Comment by e44858
8 months ago
How can we know this group chat was really comprised of government officials and not some bored teenagers? Signal allows you to set your profile name to anything you like.
8 months ago
How can we know this group chat was really comprised of government officials and not some bored teenagers? Signal allows you to set your profile name to anything you like.
From the article:
> Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded two hours later, confirming the veracity of the Signal group. “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,”
Is there an official statement of this on a government website?
They used signal and included a journo...a web-page highlighting an 'error', may take a while to appear. Especially as some poor mf has to make a page that doesn't criticize la presidentino.
Have you read the article? The author mentions this exact concern.
Watch the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing from earlier today. You can hear one of the participants in that chat acknowledge that he's in it and it's real in response to the questions of committee members.
This is not in question, at all.
The natural and insider language of the chat, and (especially) the perfect timing of the strikes with the planning in the tread, also make it extremely unlikely this was anything but a genuine conversation, even without confirmation. The alternative is a combination of a very-prepared fraudster with either their own source of privileged information (to get the timing right) or else an incredible coincidence such that their entirely fake and uninformed planning matched the timing set out in the real planning. That it was genuine is far, far more likely than either of those (one of which raises its own, different security concerns, anyway)