The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans - The Atlantic
Category: News & Politics
Via: tacos • 4 days ago • 294 commentsBy: Jeffrey Goldberg (The Atlantic)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. I didn't think it could be real. Then the bombs started falling.
By Jeffrey Goldberg
March 24, 2025, 12:06 PM ET ShareSave
The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.
I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.
This is going to require some explaining.
The story technically begins shortly after the Hamas invasion of southern Israel, in October 2023. The Houthis—an Iran-backed terrorist organization whose motto is "God is great, death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews, victory to Islam"—soon launched attacks on Israel and on international shipping, creating havoc for global trade. Throughout 2024, the Biden administration was ineffective in countering these Houthi attacks; the incoming Trump administration promised a tougher response.
This is where Pete Hegseth and I come in.
On Tuesday, March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text-messaging services are capable of delivering. I assumed that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump's national security adviser. I did not assume, however, that the request was from the actual Michael Waltz. I have met him in the past, and though I didn't find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me, I did think it somewhat unusual, given the Trump administration's contentious relationship with journalists—and Trump's periodic fixation on me specifically. It immediately crossed my mind that someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. It is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.
I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine, or Iran, or some other important matter.
Two days later—Thursday—at 4:28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a Signal chat group. It was called the "Houthi PC small group."
A message to the group, from "Michael Waltz," read as follows: "Team - establishing a principles [ sic ] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening."
The message continued, "Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx."
The term principals committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and the treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. It should go without saying—but I'll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.
One minute later, a person identified only as "MAR"—the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio—wrote, "Mike Needham for State," apparently designating the current counselor of the State Department as his representative. At that same moment, a Signal user identified as "JD Vance" wrote, "Andy baker for VP." One minute after that, "TG" (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, or someone masquerading as her) wrote, "Joe Kent for DNI." Nine minutes later, "Scott B"—apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, or someone spoofing his identity, wrote, "Dan Katz for Treasury." At 4:53 p.m., a user called "Pete Hegseth" wrote, "Dan Caldwell for DoD." And at 6:34 p.m., "Brian" wrote "Brian McCormack for NSC." One more person responded: "John Ratcliffe" wrote at 5:24 p.m. with the name of a CIA official to be included in the group. I am not publishing that name, because that person is an active intelligence officer.
The principals had apparently assembled. In all, 18 individuals were listed as members of this group, including various National Security Council officials; Steve Witkoff, President Trump's Middle East and Ukraine negotiator; Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and someone identified only as "S M," which I took to stand for Stephen Miller. I appeared on my own screen only as "JG."
That was the end of the Thursday text chain.
After receiving the Waltz text related to the "Houthi PC small group," I consulted a number of colleagues. We discussed the possibility that these texts were part of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds. I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.
The next day, things got even stranger.
At 8:05 a.m. on Friday, March 14, "Michael Waltz" texted the group: "Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes." ( High side , in government parlance, refers to classified computer and communications systems.) "State and DOD, we developed suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners. Joint Staff is sending this am a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we will work w DOD to ensure COS, OVP and POTUS are briefed."
At this point, a fascinating policy discussion commenced. The account labeled "JD Vance" responded at 8:16: "Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake." (Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.) The Vance account goes on to state, "3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn't understand this or why it's necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message."
The Vance account then goes on to make a noteworthy statement, considering that the vice president has not deviated publicly from Trump's position on virtually any issue. "I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There's a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc."
A person identified in Signal as "Joe Kent" (Trump's nominee to run the National Counterterrorism Center is named Joe Kent) wrote at 8:22, "There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We'll have the exact same options in a month."
Then, at 8:26 a.m., a message landed in my Signal app from the user "John Ratcliffe." The message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations.
At 8:27, a message arrived from the "Pete Hegseth" account. "VP: I understand your concerns - and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what - nobody knows who the Houthis are - which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded."
The Hegseth message goes on to state, "Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first - or Gaza cease fire falls apart - and we don't get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC"—operations security. "I welcome other thoughts."
A few minutes later, the "Michael Waltz" account posted a lengthy note about trade figures, and the limited capabilities of European navies. "Whether it's now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president's request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans."
The account identified as "JD Vance" addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: "if you think we should do it let's go. I just hate bailing Europe out again." (The administration has argued that America's European allies benefit economically from the U.S. Navy's protection of international shipping lanes.)
The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: "VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It's PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space."
