I wondered about that. So does this mean that his
minions have a blank check to bomb Houthis (and innocent civilians) any time they want, no authorization needed?
Trump’s not actively involved or Trump has made sure it can’t be traced back to him?
“Will no one rid me of these turbulent Houthis?”
He’s made it clear to his minions what he wants, and staying out of the detail work gives him plausible deniability if it goes wrong.
Judge Boasberg (starting to really like that guy) just ordered that all chat messages be preserved.
And has anyone explained why the Treasury Secretary was on the chat?
And how does that pan out if nobody knows (no journalist was CC’d)?
This very interesting interview with a person that seems to know this stuff discusses this a bit. Also, this was classified info. As we all fucking know.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/27/signal-group-chat-leak-insider-interview-00254713
Again, Trump-101. You do not have to lie convincingly. Just lie and stick with it.
I really think this is the big attraction for MAGA. They were constantly being called out on their bullshit and had no answer. Trump showed them they do not need to answer. Just ignore reality; embrace the stupid.
I like to remind us all from time to time … under the Espionage Act (1917), information does not have to be Classified in order to be subject TO the Espionage Act. It need only be “National Defense Information.”
So … exactly like Trump’s endless lies about the classified documents found – despite his Obstruction – at Mar-A-Lago – to be found guilty of violating the Espionage Act does NOT require that the information be classified. It only requires that the information be capable of compromising the national security of the US.
Yet another red herring from MAGA & Co.
Well, we know the Justice Department isn’t going to prosecute. So how do you hold them accountable?
Re last post, except for the possibility of the GOP losing some elections, you do not.
This administration is likely to lock up a bunch of leading Democrats. Maybe they’ll mostly get out on bail and then be acquitted, but not all. Median voters will start telling pollsters they are tired of the news being filled with reports of national politicians being locked up, and — if we get back to having a normal AG — that will be that.
Goldberg should have interjected, “while we’re all here, let’s talk about the 25th Amendment”.
Here’s an exchange between Congressman Jim Himes and Tulsi Gabbard. The transcript comes from a FB post. The X post has a short video that covers the first two quotes in the exchange. I have not seen video of the whole exchange.
HIMES: Do you think it’s responsible for you, as head of the intelligence community, to retweet posts from individuals affiliated with Russian state media?
GABBARD: That retweet came from my personal account.
HIMES: Personal account? You’re the Director of National Intelligence, not an Instagram influencer. There’s no such thing as “personal” when you’re elevating Kremlin propaganda.
GABBARD: I have the right to share information—
HIMES: Information? You mean Russian disinformation. You sit in high-level intelligence briefings, then turn around and boost the same narratives Moscow is pushing. Should we just CC the Kremlin on your next meeting and cut out the middleman?
GABBARD: This is just an attempt to smear me—
HIMES: Smear you? You lied under oath in a Senate hearing yesterday, claiming you knew nothing about classified information, while sitting in Signal chats where war plans were discussed. You retweet Kremlin-backed sources, then act shocked when people question your loyalties.
GABBARD: I’m focused on national security—
HIMES: National security? While pushing Russian propaganda and pretending you’re clueless about intelligence leaks? If a Democrat had done half of this, you’d be screaming treason on national TV.
GABBARD: This is about free speech—
HIMES: Free speech? You’re the President’s top intelligence advisor, not some random guy on Twitter. Every word you amplify has consequences. And right now, you’re handing America’s enemies exactly what they want—straight from your “personal account.”
What I doubt will play out as indicated:
Median voters will start telling pollsters they are tired of the news being filled with reports of national politicians being locked up, and — if we get back to having a normal AG — that will be that.
It really doesn’t matter what median voters tell pollsters. What matters is what gets reported by the pollsters. I am afraid the pollsters will learn very quickly not to report on facts opinions that go against the King’s wishes.
(I can see it now, the administration outlaws all polls on the grounds that unless every single human is questioned, you are really merely guessing)
Good job, Congressman Himes. Sadly, he doesn’t represent the area where I grew up, though he does represent the adjacent district (which is the home of traditional country club Republicans, like the family of George H W Bush).
Did she say she had a first amendment right to disagree with herself?
Rather ironic, given that the government Gabbard is a key part of is literally arresting people for what they say.
I don’t believe the transcript, as listed here, is correct. I searched for the video of the whole exchange, and all I could find was the short interaction that was posted in the X post.
In this video, Himes begins speaking at the 34:25 mark. The interaction between Himes and Gabbard begins at about the 36:05 mark. His first question, as listed in the post, begins at the 39:40 mark. After he asks the question, the transcript in the post deviates greatly from the actual video. He asks one more question about Gabbard’s retweet; she answers that it came from her personal account, and shortly thereafter, he yields his time.
IOW, the transcript of the exchange, as posted on X, and quoted by Johnny_L.A. is not factual.
Disclaimer: I did not the entire 2:31:27 of this video.
From key position, Rep. Jim Himes presses officials on Yemen texts
I’m still looking for a source for more of the exchange, but here’s what I found on CNN:
HIMES: Director Gabbard, a lot of this suggests sort of a lack of sobriety when there’s punch emojis and fire emojis, it’s a lack of sobriety. I don’t mean that literally. But I have one last question for you because I think people really listen to what you have to say.
You, on March 15th, as DNI, retweeted a post from Ian Miles Cheong, who is listed on R.T., that’s Russia Today’s website as, quote, “a political and cultural commentator who has contributed content to R.T. since at least 2022.” Director Gabbard, do you think that it’s responsible for you as head of the Intelligence Community and the principal’s presidential intelligence adviser to retweet posts from individuals affiliated with Russian State media?
GABBARD: That retweet came from my personal account and I would have to go back to look at the substance of the tweet.
HIMES: Can I – just a lack – just so that we don’t have a lack of confusion amongst our allies and enemies and us, can I act perhaps that you not think that you should be saying one thing on your personal account, then you say, officially?
GABBARD: I’ve maintained my First Amendment rights to be able to express my own personal views on different issues.
HIMES: Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.