423 Comments
User's avatar
MajorSensible's avatar

Politicians are hypocrites. In other news, water is wet and the sun rose in the east this morning.

Expand full comment
Dazed and Confused's avatar

This is weapons grade hypocrisy on the part of warner and the democrats. Also known as another day ending in "y".

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

Much more interesting though: Donald Trump may be able to be super aggressive on deportations. Not only for Khalil and the Tren de Aragua members, for everyone.

As far as I can tell, the prevailing case law is Wong Wing v. United States (1896) and Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952). In Wong Wing, the Supreme Court said that deportations are civil cases that require no due process unless there is a crime being charged. Which means that the USA can use "summary measures" with no court at all for deportations where there is no crime, but the alien is of a class or character judged deportable under a law, such as a supporter of terrorism, or the "foreign policy risk" clause citable by the Secretary of State under existing law. Such matters are judged solely by the executive branch as the Supreme Court summarized in Turner v. Williams by saying "No limits can be put by the courts [i.e. no judicial review at all] upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods [summary methods means rapid deportation without a hearing], the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land, and unlawfully remain therein."

That means that all immigration courts are essentially optional process measures offered by the executive branch, rather than arms of the judicial branch, and indeed when you go and look, all of these courts are administered directly by the Dept of Justice, not the court system. It looks like the executive branch can pull back about as much of that as they would like - I haven't seen legislation that establishes the framework for any of those and I think it's entirely Executive branch jurisdiction. I.e. it's kind of become a "norm" to have those courts, but a President is free to change that norm. However, as soon as a crime is charged, then you're in the jurisdiction of the courts, as due process kicks in before you can be found guilty of a crime (and subsequently deported due to said criminal activity being proven in a court of law).

But if the DoJ, SoS, or executive branch want to eject you under a law that allows it for non-criminal behavior, then there is no judicial review required and no first amendment protection. That's what the Court adjudicated in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy where they allowed the deportation of Communists despite First Amendment arguments that they should be allowed to express their views without deportation.

I think there's an awakening coming to just how much power of removal the executive branch has, granted under current law and by a deference established by long-standing Supreme Court rulings. The current Justices may overrule some of this given that it's 70-120 year old case law, but today rapid removal without possibility of judicial review is permitted for many, many, individuals and groups, as specified in current laws by Congress and administered on its behalf by the Executive branch.

Expand full comment
Norma Odiaga's avatar

Can you even imagine providing judicial review for the millions of illegal aliens that walked across our borders these past four years!

Expand full comment
T247's avatar

The Dems used the Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm the system and attempt to force amnesty. They knew there was no way to process or deport them. It’s imperative to deport as many as possible.

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

Definitely not! The only problem is that with faster process, you will have mistakes and the BIG problem is some of those mistakes will be something I like to call "mistakenly deporting citizens".

Expand full comment
John Didrichsen's avatar

For four years, not a peep from judges and lefties as millions of illegals fire-hosed into our country. Now that a new admin want to deport the worst of the worst, these same America Lasters are clutching their pearls in horror.

Expand full comment
Dave Slate's avatar

Kelly Green wrote: "Definitely not! The only problem is that with faster process, you will have mistakes and the BIG problem is some of those mistakes will be something I like to call 'mistakenly deporting citizens'."

Agreed. Even if the U.S. has the right to deport any non-citizen it deems to be no longer welcome, there are still issues of due process involved, such as how the government is supposed to determine who is and is not a citizen. This isn't as simple as it might seem. I'm reminded of Cheech Marin's amusing film from 1987 "Born in East L.A.", in which the Cheech Marin character, who is a U.S. citizen of Latino ancestry, goes to a factory in L.A. to pick up his cousin. Unfortunately, the immigration authorities raid the factory while he's there, and, since he had forgotten to take any identification with him, he is mistaken as an illegal alien and deported to Tijuana, Mexico. While in Mexico he has various goofy adventures before finally managing to return to the U.S.

Also, unless a deportee has been convicted of a crime in the U.S., he/she is entitled to fair and courteous treatment. Deportation means transporting people out of the country, not detaining them under harsh conditions for indefinite periods.

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

Well this might be why the Executive branch chooses a little process. But Trump might be just as happy not being as careful.

The legal system is better 100 guilty men free than 1 innocent goes to jail. For expulsion Trump won’t be that overcautious.

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

There are reports (Glenn Greenwald) that Trump is successfully closing the border but so far his administrations actual number of deportations isn't significantly higher than that of other Presidents for the same time period. Concern is, that like Guantanamo Bay, one size fits all sweeps are gathering and imprisoning people who are not gang perps. Personally there is a little too much of an ain't revenge sweet media carnival gloat to the proceedings. And, after the Snowden/Assange/J6 object lesson psyop a rational due process approach by the White House would make We the People feel that sanity might be returning to our Republic. On the flip side the DNC/EU/WEF Davos NGO wielding crowd created the

circus and crossed and violated so many lines of

rational political demarcation it's hard to see how to escape the polarity without extreme action. Unfortunately for We the People, the issue remains, that the entire sh't show is our responsibility and our Republic continues to suffer the mal consequences of run amok monkeys.

