921

Summary

Lawmakers from both parties expressed outrage after The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief revealed he was accidentally included in a Trump administration Signal chat discussing Yemen airstrikes.

Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) called for investigations and firings, labeling it a serious security breach.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) criticized the use of non-secure systems, warning that adversaries like Russia and China could exploit it.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) condemned the administration's mishandling of classified information, saying it endangers national security.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 52 points 6 days ago

This is an expression of power. An intentional leak to show that “We get to break rules, and you cannot.”

Hanlon's razor applies I think:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity"

I really think they really are just this stupid

Yep. They fired all the adults that think things through and provide rigor for a reason so the only people left are children doing whatever they want ignorant of the consequences.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 days ago

Exactly. If they had wanted to intentionally leak classified information in order to move the overton window or something, they would have done it differently. They wouldn't have had the VP disagreeing with Trump. They wouldn't have actually leaked serious classified information, including the name of an active CIA officer. They wouldn't have leaked it to the editor in chief of the Atlantic.

They fired all the adults that think things through and provide rigor for a reason so the only people left are children doing whatever they want ignorant of the consequences.

For example, they fired anyone who would otherwise have said "Folks, this is not an appropriate communications tool for classified information. This needs to be shared in a SCIF".

Anybody who knows better also knows to keep their mouth shut if they want to keep their job in this admin. And even if keeping their job isn't their priority, they know that if they speak up they risk being scapegoated, hung out to dry, and possibly killed by MAGA loyalists for daring to confront the king.

[-] SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 5 days ago

No I'd say there's absolutely a good share of malice in the mix with incompetence and stupidity.

this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
921 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22503 readers
3290 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS