Re. Group Chat: All systems are vulnerable to being shared by system administrators because they have the “keys” to everything. The DOJ or FBI should first look at Signal to see if they ghosted the chat with the Atlantic reporter.
It is too bad it happened however it happened. However, it is difficult to watch those who get really excited about it now but never cared in the past about H. Clinton’s setup and other leaks. Wouldn’t it be nice to have people care more about our country than about reelection and power?
“SIGNAL: Scott Jennings just dismantled the Atlantic’s hit piece by laying out the facts. The Signal app was already installed on several devices and agency computers when officials arrived—indicating it was already in use. Messages even reference switching to “high side” classified systems, showing they understood the line between unclassified chat and secure communication. There’s also debate over whether the term “war plans” is being sensationalized. Bottom line: the policy was smart and well-executed. It achieved what the Biden administration wouldn’t—stopping hostile actors from threatening our ships and sailors. Credit to the Trump administration for correcting a dangerous failure.”
Thats the most laughable part Kathaleena, those acting like this somehow is Trump’s fault, and not some low level staffer or clueless former Congressman. Trump had nothing to do with it.
I guess when you ignore all the good happening in this country right now you have to take your “wins” where you can find them. It’s sad and pathetic really.
I wondered if some of the rebuttal coming from Hegseth has to do with the communication being labeled ‘war plans’ which elevates the entire operation to something long term. Semantics can be important, but either way he should acknowledge the problem and move on. Of course I don’t expect NTers or Democrats to move on and it’s probably being discussed by cabinet members in front of the Senate today.
What nonsense. If you can’t trust the president’s top national security adviser to initiate a conversation without secretly including dishonest and corrupt hoax-peddling journos, that is a problem that begins and ends with the national security adviser.
Signal only shows names now, not numbers. And each user determines how his own name shows up, which means if you are invited into a chat after others have been added—and one of those people is not accurately showing their name—you would have no way of knowing a previously added person was a mole.
Similarly, if a trusted friend or colleague called you to speak with you but secretly had another person on the line, or met with you in person while his phone or other device was recording or relaying the conversation to another party, you wouldn’t blame the person who was being spied on. That would be insane. You would obviously place the entirety of the blame on the individual whose incompetence or corruption or malice was the sole cause of the breach of trust and security.
Trump may still trust Waltz, but I guarantee you very few others who have to work with Waltz trust him right now, and for good reason. Even in direct personal conversations in SCIFs or the White House, I guarantee top officials will be far less open with their views given that they now know who Waltz talks to when nobody is looking.
And that is a huge liability for Trump, and the country.”
The Bible clearly tells believers to call out our own side for sin, while telling the other side to wake up. So it makes sense to realize the sin in our own ranks and call them on it so we can keep our team going in a positive direction, while, at the same time, pointing out flaws on the other side.
The group chat: wait and see. Did the editor do the right thing, text back and say, I don’t think you meant to send this to me? That would be honest. Who added him? Why? Who knew? Questions to be answered.
And always a good question to pose to ourselves: What would be our reactions if this were the “other side” that was in hot water? What if this was the Biden (or Obama or … fill in the blank) Administration (and how did we respond when they hit the skids with an overnight negative story?).
These things always play out over time and more information will be gathered — but top officials reacting immediately with finger-pointing and name-calling (as both Trump and Hegseth have done – maybe still are doing, I haven’t checked the headlines today) isn’t a good look, that just seems to dig the hole deeper.
Those in authority should accept responsibility (even if they were blind-sided). “The buck stops here” – at the top – is always the proper rule in place with government leaders. A promise to get to the bottom of whatever happened and an acknowledgment that, yeah, “something” happened and it wasn’t good and we’re going to take an honest look and take care of this.
Damage control isn’t easy — but that response, taking responsibility as it happened under your watch — usually lessens the damage somewhat (and it’s the right thing to do).
“If I was added to a Signal chat with our top intel & defense officials, first thing I would do is inform the group I think they made a mistake. I would then leave the chat ASAP after confirmation.
Jeffrey Goldberg was lurking intentionally for a story. It’s beyond despicable.”
Just saying — good to take a breath and wait, finger-pointing looks bad. But that’s too often what both sides do when they’re faced with an internal crisis.
I’m concerned about Musk and his negative tweets about social security, namely that it’s a ponzi scheme and should be privatized .