Again!! My view: WE ARE THE LAST FREE PEOPLE STANDING. It doesn't matter who did what. We the People must demand, personally engage and carry the weight of creating the healthy truth/fact based human reality that will release us from the machinations of avaricious criminal greed and graft. Subscription journalism can give us the light, the light can give us the voice and the voice can give us the power to begin the transformation. There is the Republic, the Constitution and the free citizen. Everything else is just passing through.

Expand full comment
Cosmo T Kat's avatar

If they came here illegally they are a perp gangland style or not.

Expand full comment
Secret Squirrel's avatar

Very illuminating. Thank you.

Expand full comment
Kelly C.'s avatar

Thank you for commenting on this.

Expand full comment
Annabelle Lee's avatar

In other words, the federal government may cite Wong Wing to justify the detention of the Tufts University grad student Rumeysa Ozturk from Turkey. She was approached without warning and arrested, and sent to the same facility in Louisiana as Mahmoud Khalil.

According to DHS she “engaged in activities in support of Hamas.” I believe what inspired this arrest was a letter she wrote a year ago to the school paper which criticized Israel for blocking humanitarian aide to Gaza and called upon Tufts to divest all funds from Israeli investments.

The Israel lobby and zionists are terrified of student protesters as they have a storied history of influence and success. It’s students who succeeded in getting universities across the USA to divest from South Africa and students had a huge impact on Vietnam (Columbia was at the forefront of Vietnam protests).

While students have a rich history of protest in the United States, the Israel lobby and zionists do not care about our American history. They do not care that our nation was founded in dissent and they do not care one iota about our First Amendment right to free expression.

Israeli born Miriam Adelson belongs to a group that actively works to dismantle basic American rights and civil liberties… I don’t have the name, click the link to a podcast by the Electronic Intifada “How Israeli-US billionaire Miriam Adelson is helping Trump destroy free speech”

(Now, like cockroaches which are impossible to get rid of no matter how often you call the exterminator, and which are invariably unwelcome and unappreciated, zionists will crawl out of the digital woodwork and feed on this post. To them I say —

All these desperate efforts to silence voices are made in vain, there is no miracle that will put Humpty Dumpty back together again. The stench of that rotten egg has reached every corner of the globe and will linger for generations.

https://youtu.be/Nr0LkA7VW7Q?si=SzlBLsgRVZxl1qah

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

And this was the reason that, recently,

In this republic run by the Jerk,

That men walked out of the crowd, grabbing

The beauty Rumeysa Ozturk;

So that immigration agents came

And bore her to lockup and clerk,

To send her over the oceans,

From this republic setting to work.

Expand full comment
Annabelle Lee's avatar

Seems like the republic is regularly run by some jerk. While the face and party may change, ever since 9/11 they’ve trampled the constitution like a Mistress on a human carpet. The problem is Americans continue to accept the abuse lying down like pathetic submissive masochists.

As Americans breathed a sigh of relief that Blinken was leaving, in walked Stasi impersonator Marco Rubio who forgot that he should at least cringe with guilt as he punishes anyone he can that dares to decry the most reprehensible, genocidal and lunatic nation since the third reich.

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

So, you've been to school for a year or two

And you know you've seen it all

In daddy's car, thinkin' you'll go far

Back east, your type don't crawl

Play ethnicky jazz to parade your snazz

On your five-grand stereo

Braggin' that you know how the poor folk feel cold

And the slums got so much soul

Now you can go where people are one

Now you can go where they get things done

What you need, my son

What you need, my son

Is a holiday in Cambodia

Where people dress in black

A holiday in Cambodia

Where you'll kiss ass crack

Pol... Pot!

Pol... Pot!

Pol... Pot!

Pol... Pot!

Pol Pot!

Expand full comment
BradK (Afuera!)'s avatar

In spite of all the smoke the Left tries to bellow out of these dying embers, the Democrat party is at its lowest approval rating since Johnson and Viet Nam. And it only worsens day by day. This is literally all they have.

I would love to predict the midterms will be a disaster for them, but looking at the narrowest of possible defeats yesterday in Pennsylvania, nothing is assured. MAGA needs to be a 24x7 operation, not just one day every 4 years. The Democrat ballot Xerox machine never sleeps.

