@NatashaBertrand Gabbard now says, "I believe there was discussion around targets in general" in the chat, but says "I don't remember" a mention of specific targets and doesn't "recall" mention of specific weapons systems. Ratcliffe also says "I don't recall."
BREAKING: It appears as though Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe are either playing stupid or just blatantly lying about what the signal conversations included.
The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg said the messages did in fact include specific details about target names and times of attacks.
Think people are slightly misunderstanding what's going on here. Gabbard/Ratcliffe are actually preparing to throw Hegseth under the bus. Line appears to be they think no sensitive material was released because it's what he's told them. When he's shown to be lying they'll pivot.
@NatashaBertrand Gabbard now says, "I believe there was discussion around targets in general" in the chat, but says "I don't remember" a mention of specific targets and doesn't "recall" mention of specific weapons systems. Ratcliffe also says "I don't recall."
@NatashaBertrand Gabbard now says, "I believe there was discussion around targets in general" in the chat, but says "I don't remember" a mention of specific targets and doesn't "recall" mention of specific weapons systems. Ratcliffe also says "I don't recall."
⚡️Russia, Ukraine agree to eliminate 'use of force' in Black Sea, US to help restore Russia's access to markets.
The U.S., Russia and Ukraine have agreed to "eliminate the use of force" and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea following two-day talks in Saudi Arabia, the White House announced on March 25.
Washington also vowed to help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.
Given that the only remaining Russian naval forces in most of the Black sea are their recently expanded submarine squadron, none of which seem to be functional, it is really not obvious what is in this deal for Ukraine. Why would they want Russian trade to expand? Why would they want to run the risk of more munitions or drones being sneaked in by "grain ships"? Why would they want to leave such easy targets alone?
There’s nothing in it for Ukraine and everything in it for Russia, but why would anyone be surprised. The USA is either being played like a fiddle, or is actively on Russia’s side.
I hope Ukraine is playing a cunning game here. They could do with exercising a bit more perfidy.
@NatashaBertrand Gabbard now says, "I believe there was discussion around targets in general" in the chat, but says "I don't remember" a mention of specific targets and doesn't "recall" mention of specific weapons systems. Ratcliffe also says "I don't recall."
I remember when Hillary Clinton's emails were an absolute scandal.
They were just a stick to beat her with. Nobody on either side actually cared about the issue.
A non-issue? You don't say.
Yes, which is why the "but her emails" meme is so tiresome. If she had been better at politics, she would have brushed it off instead of playing the victim for a decade.
I think the political dynamics internally in Russia are such that Putin will be under far more pressure on his right flank from the Liberal Democratics than anywhere else even if he comes away from Ukraine with a great chunk of land he didn't have before.
Surely he'll find a way to make sure the Liberal Democrats are unable to stand at the next Russian election.
I think the political dynamics internally in Russia are such that Putin will be under far more pressure on his right flank from the Liberal Democratics than anywhere else even if he comes away from Ukraine with a great chunk of land he didn't have before.
Surely he'll find a way to make sure the Liberal Democrats are unable to stand at the next Russian election.
The “occult” town of Piriápolis, laid out on sacred energy lines by a mad alchemist. Or maybe he just looked at the beach and thought Wow, great place to live
Maybe temperate South America is the West's best hope. The whole region has so much potential and Milei seems to be succeeding in turning Argentina around. There's no reason why it couldn't be at least as rich as Europe.
Uruguay just gets better. This coast is spectacular
And very safe. And basically empty. And truly poetically beautiful, east of Punta
Also ethnically 98% European? - as Uruguayans KEEP telling me. They exterminated their indigenous population in the 1830s and even though Montevideo was a slave port all the slaves were exported out of the country
So Uruguay js probably more European than any nation in Western Europe. Wandering around somewhere like Punta is actually quite jarring. It’s so overwhelmingly white - Italians and Spanish and a few Brits and French
@NatashaBertrand Gabbard now says, "I believe there was discussion around targets in general" in the chat, but says "I don't remember" a mention of specific targets and doesn't "recall" mention of specific weapons systems. Ratcliffe also says "I don't recall."
@NatashaBertrand Gabbard now says, "I believe there was discussion around targets in general" in the chat, but says "I don't remember" a mention of specific targets and doesn't "recall" mention of specific weapons systems. Ratcliffe also says "I don't recall."
I remember when Hillary Clinton's emails were an absolute scandal.
They were just a stick to beat her with. Nobody on either side actually cared about the issue.
A non-issue? You don't say.
Yes, which is why the "but her emails" meme is so tiresome. If she had been better at politics, she would have brushed it off instead of playing the victim for a decade.
The “occult” town of Piriápolis, laid out on sacred energy lines by a mad alchemist. Or maybe he just looked at the beach and thought Wow, great place to live
Maybe temperate South America is the West's best hope. The whole region has so much potential and Milei seems to be succeeding in turning Argentina around. There's no reason why it couldn't be at least as rich as Europe.