I’m all for cutting abuse and waste, but I would hate to be someone who’s needing to sign up for SS benefits just now. The department is clearly in disarray and it could get worse before it gets better. Husband tried to get some tax information for Dad using the SS web site. He was having no luck so he called. The person on the line said ‘we’re busy now’ and hung up. Oh well.
Buckle up and enjoy the ride; it may be bumpy for a while. 🙂
Nothing new there, on social security. We have been working for several years to get things straightened out. To no avail. Every person we talk to says something different. And none can resolve anything though they all say, One more thing and this is resolved.
It is a Ponzi scheme, and should have been privatized long ago. The govt has run it as inefficiently as possible for decades, plus they’ve robbed it blind.
And long waits, if you can even get a human on the line, have been standard for a decade now. Howing up in person? Better have most of a day to waste sitting and waiting. It’s a model of govt mismanagement and inefficiency.
If it had been privatized ‘long ago’ it would have been utterly bankrupted in the great recession of 2008. It’s one of our most important government programs to date, and entrusting it to soulless characters such as Musk would be beyond stupid.
The only authority he’s been given is to root out the fraud and abuse, which he’s doing. What he’s doing, cutting 150 year old people off the rolls will only help ensure its longevity.
Don’t believe the media and democrat bull@#$% saying otherwise.
And privatized investments have outgained ss returns over the last 40 years, despite market volatility potential. There are lots of investment methods available that keep u safe despite what the market does.
“Allowing the Social Security system to invest a portion of its growing reserves in private assets will increase the returns on the trust fund balances and reduce the size of the unavoidable payroll tax increases and benefit reductions that will be needed to eliminate the program’s long-run deficit. Concerns that political interests might attempt to influence trust fund investment decisions are legitimate but institutional safeguards can be enacted into law that would reduce the possibility of such interference to a de minimis level.The Brookings Institution is committed to”
Musk himself is not my concern. It’s what he portends. Do you imagine that he’s the only one? The Paul Ryan-type Libertarians have been trying to get their hands on SS through privatization for years.
Anyway, privatization of government functions is always a bad idea. Private prisons, private soldiers, private detention centers are always a bad idea. Right now some of the scandals caused by detaining the Canadian woman or the German man (don’t remember the names) are basically caused by incentivizing private detention centers to hold them as long as possible.
In times of trouble privatized investments have been bailed out by the government. Remember ‘too big to fail’? Profits are privatized, when it mattered, losses became the public burden. Private companies are largely unaccountable to the public. Privatizing government functions makes them even more unacceptable.
Brookings Institute? Seriously bro? Could you possibly find a more solidly globalist, establishment perspective? Hint: you’ll have to Google much harder. But ok, Brookings it is; I’ll take it at face value. For starters— 1) What exactly are these ‘growing reserves’ of SS referred to in the article that we should take a portion of to invest in private assets? By all accounts the reserves are shrinking 2) Brookings suggests ‘institutional safeguards’ would be sufficient to protect our investment. I’m chuckling as I write this, but how are the institutional safeguards we already have working out? How did our financial safeguards hold up in 2008? And finally, you are aware that Chainsaw Musk is busy sawing through all those pesky safeguards as we chat, right?
I’m only focusing on Musk because he is the current bobble head making all the noise. The wiser ones are more quiet. Thiel, Zuckerberg, Bezos, even Ramaswamy know when it’s smart to let someone else make the ruckus and take the heat.
You’re in the Twilight Zone, NJ. That surreal place between reality and fantasy where men are men (unless they want to be women), where killing your opponent is illegal (unless you’re the President), and surgery is performed with a chainsaw (oh well, sometimes limbs need to be removed–hope they don’t hit an artery). 🙂
Wandering Views 
Re. Group Chat: All systems are vulnerable to being shared by system administrators because they have the “keys” to everything. The DOJ or FBI should first look at Signal to see if they ghosted the chat with the Atlantic reporter.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It is too bad it happened however it happened. However, it is difficult to watch those who get really excited about it now but never cared in the past about H. Clinton’s setup and other leaks. Wouldn’t it be nice to have people care more about our country than about reelection and power?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hmmmmm……
https://x.com/amuse/status/1904374229593624894?t=5ldoYL_-KoSHuQV9uj-N5w&s=19
“SIGNAL: Scott Jennings just dismantled the Atlantic’s hit piece by laying out the facts. The Signal app was already installed on several devices and agency computers when officials arrived—indicating it was already in use. Messages even reference switching to “high side” classified systems, showing they understood the line between unclassified chat and secure communication. There’s also debate over whether the term “war plans” is being sensationalized. Bottom line: the policy was smart and well-executed. It achieved what the Biden administration wouldn’t—stopping hostile actors from threatening our ships and sailors. Credit to the Trump administration for correcting a dangerous failure.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thats the most laughable part Kathaleena, those acting like this somehow is Trump’s fault, and not some low level staffer or clueless former Congressman. Trump had nothing to do with it.
