On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:41:31 -0400, Auric Hellman
<adhellman1@gmail.com> wrote:

Publishing classified national security information

Every U.S. government official on that Signal text chain who discussed classified information committed a crime. Under 18 U.S. Code 798,
"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits,
or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person classified
information .

[But the T-Borg can pardon them]

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/bad-signal-an-ugly-mistake-and-no-one-will-be-held-accountable/


Pentagon Papers - New York Times Co. v. United States
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a
landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the
First Amendment right to freedom of the press. The ruling made it
possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to
publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025, Auric Hellman wrote:

On 3/26/2025 8:03 PM, JAB wrote:

The Atlantic publishes more Signal messages after Trump admin denials

The Atlantic on Wednesday published additional messages Trump
administration officials sent in a Signal group chat that
inadvertently included the magazine's editor-in-chief Jeffrey
Goldberg.

Why it matters: President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and
other administration officials strongly denied that "war plans" and
"classified materials" were shared -- essentially daring The Atlantic
to publish info it had previously opted not to release.

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/26/atlantic-signal-trump-hegseth-war-plans-yemen

Publishing classified national security information, regardless of how it was obtained, should be a criminal offense and one that is punished severely. The courts have previously ruled that these rats have the right, but it certainly isn't right.

Didn't Snowden face certain difficulties after publishing? I would expect
the person leaking this might face similar difficulties.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

D wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025, Auric Hellman wrote:

Publishing classified national security information,
regardless of how it was obtained, should be a criminal
offense and one that is punished severely. The courts have
previously ruled that these rats have the right, but it
certainly isn't right.

Didn't Snowden face certain difficulties after publishing? I
would expect the person leaking this might face similar
difficulties.

The US administration can't prosecute the journalist as the
White House are claiming that the information contained in the
chat group wasn't "classified information" and they have
doubled-down on that as a defence when asked about it in various
press conferences.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:00:00 +0000, "Blueshirt"
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:

The US administration can't prosecute the journalist as the
White House are claiming that the information contained in the
chat group wasn't "classified information" and they have
doubled-down on that as a defence when asked about it in various
press conferences.

But, if a lower ranking solider "leaked" this "sensitive information"
they would court-martial this person.

The US administration can't prosecute the journalist

Can't do it anyway....

Pentagon Papers - New York Times Co. v. United States
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a
landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the
First Amendment right to freedom of the press. The ruling made it
possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to
publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 04:33:31 -0600, Retrograde
<fungus@amongus.com.invalid> wrote:

Expect the crew in power to be searching desperately to change this
somehow. Once the press has been effectively muzzled, they'll do
exactly what they want

During a Nixon campaign stop in Vietnam days, Nixon 'blasted' a paid heckler...a scripted performance, in other words.

I don't use Signal, but accidentally putting someone else on a group
chat? Like can I see all signal users names?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:42:36 +0100
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

The US administration can't prosecute the journalist as the
White House are claiming that the information contained in the
chat group wasn't "classified information" and they have
doubled-down on that as a defence when asked about it in various
press conferences.

Ahh, interesting! But... what if they change their minds? Wouldn't
surprise me!

Expect the crew in power to be searching desperately to change this
somehow. Once the press has been effectively muzzled, they'll do
exactly what they want

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JAB wrote:

I don't use Signal, but accidentally putting someone else on a
group chat? Like can I see all signal users names?

User names or phone numbers...

Adding somebody from your contacts list accidently to a group
chat could happen if you were creating a group quickly and
wasn't paying attention. BUT, why would a senior member of
Donald Trump's administration (Mike Waltz) have the phone
number/name of a anti-Trump journalist on his phone in the first
place?

THAT is the main issue here, not the "classified information"
thing which is a red herring. How - and why - did Mike Waltz add
that journalist/magazine editor to his 'war plans' group chat
and why was that person actually in his list of contacts on his
phone? The Trump administration don't seem to be fans of too
many journalists at the best of times, yet from what I read this
journalist is a well know opponent of Donald Trump. Hardly the
sort of person you'd think would be a 'contact' of Donald Trump's
national security advisor.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that Mike Waltz was some
secret leaker and had many journalist contacts that he shared
sensitive administration info with... on a more private level
than this actual chat about war plans! The fact that Waltz
hasn't been sacked is only down to stubbornness of the President
I'd say. To me, it all smells fishy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 14:05:33 GMT, "Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news>
wrote:

BUT, why would a senior member of
Donald Trump's administration (Mike Waltz) have the phone
number/name of a anti-Trump journalist on his phone in the first
place?

Goldberg on Waltz: "This isn't The Matrix. Phone numbers don't just
get sucked into other phones. I don't know what he's talking about ...
my phone number was in his phone because my phone number was in his
phone. He's telling everyone that he's never met me or spoken to me.
That's simply not true."

Video

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3llm264us5w2n

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JAB wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 14:05:33 GMT, "Blueshirt"
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:

BUT, why would a senior member of Donald Trump's
administration (Mike Waltz) have the phone number/
name of a anti-Trump journalist on his phone in the
first place?

Goldberg on Waltz: "This isn't The Matrix. Phone numbers don't
just get sucked into other phones. I don't know what he's
talking about ... my phone number was in his phone because my
phone number was in his phone. He's telling everyone that he's
never met me or spoken to me. That's simply not true."

Pretty much how it HAS to be... as any sensible person would
have realised. The Mike Waltz narrative doesn't make any sense.

Whatever way you deal the cards, there's more to this than meets
the eye!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:23:16 GMT, "Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news>
wrote:

there's more to this than meets the eye!

I suspect it was a Trojan Horse mission, that backfired.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)