Uruguay just gets better. This coast is spectacular
And very safe. And basically empty. And truly poetically beautiful, east of Punta
Also ethnically 98% European? - as Uruguayans KEEP telling me. They exterminated their indigenous population in the 1830s and even though Montevideo was a slave port all the slaves were exported out of the country
So Uruguay js probably more European than any nation in Western Europe. Wandering around somewhere like Punta is actually quite jarring. It’s so overwhelmingly white - Italians and Spanish and a few Brits and French
Gazette travel writer extolls the virtues of ethnic cleansing!
⚡️Russia, Ukraine agree to eliminate 'use of force' in Black Sea, US to help restore Russia's access to markets.
The U.S., Russia and Ukraine have agreed to "eliminate the use of force" and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea following two-day talks in Saudi Arabia, the White House announced on March 25.
Washington also vowed to help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.
Given that the only remaining Russian naval forces in most of the Black sea are their recently expanded submarine squadron, none of which seem to be functional, it is really not obvious what is in this deal for Ukraine. Why would they want Russian trade to expand? Why would they want to run the risk of more munitions or drones being sneaked in by "grain ships"? Why would they want to leave such easy targets alone?
Because Trump will switch sides formally if they don’t. They have probably calculated that the risk is marginal.
@NatashaBertrand Gabbard now says, "I believe there was discussion around targets in general" in the chat, but says "I don't remember" a mention of specific targets and doesn't "recall" mention of specific weapons systems. Ratcliffe also says "I don't recall."
IF PAST IS PROLOGUE, DONALD TRUMP WILL DO SOMETHING INSANE IN THE NEXT 48 HOURS TO CHANGE THE NEWS CYCLE.
I subscribe to the view that Donald Trump’s number one objective is to dominate the news cycle all day and every day. That's a worry when you consider what it will take to do this for four years. I can envisage a time when we come to yearn for the relatively sober early weeks of his tenure when all we had to fret about was him subverting American democracy, ripping up the western alliance, surrendering Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, ethnic cleansing the Palestinians, paralysing world trade, and invading Greenland, Panama and Mexico and Canada.
I return to the question Mark asked earlier, "How long will Trump tolerate his cabinet making him look like an idiot?", and the answer is 'a minimum of 4 years' if he is even aware of it
I don't think he gives a shit about Signalgate. He doesn't know anything about it, the Atlantic is a failing rag, etc. There will definitely be no legal or disciplinary consequences for anyone involved.
What DJT really cares about is his own personal grandeur and authority. Signalgate doesn't affect him in that way.
I’m not even sure it’s an accidental leak
It’s quite convenient for the Trump Admin to get out the idea that they are REALLY done with defending Europe
Yeah of course that is what happened. I can imagine the discussion now:
'Tell you what chaps, these Europeans don't seem to have understood the umpteen references to us not wanting to defend them, why don't we all make ourselves liable for a prison sentence and make ourselves look completely incompetent by leaking in advance our plans to bomb an enemy and even give them the possibility to defend themselves and shoot down our planes/missiles, by sneaking in a reference to not liking Europeans which may never see the light of day. What harm can it cause?'
'Yes. What a great idea. Go for it'
Using my one picture of the day. [although fear it may have already been posted]
Inadvertently equating the Atlantic with the Völkischer Beobachter...
Yes, should be the other way round really, with the Nazi leadership and generals discussing, say, the attack on France.
WRT The Atlantic and the inclusion of Jeffrey Goldberg in the Signal, a recommendation. He usually chairs a weekly discussion with other interesting liberals on the USA state of play which is You Tubed generally on Friday/Saturday. Sane, relaxed, informative on the ball without going OTT. The most recent is here:
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
But there was an outstanding teacher in episode 2.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
On the last point, there were only 2 or 3 chaotic classes, and obviously the corridor clamour. Not unusual I think. The head of lower school teacher seemed as pathetic as some senior teachers I've seen in the past. The Head teacher was just scared of his back. I would also say that the use of videos was the only way to calm down some classes.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
On the last point, there were only 2 or 3 chaotic classes, and obviously the corridor clamour. Not unusual I think. The head of lower school teacher seemed as pathetic as some senior teachers I've seen in the past. The Head teacher was just scared of his back. I would also say that the use of videos was the only way to calm down some classes.
My biggest issue with it was the friend of the murdered girl who was apparently back in general circulation without any support.
Having dealt with a pretty similar situation at my school in the past few years, and having seen the amount of work that went into trauma support for close friends, there is no way she'd be put in that situation.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
On the last point, there were only 2 or 3 chaotic classes, and obviously the corridor clamour. Not unusual I think. The head of lower school teacher seemed as pathetic as some senior teachers I've seen in the past. The Head teacher was just scared of his back. I would also say that the use of videos was the only way to calm down some classes.
My biggest issue with it was the friend of the murdered girl who was apparently back in general circulation without any support.