I guess when you ignore all the good happening in this country right now you have to take your “wins” where you can find them. It’s sad and pathetic really.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And let’s not ignore the fact that Goldberg has once again outed himself as an untrustworthy weasel with an agenda.
https://x.com/Schroey1128/status/1904536819338707260?t=HLd8wMafkaHTxomYvla2zw&s=19
“While that is critical information, that is not the issue…
What’s more critical is that Goldberg didn’t go directly to Mike Waltz and mention he was on the thread… rather he told the World.
THAT is the real security threat!!!”
LikeLiked by 3 people
I wondered if some of the rebuttal coming from Hegseth has to do with the communication being labeled ‘war plans’ which elevates the entire operation to something long term. Semantics can be important, but either way he should acknowledge the problem and move on. Of course I don’t expect NTers or Democrats to move on and it’s probably being discussed by cabinet members in front of the Senate today.
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2025/03/25/watch-live-tulsi-gabbard-john-ratcliffe-kash-patel-testify-before-senate/
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Hegseth should’ve known.”
What nonsense. If you can’t trust the president’s top national security adviser to initiate a conversation without secretly including dishonest and corrupt hoax-peddling journos, that is a problem that begins and ends with the national security adviser.
Signal only shows names now, not numbers. And each user determines how his own name shows up, which means if you are invited into a chat after others have been added—and one of those people is not accurately showing their name—you would have no way of knowing a previously added person was a mole.
Similarly, if a trusted friend or colleague called you to speak with you but secretly had another person on the line, or met with you in person while his phone or other device was recording or relaying the conversation to another party, you wouldn’t blame the person who was being spied on. That would be insane. You would obviously place the entirety of the blame on the individual whose incompetence or corruption or malice was the sole cause of the breach of trust and security.
Trump may still trust Waltz, but I guarantee you very few others who have to work with Waltz trust him right now, and for good reason. Even in direct personal conversations in SCIFs or the White House, I guarantee top officials will be far less open with their views given that they now know who Waltz talks to when nobody is looking.
And that is a huge liability for Trump, and the country.”
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1904538768041787501?t=WCqsHhOr-XMhlCeBZ9k9GA&s=19
LikeLike
The Bible clearly tells believers to call out our own side for sin, while telling the other side to wake up. So it makes sense to realize the sin in our own ranks and call them on it so we can keep our team going in a positive direction, while, at the same time, pointing out flaws on the other side.
The group chat: wait and see. Did the editor do the right thing, text back and say, I don’t think you meant to send this to me? That would be honest. Who added him? Why? Who knew? Questions to be answered.
mumsee
LikeLiked by 4 people
And always a good question to pose to ourselves: What would be our reactions if this were the “other side” that was in hot water? What if this was the Biden (or Obama or … fill in the blank) Administration (and how did we respond when they hit the skids with an overnight negative story?).
These things always play out over time and more information will be gathered — but top officials reacting immediately with finger-pointing and name-calling (as both Trump and Hegseth have done – maybe still are doing, I haven’t checked the headlines today) isn’t a good look, that just seems to dig the hole deeper.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those in authority should accept responsibility (even if they were blind-sided). “The buck stops here” – at the top – is always the proper rule in place with government leaders. A promise to get to the bottom of whatever happened and an acknowledgment that, yeah, “something” happened and it wasn’t good and we’re going to take an honest look and take care of this.
Damage control isn’t easy — but that response, taking responsibility as it happened under your watch — usually lessens the damage somewhat (and it’s the right thing to do).
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, but you have morals, decency, and character. All things Goldberg lacks.
https://x.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1904552354898457080?t=W2mjAU6D2iSRxbGOkTEFvg&s=19
“If I was added to a Signal chat with our top intel & defense officials, first thing I would do is inform the group I think they made a mistake. I would then leave the chat ASAP after confirmation.
Jeffrey Goldberg was lurking intentionally for a story. It’s beyond despicable.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just saying — good to take a breath and wait, finger-pointing looks bad. But that’s too often what both sides do when they’re faced with an internal crisis.
