> 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.
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...
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.