It's a long war with may battles ahead. Our forefathers didn't defeat the British in a day, and this is nothing less than a second American Revolution. Just as those forefathers feared. Defeat is too horrible to fathom.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 27
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Cosmo T Kat's avatar

"That's probably because the Democrat Party doesn't represent the left"

What does the Democratic party represent then?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 28
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Cosmo T Kat's avatar

I responded below with a bit of snark, which sometimes one can regret. In this instance I thought about it and decided to revisit for a better exchange. I really meant ideologically, but your answer in hindsight was just as good. You described very accurately who comprises the Democratic party. So, let's ask why since this represents a rather small, but admittedly powerful elite (I chuckle at the cosmopolitan oligarch reference) with substantial influence, if by PMC you are referring to progressive media conglomerate, of course, blacks, Jews, and Zionists, (the protected classes) although the Christian Zionists lean right and are jeered by many, me included. This made me think of Thorsten Veblen's classic, "The Theory of the Leisure Class." The elites of today are symbolic capitalists where social justice is not just a political cause they can embrace but also a shrewd, advantageous way to get on in the world. Veblen noted in the Gilded Age, the key to status competition was "conspicuous consumption." The status in the "internet age" is conspicuous compassion. Wokeness, like the crew you cited, has become a key source of cultural capital among contemporary elites and the progressives. allowing them to be seen as interesting, daring, brave, sophisticated, and empathetic, a reputation that is not only good in itself, but good for tangible rewards it confers in career and social advancement, but shallow. This makes sense to many who assume that anyone who claims to take seriously the idea of 74 genders must have ulterior motives. All this suggests there is no conflict between sincere commitment to a political viewpoint and taking advantage of the life afforded by that commitment. It is a rule that symbolic capitalists may truly believe what they say, yet it is simultaneously true that progressives exploit social justice advocacy to make themselves feel good, but ultimately offer up little more than symbolic gestures and platitudes to redress the material harms they decry, often exacerbate, but that's about as far as it goes. Pretty shallow, no?

Expand full comment
Cosmo T Kat's avatar

So, the progressive left and the mentally ill all part of the re-imagined CPUSA.

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

Maybe they're just pulling a "Larry Bird" move. Tell them the play, pull off the play and smile.

Expand full comment
Callimachus's avatar

I agree. Demolishing a hypocritical politician for making an obvious partisan flip-flop is not worth the time and effort for you, Matt, nor the attention of us, your audience. Please put your great talent and energy into more substantive topics. Like the Ukraine peace negotiations that were promised as the main topic for this past Monday's America This Week--and then totally ignored. You and Walter are both really excellent analysts, but you seem to be too easily distracted by topics as un-nutritious as the junk food you spent so much time discussing on Monday's show.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

Respectfully disagree. The story is “Preservation of The Deep State,” and the strategies deployed in the furtherance thereof.

Expand full comment
Marilyn F's avatar

Exactly! We can’t ignore the democrats efforts to destroy by lying, exaggerating & going insane. I hope they keep doing it.

Expand full comment
ShirtlessCaptainKirk's avatar

Agreed. These weasels and their media flunkies will memory-hole the ‘color revolution’ scam they pulled on the American people by finger-pointing and hollering “right-wing conspiracy theory.” Someone needs to call them on their shit.

Expand full comment
jackman's avatar

Utterly right--Taibbi is proving himself to be an incredible coward, unable to call Trump on his administrations open attack on free speech, day after day, as they arrest people for simply speaking their minds on Israel's open slaughter of Palestinians. Instead he continues to hide behind these stories about hypocritical Democrats. Yea, no shit, we already knew that the Democrats were empty and bankrupt; that's why we came here. But we expected that he cared about Free Speech per se, not simply Free Speech that Democrats suppressed. Of course, Taibbi can't find the balls to say anything critical about Israel either, which is thoroughly stunning--and I say that as a Jew, too. What is happening in Israel and the distortion by AIPAC reaching into this country are big stories, but Taibbi only cares about simple slam dunks about Democrats who have now have no power, rather than turning his eye's towards the GOP's rampant corruption and destruction of the government every day, right now. At some point, you're simply a slick apologist for really bad people.

Expand full comment
Clarence Anderson's avatar

Matt's penned more than a few objections to Trump's actions to silence and/or deport Khalil, so I don't know how you can reasonably say that Matt is "proving himself to be an incredible coward, unable to call Trump on his administrations open attack on free speech."

Expand full comment
Adam's avatar

Not even slick. The AOC story and this one are verging towards Rush Limbaugh clumsy. I agree with Jackman about the cowardly

selectivity of Matt’s free speech analyses.

Expand full comment
BD's avatar

What an incredibly STUPID statement...calling Matt an "incredible coward". We all know what kind of idiocy you subscribe to.

Expand full comment
Theresa Thompson's avatar

Did you just show up today? You need a bullhorn every time? Go review what he's written the last few weeks. Then come back and gripe!

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

Last few weeks?! He had his home visited by the IRS while he was under oath before Congress?!

While all of us citizens have a right to say whatever, most of us get no confrontation for our comments. Thank God for the 1A warriors.

