:14:35 AMI know they often get portrayed as one big, happy, blue fash family, but I wonder when state and local law enforcement are going to finally have enough and start actively blocking the feds from doing shit like this.
I don't know all of the details, but it seems very possible that the judge is guilty as charged.
Maybe (and likely) there is a difference between US law and Canadian Law on this point. Here a judge has absolute privilege and authority over what occurs in their courtroom. The only avenues for redress if it alleged the judge did something outside their powers is through a complaint to the judicial council.
edit: also it would probably be a contempt of court here if law enforcement attempted to arrest a suspect in a court room while the person is in a trial for another reason.
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2025, 12:19:42 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 25, 2025, 11:14:35 AMI know they often get portrayed as one big, happy, blue fash family, but I wonder when state and local law enforcement are going to finally have enough and start actively blocking the feds from doing shit like this.
I don't know all of the details, but it seems very possible that the judge is guilty as charged.
I don't think so. But we'll see. But sending in the FBI and tweeting about it is going to have a chilling effect regardless.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2025, 12:43:45 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 25, 2025, 12:19:42 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 25, 2025, 11:14:35 AMI know they often get portrayed as one big, happy, blue fash family, but I wonder when state and local law enforcement are going to finally have enough and start actively blocking the feds from doing shit like this.
I don't know all of the details, but it seems very possible that the judge is guilty as charged.
Maybe (and likely) there is a difference between US law and Canadian Law on this point. Here a judge has absolute privilege and authority over what occurs in their courtroom. The only avenues for redress if it alleged the judge did something outside their powers is through a complaint to the judicial council.
edit: also it would probably be a contempt of court here if law enforcement attempted to arrest a suspect in a court room while the person is in a trial for another reason.
I'll again emphasize that I don't know the facts or the law, but it seems possible that she was not acting as a judge nor was she in her courtroom when the alleged crime was committed.
I think that it was highly likely that ICE escalated this as far as they dared because they "didn't like her attitude." That's just the way ICE rolls these days.
Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2025, 01:34:17 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 25, 2025, 12:19:42 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 25, 2025, 11:14:35 AMI know they often get portrayed as one big, happy, blue fash family, but I wonder when state and local law enforcement are going to finally have enough and start actively blocking the feds from doing shit like this.
I don't know all of the details, but it seems very possible that the judge is guilty as charged.
I don't think so. But we'll see. But sending in the FBI and tweeting about it is going to have a chilling effect regardless.
As was undoubtedly intended.
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2025, 02:54:33 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2025, 12:43:45 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 25, 2025, 12:19:42 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 25, 2025, 11:14:35 AMI know they often get portrayed as one big, happy, blue fash family, but I wonder when state and local law enforcement are going to finally have enough and start actively blocking the feds from doing shit like this.
I don't know all of the details, but it seems very possible that the judge is guilty as charged.
Maybe (and likely) there is a difference between US law and Canadian Law on this point. Here a judge has absolute privilege and authority over what occurs in their courtroom. The only avenues for redress if it alleged the judge did something outside their powers is through a complaint to the judicial council.
edit: also it would probably be a contempt of court here if law enforcement attempted to arrest a suspect in a court room while the person is in a trial for another reason.
I'll again emphasize that I don't know the facts or the law, but it seems possible that she was not acting as a judge nor was she in her courtroom when the alleged crime was committed.
I think that it was highly likely that ICE escalated this as far as they dared because they "didn't like her attitude." That's just the way ICE rolls these days.
What I read in the NYTimes is that the alleged incident occurred in her courtroom during proceedings she was presiding over.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2025, 03:14:53 PMWhat I read in the NYTimes is that the alleged incident occurred in her courtroom during proceedings she was presiding over.
What I read in the NYT was that the case was over and she was escorting him outside her courtroom to a side door to avoid the ICE officers waiting in the main corridor outside the courtroom.
QuoteAccording to the criminal complaint, the judge confronted the agents and told them to talk to the chief judge of the courthouse. She then returned to her courtroom.
"Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge Dugan then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the 'jury door,' which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse," said the complaint, which was written by an F.B.I. agent.
I never expected ICE to be the SA, expected it to be the Secret service.
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2025, 03:19:57 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2025, 03:14:53 PMWhat I read in the NYTimes is that the alleged incident occurred in her courtroom during proceedings she was presiding over.
What I read in the NYT was that the case was over and she was escorting him outside her courtroom to a side door to avoid the ICE officers waiting in the main corridor outside the courtroom.
QuoteAccording to the criminal complaint, the judge confronted the agents and told them to talk to the chief judge of the courthouse. She then returned to her courtroom.
"Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge Dugan then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the 'jury door,' which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse," said the complaint, which was written by an F.B.I. agent.
You did not cut and paste the most relevant part of the NYTimes report
QuoteCharging documents described a confrontation last Friday at Judge Dugan's courthouse, in which federal agents said she was "visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor" when a group of immigration, D.E.A. and F.B.I. agents came to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a citizen of Mexico who was in her courtroom to face domestic violence charges.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2025, 03:48:34 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 25, 2025, 03:19:57 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2025, 03:14:53 PMWhat I read in the NYTimes is that the alleged incident occurred in her courtroom during proceedings she was presiding over.
What I read in the NYT was that the case was over and she was escorting him outside her courtroom to a side door to avoid the ICE officers waiting in the main corridor outside the courtroom.
