The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg says ‘public interest’ served by full Signal chat release
-
They produce solid content, especially long form journalism but their subscription cost is fairly high.
It’s 7.99 a month as far as I can tell
-
He's going to be harassed for "sharing classified information". Might even get the Assange treatment.
I'm glad someone is doing something brave in this world.
-
Whats the issue? The president already said that there was no classified info on the chat. So go for it.
-
I mean, First Amendment protections. The chatlog weren't illegally obtained. The journalist did not violate any laws.
And the people in the chat who have the authority to declassify information declared it to be a declassified chat, so IDK what more permission he needed to share what was freely given to him
-
He's going to be harassed for "sharing classified information". Might even get the Assange treatment.
I'm glad someone is doing something brave in this world.
Look, this is fake news, but even so it was just a silly mistake! Also, they would never put classified information on Signal, so obviously whatever was shared there was declassified already.
-
Whats the issue? The president already said that there was no classified info on the chat. So go for it.
I guess we should look forward to the daily updates on when fighter jets are scrambled and where the bombs are going to be dropped.
-
Look, this is fake news, but even so it was just a silly mistake! Also, they would never put classified information on Signal, so obviously whatever was shared there was declassified already.
/s !!
Did someone not realize you were using sarcasm? Why the downvote? Why so quickly after you post, as if they were stalking you.
Anyway...
They'd probably claim that the reporter was Cleared and is sharing classified information, and that it was meant to be treated with a policy of "neither confirm nor deny existence" to explain the inconsistency.
That would be a lie, but they would make that claim.
-
/s !!
Did someone not realize you were using sarcasm? Why the downvote? Why so quickly after you post, as if they were stalking you.
Anyway...
They'd probably claim that the reporter was Cleared and is sharing classified information, and that it was meant to be treated with a policy of "neither confirm nor deny existence" to explain the inconsistency.
That would be a lie, but they would make that claim.
My comment is actually all the Republican gaslighting I've seen so far, but I'm sure that's coming next.
-
Why? The Feds even launched an investigation.
I wonder if this has all just been a campaign to make Signal look untrustworthy to the US public? It would be bad for the fascist federales if the US public started using Signal en masse. Surveillance would be made significantly harder. They're currently blaming signal for the leak rn.
-
World does not accept internal US news. You want [email protected] or [email protected]
-
System shared this topic on