Good grief, Charlie Hebdo, er, Brown.

Expand full comment
Theresa Thompson's avatar

As regards a certain topic.

Expand full comment
ShirtlessCaptainKirk's avatar

In the first case, the DNC and intelligence agencies were directly censoring opposition media. Matt was one of very few journalists to write about it. In the current case, the Trump admin says they’re opposing Khalil’s actions, not his speech. The apparently powerless Democratic media is screaming bloody murder on every channel and podcast, comparing Trump to Mussolini and Tom Homan to a Jim Crow era redneck sheriff. No coverup this time, no lapdog media, no complaints about the 1st Amendment. Matt has written that Trump’s actions have a whiff of bullshit. He’s been both principled and mostly consistent on freedom of speech. Comparing the two cases is a false equivalency. Israel is sort of a side issue, though I’d agree pro-Hamas views should be protected under freedom of speech.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 29
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
ShirtlessCaptainKirk's avatar

My argument hinged more on the vigorous criticism from the judicial branch & legacy media against the Trump admin's immigration policy. I don't see a clear double-standard from Matt re: freedom of speech.

To answer your question on the Khalil matter, he's being accused of fraud in his green card application, as he failed to disclose his involvement with UNRWA, the United Nations agency for Palestine refugees; the British embassy in Beirut; and a group known as Columbia University Apartheid Divest. They're basically saying he misrepresented himself as someone who believed in America its culture and values, when he's a trouble-stirring Jew-hater who supports a terrorist group. Legally, I think they can deport him. But where do Hamas sympathies/ anti-Israel arguments shade into political subversion? If green card holders don't have full freedom, is there a clear line, since even the Trump admin admits they have speech protections? Every administration since Bush has invoked war-powers to prosecute subversives and justify warrantless surveillance. They've also been pretty indiscriminate on border security. Matt has a post calling for a consult w/ immigration lawyers and non-partisan experts: https://www.racket.news/p/note-to-readers-d27?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1042&post_id=160138423&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=9me2m&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 29
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Harry Potter's avatar

Yeah the guy who has gone against his liberal tribe time and again in pursuit of reporting on censorship of Americans by their government, part of the deep dive into the Twitter Files. He’s been very open about being soured on Bernie Sanders now that he has seen what a phony he is. I don’t agree with his politics, I’m a conservative. But I truly value his willingness to pursue stories others have left alone, and ignored any concerns over disagreeing w his tribe.

Expand full comment
Cosmo T Kat's avatar

Missing your confirmation bias, just a little?

Expand full comment
Elgin McElroy the First's avatar

That’s the thing about creating content for a subscriber base. You have to write what they expect to hear.

Expand full comment
FNR's avatar

"At some point, you're simply a slick apologist for really bad people," explained the hamasblower, enthusiastically blowing hamas while giving hand service to the houthis and the communists.

Expand full comment
Daily Growler's avatar

I disagree. I get the most out of Matt and Walter's discussions when they don't opine about things they are not experts in, e.g., the West's proxy war against Russia. For reliable information about geopolitics, I listen to people like the Alexes on the Duran, Alex Krainer, Larry Johnson, Scott Ritters, Douglas MacGregor, and a few other knowledgeable analysts. I love hearing Walter's and Matt's views on subjects to which they bring their unique perspectives as a creative people, so I found this past Monday's ATW especially valuable.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

Walter has his eye on a big, abstruse meta-theory of heretofore unrecognized deep state influence on politics/media/society. If he is on to something this will all look like time well spent, but either way it is causing him to overlook the more salient mainstream topics that need his and Matt’s analysis and skeptical eye.

Expand full comment
Al Gonzalez's avatar

Matt deserves to make his own editorial decisions, his reputation is impeccable, he needs to continue to point out the hypocrisies of both sides and in this case it applies. Matt and Walter do not have an agenda other than to comment on what is going on and doing it at times in the most hilarious and entertaining manner. I love watching them, they are brilliant and will not be compromised by anybody. Bravo Matt and Walter!

Expand full comment
Callimachus's avatar

I agree with you on the quality of their work. And I love the interplay between them. What I resent is that they don’t stick to their pre-announced topics. That is disrespectful of their audience’s time and attention.

Expand full comment
Al Gonzalez's avatar

I understand how you feel but I kind of like that it is a little freewheeling and stream of consciousness deal. I actually like the lack of structure they are not a traditional media deal and if it was on a traditional tv network they would ruin that freedom and overproduce it. Might they need to be a little more disciplined, sure. But whatever it is they talk about interests me. I love Walter’s facial expressions and how honest he is about his imperfections as he self deprecates.

Expand full comment
Eric Werkhoven's avatar

Yeah, and the democrats digging up clips showing Hegseth is a hypocrite is of the same disappointing caliber. Always picking the predictable partisan angle is boring, and I expect more of Matt.

