Governemtn confirmed the chat existed - No specifics of the chat.
Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread
- Thread starter thethe
- Start date
Governemtn confirmed the chat existed - No specifics of the chat.
Oh, I like this game. I know the Trump Admin is guilty because they used an app that could hide their illegal activities, right?
A lot of these things they say in public.
chop2chip
Well-known member
If the specifics of the chat contained war plans, what do think should happen to the non-Walz people involved?
Complete oversight of methods of communications leveraged in the future. Next strike immediate firing.
But Waltz right now should be fired and if any charges could be filed they should.
I get that. Just poking fun.
But regardless, it isn't a similar situation. If they are communicating via technology, those are records. And having those records deleted is, at the very least, in the gray area of the law, if not an outright violation.
I see it as teh same as having a conversation in private in person. We can't expect these people to be int he same place at all times so they can have these types of discussions.
While I am not necessarily in favor of deporting this particular girl (I don't know any details beyond this tweet), permanent residents do indeed know that there are repercussions for breaking US Law, one of which is deportation. So she made her bed in this particular case.
But I would prefer to give someone arrested for an insignificant charge like this the benefit of the doubt, assuming the protest she was involved in wasn't blatantly anti-Semitic, which should be classified as a hate crime.
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't matter. If what was discussed wasn't classified, they can text each other. If it needs to be classified, they have other venues that are encrypted in which to communicate. Communication on a 3rd party app that deletes your messages gives the appearance that you don't want your conversations recorded.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Well yeah, unless it was done where they couldn't have.
This issue here is Waltz - Hands down.
Weird take in response to the US military bombing another country for economic gain.
I didn’t realize something was only illicit if you delete the evidence *after* they start poking around to catch you.
Why do you think digital communication exists in the first place? Or why we require digital communication done by the government to be preserved?
I don’t actually disagree with you on this, but I’ve found myself a bit jaded on where we’re drawing this particular line, especially when free speech has been beat over the head by the very people doing this or cheering it on. A lot of the standard argument right now on the Columbia protests seems to rely on the idea that free speech is not important as a principle but rather as a legal protection against citizens. For instance, if you’re in many countries in Europe you have no protections against some forms of your speech, but that hasn’t stopped people from saying we need to save Europe from tyranny. But now that free speech is being cracked down upon against permanent residents, we’re suddenly very concerned with the legal application of the 1st Amendment. These aren’t terrorists, they’re kids upset with our government’s response to one of the most infamously complicated and nuanced geopolitical issues of the past century.