Having dealt with a pretty similar situation at my school in the past few years, and having seen the amount of work that went into trauma support for close friends, there is no way she'd be put in that situation.
Generally there seemed to be the wrong atmosphere for a school with a recent murder in episode 2. I would expect a bit more obvious grief and shock. Episode 3 was superb.
The most scary bit was the guy in the paint shop with his proof that Jamie was being framed on the basis of his Facebook.. A whiff of the Letby Truthers there.
IF PAST IS PROLOGUE, DONALD TRUMP WILL DO SOMETHING INSANE IN THE NEXT 48 HOURS TO CHANGE THE NEWS CYCLE.
I subscribe to the view that Donald Trump’s number one objective is to dominate the news cycle all day and every day. That's a worry when you consider what it will take to do this for four years. I can envisage a time when we come to yearn for the relatively sober early weeks of his tenure when all we had to fret about was him subverting American democracy, ripping up the western alliance, surrendering Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, ethnic cleansing the Palestinians, paralysing world trade, and invading Greenland, Panama and Mexico and Canada.
I return to the question Mark asked earlier, "How long will Trump tolerate his cabinet making him look like an idiot?", and the answer is 'a minimum of 4 years' if he is even aware of it
I don't think he gives a shit about Signalgate. He doesn't know anything about it, the Atlantic is a failing rag, etc. There will definitely be no legal or disciplinary consequences for anyone involved.
What DJT really cares about is his own personal grandeur and authority. Signalgate doesn't affect him in that way.
I’m not even sure it’s an accidental leak
It’s quite convenient for the Trump Admin to get out the idea that they are REALLY done with defending Europe
Yeah of course that is what happened. I can imagine the discussion now:
'Tell you what chaps, these Europeans don't seem to have understood the umpteen references to us not wanting to defend them, why don't we all make ourselves liable for a prison sentence and make ourselves look completely incompetent by leaking in advance our plans to bomb an enemy and even give them the possibility to defend themselves and shoot down our planes/missiles, by sneaking in a reference to not liking Europeans which may never see the light of day. What harm can it cause?'
'Yes. What a great idea. Go for it'
That would be a telling argument if this was a normal American government. It is not
Fair point.
They also have ultimate backside cover.
POTUS has been ruled above the law for any criminal offences he commits in office, and Trump can just pardon anyone he wishes for federal offences.
WRT Adolescence: that show has rightly got a lot of people talking*.
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
‘ But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising? ‘
I think you are wrong and ignorant for saying that.
Comments
I hope Ukraine is playing a cunning game here. They could do with exercising a bit more perfidy.
And very safe. And basically empty. And truly poetically beautiful, east of Punta
Also ethnically 98% European? - as Uruguayans KEEP telling me. They exterminated their indigenous population in the 1830s and even though Montevideo was a slave port all the slaves were exported out of the country
So Uruguay js probably more European than any nation in Western Europe. Wandering around somewhere like Punta is actually quite jarring. It’s so overwhelmingly white - Italians and Spanish and a few Brits and French
NEW THREAD
my goodness you can see Tulsi Gabbard trying to come up with evasive answers to Kelly's questions in real time
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1904560131934744652
If you go to https://vf.politicalbetting.com/ and log on you should see a red notification telling you where to go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GAlDyTMAZM
But the extremes of radicalisation through social media are only part of the story. I've just got out of a meeting between a Y11 boy and Mum - he is on course to fail GCSE maths and this is a last ditch attempt to get him to commit to actually revising when he says he will, rather than posting on Snapchat and watching Netflix.
We can all insert the usual caveats about feckless teenagers and overly permissive parents, and those caveats all hold in this case.
But how in holy hell have we got to the point where we think it is appropriate or sensible to put a highly addictive technology in the pockets of pre-frontal-cortex-deficient teenagers, where their attention is quite literally the product on offer to the most rapacious bidder, just at the point when their whole future success depends on them putting their attention into a fundamentally less immediately gratifying pursuit such as revising?
Why am I as a teacher being asked to compete with that? Why is this boy's mum being asked to get into constant conflict with him to ask him to overcome an addictive draw on his limited attention? In what possible world do we think this is in any way sensible?
Alright this boy isn't going to go and stab someone. But he is going to mess his life up. And we're greasing that slippery slope for him.
*Although I have some beef with episode 2 - the shambles of a school makes for good TV but is not representative.
Not unusual I think. The head of lower school teacher seemed as pathetic as some senior teachers I've seen in the past. The Head teacher was just scared of his back. I would also say that the use of videos was the only way to calm down some classes.
Having dealt with a pretty similar situation at my school in the past few years, and having seen the amount of work that went into trauma support for close friends, there is no way she'd be put in that situation.
The most scary bit was the guy in the paint shop with his proof that Jamie was being framed on the basis of his Facebook.. A whiff of the Letby Truthers there.
POTUS has been ruled above the law for any criminal offences he commits in office, and Trump can just pardon anyone he wishes for federal offences.
I think you are wrong and ignorant for saying that.