DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans

That's certainly one thing we have in common.

White House's response:

It’s a cover-up. Big non-surprise that Trump won’t hold anyone accountable. Seems Putin might be in the loop too via signal. Not invited, but Trump’s man in Russia was in Moscow, on a phone, in the convo… so we have to assume they listened in.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that Brian Hughes spoke before the White House had formulated that game plan.

Signal is a common platform for communications, and has been utilized for USG conversations which are unclassified, yet pertain to environments where you wouldn't want to just use normal talk or text. I know that's being vague, so to try to find some example, say you're talking to someone deployed to a known location and your entire conversation is unclassified and/or has no sensitive data. That is appropriate. That being said, it is NEVER okay to do anything beyond the level of FOUO on it.

As far as repercussions, I was being facetious talking about El Salvador and myself, but I think the guy should lose his job and his security clearance. Hegseth should also be reprimanded too because it's everyone's responsibility to ensure you're safe.

I knew you'd take the bait

Edit ~ in all seriousness, I really didn't know what you were talking about when I made that post. You mentioned that I had said such things to you before your hiatus, so I did go back and look at our conversations with the idea that "Okay, maybe I was a jerk and I need to apologize" but I actually didn't get that impression. Quite the opposite, honestly. I do hope you're doing okay. You know my situation currently, so it has actually been pretty rough.

We obviously break each other cajones on here a lot, but I do have to ask you, honestly, did you ever have high hopes for Pete to begin with? I obviously had my take on the guy, but I objectively thought he was unqualified for the job. I really don't expect him to add much substance to the role or come up with organic initiatives to improve DoD at all. Or at least, I'd be very surprised if he did.

Which of you is Farkus and which is Toadie?

So on a story that should be huge and be an impetus for change and governmental reviews ... does anyone think that change/review/oversight will happen? Or because the WH spokesperson said no war plans or classified materials were shared are we all hunky dory?

I heard today - no way to verify it - that the Atlantic Jornalist who was in the signal chat/thread left when he realised what he had accidentally been included in so as to be sure he didn't hear/see more. No way to know if that is true - very ethical if that is what he did. Piers Morgan and many a political hack journalist (D and possibly some R) would have probably tried to live stream the conversation or something.

I suspect that Trump being the guy that can call Zelensky a dictator and then deny it 2 days later will think this is something to simply ignore and lie about. It will say more about the rest of our elected officials if they let that happen. But I don't hold out much hope. I do know that conversations today in EU went something along the lines of "how can you trust the administration with any of our intel" and the answer was emphatic. "you can't". So regardless of the political fall out back home this has had enormous ramifications for our old allies. No doubt the new allies in Russia will love it.

It's not so much high hopes as much as being fed up with the "highly qualified" failing so miserably at every level of our government. You think he's in over his head and it's dangerous, I think that's mostly rhetoric. I think he probably needs a little hand-holding along the way but don't think that's too big of a deal when a complete paradigm shift is in order. I wouldn't expect us to agree on a lot of that because we have different ideals on how things should work. Yours is much more valid as you're "on the inside", I understand that. I also think it there can be a bit of tunnel vision from your perspective because you're staring at wounds and know solutions to stopping the bleeding when there are others that think nothing short of amputation is in order.

My primary concern, and one I think is actually dangerous, is how weak our military seems to be becoming. Weak ideals, weak standards, very week enrollment. Practices that certainly don't align with my idea of strength and efficiency. Hegseth is a military man with a strong military pedigree. IMO, that's very valuable to righting the ship on that level. One one hand we could probably agree that Pete could me of more value, if not more certain value, if he were inserted a few pegs down that ladder. I simply don't know how effective that would be if the rest of the rungs are filled with business as usual.

I still think it's a wait and see. I think he's failing a test today because he's not battle-tested enough to stick up a middle finger at those that are coddling him and do the right thing, so there's that.

I'll be honest, I never would have guessed about the official approval part... thank you for sharing that. I've used Signal in the past because of family members who took text message encryption VERY seriously (both tinfoil-hat and legit), but at the end of the day it's really only a beefed-up WhatsApp.

Unfortunately for SecDef, none of this applies to his situation. All bets are off once you're talking about Classified info.

