I'm sure many could use $1M, but is it tax-free? Might Musk come ask for "a favor" sometime in the future? :D Flirting with bribery? Musk can certainly afford it many times over. Ethics? Doesn't look like healthy democracy to me. Two months and a week into Trump's presidency (second round).

Exciting to announce our first million dollar award for supporting our petition against activist judges in Wisconsin!

Next million dollar award will be announced in 2 days. — Elon Musk · Mar 26, 2025

While Hegseth is not holding himself accountable, the chances that he or any other officials will face outside discipline or investigations appear slim. The White House has installed Trump ultra-loyalists at the Department of Justice and the FBI – agencies that in a normal administration might investigate such breaches as the Signal thread. Independent watchdog officials known as inspectors general have also been fired throughout the government. And Republican lawmakers have proved loath to submit the Trump administration to serious oversight.

Crash-testing the Justice and Congressional Oversight Subversion plan. Holding so far.

Flirting with bribery? — jorndoe

Musk looks after the bribery side of the operation. Trump handles the extortion side (by threatening to kill all government contracts for law firms who have been associated with his past prosecutions.)

You're inconsistent. In the past, you supported the release of newswothy information:

I still do.

Regarding embarrassment: the officials committed the embarassing behavior. Goldberg was doing his job reporting it.

He was spying.

Marco Rubio hasn't served.
Steve Witkoff hasn't served.
John Rattcliffe hasn't served.

Then if you’re going to make such an accusation, quote one of them or describe how one of these three were disrespecting the military and the intelligence services.

Or was it this statement from Waltz? By far, the most newsworthy statement in the whole chat?

“Whether we pull the plug or not today European navies do not have the capability to defend against the types of sophisticated, antiship, cruise missiles, and drones the Houthis are now using. So whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. ”

Then if you’re going to make such an accusation, quote one of them or describe how one of these three were disrespecting the military and the intelligence services. — NOS4A2

A military serviceman or an intelligence officer using Signal-app to forward timetables of future military strikes, an issue obviously classified in any sitution, would be severely punished. Likely that serviceman or officer would lose his or her job because of his or her recklessness of not following opsec-rules.

That these people don't give a fuck about such issues is the disrespect here. They can pray for the troops as much they want and hold up the flag, but such actions show actually how much they respect following orders.

By far, the most newsworthy statement in the whole chat? — NOS4A2

Wasn't it how to make Egypt and Europe pay?

Actually, it was Biden that didn't think there would be any need to form an international coalition to protect the Red Sea straights and Gulf of Oman from Houthi attacks (as was done dealing with Somali pirates). So the French deployed their own warships separately to defend maritime traffic. It was a great chance to build an alliance to contain Iran and it's proxies, but the US isn't in the business of forming coalitions anymore.



Since the US is had it with having any allies (except Israel, I guess) and just wants to cozy up with Russia, what is us to do other than rearm and think our security over?

A military serviceman or an intelligence officer using Signal-app to forward timetables of future military strikes, an issue obviously classified in any sitution, would be severely punished. Likely that serviceman or officer would lose his or her job because of his or her recklessness of not following opsec-rules.

That these people don't give a fuck about such issues is the disrespect here. They can pray for the troops as much they want and hold up the flag, but such actions show actually how much they respect following orders.

That the source of your ire is a never-ending list of counterfactuals that you guys can pull out at will makes it look pretty silly, to be honest. Oh, it could have led to a nuke falling on a baby giraffe! You can’t find the disrespect so you have to make it up. That’s how far we’ve come.

Since the US is had it with having any allies (except Israel, I guess) and just wants to cozy up with Russia, what is us to do other than rearm and think our security over?

Cozying up with a bunch of totalitarian nanny-states might not be in our best interests anymore. The cauldron of both communism and fascism is unleashing its next aberration on the world and perhaps cutting the chord is the right thing to do.

Relativist

You're inconsistent. In the past, you supported the release of newswothy information:

I still do.

Regarding embarrassment: the officials committed the embarassing behavior. Goldberg was doing his job reporting it.

He was spying. — NOS4A2

In neither case did the journalist do anything illegal. In both cases, journalists were given information. In Goldberg's case, he revealed none of the sensitive information until the administration lied about it - and accused HIM of lying.

It's an unequivocal fact that the administration screwed up, they lied about it, and attacked the journalist who did nothing wrong.

A responsible administration would admit error, investigate how pervasive it was, and put processes in place to avoid repeating it. Blaming the innocent journalist is deflection.

