Did You Notice What Vanished From The Atlantic's Narrative About the Hegseth Signal Story?

nothing burger indeed


once again The Atlantic played you fellers bigly


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...story-n2654510


Did You Notice What Vanished From The Atlantic's Narrative About the Hegseth Signal Story?

The Atlantic felt their story was dying. The Trump administration said no classified war plans were discussed in the Signal chat story that’s captured the hyper-regional confines of liberal America. It looks like a nothing burger vis-à-vis a severe breach in classified information, though still an unforced error on behalf of top officials. To recap, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added to a group chat on the encrypted messenger app, which was pre-downloaded on the devices of those involved in the chat, which included CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Vice President JD Vance.


https://x.com/Taylor47/status/1904874968581632040


The Atlantic has already abandoned their bullshit “war plans” narrative, and in releasing the full chat , they concede they LIED to perpetuate yet ANOTHER hoax on the American people. What scumbags!






The hook was that classified war plans were discussed, and Mr. Ratcliffe shot down a claim. There was nothing classified, Jeff, so release the texts. At first, he decided not to do it, simply claiming his detractors were wrong—a typical response when fake news is knowingly peddled.


So, The Atlantic opted to publish the text they felt was classified, though it wasn’t, and two things were clear: these aren’t war plans, and that narrative has conspicuously vanished.


https://x.com/MostlyPeacefull/status...story-n2654510


Notice the narrative shift. First it was “top secret”, then it was “classified”, now it’s “sensitive”






https://x.com/townhallcom/status/1904896703322268149


Are these “war plans?”















https://x.com/davereaboi/status/1904...story-n2654510


Ok so the Atlantic released what they call the “war plans”—they’re depending on people not knowing (or caring) what this is, but to refer to it that way is a stretch. There’s nothing specific here, other than times at which events will occur. A leak of this kind could alert the enemy, but doesn’t tell them anything about what’s coming, where or how to prepare for it. Nothingburger.







Now, this isn’t a one-sided deal. Again, this was a brutal, unforced error, adding a known Trump-hater to this chat. This administration dodged a significant bullet and was lucky that no classified information was disclosed. Then again, in the chats, all the principals are aware of the “high side” lines of communications, secure platforms where deeper discussions could occur.


The chats are real, so it’s not a hoax, but the ‘they disclosed classified war plans’ narrative is fake news and hyper-sensationalized. The White House did well to notice how the words “war plans” got stealth edited in the new disclosures, pointing to a tacit acknowledgement that the publication got ahead of their skis on this one, which is a common trait at The Atlantic:


https://x.com/TomBevanRCP/status/190...story-n2654510


Many things can be true at once. 1) Jeffrey Goldberg is a clear Trump hater. 2) Goldberg has published sensationalized accounts in the past that have been disputed by people with first-hand knowledge. 3) He was added to this chat and has receipts, so it’s not a hoax.





Editor's Note: This leaked Signal chat is a non-scandal, and we need to focus on the real issues, not the Regime Media and Democrats' invented outrage.

As I mentioned elsewhere:
Turns out it was "an unknown staffer of Waltz who "accidentally" added Goldberg".
Winky-winky, nudge-nudge, know what I mean?

Of course they will keep trying to ride that dead horse for another month, then resurrect again in 6 months. Rinse and repeat.

Or as the CEO of PBS might say: Not going to let facts get in the way of their narrative.

What vanished was accountability from the top.

Regardless how the story got out, it was never denied from the WH down.

And the reporter was reserved on the details upon letting the public know what happened.

And you have to be a MAJOR idiot to call the person who had all transcript of incident a liar.

Like a good reporter, he countered the person with an UNRETACTED transcript.

As I stated, people I know in the intelligence community know that anyone who did this would have long been gone out of their position and would be lucky to have anything left on their shoulders and swords snapped over a knee.

What vanished was accountability from the top.

Regardless how the story got out, it was never denied from the WH down.

And the reporter was reserved on the details upon letting the public know what happened.

And you have to be a MAJOR idiot to call the person who had all transcript of incident a liar.

Like a good reporter, he countered the person with an UNRETACTED transcript. Originally Posted by Precious_b

in all those pages where exactly is the "Top Secret" info? they were lying the log they were forced to publish proves it.

As I stated, people I know in the intelligence community know that anyone who did this would have long been gone out of their position and would be lucky to have anything left on their shoulders and swords snapped over a knee. Originally Posted by Precious_b

you "Know people" in the Intel community?


when exactly were you in the Military?

in all those pages where exactly is the "Top Secret" info? they were lying the log they were forced to publish proves it. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Keep running misdirection campaign. Just because something doesn't say top secret doesn't mean it ain't gonna cost lives. Who/what/where/when/why/how were all given.

And you are going to try and convince people that with the above given, everyone would be safe moving forward with that operation?

you "Know people" in the Intel community?


when exactly were you in the Military? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You got a Kilo Tango Kilo?

Keep running misdirection campaign. Just because something doesn't say top secret doesn't mean it ain't gonna cost lives. Who/what/where/when/why/how were all given.

And you are going to try and convince people that with the above given, everyone would be safe moving forward with that operation?



You got a Kilo Tango Kilo? Originally Posted by Precious_b

Nope! no locations were given, no exact date or possible dates were given. show otherwise.



there's no top secret data in the log that The Atlantic published. pretty sure you know why. there isn't any.


ask why the The Atlantic did publish it? desperate attempt to keep the false narrative alive

... Ya know, Waco... We Australians surely got a crackerjack remedy
for the lies of The Atlantic: ... "SUE the Bastards!" ... $$$$

##### Salty

... Ya know, Waco... We Australians surely got a crackerjack remedy
for the lies of The Atlantic: ... "SUE the Bastards!" ... $$$$

##### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

The Atlantic is lucky they were lying about classified material otherwise they could be charged with treason.

