But his Signal

[billvon 3,090]

  On 4/22/2025 at 9:48 PM, wmw999 said:

I'm just remembering Hillary Clinton, who most likely WAS in meetings (not all, but some). Of course, she's smarter than Bill, just less gifted politically

Well, right.  But it's one thing to have the Secretary of State in a meeting on military strategy - quite another to have someone whose only qualification is she's married to someone in the room.

[billvon 3,090]

  On 4/22/2025 at 12:59 AM, nigel99 said:

Honestly, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if there isn’t a signal group going with him and a couple of Fox News staff/Joe Rogan’s.

Hegseth has a new conspiracy to blame for his mistakes!  A FOX News reporter asked him if "deep-state forces” were coming after him.  He said “they’ve been after me from Day One just like they’ve come after President Trump.” 

At some point, once you have fired everyone and hired sycophants, you have to admit that you ARE the deep state.

[jakee 1,571]

  On 4/22/2025 at 10:49 PM, nigel99 said:

Wendy raises an interesting point. Sometimes couples make a great team and work extremely well together. 

Doesn’t matter at all though, because she doesn’t work there. Wendy would probably have some great input to a bunch of Pentagon meetings but it doesn’t matter, because she doesn’t work there. Any other staffer at the Pentagon might want their spouse to look over their shoulder while they work but they can’t do it, because they don’t work there. When my partner was in the military I went to some fun Officer’s Mess parties but I definitely couldn’t sit in on any meetings about the work because… well it’s just obvious, isn’t it?

[nigel99 586]

  On 4/23/2025 at 6:41 AM, jakee said:

Doesn’t matter at all though, because she doesn’t work there. Wendy would probably have some great input to a bunch of Pentagon meetings but it doesn’t matter, because she doesn’t work there. Any other staffer at the Pentagon might want their spouse to look over their shoulder while they work but they can’t do it, because they don’t work there. When my partner was in the military I went to some fun Officer’s Mess parties but I definitely couldn’t sit in on any meetings about the work because… well it’s just obvious, isn’t it?

I think we are talking at cross purposes. 

Your original statement about bringing his wife into meetings CAN be interpreted in the Andrew Tate sense of “women belong in the kitchen” - I’m not suggesting that you said that or meant it like that. 

I took Wendy’s reply to be in that context and I’d be surprised if she did either, but was highlighting a point that a wife can provide valuable input.

I also agree that IF a partner is going to be providing said input the relevant contractual and security clearances should be in place.

[dogyks 10]

  On 4/22/2025 at 9:48 PM, wmw999 said:

I'm just remembering Hillary Clinton, who most likely WAS in meetings (not all, but some). Of course, she's smarter than Bill, just less gifted politically

Wendy P.

Some acts require the whole family.  "The Aristocrats" comes to mind.

[jakee 1,571]

  On 4/23/2025 at 7:34 AM, nigel99 said:

I think we are talking at cross purposes. 

Your original statement about bringing his wife into meetings CAN be interpreted in the Andrew Tate sense of “women belong in the kitchen” - 

Only by people being deliberately obtuse.

[normiss 871]

  On 4/23/2025 at 6:41 AM, jakee said:

Doesn’t matter at all though, because she doesn’t work there. Wendy would probably have some great input to a bunch of Pentagon meetings but it doesn’t matter, because she doesn’t work there. Any other staffer at the Pentagon might want their spouse to look over their shoulder while they work but they can’t do it, because they don’t work there. When my partner was in the military I went to some fun Officer’s Mess parties but I definitely couldn’t sit in on any meetings about the work because… well it’s just obvious, isn’t it?

Even with the clearances I had, we still and always had the Need to Know rule.

Clearance was just the initial hurdle, but does that person have a need to know?

In this case it's a crystal clear HELL NO.

Compartmentation of sensitive information is something the current admin is clueless about.

[billvon 3,090]

  On 4/23/2025 at 2:17 PM, normiss said:

Compartmentation of sensitive information is something the current admin is clueless about.

No, they're on top of it.  Hegseth stated "We are currently clean on OPSEC."

Of course he stated that in a secret Signal thread that accidentally included the editor of the Atlantic, but only loser libs bring that up.

[JoeWeber 2,871]

  On 4/23/2025 at 6:41 AM, jakee said:

Doesn’t matter at all though, because she doesn’t work there. Wendy would probably have some great input to a bunch of Pentagon meetings but it doesn’t matter, because she doesn’t work there. Any other staffer at the Pentagon might want their spouse to look over their shoulder while they work but they can’t do it, because they don’t work there. When my partner was in the military I went to some fun Officer’s Mess parties but I definitely couldn’t sit in on any meetings about the work because… well it’s just obvious, isn’t it?

This conversation highlights our weaknesses. Obviously any person who does not officially belong in a meeting should be there. No one serious would suggest, much less argue, that their extremely clever housemaid should attend but very clever people will apparently put light gray lines where black ones belong when it's a female spouse. Such arguments are never prevailing arguments, at best we'll be humored and at worst snickered at secretly. 

[BIGUN 1,440]

Operational security (OPSEC) is a security and risk management process. Having a TS1 clearance does not mean, 1) that anyone with a TS1 gets to know what's going on in another area - to Normiss' point; "Need to Know," and 2) one in a leadership position must keep, maintain, and enforce the process and standards.

If a Navy E-3 can get courtmartialed for taking a pic in the Nuke room and sending it to his family, then the standard for the SecDef should be much higher. For God's sake, he's surrounded by Intel people whose whole existence is to ensure that security is maintained. All he had to do was turn his head and say, "Take care of it."     

[JoeWeber 2,871]

  On 4/23/2025 at 7:06 PM, BIGUN said:

Operational security (OPSEC) is a security and risk management process. Having a TS1 clearance does not mean, 1) that anyone with a TS1 gets to know what's going on in another area - to Normiss' point; "Need to Know," and 2) one in a leadership position must keep, maintain, and enforce the process and standards.

If a Navy E-3 can get courtmartialed for taking a pic in the Nuke room and sending it to his family, then the standard for the SecDef should be much higher. For God's sake, he's surrounded by Intel people whose whole existence is to ensure that security is maintained. All he had to do was turn his head and say, "Take care of it."     

All he had to do was turn his head and say, "Take care of it."     

He did, and now he has a nice new make-up room.

[billvon 3,090]

  On 4/23/2025 at 7:06 PM, BIGUN said:

For God's sake, he's surrounded by Intel people whose whole existence is to ensure that security is maintained. All he had to do was turn his head and say, "Take care of it."     

But then he would not be the smartest person in the room.

And he still has Trump's full support.  On the topic of the second Signal chat: "Here we go again. Just a waste of time. He is doing a great job."