this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
955 points (99.4% liked)

politics

22497 readers
2650 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
 

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
[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)

As long as we're putting on our tinfoil hats, it's also possible that this was an intentional action taken against The Atlantic (or against Jeffrey Goldberg in particular). Trump's admin has plenty of reasons to want to silence that publication, and might've hoped that by "accidentally" giving Goldberg access, they could entrap him into committing a crime (mishandling of classified material, espionage, etc).

With a little cooperation from the AG's office, presto! You've got one of your biggest critics in jail, and sent a message to other would-be whistleblowers.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Reminds me of this from the Bush II years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

The Killian documents controversy (also referred to as Memogate or Rathergate) involved six documents containing false allegations about President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972–73, allegedly typed in 1973. Dan Rather presented four of these documents as authentic in a 60 Minutes II broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 presidential election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate them. Several typewriter and typography experts soon concluded that they were forgeries. Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett provided the documents to CBS, but he claims to have burned the originals after faxing them copies.

Anyway, interesting and worthwhile thing to consider.