Expand full comment
Turd_Ferguson's avatar

I think it surprises me more than anybody watched Maddow to see this in the first place...

Expand full comment
Aaron's avatar

The Last Boy Scout is a frequently overlooked cinematic treasure.

Expand full comment
Maryann C's avatar

Hegseth is a combat veteran. Having known a few combat vets they sometime come back into society with demons. They do destructive things. Pete Hegseth deserves some grace for his past troubles. He worked through them. But for the grace of god go I.

Expand full comment
Chuck Campbell's avatar

Grace? Ok. Head of the defense department? Gtfo

Expand full comment
Cooper's avatar

Completely unrelated, I know — Hegseth is a Cub Scout.

Expand full comment
Violet Bick's avatar

13 dead under “Eagle Scout” Austin. Just sayin’

Expand full comment
JAE's avatar

Tell us your credentials, they match Hegseth’s in any way?

Expand full comment
Jake's avatar

In what sense?

Expand full comment
JAE's avatar

It’s exactly this kind of nihilistic attitude that begets these swamp dwellers.

Expand full comment
MajorSensible's avatar

I'm not nihilistic, I just refuse to get outraged by examples of politicians saying hypocritical things. I look more to what they do than what they say.

Expand full comment
Maryann C's avatar

Is t it getting old that the American people are constantly having to parse out what these politicians really mean. Enough of the games already. I feel that as our representatives in government they should ALWAYS be honest.

I guess that’s just the game. It’s a shame

Expand full comment
JAE's avatar

Suggestion, if you’re not nihilistic maybe try harder not to sound like you are.

Expand full comment
MajorSensible's avatar

Fair enough. I thought I was sounding blasé.

Expand full comment
steven t koenig's avatar

Huh? Did you say something?

Expand full comment
Elgin McElroy the First's avatar

Mostly agree. However….You can’t say “Hillary should be jailed” and “Hegseth should keep his job”… or “Hillary made a mistake but it’s okay” and “Hegseth should lose his job.” It’s the same issue.

Expand full comment
Shaun's avatar

Saying, doing. Fuck- way to split some serious hair.

Saying is doing...

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Was there any pluses that they came clean immediately. The WH confirmed right away the messaging. I agree that more will be revealed. It’s hard to not think that way after going thru Trumps first term .

Expand full comment
Elgin McElroy the First's avatar

Not really. Hegseth first said it never happened Then the WH confirmed it, but immediately added, “nothing to see here.” Gabbard testified before Congress that nothing important was revealed and then had to go back the next day and correct her statements. Everyone keeps saying, “it doesn’t matter; nothing classified was shared,” even though the standard for using Signal isn’t just “don’t share classified info,” it’s “don’t share info that hasn’t been approved for public use.” And K. Leavitt keeps calling Goldberg a fraud and suggesting that he caused the whole thing.

So, as confessions go, the WH one was pretty weak.

Expand full comment
Bushrod Lake's avatar

Yes indeed, but one has to decide which is worse. Hypocrite #! or #2. We could have all voted for Jill Stein and avoided much of this. She received 0.4% of the vote, so who's to blame????

Expand full comment
ResistWeMuch's avatar

99.6%? oh wait, forgot to count the fraudulent votes. maybe 104.6%

Expand full comment
ResistWeMuch's avatar

Right, and make sure that you give the democrats and the government the credit for the sun and the water. Government is their god, after all......

Expand full comment
Ramona Fiorillo's avatar

No one demanded resignations for 13 dead at Abbey Gate. ...Just saying. Thank you for continuing to investigate.

Expand full comment
mhj's avatar
Mar 26Edited

A lot of people demanded resignations, mostly aimed at Milley and Austin. Nobody in the Democratic Party controlled media, though.

Expand full comment
FNR's avatar

FIFY...

A lot of adults who do not dwell in the bubble demanded resignations, mostly aimed at China's ally Milley and Face-shield MIA Buffoon Austin. Nobody in the Democratic Party or media (yes, redundant), did, though. They quietly celebrated.

Expand full comment
Skenny's avatar

Pure performance art by actors and actresses that could not care less about 13 dead soldiers.

Expand full comment
Janet G's avatar

Well, we kind of demanded they just didn’t comply

Expand full comment
Bill Lacey's avatar

"This is another example of carelessness, sloppiness and a crowd that’s not ready for prime time."

Warner has a short memory. I recall Biden, Austen and Milley droning 10 civilians, including 7 children, in Afghanistan by "accident."

To save face for the botched Afghan withdrawal that resulted in 13 Marines being killed by a suicide bomber, the Biden gang hurriedly struck back with what we were told was an "over-the-horizon" drone strike, resulting in a "righteous kill". But instead of killing ISIS terrorists as we were told, their "carelessness, sloppiness and a crowd that's not ready for prime time" killed 10 Afghan citizens who were going about their daily routine on their own soil.

No one resigned. No one was fired. No one was punished. No one even apologized. But hey, Trump's people screwed up a group chat. So there's that.

Expand full comment
Casey J Siller's avatar

absolutely devoid of morals, yet they discuss morals all the time

Expand full comment
Gary Creamer's avatar

You can bet the last hair on your rear end; a Democrat will NEVER apologize.

Expand full comment
Bobby's avatar

LOL

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

THIS!

Expand full comment
Julia's avatar

No way they screwed up the chat, I know how Signal works. I'm sure the "leak" was intentional to pass the message to Europe. Unless, Goldberg stole somebody's else phone and name.

Expand full comment
Casey J Siller's avatar

You realize this one-sided morality for the public benefit has been going on for like 5060 7080 years now?

On the one hand, I’m not a big protest guy, but on the other hand, I don’t really like repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Then again, what would we talk about if there weren’t all these lies to discuss?

Expand full comment
Dan_in_MO's avatar

I spent 30 years in the USAF, held a TS clearance. No way what the Atlantic published was classified. This is a nothing burger and everyone needs to move along and try to find their next Trump scandal.

Expand full comment
Mark Bravo's avatar

It's less than a nothing burger. These texts lie somewhere between operational planning (not war plans) and execution (tactical)...a gray zone as far as comms security goes. As you get closer to tactical the demands for security go down. Real time comms are very often unencrypted. Why? Because the effort needed to maintain encryption protocols increases exponentially as you get closer to tactical maneuver. The only problem I see with this situation was some idiot added Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat.

Expand full comment
Elgin McElroy the First's avatar

DoD’s own rules don’t say, “don’t share classified info on Signal.” They say, “Don’t share non-public info on Signal” (meaning, info that hadn’t been cleared for public release). A month before the texts, the NSA had issued a bulletin saying that Signal had vulnerabilities that were being exploited by Russian cyber assets . The week of the texts, the DoD sent out a similar warning bulletin.

This was malpractice. It’s basically what Hillary did.

Expand full comment
Dunboy2020's avatar

Right, but then you also know, if there WAS classified info mishandled, someone would lose his clearance. So really it’s a question of whether it rises to the level of “classified” and confidential, secret, TS, or other.

Expand full comment
Dan_in_MO's avatar

IF an individual were to release or expose classified information an investigation is launched into what happened and how serious was the compromise. The range of penalities and actions are wide ranging. Actions could be as simple as additional training, disciplinary actions if it was willfully done. You are correct, if classified information is mishandled one could lose their clearance but it is not necessairly automatic. At least that was the way it was the last time I worked in the classified environment but that was over 25 yers ago so things may have changed since then.

Expand full comment
Peter Murphy's avatar

“ something doesn’t smell right” is an understatement. Can’t wait to hear what Walter has to say about this. When I read that JEFFREY Goldberg was “the journalist” I had to laugh.

Expand full comment
AMWL's avatar

This smells like a setup. Gee, let’s sneak in that Goldberg guy from the Atlantic…no one will suspect anything smells there.:.no one will think, gee, what are the odds of that?

“Of all the chat joints in all the towns in all the world, Goldberg walks into mine”

Expand full comment
Ministryofbullshit's avatar

It’s the Zelenskyy meeting 2.0.

Expand full comment
Kathy Hix's avatar

“Of all the chat joints in all the towns in all the world, Goldberg walks into mine”

That made me smile. Thanks.

Expand full comment
Fiery Hunt's avatar

I think the big question is how did Goldberg get added?

Was it subterfuge from someone in the Admin/MIC?

Was the hardware backdoored by the past Admin?

I think that fishy smell is that this wasn't a dumb mistake...it was a full on political operation by the opposition.

No way is Goldberg, of all people,"accidentially" added to that chat.

Expand full comment
Casey J Siller's avatar

I hope it’s a one off, and doesn’t keep happening. I worry about how dumb the public is, especially where I live. Seattle, Washington.

Expand full comment
David's avatar

Imo this is just first of many attempts by the Blob to remove anyone loyal to Trump. Which is to say any patriot. No way Goldberg sat on this story, it was timed for the meeting. More IC kabuki.

Expand full comment
Heaven Research's avatar

Or maybe, just maybe… the admin of the chat added him by mistake

Expand full comment
Fiery Hunt's avatar

But what exactly does that look like?

Like there's somebody missing... What's that acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff name? ...Goldman, Goldberg?

I mean huh?

I read somewhere yesterday that the name and number didn't match up? I'll try to find that again...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-officials-in-signal-group-chat/

"Waltz said Tuesday that he took "full responsibility" and that he "built" the Signal chat group, but he also said he did not have Goldberg's contact information and he didn't know how Goldberg got into the chat. Goldberg said he received a Signal request from a user identified as "Michael Waltz." And soon after, a screenshot Goldberg provided said, "Michael Waltz added you to the group."