At this point, the previously silent "S M" joined the conversation. "As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn't remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return."
That message from "S M"—presumably President Trump's confidant Stephen Miller, the deputy White House chief of staff, or someone playing Stephen Miller—effectively shut down the conversation. The last text of the day came from "Pete Hegseth," who wrote at 9:46 a.m., "Agree."
After reading this chain, I recognized that this conversation possessed a high degree of verisimilitude. The texts, in their word choice and arguments, sounded as if they were written by the people who purportedly sent them, or by a particularly adept AI text generator. I was still concerned that this could be a disinformation operation, or a simulation of some sort. And I remained mystified that no one in the group seemed to have noticed my presence. But if it was a hoax, the quality of mimicry and the level of foreign-policy insight were impressive.
It was the next morning, Saturday, March 15, when this story became truly bizarre.
At 11:44 a.m., the account labeled "Pete Hegseth" posted in Signal a "TEAM UPDATE." I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command's area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.
The only person to reply to the update from Hegseth was the person identified as the vice president. "I will say a prayer for victory," Vance wrote. (Two other users subsequently added prayer emoji.)
According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time. So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen . Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.
I went back to the Signal channel. At 1:48, "Michael Waltz" had provided the group an update. Again, I won't quote from this text, except to note that he described the operation as an "amazing job." A few minutes later, "John Ratcliffe" wrote, "A good start." Not long after, Waltz responded with three emoji: a fist, an American flag, and fire. Others soon joined in, including "MAR," who wrote, "Good Job Pete and your team!!," and "Susie Wiles," who texted, "Kudos to all - most particularly those in theater and CENTCOM! Really great. God bless." "Steve Witkoff" responded with five emoji: two hands-praying, a flexed bicep, and two American flags. "TG" responded, "Great work and effects!" The after-action discussion included assessments of damage done, including the likely death of a specific individual. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has not been independently verified.
On Sunday, Waltz appeared on ABC's This Week and contrasted the strikes with the Biden administration's more hesitant approach. "These were not kind of pinprick, back-and-forth—what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks," he said. "This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out."
The Signal chat group, I concluded, was almost certainly real. Having come to this realization, one that seemed nearly impossible only hours before, I removed myself from the Signal group, understanding that this would trigger an automatic notification to the group's creator, "Michael Waltz," that I had left. No one in the chat had seemed to notice that I was there. And I received no subsequent questions about why I left—or, more to the point, who I was.
Earlier today, I emailed Waltz and sent him a message on his Signal account. I also wrote to Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, and other officials. In an email, I outlined some of my questions: Is the "Houthi PC small group" a genuine Signal thread? Did they know that I was included in this group? Was I (on the off chance) included on purpose? If not, who did they think I was? Did anyone realize who I was when I was added, or when I removed myself from the group? Do senior Trump-administration officials use Signal regularly for sensitive discussions? Do the officials believe that the use of such a channel could endanger American personnel?
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," Hughes wrote. "The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security."
William Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, said that despite the impression created by the texts, the vice president is fully aligned with the president. "The Vice President's first priority is always making sure that the President's advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations," he said. "Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration's foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement."
I have never seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I've never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion.
Conceivably, Waltz, by coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of "national defense" information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story. Harris asked them to consider a hypothetical scenario in which a senior U.S. official creates a Signal thread for the express purpose of sharing information with Cabinet officials about an active military operation. He did not show them the actual Signal messages or tell them specifically what had occurred.
All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place. Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law's definition of "national defense" information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose. If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF—most Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their home—or communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said. Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.
Hegseth, Ratcliffe, and other Cabinet-level officials presumably would have the authority to declassify information, and several of the national-security lawyers noted that the hypothetical officials on the Signal chain might claim that they had declassified the information they shared. But this argument rings hollow, they cautioned, because Signal is not an authorized venue for sharing information of such a sensitive nature, regardless of whether it has been stamped "top secret" or not.
There was another potential problem: Waltz set some of the messages in the Signal group to disappear after one week, and some after four. That raises questions about whether the officials may have violated federal records law: Text messages about official acts are considered records that should be preserved.
"Under the records laws applicable to the White House and federal agencies, all government employees are prohibited from using electronic-messaging applications such as Signal for official business, unless those messages are promptly forwarded or copied to an official government account," Jason R. Baron, a professor at the University of Maryland and the former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, told Harris.