I think it makes a lot of sense for the SecDefs to be of the four star pedigree. Austin I thought was pretty good. One of the best to take the position in my lifetime I actually thought was Mattis, a Trump appointment, and the worst I had seen was Hagel, an Obama appointment. Esper, who took over for Mattis, was also terrible. The recurrent theme in there is that guys who weren't four stars, or general officers at least, were all bad. I thought the same of Pete.

From a standards and readiness level, I actually think our military is fine. I think when it gets overly politicized in any which way, then it becomes an issue, and that happens from both ends of the spectrum.

What is most damaging to our military is that it is now seen as a laundering operation for Government funds. If anything will kill our top place, it's that. Even among the secretaries I think were great, they all fell gravely short in that sector, because the common belief is that "As long as the money flows in, we'll be fine." When you strip that facade off, though, you can really see the rot. That doesn't happen in China. You try to screw over the Government, and you end up at the bottom of the South China Sea. That problem primarily resides with Congress and the lobbying concerns, but a SecDef has to come up and call it out at some point. I don't think that'll be Pete.

After reading the actual transcript from the reporter he was in the chat through everything all the way to the announcement of what planes and weapons would be used, the targets that would be hit and the actual time the attack was to take place. He actually didn't believe it was real. He felt he was being set up with false information by an unknown source. So that's a lot of information that could have been stolen by a foreign source. He actually waited until the attack took place. He crossed referenced it with the time and locations of the attack in those texts before he said anything to insure it was real.

But no, if there's any way they can cover up what really happened here they will. The people trump has installed are loyalists more than being qualified at their current jobs. I look for them to do everything to ignore and cover this up rather than do a sincere investigation. It's why in the end the only way for the truth to come out may be for the entire chain of information Goldberg received to be disclosed.

They claim none of it is classified and were not war plans. So for anyone saying that or believing that, disclosing that information should not be a problem. It's a shame that it may come down to that but this is where we find ourselves.

Sadly if it's done before a bipartisan panel in private they will come out telling two different stories of what was contained in those texts. If it's done in private to judge or panel of judges the verdict will be questioned because the judges would be hit with a political label proclaiming they're outcome was political. We now live in a world where a set of facts make little difference anymore.

Isn't there also a Twitter montage out there of Rubio and Pete talking about how anyone in similar circumstances should have been fired on the spot (talking about Hillary's emails)?

WELL THANK GOD NO WAR PLANS OR ACTIVITIES WERE DISCUSSED OVER NON-SECURE METHODS. Memphis can continue to reasure us all that there is nothing to see or hear or worry about at all.

Much ado about nothing. Tickets now on sale, Theatre Royal, Drury Lane.

Trump's top intelligence officials claim no classified information was shared in group chat that included a journalist

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-top-intelligence-officials-claim-154007095.html

J/c

I think like most things political there is a lot of semantics going on.

It was a military operation. The targets were specified hours ahead of the strike. The planes and ordinance were (apparently) spelled out.... Over non secure communications.

It doesn't need to be any more or less than that given WHO was doing it.

And if that wasnt bad enough all by itself and give one reason to wonder what the F hell is going on with this administration.... They added, by mistake a rando Individual who happened to be a journalist.... Otherwise we'd never know just how incompetent this group was.

Do i think this should bring down the POTUS? No. R or D. But those directly involved ? 100%. As was pointed out before with other instances of national security breaches, mere mortals would probably be charged.

Also as stated. Look at this from a perspective from outside the USA... Our allies are losing trust in this administration. That is a stone cold fact. A fact that some Trumptard will try to spin as a positive but there is simply no upside what so ever.

And the guy from the Atlantic had to scrub what he published because there was other stuff he did not want to put out because it might get people killed.
He was on this morning and he did say there was more.

Good to know someone was looking out.

What's a Houdini thread?

A day ago, Hegseth denied it even occured.. He can't be trusted.. he's gotta be the first to go.. Then Rubio. This video shows Johnson acknowledging it did happen. It's almost like they are hanging Hegseth out to dry.

I'm not sure who else denied it, but if they are on record denying, they got to go... Can't be trusted.

Biden lied through his teeth for four years about everything. Some of the stuff you come up with is insane. Hegseth is not getting fired, either is Rubio.

I don't think the suggestion is that anyone is being fired for lying. I think they should be fired for what they did discussing the military operation on signal.