It’s guess it’s a shame he could only leak a successful military operation, and not something that would make the administration look terrible. In the scheme of scandals this sits up there with Sharpiegate in its stupidity-to-outrage ratio.

You are unable to face reality. The administration screwed up.

It’s true, Waltz or his staffer screwed up. I don’t deny that. But in terms of fuck-ups, it’s a tiny one. Big deal. On to the next outrage.

They screwed up. How big a deal this was is unclear. If this was the first and only time they used Signal to convey classified info, then it's minor. It behooves the administration to tell us that. In either case, their lies - and attacking Goldberg, have made the story bigger.


.

Trump and his loser nominees will inevitability screw up even more— only with the environment, the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, education, taxes, etc.

What’s funny is that his idiotic followers and spineless congress now have that part of the brain that accepts mistakes removed; thus we now have to endure endless speculation. This is all COMPLEX and NUANCED.

Lord how I miss the simple, straightforward days of Hillary’s emails…

In either case, their lies - and attacking Goldberg, have made the story bigger.

Maybe in Anti-Trumpistan. But outside it’s gossip and scandal-mongering, and worse, malicious sabotage.

Goldberg was doing his job reporting it.

He was spying. — NOS4A2

It’s true, Waltz or his staffer screwed up. I don’t deny that. But in terms of fuck-ups, it’s a tiny one. Big deal. On to the next outrage. — NOS4A2

Maybe in Anti-Trumpistan. But outside it’s gossip and scandal-mongering, and worse, malicious sabotage. — NOS4A2

Fucking trollery, nos4. Deliberate misrepresentation of facts - which you likely know perfectly well. You are a liar. Goldberg spying? How? Make clear to us how he was spying. Inviting Goldberg a screw-up? No doubt, But that really isn't the big issue. For a clear statement of the issue(s), Susan Rice, here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7VoJJdXwW4&t=508s

And her view just one among the majority report. Everything wrong about it, and they just lie and lie and lie about it. Hmm, just like you, nos4.

Yeah yeah yeah…Red Team does the same shit, if not worse, and we don’t care because Red Team Good.


There’s not even an attempt to cover the dogmatism. They display it with pride.

Endless hypocrisy cycle.

Your losing it, because that's nonsensical babble.

Fucking trollery, nos4. — tim wood

Yes, many say the same thing and question why we feed the troll.

But that's how the MAGA-crowd feels like. They are like the Brexiteers, who also cheered as they ruined their country and believed that once freed from the shackles of EU bureaucracy, they would enjoy the fruits of prosperity that "freedom" would give them. In a similar fashion the MAGA-crowd will be cheering all the way to the economic recession.

Best portrayal of the MAGA-mind has been alt-right cartoonist Ben Garrison, who depicts well the Trump worship and how the cult hates liberalism and democrats and that stuff.

How Garrison sees the Trump-team:


And what Trump is building:


And how rotten the Ukrainians are:

Looks like political art out of the old USSR.

Interview with DOGE. Why do you hate these people?

Cause for concern? The commentary doesn't strike me as radicalism or propaganda, which are typical accusations.

Re: America turning from democracy to authoritarianism:

I teach both American and international government. For years, I’ve been going over “case study” states, from mostly democratic (UK), to democratizing-but-corrupt (Mexico, Nigeria), to illiberal-authoritarian (Russia), to theocratic (Iran), to traditional authoritarian (China).

When it comes to the difference between democracy and authoritarianism, one thing Americans need to understand is that there’s never one single moment when you become an authoritarian state; no leader will stand up and announce, “I am now a dictator.”

Putin is the classic case study in the gradual, effective subversion of democracy. Russia had been democratizing for about a decade when he took over in 2000, and now – even though Russia ostensibly still has the appearance of democracy (elections, separation of powers, federalism, and a constitution) – none of that matters. Putin is in absolute control. And Putin is, coincidentally (?), the authoritarian most vocally admired by Donald Trump.

But how screwed are we? Well, as any first-year political science student can tell you, there are – very simple, clear-cut, definitive – ways to tell when your democracy is in danger. Let’s go over them, shall we?

1. You know you’re drifting toward authoritarianism when … your Legislative Branch cedes power to your President.

Montesquieu (and later Madison) envisioned the Legislative Branch as the primary workhorse of government: it was made – in part – to check the President’s excesses. It has far more powers than the President, it’s more representative of the people than the President, and it was specifically given the ability to restrain, overrule, or remove the President. In all of U.S. history, the legislature was never intended to be subservient to executive power. When a President’s rule sidesteps legislative functions – and Congress allows it – the balance of power is subverted.