"Intentional violations of these requirements are a basis for disciplinary action. Additionally, agencies such as the Department of Defense restrict electronic messaging containing classified information to classified government networks and/or networks with government-approved encrypted features," Baron said.
Several former U.S. officials told Harris and me that they had used Signal to share unclassified information and to discuss routine matters, particularly when traveling overseas without access to U.S. government systems. But they knew never to share classified or sensitive information on the app, because their phones could have been hacked by a foreign intelligence service, which would have been able to read the messages on the devices. It is worth noting that Donald Trump, as a candidate for president (and as president), repeatedly and vociferously demanded that Hillary Clinton be imprisoned for using a private email server for official business when she was secretary of state. (It is also worth noting that Trump was indicted in 2023 for mishandling classified documents, but the charges were dropped after his election.)
Waltz and the other Cabinet-level officials were already potentially violating government policy and the law simply by texting one another about the operation. But when Waltz added a journalist—presumably by mistake—to his principals committee, he created new security and legal issues. Now the group was transmitting information to someone not authorized to receive it. That is the classic definition of a leak, even if it was unintentional, and even if the recipient of the leak did not actually believe it was a leak until Yemen came under American attack.
All along, members of the Signal group were aware of the need for secrecy and operations security. In his text detailing aspects of the forthcoming attack on Houthi targets, Hegseth wrote to the group—which, at the time, included me—"We are currently clean on OPSEC."
Shane Harris contributed reporting.
About the Author
Jeffrey GoldbergFollowJeffrey Goldberg is the editor in chief of The Atlantic and the moderator of Washington Week With The Atlantic .
Why is it important to nominate cabinet members who are competent? Why is it a bad idea to summarily fire career workers? Maybe one reason is so you don’t just broadcast things that should be secret.
Bowing and scraping are not levels of competency?
How low can you go?
"kiss the floor, you slob"
Pete Hegseth was in the military, supposedly. He went thru extensive training in OpSec and CommSec especially as on officer. I got a course on it at least once a year just as an NCO.
Has he completely forgotten all of his military training? I know he's lost his military bearing
Pentagon Human Resources will be reaching out to him, but considering how he blew off his respectful workplace training course it probably won’t help.
I saw him on the news this morning denying any of it happened. The news people have a transcript.
meh, at least he didn't have to go out of pocket to pay off a rape victim in order to keep his job this time ...
If you are not an ignorant reckless bully there is no home for you in the Trump administration.
Only a fool would believe this. "War plans" via text?
Hilarious, right?
It is actually. "War plans" via text message? What blundering idiot thinks that is how it's done?
Exactly, you acknowledge that this is NOT how war plans are ever discussed by serious, responsible people. That this is a major breach of security. That this is entirely irresponsible.
Hegseth, Vance, Rubio, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, et. al. engaged in a group chat with the Signal app which accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg:
You've only shown what many already know.....MSNBC are those blundering idiots dumb enough to believe that nonsense.
Yeah, Jeremy, and you should ALSO know that this highly classified discussion took place on an unsecured private sector chat group hosted by Signal and not in a hardened facility.
You have a problem with that, right? Your sense of honor and duty and patriotism takes priority over utterly stupid partisan defenses of an incredibly careless, dangerous and stupid act by some of the highest officials in the Trump administration. Right?
I would hope so. Jeremy did serve with honor. He knows what OpSec and CommSec are and how important they are
completely negated with his blind support of trumpski ...
Which only makes the Atlantic bloggers claim even more idiotic. But then again, we've already seen the Atlantic's reputation is about the same as CNN.
And given your admission on another article, unlike you, I did serve in combat and know based on OPSEC, that this bloggers claim is utter bullshit.
I do believe he has the evidence.
And while I didn't serve in combat my service was every bit as honorable as yours was
I don't. The Atlantic isn't known for being correct.
Then don't speak on things you have no experience in. Actual "War plans" aren't sent via text. Secure or unsecure. There are other means that communications like this are transferred and none are accessable to the public.
Let's be honest here. If this exact scenario had happened under the Biden administration every single Trump ally and sycophant here would be raging at the monumental incompetence, some likely accusing them of intentionally leaking this shit to the terrorists.
But when it happens under the Trump administration all we hear are crickets and weak muffled denials and minimizing it as insignificant. The sycophants can't wait to sweep this under the rug and move on. We'll be hearing them poo pooing the evidence, downplaying the screw up, and will no doubt be throwing a bunch of random anti-Democrat fodder in an attempt to deflect and distract.