Expand full comment
Fiery Hunt's avatar

https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/13698

Chat describes how Signal will prioritize system contacts over profile names.

Previous Admin system contacts, I'm guessing?

Expand full comment
Julia's avatar

While every user in the chat saw "Michael Waltz added Goldberg". There is no way they were unaware of him.

"he[Goldberg] received a connection request on Signal, from a user identified as Michael Waltz". And why did he agree to connect? It might be always a scammer.

Expand full comment
Sweatpants's avatar

In order to add someone on Signal, you have to have their actual phone number. Waltz and Goldberg have each other's phone number. Waltz cannot admit that he has Goldberg's phone number because Trump would be like "why do you have that loser's phone number?" So now you get all the silly theories.

Expand full comment
Julia's avatar

Sure, very special theories that they had each others numbers (met in a bar?) but wouldn't admit it.

Then every member of the chat would see Goldberg's name being added, tell about the mistake to Waltz, and he's quickly removed. But what do I know how the reality works?

Expand full comment
Sweatpants's avatar

It's literally how the app works. You can't add someone on signal unless their number is in your phone.

Expand full comment
Chuck Campbell's avatar

Can we at least start with Signal was the wrong place for the conversation? There are a lot of very bad takes on this topic. Starting with Taibi

Expand full comment
Fiery Hunt's avatar

Why?

Signal has been used by the last 2 administrations. It may not be the best platform for this conversation, but I'm more interested in who used it to get into this conversation and how.

It's all too damn "lucky" for the opposition.

Expand full comment
Chuck Campbell's avatar

If the administration is careless and retarded the “opposition “ doesn’t need to be lucky. Just patient.

Further more, they didn’t even have the participants names. Just initials in some cases. What could possibly go wrong there?

Regardless of how many administrations used signal, it’s probably shit protocol. Could objective people agree that they stomped on their dick without invoking the sinister notion of opposition objectives? If the DNC got hacked, should we focus on the hacking, or the shit behavior exposed by the hack? The cope is pathetic and consistent with partisan fag tag

Expand full comment
Fiery Hunt's avatar

You're not being consistant.

Getting hacked but doing good work is different from getting hacked and getting caught cheating.

The hack is the issue with this. If it really was some sort of stupid mistake, fix it and move on. Nothing negative came of it.

Expand full comment
Chuck Campbell's avatar

Now that they concede that they fucked up are you going to concede that you look foolish defending their malfeasance? Or like Matt Taibi are you going to cling to a new idiotic equivalence to suggest that red stupid is way better than blue stupid?

Expand full comment
Chuck Campbell's avatar

Murdering civilians in Yemen and high fiving your co conspirators is utterly cuntastic. Getting caught doing it because you’re a moron is the icing on the cake.

The hack probably isn’t a hack. It’s just a lack of attention to detail. Defending the behavior is cult like adoration for a gigantic fuck up.

You are being completely consistent

Expand full comment
Alvie Johnson's avatar

It isn't civilians in Yemen who are sinking ships in the Red Sea.

Expand full comment
Kelly christenot's avatar

Does anyone really give a shit what Mark Warner says or thinks

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

Other than the majority of morons who keep inflicting him on us.

Expand full comment
Dunboy2020's avatar

He actually started off as a straight shooter back in the day. He has become warped like all of them…

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

David French does

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

And to bring this full circle ... does anyone really give a shit what David French says or thinks?

Expand full comment
Indrek Sarapuu's avatar

No to Warner.

No to French

In the likelihood that Frum join in...

No to him as well.

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

lol

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

Mika does

Expand full comment
Shaun's avatar

Negatory. Irrelevant and to be ignored.

Expand full comment
ktrip's avatar

An NSC staffer put together the "group" for Waltz. Was this a staffer like Alexander Vindman perhaps? Or was it just someone who was extremely careless and typed "J" and accepted Jeff Goldberg when it popped up, and then typed J D and got VP Vance and so on? Possible, I guess, but one might want to double check such a list, right? Otherwise, the rest is blather- "War Plans?" It is not like they gave away D-day. Come on...it is not like they told Putin a small incursion might be OK. Plus, The President and the senior people he authorizes ultimately decides what is classified, not beltway or former beltway jokers who gave us twenty-five years of one disaster after another. The mission was a success from the US perspective and nothing became public till after. As far as Goldberg and Atlantic go, I guess there was no "if you received this in error" thing at the bottom (I am joking!). Seriously I have no problem with how Goldberg and the Atlantic handled it. They got a juicy one and actually walked with it. I think the real culprit is this staffer who was either malicious or negligent. It is up to Waltz to discipline/fire that person. Now can we move on to the next "outrage?"