Carry on 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m concerned about Musk and his negative tweets about social security, namely that it’s a ponzi scheme and should be privatized .
I’m all for cutting abuse and waste, but I would hate to be someone who’s needing to sign up for SS benefits just now. The department is clearly in disarray and it could get worse before it gets better. Husband tried to get some tax information for Dad using the SS web site. He was having no luck so he called. The person on the line said ‘we’re busy now’ and hung up. Oh well.
Buckle up and enjoy the ride; it may be bumpy for a while. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nothing new there, on social security. We have been working for several years to get things straightened out. To no avail. Every person we talk to says something different. And none can resolve anything though they all say, One more thing and this is resolved.
mumsee
LikeLiked by 3 people
Why are you concerned?
It is a Ponzi scheme, and should have been privatized long ago. The govt has run it as inefficiently as possible for decades, plus they’ve robbed it blind.
And long waits, if you can even get a human on the line, have been standard for a decade now. Howing up in person? Better have most of a day to waste sitting and waiting. It’s a model of govt mismanagement and inefficiency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If it had been privatized ‘long ago’ it would have been utterly bankrupted in the great recession of 2008. It’s one of our most important government programs to date, and entrusting it to soulless characters such as Musk would be beyond stupid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s not entrusted to Musk Debra.
The only authority he’s been given is to root out the fraud and abuse, which he’s doing. What he’s doing, cutting 150 year old people off the rolls will only help ensure its longevity.
Don’t believe the media and democrat bull@#$% saying otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And privatized investments have outgained ss returns over the last 40 years, despite market volatility potential. There are lots of investment methods available that keep u safe despite what the market does.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/investing-social-security-reserves-in-private-securities/#:~:text=Allowing%20the%20Social%20Security%20system,the%20program%27s%20long%2Drun%20deficit.
“Allowing the Social Security system to invest a portion of its growing reserves in private assets will increase the returns on the trust fund balances and reduce the size of the unavoidable payroll tax increases and benefit reductions that will be needed to eliminate the program’s long-run deficit. Concerns that political interests might attempt to influence trust fund investment decisions are legitimate but institutional safeguards can be enacted into law that would reduce the possibility of such interference to a de minimis level.The Brookings Institution is committed to”
LikeLike
Musk himself is not my concern. It’s what he portends. Do you imagine that he’s the only one? The Paul Ryan-type Libertarians have been trying to get their hands on SS through privatization for years.
Anyway, privatization of government functions is always a bad idea. Private prisons, private soldiers, private detention centers are always a bad idea. Right now some of the scandals caused by detaining the Canadian woman or the German man (don’t remember the names) are basically caused by incentivizing private detention centers to hold them as long as possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In times of trouble privatized investments have been bailed out by the government. Remember ‘too big to fail’? Profits are privatized, when it mattered, losses became the public burden. Private companies are largely unaccountable to the public. Privatizing government functions makes them even more unacceptable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am hitting the like button on both sides of the SS comments because I am glad to hear the differing thoughts on something I know little about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brookings Institute? Seriously bro? Could you possibly find a more solidly globalist, establishment perspective? Hint: you’ll have to Google much harder. But ok, Brookings it is; I’ll take it at face value. For starters— 1) What exactly are these ‘growing reserves’ of SS referred to in the article that we should take a portion of to invest in private assets? By all accounts the reserves are shrinking 2) Brookings suggests ‘institutional safeguards’ would be sufficient to protect our investment. I’m chuckling as I write this, but how are the institutional safeguards we already have working out? How did our financial safeguards hold up in 2008? And finally, you are aware that Chainsaw Musk is busy sawing through all those pesky safeguards as we chat, right?
I’m only focusing on Musk because he is the current bobble head making all the noise. The wiser ones are more quiet. Thiel, Zuckerberg, Bezos, even Ramaswamy know when it’s smart to let someone else make the ruckus and take the heat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Morning! What a “wake up call” you had RK!!! Where are my glasses, where am I !!? I have experienced those moments! Happy Wednesday! 🤓
Nj
LikeLiked by 2 people
What!? How’d I get here?? 😂
Nj
LikeLiked by 3 people
You’re in the Twilight Zone, NJ. That surreal place between reality and fantasy where men are men (unless they want to be women), where killing your opponent is illegal (unless you’re the President), and surgery is performed with a chainsaw (oh well, sometimes limbs need to be removed–hope they don’t hit an artery). 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person