Posted on 03/26/2025 5:16:50 AM PDT by V_TWIN
President Donald Trump revealed that a staffer with national security advisor Mike Waltz's office included the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic in a Signal group chat with senior Trump officials who were discussing plans for an upcoming strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen.
"It was one of Michael’s people on the phone. A staffer had his number on there," Trump told NBC in a phone interview when asked how Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic's editor-in-chief, was added to the high-profile chat.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I’ll take this one as I am involved in Cyber governance.
Yes, it is. And there is no application management for installing Signal on personal phones. In effect, if you want it, you can install and use it.
It’s accepted for official use by people without government issued phones.
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mobile-communications-best-practices.pdf
The issue is around the data classification of a conversation in Signal. It has KNOWN vulnerabilities and risks. So...
Anyone can use it for general conversations - arranging meetings with external parties, making travel arrangements with a concierge service, and so on.
However, Policy in any government context may impose further restrictions eg an AUP (Acceptable Use Policy) limiting its use to OFFICIAL level group conversations and CONFIDENTIAL chats (eg if discussing personal matters with a boss.
Policy across Defense and Military, not just in the USA, can prohibit its use for anything that’s classified as SECRET, ABOVE SECRET, TOP SECRET, or Q.
(That’s why you cannot install it on a federal or military issue phone.)
So, it’s not at all weird for anyone to have the app on their personal phone or business phone, and being invited into a chat.
Rather, it’s the very fact there even was a meeting on Signal, that definitely shouldn’t have taken place on Signal, that’s the problem.
A reporter in the UK has just walked me through the entire release of what was in the chat and as someone involved with NATO cyber security I’m utterly stunned. They shared maps, times, weather reports in the Signal chat. Anyone in the UK military caught doing that would be arrested and charged. The settled position in the USA was, at least until Trump got elected, exactly the same.
Any junior staffer adding someone to the chat at the request of a boss should’ve refused. But the Trump administration has created a climate where you do as you’re told or you get fired. So it’s irrelevant who let Goldberg into the chat. The chat owner and participants knew who was on the chat, and they all knew they were using the wrong app.
“I have a question... is this Signal thing an app that you have to download onto your phone? Does everyone in DC have it? Is it weird that this reporter had that app on his phone to begin with?”
1. Yes, you download it. Gets verified via your phone #. I’ve had it for decade and use daily.
2. Probably. It’s THE most secure private messaging app available. I’m pretty security focused (some would say obsessive!), and a good researcher. No government controls Signal. No backdoors for spying, which drives the IC guys nuts worldwide.
3. No, not at all. Assange used it extensively. Anyone truly privacy focused uses it.
Look it up.
This is an internal espionage ops against Trump, IMO. To smear him and his staff, maybe take out Waltz, and especially force them off signal, as all other “external” comm systems are compromised and tapped by the IC. They HATE their loss of spying-on-Trump power.
The lefties NEVER stop to consider anything (WAY beyond their intellect) and have jumped on this with both feet, but occasionally "leaks" of this nature are INTENTIONAL for one reason or another.
“Trump reveals who was behind Signal text chain leak”
Not blaming you, but the headline is false; Trump didn’t reveal squat. Let’s have the “staffer’s” name and background. Who hired them? Who are they connected with?
If this situation really involved Goldberg’s phone number being masked by a legitimate group member’s name, the perpetrator needs to be under hot lights or the water board until the whole truth oozes out.
Staffer’s name is Wong, and yeah, he’s got an anti-Trump history.
It was no accident.
Thank you for clarifying, that was all very helpful. Now... if I understood Waltz correctly on Ingraham, he said that Goldberg's number was under someone else's name (somehow) and that they did NOT know he was in the chat. They thought he was someone else. So if that is the case (if) then whoever entered that... well, how on earth does a hostile reporter's number end up under the name of someone who was supposed to be included but wasn't? So I do think it does matter who added him.
But you have definitely convinced me that they should not use this app going forward.
Already happened.
Trump and Gabbard both said nothing classified was discussed. Dickheads!
Because Goldberg now has, in effect, taken that as confirmation of it being entirely declassified. Which means he can argue, “well, according to POTUS I’m not breaking any national security rules by publishing the whole conversation”.
And my understanding is, he’s already done that.
Even more bizarre is, the only Policy that’s been broken - according to Gabbard and Trump - is the Data Retention policy.
Goldberg complied by retaining the data. The other attendees VIOLATED the Policy if they deleted the chat.
MalPearce says just the opposite, that Signal should never be used for anything above Confidential information, so now I'm really confused.
So, why was Wong an admin of the Signal group (only admis can add members) ? Why did Hegseth, Waltz and Vance talk business in a chat group whose admin is Wong?
Something funny right there.
Well, that’s yet another reason why Signal is entirely inappropriate for this level of opsec chatter. Phone numbers are unvalidated. Names can be pseudonyms.
The approved apps should vet who goes onto the chat before they join. One of those apps automatically blocks unknown and unauthorized joiners for example. You cannot just loop in an unknown phone number without it warning you that it can’t verify the name or number.
If I join a certain type of chat, in a certain app, with a particular phone number, the host will see something like, “MP-J6-Cyber” (J6-Cyber being a NATO CCC code and function, not a reference to January 6th). In other words, they know I am someone with the right clearance who has a legitimate need to know.
If you set up a chat to discuss an ongoing military operation but cannot be sure that every attendant has the right to be there, you’re using the wrong app. End of story.
Fired.
A true professional would never invite a journalist without suggnificent screening.
Very deliberate!
All of the best site to site encryption is based on Signal.
Most of the supposed “secure” sites are NOT based on it.
Signal has an excellent reputation
“”Did not Walz and his advisors learn after Vindman listened in on an NSC call and accused Trump before Congress of some ridiculous lies he said to the head of Ukraine?””
Here’s the thing. Even though our side may have learned from past mistakes, there will still be mistakes made. Because the radical left is still.... feverishly, I might add...attempting to trip us up and set us up for failure, since that is the ONLY way they can win anything.
And this latest incident was just another leftist setup. If only we had the power of precognition to foresee all future attempts. But we don’t and there will be many more. All our side can do is prepare for and anticipate the worst, prepare as best as we can and deal with what comes swiftly and justly and more importantly, “publicly”. Let the public and voting population know exactly what the left is doing to thwart their will at every turn. Like Trump is doing this time.
These “gotcha” hearings will go nowhere towards convincing the folks that voted for Trump and against the left that they voted wrongly. The public is smarter this time around.
Ah, I see. That's where the weakness lies. It's good in terms of encryption and privacy, but there's no bouncer at the door, so to speak. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you!
No, it’s quite simple.
The TOPIC of the chat is the key, second factor is, is the conversation one that BY LAW has to be recorded and kept.
Talking to your boss about a grievance - in confidence - Signal is ok.
Talking to a concierge about a business trip is also ok.
Comparing notes before an official government meeting - also ok.
Using it to discuss a military operation - not ok.
Because, as this leak shows us, there's no protection against an unverified, non-vetted number being added. Do I have it?
I wonder who owns Signal. Will this cause their app to be downgraded? According to another story someone just posted, several administrations in DC have been using it since at least 2017. (Although perhaps not for conversations like this.)
... I understand it’s an encrypted app so how is it that even if they sent the messages to Goldberg’s number he had the ability to read the encrypted information. ...
= = =
Yes. Why are they using comms that can be connected to the unclassified world?
This stuff used to be done in a SKIF.
Considering Goldbricks history of reporting lies, he shouldn’t be in anyone’s phone address book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.