Nope! no locations were given, no exact date or possible dates were given. show otherwise.



there's no top secret data in the log that The Atlantic published. pretty sure you know why. there isn't any.


ask why the The Atlantic did publish it? desperate attempt to keep the false narrative alive Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Thought so.

Thanks for demonstrating why <insert adjective that describes the mental deficit to keep mouth shut>

Why is the US Government using Signal (or any other private service) to discuss any government related? I'm sure this sort of thing was going on before this admin, but it has to stop. Take some of that money DOGE is saving all of us, and invest in making a US Government only secure messaging system tied only to personnel who have .gov accounts. Then, you can't "accidentally" add a JOURNALIST to those conversations.

Why is the US Government using Signal (or any other private service) to discuss any government related? I'm sure this sort of thing was going on before this admin, but it has to stop. Take some of that money DOGE is saving all of us, and invest in making a US Government only secure messaging system tied only to personnel who have .gov accounts. Then, you can't "accidentally" add a JOURNALIST to those conversations. Originally Posted by SecretE

it was by the Biden admin. the app is not unsecured. there is no hack proof software. even if the Military created an app for comms.



Biden-era guidance encouraged use of Signal app by highly-targeted govt officials: 'Best practice'

'Adopt a free messaging application for secure communications that guarantees end-to-end encryption, such as Signal or similar apps,' 2024 CISA guidance reads

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...-best-practice



the app wasn't the issue. the staffer who invited the editor was the issue.

nothing burger indeed


once again The Atlantic played you fellers bigly


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...story-n2654510


Did You Notice What Vanished From The Atlantic's Narrative About the Hegseth Signal Story?

The Atlantic felt their story was dying. The Trump administration said no classified war plans were discussed in the Signal chat story that’s captured the hyper-regional confines of liberal America. It looks like a nothing burger vis-à-vis a severe breach in classified information, though still an unforced error on behalf of top officials. To recap, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added to a group chat on the encrypted messenger app, which was pre-downloaded on the devices of those involved in the chat, which included CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Vice President JD Vance.


https://x.com/Taylor47/status/1904874968581632040


The Atlantic has already abandoned their bullshit “war plans” narrative, and in releasing the full chat , they concede they LIED to perpetuate yet ANOTHER hoax on the American people. What scumbags!






The hook was that classified war plans were discussed, and Mr. Ratcliffe shot down a claim. There was nothing classified, Jeff, so release the texts. At first, he decided not to do it, simply claiming his detractors were wrong—a typical response when fake news is knowingly peddled.


So, The Atlantic opted to publish the text they felt was classified, though it wasn’t, and two things were clear: these aren’t war plans, and that narrative has conspicuously vanished.


https://x.com/MostlyPeacefull/status...story-n2654510


Notice the narrative shift. First it was “top secret”, then it was “classified”, now it’s “sensitive”






https://x.com/townhallcom/status/1904896703322268149


Are these “war plans?”















https://x.com/davereaboi/status/1904...story-n2654510


Ok so the Atlantic released what they call the “war plans”—they’re depending on people not knowing (or caring) what this is, but to refer to it that way is a stretch. There’s nothing specific here, other than times at which events will occur. A leak of this kind could alert the enemy, but doesn’t tell them anything about what’s coming, where or how to prepare for it. Nothingburger.







Now, this isn’t a one-sided deal. Again, this was a brutal, unforced error, adding a known Trump-hater to this chat. This administration dodged a significant bullet and was lucky that no classified information was disclosed. Then again, in the chats, all the principals are aware of the “high side” lines of communications, secure platforms where deeper discussions could occur.


The chats are real, so it’s not a hoax, but the ‘they disclosed classified war plans’ narrative is fake news and hyper-sensationalized. The White House did well to notice how the words “war plans” got stealth edited in the new disclosures, pointing to a tacit acknowledgement that the publication got ahead of their skis on this one, which is a common trait at The Atlantic:


https://x.com/TomBevanRCP/status/190...story-n2654510


Many things can be true at once. 1) Jeffrey Goldberg is a clear Trump hater. 2) Goldberg has published sensationalized accounts in the past that have been disputed by people with first-hand knowledge. 3) He was added to this chat and has receipts, so it’s not a hoax.





Editor's Note: This leaked Signal chat is a non-scandal, and we need to focus on the real issues, not the Regime Media and Democrats' invented outrage. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

A nothing Burger? According to Trump Waltz won't put this type of information on Signal anymore.

If the information was not classified or sensitive how come Tulsi Gifford did not want to share it with Congress? Do you think the pilots of the F15's would want that information shared with a journalist from the Atlantic? According to Trump the Atlantic is going out of business. LOL.

Trump blamed it on new technology and suggested that Waltz won't be using Signal anymore. How hard is it to check a distribution list with less than 20 people? You would think that Waltz has never used Microsoft Outlook before. LOL. Just about everybody uses that or Google's Gmail.

If this had happened with Biden's Secretary of Defense Loyd Austin, the republicans would blame it on DEI and it would be on Fox news for six months.

What vanished was accountability from the top.

Regardless how the story got out, it was never denied from the WH down... Originally Posted by Precious_b

The word you are seeking is called "transparency" and the WH has been open and clear about what went down, to the best of their knowledge. Someone should be held accountable.

...And the reporter was reserved on the details upon letting the public know what happened... Originally Posted by Precious_b

He's a hack without ethics in my book. Clearly, the whole affair smells like a set up from the git go.