For the record, Putin’s rise initially faced resistance from his own legislative Duma – serving their constitutional function – until he cowed them, forced out resistors, and intimidated dissent, eventually rewriting the rules around elections to install loyalists exclusively.

Ask yourself: Has the U.S. Congress been ceding power to President Trump, diminishing in importance as the president’s role grows?

2. You know you’re drifting toward authoritarianism when … corporatism becomes normalized.

Corporatism is a political system in which for-profit business groups (i.e., mass media and energy) become the most impactful partners in the government’s policymaking process.

Authoritarians need industry leaders (and more importantly, their money) to spread their influence. Consequently, deals are made and favors traded (tax cuts in exchange for favorable reporting, for instance) that further enhance the power of the oligarchs and the President over that of the people.

For the record, Putin allowed profiteering for oligarchs who would help him (the Rotenburgs and Yuri Kovalchuk), and persecuted or jailed those who opposed him (Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky).

Ask yourself: Has President Trump empowered corporations who aided him and diminished those who opposed him in order to gain more power?

3. You know you’re drifting toward authoritarianism when … you begin to wonder if your President will obey the Constitution.

Rule of law is considered one of the four pillars of democracy, and the U.S. – despite its foibles – has a strong tradition of adherence to this concept. For many countries, the constitution is just a piece of paper, altered on the fly when it suits the regime (example: every Chinese president before Xi Jinping had term limits; now – with a wave of the pen – he does not). If obeying the U.S. Constitution becomes a question rather than an expectation, that is not in the American tradition of democracy.

For the record, Putin regularly violates the civil liberties present within the Russian constitution: restricting protests, intimidating (or outright murdering) journalists, and jailing political opponents.

Ask yourself: Have President Trump’s actions ever threatened constitutional norms or the rule of law in pursuit of personal gain?

4. You know you’re drifting toward authoritarianism when … your President creates enemies for you to turn on, both internally and externally.

This is pretty much textbook fascism, frankly, but I’m shocked at how easily it’s getting overlooked. Look, one cannot be a hero without a villain – and who is more easily vanquished than the vulnerable? If you can turn your citizenry onto a witch hunt against its own people, that’s a useful tool for power grabs in the name of “security.” And if you can turn them against a foreign adversary, even better: nothing promotes nationalism like warfare … especially easily won warfare.

Ask yourself: Has President Trump encouraged us to turn on any of our fellow Americans … or created any new foreign enemies out of historic allies?

5. You know you’re drifting toward authoritarianism when … your President elevates loyalty to himself personally over loyalty to the country.

Consider: though most cabinet members are rotated out when a new president enters, the vast majority of bureaucrats and soldiers (everyone from staff sergeants to park rangers) stay in place, keeping the machinery of government running, as their oath is to the Constitution – not a specific human being. Authoritarians see that as insufficient, replacing elements of the bureaucracy – especially military and law enforcement – who will criticize implementation, or refuse illegal execution, of presidential will.

For the record, one of Putin’s first actions as President was to put the FSB (their version of the FBI) under direct control of the President (himself). Prior to that, there had been a detachment between law enforcement and political power, expected and traditional in western democracies. From May 17, 2000 onward, they became a tool of his will, incrementally expanded in power and wielded against his enemies.

Ask yourself: Has President Trump appointed government agents – especially military and law enforcement – who have vocalized loyalty to him personally, and advocated for vengeance against his political enemies?

Sigh. I’m tired, but I could go on and on. There’s a phrase that’s been paraded lately: “Democracy dies in darkness.” In my experience, that’s not necessarily what’s happening here. Despite the backslide in democratic qualities we’re experiencing, the one we have in spades is transparency: thanks to a vibrant media ecosystem – and Trump’s narcissistic self-promotion – we are constantly aware of the moves he’s making to subvert the norms of our regime.

That said, as democracy dies in America, it won’t be in darkness. It will be in plain sight – and with our permission. — Roman Sheremeta (Case Western Reserve University, Chapman University)

As they say of the ancient Romans, "The Republic didn't fall in a day", something like that. Putin also violated Russian Criminal Code Article 353, by the way.

Why do you hate these people? — NOS4A2

Because of what they are doing. It's not hate - that subjectivizes and trivialises the issue. It is an objection to the way that they are subverting constitutional norms and safeguards and indiscriminately destroying and degrading many legitimate functions of Government without any Congressional authority or oversight.


