News

Having complete morons in charge does confer particular tactical advantages.

Fuck you Pete 'DUI Hire' Hegseth.

You used a non-approved communication application and caused a massive data leak with you and your incompetent morons in office using OpSec that my junior engineers know better and if any one else did what you did, that's be fired and be facing charges.

Fucking pathetic children who can't take any accountability.

He must have been drunk and had a blackout.

Prove that the sender of that message doesn't match the cryptographic fingerprint of Hegseth. If he didn't send it, then it wont match.

Signal allows you to verify all your contacts in the group chat.

This is so easy to solve. Jfc

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007060632-What-is-a-safety-number-and-why-do-I-see-that-it-changed

The journalist just has to show the safety number of the person who sent it, and hegseth has to verify it with his device. They're obviously already in each others contacts, or at least are aware of each other's presence in the group chat. Its pretty hard to ignore some random journalist entering the chat since it alerts the entire group.

What makes signal great is, yes, privacy, but also the authentication of your contacts. You know you can't possibly be talking to someone else's device if you have verified their safety number.

inadvertent mistake.

Lets give the benefit of the doubt and say it was a mistake. Is that a matter and a position, where such a mistake is tolerable? Or is it something that disqualifies for any position in that domain and demands immediate resignation?

Because if you seriously make a mistake, and you realize the gravity of it, you take responsibility for it. If you instead remain in position, you either don't recognize the gravity of it, which is an even bigger reason to resign, or you indeed acted with intent.

But in this case it did not start with inviting Goldberg. It started with making a chat group on an unauthorized app, likely using unauthorized devices to discuss matters that are explicitly forbidden to be taken out of specific permitted official channels.

Witkoff in Moscow when added to chat?

https://bsky.app/profile/olgalautman.bsky.social/post/3ll663snbc224

"Wasn't me"

— Pete Hegseth

Ah yes, the classic Shaggy defense. What's that shit conservatives say? We're still in the first year.

"Nuh uh" is what you're going with, huh? The screenshots, the validation from your own administration... and your response is "didnt happen"?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command"

I'm not usually an alarmist, but this one has the hair on the back of my neck up...

This feels like a false flag to target journalists spreading "misinformation."

I was reading the Atlantic article thinking 'What a bunch of dumb fucks." Until I read this part:

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

Hard stop right there. "This is intentional."

Then Tulsi comes out talking about "aggressively pursuing" journalists., and now P Heggs is just gonna play dumb?

Smells pretty bad, imo.

(False flag may not be the right term here, but I hope my point is still clear enough)

Pete blames it on his wife who he's going to beat later on. She should have told him that journalists can take screenshots.

It's deny, deflect, and then what? Let's see I didn't do, I did it but her emails, I did it so what? An I missing a step?

I want to see the contents of the text message. Holy shit, what a bunch of dumb fucks.

Oh sure, now he wants to wash his hands of something.

Oops

If he was blackout drunk at the time and he doesn’t remember sending it now, is he culpable when he’s sober? No. Clearly not. The buck stops somewhere.