Signal messages discussing sensitive U.S. military plans were not on CIA director John Ratcliffe’s phone when the CIA reviewed them, the CIA’s Chief Data Officer has said.
In a court document submitted Monday as part of a lawsuit between nonpartisan watchdog group American Oversight and White House officials, Hurley V. Blankenship said that when the CIA reviewed a sensitive Signal group chat on March 31, days after news broke that a journalist had been erroneously added to it, “substantive messages” were not present and instead the chat showed only its group name and administrative settings.
…
Officials on the chat group faced bipartisan criticism including the lawsuit, which alleged breaches of the Federal Records Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by conducting government business on a platform which erases communications.
You must log in or register to comment.
Hey look, Destruction of evidence.
Big deal. This is just ordinary locker-room obstruction of justice.
Au contraire @[email protected], ordinary locker-room talk involves not writing shit down, because it’s in a locker room and everybody can prove they don’t have a wiretap on their body.
Is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?
Look at this guy - acting like the rule of law still exists in America 😂🤣
Well, yeah. We saw that in Goldberg’s screenshots. Disappearing messages were set to 1 week. What, did you think they’d take screenshots or something? They don’t want that kept, and they’ve consistently shown that they do what they want.
So now we have black and white proof that Ratcliffe violated the law. Guess what happens next? Anyone?
I want the answer to be something justice-y, but I’m pretty sure I’m gonna be let down
I’d say pardon, but that implies anyone in this corrupt administration would even consider prosecution. So likely just more destruction of messages.
Thats how signal works. Probably why they chose it
Chat messages will probably turn up in some teenagers phone somewhere
Has everyone checked their Steam chat recently just to be sure?
