- Joined
- Oct 15, 2020
- Messages
- 11,531
- Reaction score
- 12,486
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Of course I would return it, that is what people do if they have an ounce of integrity.
Of course I would return it, that is what people do if they have an ounce of integrity.if you are mistakenly sent a $5000 check ... is it yours to keep or was it a mistake and you should return it ? you didn't "steal" the check, but its not yours and you shouldn't keep it, right ?
Interestingly enough one of the recipients of the conversation was indeed in Russia. So plausible. Nice call out!Putin was included in the chat.
"classified" informationmoney is different than information.
stupid analogy
so again, your money anology was stupid."classified" information
no way was Goldberg authorized
AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, a civilian can hold classified information, but only under specific circumstances and with proper authorization, security clearances, and adherence to strict regulations.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
- Eligibility and Access:
To access classified information, individuals, including civilians, must be deemed eligible by the government, which typically involves a thorough background investigation and a determination of trustworthiness.
- Need-to-Know:
Access is granted based on a "need-to-know" principle, meaning individuals can only access information that is directly relevant to their official duties or responsibilities.
- Security Clearances:
Individuals granted access to classified information must hold a security clearance appropriate for the level of information they are authorized to handle.
- Nondisclosure Agreements:
Individuals must sign nondisclosure agreements, committing to protecting the classified information and not disclosing it to unauthorized individuals.
- Contractors and Consultants:
Civilians who work for the government as contractors or consultants can also be granted access to classified information, but they are subject to the same security requirements as government employees.
- Unauthorized Removal/Retention:
Unauthorized removal or retention of classified documents or materials is a serious offense, punishable by fines and imprisonment.
so again, your money anology was stupid.
and quoting an AI summary to try and apply to this specific case? lol
get me a credible legal opinion that said he broke the law or i'll continue to laugh at your posts.
of course you wont supply a credible legal opinion to back up an ai generated summary of generalities. lol.I won't play the "well that's not credible keep giving me more" game
Goldberg by mistake got access to Signal group, kept all the information he could as he continually stayed on it ..... and then shared all that
You might think that's ok, I do not think it is
Makes for a good anti-Trump hate story doesn't it ?
of course you wont supply a credible legal opinion to back up an ai generated summary of generalities. lol.
he didn't share "all of it", he kept things like the agent name confidential. duh.
it makes for a good anti-trump story, because it shows the incompetence of people he put in office. duh.
He's a reporter, he was invited and of course he stayed on. He also kept all the texts private until the Administration said over and over there was no classified info. He did his job too bad Hegseth and Waltz didn't.I won't play the "well that's not credible keep giving me more" game
Goldberg by mistake got access to Signal group, kept all the information he could as he continually stayed on it ..... and then shared all that
You might think that's ok, I do not think it is
Makes for a good anti-Trump hate story doesn't it ?
He's a reporter, he was invited and of course he stayed on. He also kept all the texts private until the Administration said over and over there was no classified info. He did his job too bad Hegseth and Waltz didn't.
so now a common average day, non-authorized person is keeping "classified" information
yes, that sounds perfectly legal doesn't it ?
would you be ok with a former Vice President keeping classified documents in boxes in a garage ? a former President keeping them in his house?
....but Hegseth said publicly it wasn't classifiedso him keeping classified information without having authorization to have it is ok ?
honest question - did you know previous administration used Signal app? do you remember any security breaches? Any spy balloons? Chinese smart cars? leaked classified intelligence documents?
anything you can remember ?
yep, so legally i don see the problem with him keeping and disclosing the data.....but Hegseth said publicly it wasn't classified
well, again, if you can supply a credible legal opinion that shows he broke the law, go for it.
but you wont, since you've had a chance to and choose to rely on a vague AI generated summary. lol
....but Hegseth said publicly it wasn't classified
Having it both ways? I suggest you stick with whataboutism.I don't think it was - time will tell
Any excuse (lie) will do.The exact time the F18 would take off
The exact time the first bombs would drop
The exact ordinance would be used
31 minutes prior to attack
.....is not classified in your mind! Unbelievable!!!!
Gotta slip in the "whataboutism" as often as possible. That's the "deflect" part of the program. He's already done "deny, denigrate, and dissemble".So what!!!!!
He's a journalist. It is the governments job to ensure that they don't leak classified info. If a journalist receives the info without breaking a law, it is not the journalists fault, it is the fault of the idiot that handed it to him.he intentionally kept screen shots and stayed on a call he knew he shouldn't be on
that doesn't matter ?
As a lawyer, I can provide you with a legal basis that the participants on the call violated FEDERAL LAW. Will that suffice?so again, your money anology was stupid.
and quoting an AI summary to try and apply to this specific case? lol
get me a credible legal opinion that said he broke the law or i'll continue to laugh at your posts.
He's a journalist. It is the governments job to ensure that they don't leak classified info. If a journalist receives the info without breaking a law, it is not the journalists fault, it is the fault of the idiot that handed it to him.
Classified Documents
The Supreme Court in 1971 ruled that the government cannot restrain in advance the press from publishing classified documents under the First Amendment.firstamendment.mtsu.edu
Are you serious or are you trolling?interesting to see how people view classified information now as opposed to when Trump was found to have it at Mar-a-lago isn't it ?
Did Goldberg take screen shots of material/documents? he transferred them right? were they "secure" in his possession?Are you serious or are you trolling?
Trump was responsible for classified material. He took those documents and transferred them to an unsecure location.
so you're saying he had no idea what group he was on? what they were discussing? the names of the people ? c'mon ... he knew, and he was sure to stay on it as long as he could, screen shotting everything so he coul d have a storyGoldberg was inadvertantly messaged classified info.
he didn't steal - but he could have dropped off as soon as he realized he was on a call he shouldn't have been onHe didn't steal the info, he didn't hack the info. It fell in to his hands. There are no documents for him to return, he was messaged the info.
You are making yourself look even more ridiculous with these constant asides. You have tried time and time again to blame this on the journalist that had this fall in his lap while at the same time arguing that the people that gave him the info did nothing wrong. Do you even have a coherent argument? Can you write a 5 sentence paragraph actually explaining what you think happened here?
He's trying to follow the script, but ... well, he's having difficulty. I can't say why.Are you serious or are you trolling?
Trump was responsible for classified material. He took those documents and transferred them to an unsecure location. He ignored a subpoena and multiple requests to return those documents.
Goldberg was inadvertantly messaged classified info. He didn't steal the info, he didn't hack the info. It fell in to his hands. There are no documents for him to return, he was messaged the info.
You are making yourself look even more ridiculous with these constant asides. You have tried time and time again to blame this on the journalist that had this fall in his lap while at the same time arguing that the people that gave him the info did nothing wrong.
Do you even have a coherent argument? Can you write a 5 sentence paragraph actually explaining what you think happened here?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?