Sadly, even though we know their play book and will watch it unfold while we're all pointing at it saying "See?", the Trump loyalists will act as if they've gone deaf and post decade old photos of some supposed liberal in a rainbow beanie screaming at the sky trying to mock the rightfully outraged patriotic Americans who refuse to bow to the wannabe dictator.
The blundering idiots named Hegseth, Vance, Rubio, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, et. al. think that that is how it is done, because they did it like that.
Hell they are even denying that classified information was discussed. It is sickening to see the level of dishonesty some will assume to defend Trump.
At this point I just want to throw up my hands and let them live in their ignorance and stupidity.
It the Trumpsters do it, it's FINE!
C'mon, TiG! What's "right" is what the Trumpsters do. That's the definition, according to the Ministry Of Truth. Get with the program, dammit!
Have you seen anyone say it is fine? what we want is proof that Hunters laptop was Russian disinformation like the Atlantic claimed, I mean we want proof the war plans were leaked, just not some proven liars "word"
Do you need proof that these clowns discussed an upcoming strike in Yemen on a group chat hosted by the private sector chat app Signal?
Knew it - Hunter's laptop. Let's not forget Hilary's server, Hilary's Benghazi with a little bit of Obama's birth certificate thrown in there. Or maybe it was Biden's Auto-pen...
I'm not sure you could miss the point any further, Did the Atlantic lie about Hunters laptop? did they lie about what really happened with Covid? They are proven liars, if they have the proof publish it, why won't they publish it?
Keep grasping at imagination.
“…let them live in their ignorance…”
It appears there is some level of comfort to live in a cocoon.
The sheer number of incidents, the abject disregard of undeniable evidence, and the constant need to deflect must be exhausting at best, clinically codependent in their responses.
At some point, the weight of the constant pressure inflicted in defending this comedy of errors will be too much for even the most rabid to endure.
Hunter never had a government position.
This "conversation" included he VP, and nthe Secretaries of Defense and State. And a slew of other senior officials. And not a single one of them thought about the security risks in using a commercial chat application? Seriously?
These people have no idea what they're doing.
Link?
Yeah, but they are trying to make us all believe the doublespeak. Didn't you know that Trump et.al., can do no wrong? They are, after all, the final arbiters of "fact" and "truth". Pay no attention to the man behind the diaper.
And it goes on and on and on...
“this point I just want to throw up my hands and let them live in their ignorance and stupidity.”
Hey, wait a minute…
Since MAGA as a whole is incapable of being honest, I put the burden on CONGRESS for being a house of disorder and disrepute full of guile and deceit. I will leave it up to them to determine which elected members are the worst perpetrators. I can not and will not forget this entire chapter in the history of congress as being a HOUSE OF SHAME.
SHAME ON YOU CONGRESS, BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT FIX ANYTHING PROPERLY. YOU SIMPLY CAN NOT - ALL OF YOU!
BTW, "how long" have they been using "Signal" for discussions? Is this a 'one-off'? Inquiring minds would love to know!
But of course, Congress is worthless as a whole to get a single complete answer to a problem in the system from anybody who can simply stifle the lot of them. We are doomed!
Signal has been used for more casual correspondence in the government.
Damn right! Stick it to 'em. What's odd in the congressional hearing today is this: For so-called, "Shit-hot" (slang) administrators who supposedly would be "hot" in the private sectors . . . they did a lot of duck and cover today!
There is wisdom to letting a group of the "faithful' go their own way and not being a 'ready' foil. . . because then they have only themselves to question. . . a strange thing has been seen to happen - without a proper foil, 'groupies' can began to turn on themselves.
I will state the case and leave it. . . they will not be using me as a counterpoint to their noise. . . I am not their 'cover' to hide from reality behind!
Potentially these "professionals" been 'Signal-ing' since they took their offices? Is this the only time with such high level discussions? Were any member signal-ing while in foreign lands? What is the character of those discussions?
Liberals don't pursue conservatives actions like 'bloodhounds' or steel-trap 'focus' on a particular detail (whether truth or proven disinformation). Mostly democrats don't have that type of spirit. Not that liberals and democrats could'nt do it . . . it apparently does not come natural to us to pursue people ceaselessly.
Oh well, sometimes we need to keep our 'notes' of every perceived and actual misstep. But damn it would change us. . . and make us look just as petty as . . . that group of guys and gals 'over there.'
