Hacker News Reader

Comment by hcknwscommenter | Hacker News Reader

Sub headline in the link says investigation "cleared" Waltz. When of course, what actually happened is that the investigation showed how extremely reckless negligent and careless Waltz was. I wish the guardian was more explicit about how nonsense this government propaganda is about this incident.

View on HN

How about that nobody else questioned who the new guy was?

He was one of many initials present at the beginning of the chat, no?

No. To the others he would have appeared as a random number.

He would appear as whatever he set his profile name to.

He actual specifically says this in his article.

No, it said just "19 members". Nobody would notice him unless they went to the group settings, or he spoke up.

https://archive.is/YmtqQ/bb4da26bd1dd20371c772ed26070f066358...

Signal just released a change that lists all the members in the chat itself. You can guess why ;-)

https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/commit/da3fc408f

You don't keep your job under this administration by sticking your head out.

He was “cleared” of what mattered to Trump, being disloyal.

While I thoroughly dislike self-serving bullshit, this is at least about as blatant a case of self-serving bullshit as it gets.

> Sub headline in the link says investigation "cleared" Waltz. When of course, what actually happened is that the investigation showed how extremely reckless negligent and careless Waltz was.

That sounds like cleared to the standards expected of politicians.

No, this is not the standard expected of politicians. This is an unusual — probably even unprecedented — level of recklessness and carelessness for a National Security Advisor. We can expect the person advising the President on national security not to accidentally leak classified information to a journalist via an unsecured communication channel. That expectation is routinely complied with.

> the investigation showed how extremely reckless negligent and careless Waltz was

This is just a case where there's an individual to blame. We're looking back at at least eighty years of negligence and recklessness. Basically every conflict we've been in indicates clearly we don't have the competence nor the honesty that a reasonable human would find sufficient to manage such a destructive entity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com