Do you honestly believe this? The crime wasn't accidentally adding the wrong person to a group chat, it was discussing war plans in an unsecured channel, which anyone who has ever handled privileged government information knows is against the law.

As another commenter said, there is a thread over in r/army where soldiers are sharing stories of military careers that have ended for far less.

Or, if the chat participants really want to double down that no classified info was shared in the chat, then the Atlantic reporter should just release the full details of the chat, unredacted, and let the world make up their own mind in the info is or should have been classified.

Edit: Lol, I was too slow, looks like the Atlantic did exactly that. The CNN headline on their homepage is currently "Details Hegseth shared in Signal chat were classified, sources say. After intel officials and the White House said the group didn't disclose classified info, The Atlantic decided to release the texts." https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-presidency-news...

> it was discussing war plans in an unsecured channel

What channel should they use? Email? Is email more secure than Signal?

It's not against the law, actually. The President and his cabinet operate on their own rules per the Constitution, as there is additional power and executive privilege vested in the office. The only requirement is that they satisfy the Presidential Records Act, and archive the messages.

All you are doing is showing that you aren't serious.

> What channel should they use?

Are you f'ing kidding me? You think the federal government doesn't have actual secure channels for discussing sensitive information besides Signal and email? Why don't you just read the f'ing texts, where Mike Waltz specifically references the proper secure channels to use.

> It's not against the law, actually. The President and his cabinet operate on their own rules per the Constitution

Ahh, yes, the new Republican defense of "the law is whatever the President says it is". Actually, no, the executive branch must still follow the law.

And, FWIW, Hegseth and Rubio certainly disagree with you. Just watch their tirades from a few years ago against a previous cabinet member for using unsecured communication channels.

> You think the federal government doesn't have actual secure channels for discussing sensitive information besides Signal and email?

And what would that be? If you knew you could just answer instead of being incredulous on account of your ignorance.

Even where other channels exist for actually disseminating plans to the military, informal discussion occurs across many channels within the President's cabinet and always has. Whether that's by phone, in person, in writing, by telegraph, in email or in encrypted text messages, there is no formal restriction on informal communication. There's no arbitrary prescription set out by the Constitution and how ridiculous would it be to do so.

The law only states that the President must archive communications to satisfy the law. That is all.

Encrypted text messages are fine for cabinet discussions actually.

Here is Biden's CISA recommending just that:

https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/mobile-commun...

The fact that you are doubling down on "gosh, how can US government security officials have classified conversations besides email or Signal" just shows your ridiculousness. At this point I'd rather have an argument with a dining room table.

Using Signal to coordinate foreign policy and military actions runs afoul of the Federal Records Act, a duly-enacted law passed by Congress and binding on the executive branch.

Please point me to the line in the law that prohibits group chats on Signal.