The Atlantic just released more parts of the chat to the public.
Do you think that if any of that information was classified, they would have released it?
Critical thinking people know the answer is no because they do not want charges of leaking national security information brought against them.
Will you acknowledge there was no classified information leaked and this Goldberg dude should have opted out of the chat when he realized he probably should not have been a part of it?
Meh...not official, but he was the senior advisor to Biden the last few months of his term.
No, they would not likely release currently classified information. Note also, that there is a big difference between details of an attack prior to the attack vs. after the attack.
Would understand that details of an attack are inherently highly classified information.
Of course it was leaked. Think! Even the information that an attack was planned is classified information, much less information about the location and timing:
Endless, pointless attempts to defend Trump. Worse, you are putting more bullshit spin on this than even Trump; that is quite a feat.
No, only a fool would do it. Or in this case, a pack of fools.
... at least americans know the trump security protocols from his last administration are consistent with the current one.
And as #3.1.4 shows, it's the wonderful liberal bloggers at MSNBC and their lemmings.
You recognize that this highly classified discussion took place on an unsecured private sector chat group hosted by Signal and not in a hardened facility, right?
You have a problem with that, right? Your sense of honor and duty and patriotism takes priority over utterly stupid partisan defenses of an incredibly careless, dangerous and stupid act by some of the highest officials in the Trump administration. Right?
Are you really trying to with “it’s all made up. This didn’t happen?” What is your point? Say it clearly.
Very good chance it didn't. Wouldn't be the first time the Atlantic fabricated nonsense.
What Comment 3.2.5 really means --
Ahh, the personal attack. The go to when you have nothing to add.
There is NO chance it didn't. We know it happened based on the backpedaling the administration is currently engaged in as well as their tacit admission.
Anyone who is still trying to deny that this took place could only believe so if their head were occupying a cavity somewhere detached from reality.
They are more than welcome to debate the severity of the leak and the choice to use Signal's unsecured private sector chat group for any communication between government officials but trying to claim this was somehow fabricated by the Atlantic is pure Qanon bullshit conspiracy theory.
People who took part in the conversation are already being grilled about it in Congress, so it 100% happened. You better get over that crap, now. It’s time to face reality.
As member addressed responded 3.2.6 stays as is, flags by other members dismissed
that would be a first for current trump supporters ...
LMAO. You're basing your fact on a report from a blogger site that hasn't been correct on anything in years.
Then outside of a questionable source, PROVE it took place.
[✘]
Nope. The link I provide is from the BBC. Also, your completely bullshit claim that the Atlantic hasn't "been correct on anything in years" just shows how little facts and truth you've apparently been exposed to because nothing could be further from the truth, except maybe the other rightwing conservatives who continually regurgitate bullshit rhetoric that any elementary school child could debunk in about three minutes.
Oh yes, he 'thing's' he does... lol. Funny watching those who can't even spell the word they mean criticizing others on their 'words'.
Oh wait, that's "The Nile", you're clearly deeply invested in that other thing that sound very similar...
[✘]
Liberals "bloggers" were no on this specific Signal call. Or, it could be people in your position know more than we have been informed by a congressional hearing. . . please supply us with the evidence you have. Waiting. . . .
Wow. So its okay to downplay what is investigated as a magnitude of a 'world of pure imagination'? Makes me wonder what exactly it is that the service veterans of MAGA want to get to the bottom of and leaving no stone unturned to so.
BTW, a country ran half-ass will be like all the other half-ass countries in world. Truth will win in the end and 'God' help the U.S.A if it becomes just another mediocre nation where truth is stifled for . . . one's ideological, emotional-driven 'vision.'
God don't like 'ugly' —the saying goes.
Moreover, many nations on the 'up and up' will not deal with other nations not on the 'up and up' they will cut deal with themselves and go in search of new frontiers. Leaving the status quo behind.
"A National Security Council spokesman told the BBC the text message thread "appears to be authentic". Trump's national security team's chat app leak stuns Washington
At this point why do I even bother trying to point out something so obvious. This is like trying to have a discussion with a kid whose mother was just informed that her husband isn't coming home from Afghanistan. You already told their mom that their dad died, but the kid wants to hear it from you himself apparently. I've already explained how the administration is already accepting that this did actually happen, what more fucking proof do you need? Do you need to have Pete Hegseth call you personally and say "Sorry Jeremy. Yes, this happened. Had to run it by the big dogs before we could check in with you, you stay strong now ya hear!".