But if we're going to play the what about game, which particular lie of biden's was quite the same as this with Hegseth? Just curious.

That is exactly the suggestion. That's what he just wrote. Read it again.

Is that what you want to do? A deep dive of Biden's lies so we can throw them on the scale and see if they add up. I should probably start a new thread then, there will be 50+ talking points. Two things came out of Joe's mouth -- lies and gibberish. So which one was "quite the same as Hegseth"? None of them, they're all very different. I'll throw out an orange, you'll scream about how much more rotten the apple is.

Pete is not getting fired. Rubio is definitely not getting fired. You guys should thank your stars for a Mark Rubio when you wake up every morning.

I know everyone on the left is wetting their pants and soon we'll be talking about how we all could have died in a nuclear war because of Signal texts, but you're getting yourself all worked up for a big letdown. We'll just discuss it here for three months, soon in "Texting War Plans V3.0, Pete Should Die".

It's got to be tough when you wait almost five months (I mean, let's be honest, DJT took over as president on November 6th) for some big scandal to drool over everyday, but this one is not likely to satiate the way you think it will.

bro, they created the scandal. Nobody had to do some deep investigation to uncover a grand conspiracy by the trump administration.

FATE, im having a hard time understanding conservatives like you on topic like these. Are you mad that the media is reporting on the news? you understand the media didn't add themselves to a group chat filled with officials with top secret clearances, right? Trump officials did that. the media's job is to report the news, especially news like this.

at what point are you gonna be mad and hold the officials responsible creating the story than you are at the media reporting said story?

Welp, the administration's response to this was to

*Checks notes*

Call the Atlantic a failed magazine and refer to the reporter as a "sleazebag."

I was fine with the Rubio pick and don't think anything will happen to him. I actually appreciate how it appears Rubio is one of the few - if not the only one - to speak his mind against Musk's outsized role.

You already know I don't think Pete belonged in the role to begin with. Sure, he has a military background, but it was a reservist Major, IIRC. Should he be fired for this incident alone? No. Should he be taken into a back room and proverbially be hit with a belt? Yes. From an insider's perspective, his background - or lack thereof - has really not exuded a lot of confidence. He's also mostly been a parrot at this point. There's no clear vision or direction, flight plan, or whatever you want to call it. By comparison, with Austin and Mattis, you both knew what you were getting within the first month of their time - and it stretched beyond the campaign slogans of POTUS. To use another comparison, when Hagel took over, there was no proactive vision. We were also going through sequestration and he just threw his hands in the air and said "Oh well, who knows!?" Didn't inspire a lot of confidence and it was a pock mark on the Obama administration, hence he was eventually canned. Pete is not there yet, but I think many associate him as being in that same vein.

Pete has a real opportunity if he wants to step out of the shadows to focus on the spending element. So far, though, he has only talked about defending industry on that front, which also doesn't coincide well when you're talking about cutting 5-8% of your civilian workforce who is focused on both getting the best bang for your buck and getting stuff to the warfighter on time. Anyways, enough about him on this thread.

Waltz, however, he needs to go. I don't think he will, but I would resign if I were him and find another role, which I'm sure he could, whether it's elsewhere in Govt or in the private/media sector.

in the last couple days Trump, Radcliffe and Tulsi said that none of this was classified.

So the Atlantic released more this morning


Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal
The administration has downplayed the importance of the text messages inadvertently sent to The Atlantic’s editor in chief.
By Jeffrey Goldberg and Shane Harris
Pete Hegseth and Michael Waltz
Andrew Harnik / Getty
March 26, 2025, 8:19 AM ET
Share

