[DisjointedHunt]

How does the Guardian have such intimate details of a forensic investigation at the White House level and in the same breath claim that unauthorized access to non public information is a threat to national security ?

It makes no sense for the media on one side of the political spectrum to claim the right to unfettered access to secrets.

[MattGaiser]

Because it’s not “non-public” information but classified information that’s the problem.

Why would this investigation be classified?

If you read the original piece in the Atlantic, Goldberg didn’t publish much of the information initially thinking it would be irresponsible to do so.

[DisjointedHunt]

So the Guardian getting access to internal White House deliberations and a FORENSIC INVESTIGATION, is not cause for concern but everything that people you don’t like , is, apparently.

This is precisely why the political divide is impossible to bridge. Everything I said indicates seriousness about classified information or even simply unauthorized access to information in such a cavalier manner that it’s published in the Guardian. Somehow, calling it out is more problematic than achieving a political end.

[MattGaiser]

No, you are not differentiating between information that is classified and information that is merely non-public.

This is a difference in law, there is a difference in duty of care (although even then, the Trump administration is responsible in both cases), and an enormous in impact (mission failure vs Trump embarrassment).

[DisjointedHunt]

The DNI has officially declared that no classified information was in the signal thread. The whole thread is public now.

The information about a sensitive investigation, clearly not meant for anyone outside the White House seems to be available freely to the Guardian. How come? Where is the line if any?