Judge Susan Crawford

In the normal course, this would be the subject of a gazillion congressional investigations that took months, if not years, and went through every aspect of this with a fine-tooth comb on a bipartisan basis. That's how it would normally happen. And people would be held accountable. In a normal administration, if the National Security Advisor and the Secretary of Defense

the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA Director engaged in a sensitive conversation about military operations on a non-secure platform, they would no longer be in those jobs. That's just how it works. We can't afford to have such recklessness and irresponsibility among the people who are meant to guard our national security.

the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA Director engaged in a sensitive conversation about military operations on a non-secure platform, they would no longer be in those jobs. That's just how it works. We can't afford to have such recklessness and irresponsibility among the people who are meant to guard our national security.

the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA Director engaged in a sensitive conversation about military operations on a non-secure platform, they would no longer be in those jobs. That's just how it works. We can't afford to have such recklessness and irresponsibility among the people who are meant to guard our national security.

I'm not a lawyer, and so I'm not going to make that judgment. But those that are lawyers and who have spoken on this have said this could well be a violation of the Espionage Act or a series of violations. It seems much more clearly to be a violation of the Presidential Records Act unless the people on that chat very deliberately then copied and downloaded the chat to a government agency

I'm not a lawyer, and so I'm not going to make that judgment. But those that are lawyers and who have spoken on this have said this could well be a violation of the Espionage Act or a series of violations. It seems much more clearly to be a violation of the Presidential Records Act unless the people on that chat very deliberately then copied and downloaded the chat to a government agency

I'm not a lawyer, and so I'm not going to make that judgment. But those that are lawyers and who have spoken on this have said this could well be a violation of the Espionage Act or a series of violations. It seems much more clearly to be a violation of the Presidential Records Act unless the people on that chat very deliberately then copied and downloaded the chat to a government agency

communication system, a classified or unclassified system, then they will have violated the Presidential Records Act. On that, I have enormous experience and I'm pretty confident in saying that. But for Donald Trump to say, well, Mike Walz has learned his lesson and won't do it again is ridiculous. More than insufficient.

communication system, a classified or unclassified system, then they will have violated the Presidential Records Act. On that, I have enormous experience and I'm pretty confident in saying that. But for Donald Trump to say, well, Mike Walz has learned his lesson and won't do it again is ridiculous. More than insufficient.

communication system, a classified or unclassified system, then they will have violated the Presidential Records Act. On that, I have enormous experience and I'm pretty confident in saying that. But for Donald Trump to say, well, Mike Walz has learned his lesson and won't do it again is ridiculous. More than insufficient.

The president who campaigned in 2016 on Hillary's emails knows very well how important it is to safeguard classified information. And if he can't hold his team accountable for this, then clearly he's not interested in safeguarding classified information.

The president who campaigned in 2016 on Hillary's emails knows very well how important it is to safeguard classified information. And if he can't hold his team accountable for this, then clearly he's not interested in safeguarding classified information.

The president who campaigned in 2016 on Hillary's emails knows very well how important it is to safeguard classified information. And if he can't hold his team accountable for this, then clearly he's not interested in safeguarding classified information.

Well, let me give you my overall thoughts, but let me give you, before I do that, a specific thought that relates to what we've been talking about, this so-called signal gate that is relevant to your question. J.D. Vance is revealed on that signal chat to have expressed a really shocking view that is consistent with the concern inherent in your question.

Well, let me give you my overall thoughts, but let me give you, before I do that, a specific thought that relates to what we've been talking about, this so-called signal gate that is relevant to your question. J.D. Vance is revealed on that signal chat to have expressed a really shocking view that is consistent with the concern inherent in your question.

Well, let me give you my overall thoughts, but let me give you, before I do that, a specific thought that relates to what we've been talking about, this so-called signal gate that is relevant to your question. J.D. Vance is revealed on that signal chat to have expressed a really shocking view that is consistent with the concern inherent in your question.

His view was that, in his judgment, it wasn't worth Now, the United States taking military action against an Iranian backed terrorist organization that was attacking and continues to attack the United States, our personnel and our vessels, because it would have the ancillary benefit of helping the Europeans who.

His view was that, in his judgment, it wasn't worth Now, the United States taking military action against an Iranian backed terrorist organization that was attacking and continues to attack the United States, our personnel and our vessels, because it would have the ancillary benefit of helping the Europeans who.

His view was that, in his judgment, it wasn't worth Now, the United States taking military action against an Iranian backed terrorist organization that was attacking and continues to attack the United States, our personnel and our vessels, because it would have the ancillary benefit of helping the Europeans who.

use that passageway around Yemen, that sea passageway, Red Sea, etc., for much of their commerce. He would rather screw the Europeans and leave the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who are terrorists to continue to attack us than do something that would be beneficial to our European allies. So we're living in a real upside-down time. Now, to go to your larger question,