Save
So, about that Signal chat.
On Monday, shortly after we published a story about a massive Trump-administration security breach, a reporter asked the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, why he had shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen on the Signal messaging app. He answered, “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.”
At a Senate hearing yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, were both asked about the Signal chat, to which Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently invited by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group,” Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Ratcliffe said much the same: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”
President Donald Trump, asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, “It wasn’t classified information.”
These statements presented us with a dilemma. In The Atlantic’s initial story about the Signal chat—the “Houthi PC small group,” as it was named by Waltz—we withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.
The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.
Experts have repeatedly told us that use of a Signal chat for such sensitive discussions poses a threat to national security. As a case in point, Goldberg received information on the attacks two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions. If this information—particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen—had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face. The Trump administration is arguing that the military information contained in these texts was not classified—as it typically would be—although the president has not explained how he reached this conclusion.
Yesterday, we asked officials across the Trump administration if they objected to us publishing the full texts. In emails to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the White House, we wrote, in part: “In light of statements today from multiple administration officials, including before the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the information in the Signal chain about the Houthi strike is not classified, and that it does not contain ‘war plans,’ The Atlantic is considering publishing the entirety of the Signal chain.”
We sent our first request for comment and feedback to national-security officials shortly after noon, and followed up in the evening after most failed to answer.
Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: “As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release.” (The Leavitt statement did not address which elements of the texts the White House considered sensitive, or how, more than a week after the initial airstrikes, their publication could have bearing on national security.)
A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was “completely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted.
As we wrote on Monday, much of the conversation in the “Houthi PC small group” concerned the timing and rationale of attacks on the Houthis, and contained remarks by Trump-administration officials about the alleged shortcomings of America’s European allies. But on the day of the attack—Saturday, March 15—the discussion veered toward the operational.
At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, “TEAM UPDATE:”
The text beneath this began, “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Centcom, or Central Command, is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East. The Hegseth text continues:
•“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
•“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
Let us pause here for a moment to underscore a point. This Signal message shows that the U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg’s cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi “Target Terrorist,” was expected to be killed by these American aircraft. If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.
The Hegseth text then continued:
•“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
•“1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”
•“1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”
•“MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”
•“We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security.
•“Godspeed to our Warriors.”
Shortly after, Vice President J. D. Vance texted the group, “I will say a prayer for victory.”
At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent the following text, containing real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa: “VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.” Waltz was referring here to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command; and the intelligence community, or IC. The reference to “multiple positive ID” suggests that U.S. intelligence had ascertained the identities of the Houthi target, or targets, using either human or technical assets.
Six minutes later, the vice president, apparently confused by Waltz’s message, wrote, “What?”
At 2 p.m., Waltz responded: “Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”
Vance responded a minute later: “Excellent.” Thirty-five minutes after that, Ratcliffe, the CIA director, wrote, “A good start,” which Waltz followed with a text containing a fist emoji, an American-flag emoji, and a fire emoji. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has not been independently verified.
Later that afternoon, Hegseth posted: “CENTCOM was/is on point.” Notably, he then told the group that attacks would be continuing. “Great job all. More strikes ongoing for hours tonight, and will provide full initial report tomorrow. But on time, on target, and good readouts so far.”
It is still unclear why a journalist was added to the text exchange. Waltz, who invited Goldberg into the Signal chat, said yesterday that he was investigating “how the heck he got into this room.”


https://archive.is/vnPIk#selection-739.0-1171.17

Northlima posted a good link to the latest information about the Signal Chat..good stuff northlima..!

https://archive.is/vnPIk#selection-739.0-1171.17

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal
Jeffrey Goldberg and Shane Harris

Well The Alantic reporter, Goldberg, just released part two disclosing all the text with real time intel proving THEY ALL LIED UNDER OATH TO CONGRESS YESTERDAY.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...at-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/

I'm responding to you but this could be a reply to just about anyone in this thread.

At the end of the day, I don't see this much different as the Hillary email situation. A good buddy of mine is a former Marine and had some sort of clearance. If he had done what Hillary did, he'd be fired and then some, no question about it. This is just another in a long list of examples of our government having absolutely no standards or accountability (but only at the top layers of leadership).

As I said, this Hegseth situation is no different (maybe has an extra layer of stupidity). He should be fired just as Hillary should have been, but probably won't just like Hillary wasn't.


Others disagree with me on the two (at the end of the day) being the same. If they didn't, we wouldn't have gigantic threads on the two situations. So maybe I can only speak for myself, but that's why the whatabouts really don't do anything for me in either situation. I disagreed with the argument of people doing it wrong when Hillary was caught somehow gave her this weird get-out-of-jail-free card, and I feel the same way here.

Damn....

I'm not sure why you are reaching to make such a comparison to "Biden lied too"? This wasn't just trump. This has been a concerted effort by a large combination of trump officials to lie, cover up and hide what happened. Often times we see people create what are called conspiracy theories based on dots scattered about by trying to connect them. This is an open and clear conspiracy to cover up obviously classified conversation and information that included details of an attack plan that included the weapons used, planes used, targets to be attacked, the time at when they would be attacked and even the order in which they would be struck. This isn't a "trump lied" situation. This is an entire top levels of the administration coordinated lies to try and cover up and convince people this isn't exactly what it is. No amount of mental gymnastics can at this point deny that.