Expand full comment
Billy's avatar

Good take on all counts. Neither Waltz nor anyone else running a government agency or a business is doing all their own "group" formations. An assistant f'ed up. It shouldn't happen, but it does. Tighten up operations and move on.

As to Goldberg, he's an a-hole but did nothing wrong here. It's his job to hold the administration accountable. The fact that he would have covered it up if it had been the Biden administration doesn't change that.

Expand full comment
taraonlido's avatar

Still waiting to find out who leaked the Supreme Court's draft opinions on the Dobbs decision.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

And whose white powdery substance was found in the White House.

Expand full comment
Ryan Gardner's avatar

Yeah the media is throwing a fit about this, but just shrugged off the incident where the last administration told China about Russian intelligence, to only have China turn around the next day and tell Russia.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

Remember the Chinese spy balloon that wandered all over the U.S. for days? Another story journalists were uninterested in.

Expand full comment
Ryan Gardner's avatar

Right. I forgot about that one.

Add it to a very long list. They're not even trying to hide it anymore.

Hate has consumed their souls.

Expand full comment
Richard Smith's avatar

I'll be shocked if this wasn't a setup by the CIA or other intelligence agencies. The good thing is that Trump has put Elon's people on the case, which means they may actually be able to find out who really set this whole thing up. The story is just too incredulous to be true as presented.

Expand full comment
Some Guy's avatar

Obviously the opposing party is jumping on this and will take full advantage, squeezing whatever win they can from it. Their problem is, other than those who get their news at face value from the 24 hour networks, nobody takes their feigned shock seriously because they don't share it. The democrats haven't even slightly recovered from so many things. As a party, they have little to no credibility with anyone that has an IQ over 80. All of the sudden they care about security? What's next, law and order? The constitution perhaps?! That would be a spectacle. They have a whole host of scandals from the past ten years that are in recent memory for plenty of voters, and their strategy is to either pretend they never occured or tell us we need to move on already.

We are talking about the people who fabricated an entire narrative that Trump was in collusion with Russia, labeling him a dictator, a fascist, a Nazi, a foreign agent, a puppet, an illegitimate Preaident, then utilized the legal system to overwhelm him with lawfare. They constantly infringed our 1st ammendment rights through third parties. They constantly whittle away our 2nd ammendment rights, even if it means blatantly ignoring supreme court rulings, while also applying pressure to the court by threatening to expand it whenever they fear a case won't go their way. They send hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries, where the top brass of their party have publicly known financial interests.. They don't care about the border. They don't care about inflation, or the debt, or crime, or improving education.

And they expect us to get riled up and come to their side because of what is essentially a boomer tech blunder? Come on, man. Get your shit together. I will never vote democrat but it's really annoying that they are so retarded. They aren't even a respectable or formidable opponent. They're just fucking dumb. It's not like I'm a fan of Republicans either, they have no teeth, but it would be better to have two strong parties than one lukewarm party and one shortbus party. This country is ran by a bunch of fucking morons.

Expand full comment
Brook Hines's avatar

how do i get on that talking points memo mailing list? 😏

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

Just tune into or read any of the legacy media's outlets. It will be verbatim and on a continuous loop... until the newest "news" points arrive.

Expand full comment
Bradley Lacke's avatar

Just get on Facebook right after anything happens and see what every single person is repeating verbatim as their argument. You don't even need the email!

Expand full comment
Joachim2's avatar

Six ways from Sunday . . . .

Expand full comment
Ryan Gardner's avatar

This would be an interesting comment had 51 US national security experts not gone on the record to say it has all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.

Therefore i must report you to The Ministry Of Truth.

Seriously tho. Have you ever heard something this DANGEROUS from a politician?

Expand full comment
Casey J Siller's avatar

what do you mean?

Expand full comment
Ryan Gardner's avatar

"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.”

- Chuck Schumer

Not only did he say it, it's exactly what happened. I've never heard something that dangerous from a politician

Expand full comment
Casey J Siller's avatar

Thank you for the clarification.

Expand full comment
Can’t drive 55's avatar

There should be a specific secure chat app for government employees. Having said that, it probably would not be ready for use for another eight years and would likely be 10x over budget.

Expand full comment
Frak's avatar

And the Chinese would send a honeytrap over to knock on the door of an idiot and access it within 12 hours.

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

No. It's not the App. It is secure. It was the set up of the chat. Human error or (more likely I think) an MIC or IC staffer.

Expand full comment
Can’t drive 55's avatar

This was definitely a self-inflicted wound.

Expand full comment
Daniel Ward's avatar

More outrage theater from people grasping for relevance. I'm sure the American military would be put out by a 3rd rate military force knowing their attack plans. I hope the media doesn't discover how the military handles ground combat operations in populated areas. But hey, why not keep listening to the armchair generals opening their unqualified mouths on television?

Expand full comment