QuoteAccording to the criminal complaint, the judge confronted the agents and told them to talk to the chief judge of the courthouse. She then returned to her courtroom.
"Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge Dugan then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the 'jury door,' which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse," said the complaint, which was written by an F.B.I. agent.
You did not cut and paste the most relevant part of the NYTimes report
QuoteCharging documents described a confrontation last Friday at Judge Dugan's courthouse, in which federal agents said she was "visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor" when a group of immigration, D.E.A. and F.B.I. agents came to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a citizen of Mexico who was in her courtroom to face domestic violence charges.
That's because she was not arrested for being in the courtroom to hear the case. She was arrested because of what she did after the hearing and outside the courtroom. You are completely missing the point with your focus on Flores-Ruiz's domestic violence issues.
I think you are missing the point, badly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2025, 09:28:22 PMI think you are missing the point, badly.
Well, you think poorly, but I'll leave it there. The others here understand my point, I think.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 25, 2025, 03:48:28 PMI never expected ICE to be the SA, expected it to be the Secret service.
Not enough members of the Secret Service.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2025, 04:04:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2025, 09:28:22 PMI think you are missing the point, badly.
Well, you think poorly, but I'll leave it there. The others here understand my point, I think.
Well, then, all I have to say is your country is very different from ours and I understand much better why your country is slipping into a fascist hell hole.
Look I think we all get what grumbler is getting at. Ultimately we will see what happens, but I don't think the judge did anything illegal. She didn't even help the dude escape, ICE picked him up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2025, 07:25:42 PMWell, then, all I have to say is your country is very different from ours and I understand much better why your country is slipping into a fascist hell hole.
The two countries are very different. In the US, a judge is not above the law. They can be arrested for crimes, like any other person (bar, apparently, the POTUS).
Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2025, 07:41:39 PMLook I think we all get what grumbler is getting at. Ultimately we will see what happens, but I don't think the judge did anything illegal. She didn't even help the dude escape, ICE picked him up.
We don't have all the facts, but on the face of it she certainly seemed to be assisting his attempt to evade arrest. It does not make a lot of sense; if they have a warrant, they'll still (and did) arrest him later
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2025, 08:30:00 PMWe don't have all the facts, but on the face of it she certainly seemed to be assisting his attempt to evade arrest. It does not make a lot of sense; if they have a warrant, they'll still (and did) arrest him later
The second sentence is correct - it doesn't make a lot of sense.
That's because the there is no evidence the judge attempted to assist an evasion of arrest - based on the government's own affidavit.
A typical urban state courthouse is a busy place during courtroom hours. The courthouse usually has a nice spacious lobby area. But the upper floor courtrooms - Dugan was on the 6th floor - are usually off of relatively narrow corridors. According to the government affidavit, ICE sent a team of six agents to camp out in the corridor in front of Judge Dugan's chambers. Six agents for one man known to be unarmed and not dangerous.
Judge Dugan runs a misdemeanor part, so during court session, her courtroom is likely to be filled with all sorts of people coming in and out - including not only defendants and their lawyers, but witnesses, translators, victims, and family members of all of the above. All of them come through the public entrance to the courtroom which means that day they all pass by a phalanx of armed ICE agents. That's a serious concern because - for example - witnesses in criminal cases are sometimes not entirely law abiding citizens themselves, and could easily be scared off by a large law enforcement presence camped out in front of a courtroom. That explains Judge Dugan's annoyance.
There are two entrances to Judge Dugan's courtroom. Both enter from the same place - the public corridor. Both exit out into the same place - the courtroom. One is the general public entrance; the other is for jurors and leads into the jury room antechamber, which in turn has an egress out into the courtroom. The reason for two entrances is that so in a jury chamber, jurors will be separate from lawyers and parties as they enter the courtroom.
According to the government's affidavit, Judge Dugan had Flores-Ruiz exit out the jury exit. There is an obvious reason for her to do that. She was running an active courtroom and did not want ICE to conduct an arrest right in front of the public entrance where others were coming in and out. Sending him the jury entrance would mean at least a few yards of separation of the arrest from the public entrance.
The government's claim that she intended to assist evasion by sending out the jury entrance is absurd. The jury entrance leads out to exactly the same corridor, where the judge knew ICE was waiting. And indeed, the government affidavit admits the ICE agents saw him going out the door. It then says an ICE agent
got on the elevator with Flores-Ruiz.
If the judge wanted to help Flores-Ruiz evade, she wouldn't have sent out the jury room. She would have taken him into chambers in the back, because there is usually a private entrance for the judge that does not lead to the public corridor. She didn't do that.
The only obstruction that happened that day was by a six-man team of ICE agents wasting federal taxpayer money by putting on a show and disrupting business in a state courthouse. Separation of powers goes two ways. The judiciary cannot intrude on proper executive functions. But the executive should not be conducting show piece enforcement operations in state courthouses.
Thanks for the details, MM. Where can the public see the affidavit? I'm really curious about the wording they used.
Paragraph 25 of the government's affidavit affirmatively states that Judge Dugan's chambers had private access to a non-public corridor. So if her intent was to help evasion of arrest, there is no question she could have easily done it by taking him out the back. Instead she sent him out to the public corridor.
Insane to charge it. Should be dismissed on its face.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/d62bd73e-a370-40e4-8d37-3cb70f6fa035.pdf
BTW working of knowledge of Spanish should probably be a basic requirement for a DEA agent posted to any American city . . .