Instead they have attacked Goldberg, his character, called him names and cast shade on him in an effort to undermine him. Even gone so far as to insinuate it was he who somehow wormed his way into the chat on his own with no evidence to suggest that's true.

This isn't a "Yeah but Joe Biden" moment.

After reading those details do you still want to say that's the same thing as Hillary's emails?

Yes.

Classified info (or whatever the level actually is) is classified info. There are clear do/don't rules in place given the clearance.

Like I said, if a rank-and-file person did something even remotely close to either of these two situations, they would feel the full consequences.

NSA warned of vulnerabilities in Signal app a month before Houthi strike chat

The National Security Agency sent out an operational security special bulletin to its employees in February 2025 warning them of vulnerabilities in using the encrypted messaging application Signal, according to internal NSA documents obtained by CBS News.

News of the NSA bulletin comes amid the continued fallout from an explosive article published Monday in The Atlantic. The publication's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, detailed how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth inadvertently disclosed war plans to him in an encrypted Signal chat group two hours before the U.S. military launched attacks against Houthi militia in Yemen. Goldberg wrote that Hegseth's messages included "precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing."

The NSA is an arm of the Defense Department and specializes in signals intelligence — which is derived from electronic transmissions — and cybersecurity. The agency is responsible for monitoring, collecting and processing information and data for U.S. national security interests.

The unclassified but for-official-use-only documents provided to CBS News by a senior U.S. intelligence official are entitled "Signal Vulnerability" and were sent out the month before Goldberg was accidentally added to the group chat allegedly by national security adviser Mike Waltz.

"A vulnerability has been identified in the Signal Messenger Application. The use of Signal by common targets of surveillance and espionage activity has made the application a high value target to intercept sensitive information," the internal bulletin begins.

The bulletin warned of Russian professional hacking groups employing phishing scams to gain access to encrypted conversations, bypassing the end-to-end encryption the application uses.

The bulletin also underscored to NSA employees that third-party messaging applications such as Signal and Whatsapp are permitted for certain "unclassified accountability/recall exercises" but not for communicating more sensitive information.

NSA employees were also warned to not send "anything compromising over any social media or Internet-based tool or application," and to not "establish connections with people you do not know."

CBS News contacted the NSA for comment but did not receive a reply prior to publication.

Signal responded to the bulletin in a social media post Tuesday, saying the NSA's "memo used the term 'vulnerability' in relation to Signal-but it had nothing to do with Signal's core tech. It was warning against phishing scams targeting Signal users."

"Phishing isn't new, and it's not a flaw in our encryption or any of Signal's underlying technology," the company said. "Phishing attacks are a constant threat for popular apps and websites."

On Tuesday, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, both of whom were reportedly in the Signal group chat, testified before a Senate panel.

"There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal chat," Gabbard told lawmakers. But the NSA bulletin advises that even information that is not categorized as classified should not be shared on Signal, advising users not to share "unclassified, nonpublic" information on the messaging platform.

Ratcliffe said Signal "is a permissible use" application that has been approved by the White House for use by senior officials. The group chat, Ratcliffe said, was a "mechanism for communicating between senior level officials but not a substitute for using high side or classified communications."

Both Ratcliffe and Gabbard were asked by Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico whether the Signal conversation included information on "weapons packages, targets or timing." Ratcliffe replied, "Not that I'm aware of," and Gabbard said, "Same answer and defer to the Department of Defense on that question." Both said they had no knowledge of the chat including operational details of the strike in Yemen.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-signal-app-vulnerabilities-before-houthi-strike-chat/

To me that's akin to saying "a crime is a crime" while we all know crimes come in categories and some are far more severe than others. Some have far more potential danger to their victims and come with far more severe penalties. There are reasons for that.

I suppose if you break it down in the simplest of terms both were wrong. When you get into degrees I think it's much different than that.

We certainly agree that in both cases those in power get preferential treatment over everyone else and there's nothing right about that. Given their positions they should, if anything be held to a higher standard, not a lesser one.

What should we expect from the party of the uneducated?