The Doctor will See you Now

The latest episode of stunning hypocrisy - NY Times points out that the Administration has refused to provide details of the flight times of the Venezulanen accused gang members on the grounds of 'national security'. But the leaking of war plans via an unsanctioned comms channel - no problem! Nothing to see here foks! What utter bullshit. Surely there must be a reckoning coming.

MAGA defense for leaking secrets amount to "it ain't a crime if you don't get caught!" or in this case "it ain't a crime if nothing bad happened!". Sigh.

Hey nose4, above you said Jeff Goldberg was a spy. I said you were a liar, but asked you to make clear to us how he was a spy. No response yet. What's the matter, cat got your tongue?

Don't run away as you usually do when questioned directly. You made a claim, support it!

spy verb

1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes
2 : to catch sight of : SEE
3 : to search or look for intensively —usually used with out

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spy

2 : to catch sight of : SEE — NOS4A2

So anyone with eyes is a spy? Is that the substance of your claim? Notice that 1 & 2 don't apply. So you're just full of s**t, nos4. Why don't you try again. You claimed Jeff Goldberg was spying - is a spy. Make your case!

And you have evaded too often, too much. I'm not going to let this one go.

1 applies, and that’s the sense in which I used it.

The interesting thing about the interview I watched was the chasm between certain portrayals and that which presents itself to my own eyes and ears. I have I think listened to all sides, and though Musk may come off as weird, only one brand of portrayal appears completely unhinged and can be used to justify terrorism.

The so-called checks and balances are working just fine, if you can’t tell by the various injunctions and rulings, and any “subverting constitutional norms and safeguards” will be ironed out in court, the way it always has been.

1 applies, and that’s the sense in which I used it. — NOS4A2

No it doesn't; nothing either secretive or hostile. Or, tell us what was secretive or hostile that he did!

More to the point, you made a lying claim and now you got nothing. Or, tell us what you got!

He hung out in the conversation, watched with prying eyes, without notifying anyone of the mistake for many days. That’s secretive.

He then published and spoke about his embellishments in public. He is the perpetrator of many hoaxes and him and his publication are rabid anti-Trump propagandists. That’s hostile.

You know better! He was invited and accepted. Later when he referred to it, they attacked and insulted and abused him - they also said nothing was classified so he published. Your version not just spin, but an entire fiction. Why are you such a liar?

How had he "hung out"? How was his watching "prying"? How did he know it was a mistake - he at first thought it was a prank on him. And what was his obligation to inform? Presumably they knew who was in their very secret "principals only" meeting.

Until you clear up at least these discrepancies and inconsistencies in your accounting you're a troll and a liar. And so far you have failed.

He then published and spoke about his embellishments in public. He is the perpetrator of many hoaxes and him and his publication are rabid anti-Trump propagandists. That’s hostile. — NOS4A2

What embellishments? What hoaxes? In what way rabid? What propaganda?

As with many Trumpers, you appears to talk about yourself, and then project that on others.

You know better! He was invited and accepted. Later when he referred to it, they attacked and insulted and abused him - they also said nothing was classified so he published. Your version not just spin, but an entire fiction. Why are you such a liar?

How had he "hung out"? How was his watching "prying"? How did he know it was a mistake - he at first thought it was a prank on him. And what was his obligation to inform? Presumably they knew who was in their very secret "principals only" meeting.

Until you clear up at least these discrepancies and inconsistencies in your accounting you're a troll and a liar. And so far you have failed.

He was mistakenly invited and stayed, silently, eavesdropping, long past the time he realized he was not supposed to be there. The reason you’re fine with this is because you are ill-mannered and immoral, and you would do the same to others if given the chance.

He was mistakenly invited and stayed, silently, eavesdropping, long past the time he realized he was not supposed to be there. — NOS4A2

What he thought and realized, and when, is more than I know, and more than you know. We do not know that he was mistakenly invited: how does that happen in a top-secret meeting? He was apparently identified as well as anyone else. I suppose he was silent. But how is he eavesdropping? Please make that clear? In a meeting so constituted, attendees are supposed to listen, and what is the expectation of privacy? (Ans.: zero.) And how is he to know that he is not supposed to be there? Maybe he was exactly and precisely supposed to be there.

But you use abusive language dismissing facts and ordinary sense. You're not stupid, so I infer troll, and your lying is all through your TPF posts.

I know nothing personal about the Atlantic editor, beyond what I have seen of him and read. But he appears to be an honest and honorable man in a job that requires both, but you calumnize him in favour of people we know are vicious, mean, and contemptible. Why?