So you have the link to the top secret war plan that was released or are we reduced to opinion pieces?
Those. . . people. . . got together with their party line and stifled the committee with 'volleys' of "I don't recall. . . ." By now congress as a whole has no excuse for NOT having fixed that loophole in its damn investigative system.
All of them are playing political games! Every last one of them is incompetent and not 'meet' to the tasks before them. Congress: You are the 'weakest link' in the chain.
No. But most rational people [ ✘ ] would accept that if the National Security Council spokesman for the administration says the text message thread "appears to be authentic", they probably are authentic.
If they are authentic, as the government believes they are, why all the push back from Trump supporters? Oh, that's right, because they can't ever admit Trump or anyone in the rightwing fascist organization has ever done anything wrong, ever. To admit that would be punishable by 10 years in Russia so I'm sure the Trump loyalists are trying to get used to how their new masters do things.
When a thing is futile. . . let's talk amongst ourselves until we come to a conclusion and then let them have their "whatever" to themselves.. Because oddly enough, MAGA feeds off distraction; our energy. The 'game' is the thing.
That is, they won't let 'us' have the satisfaction of knowing what they really think (they go off and chat between themselves). Take comfort in knowing that 'anybody' you have ever known who toyed with the truth so long on so many issues sooner or later is compelled to return to truth; facts; reason.
Maybe this can serve as a summary of the seeded article
thehill.com /policy/defense/5211030-us-houthi-attacks-yemen/
The Hill
Ellen Mitchell 3-3 minutes 3/24/2025
Page 1
White House national security adviser Mike Waltz, left, speaks with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as President Donald Trump meets with France’s President Emmanuel Macron in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Monday, Feb. 24, 2025. (Ludovic Marin/Pool via AP)
======================================================================================
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was apparently included in a Trump administration group chat on Signal in which top officials debated and then discussed details of attacks against Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The initial invite to the group apparently came from national security adviser Mike Waltz. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly sent the group details including weapons used, targets, and timing — two hours ahead of the attacks, which began on March 15.
Others in the group were Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
In the stunning report, Goldberg claimed Waltz connected with him on Signal on March 11 and two days later was invited to join a chain called the “Houthi PC small group,” in which they discussed strikes against the Houthi militant group in Yemen — seemingly unaware of the journalist’s presence in the group.
He wrote that he initially had strong doubts the text group was real, “because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans.”
Goldberg also said that he “could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include him in the discussions with senior U.S. officials.
He said he realized the text chain could be real after the person who was supposedly Hegseth messaged to the group that the first detonations in Yemen would be felt in two hours, at 1:45 p.m., which was in line with what took place.
Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, confirmed the message chain was authentic.
“This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” wrote Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council. “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”
If one of the military personnel under Hegseth took part in this they would be fired and maybe prosecuted.
Hegseth should fall on his sword and resign.
So one guy was accidentally added to a message app, it's not like they released the names of CIA officers to the entire world......right?
Nothing any of these people do could ever be wrong, could it?
Oh they will keep spinning it until WE are all dizzy from the lying, spinning, detraction, distraction, and obfuscation
it will either be the reporter or biden that will get blamed ...
If this story had just come out today but was from 2024 and happened under the Biden administration every single one of these Trump sycophants would be losing their shit right now in righteous indignation declaring this proves Democrats should never ever be allowed to be in power again.
The reality is these Trump sycophants have no loyalty to America, no loyalty to the American people other than themselves and those who look like them, pray like them and follow rightwing conservative Christian morals, they could not care less about the rest of America. That's why this doesn't really upset them. It's like telling them the team they just bet their life savings on is losing. They simply refuse to believe that, they just know their team will win, they have to win!
There's just too much at stake for these rightwing conservative bigots who gambled on dirty Donald to save their brand of mental instability. This is their last shot. If they don't burn down the old system that rewards innovation, higher education, diversity and equality, then they'll be left behind because they certainly aren't going to "assimilate" into what they consider "woke" America and start believing what is considered "mainstream" (aka facts & reality) as they get trained and educated for the jobs of tomorrow. They will not let a little administration blunder, no matter how significant, derail their metaphorical moon shot!
Grown ass professionals doing the "I don't recall. . . " game in a congressional hearing. Congress needs to fix this NOW!
lol Remember Pres Reagan?
I do. child molester, traitor, drug kingpin, war criminal, 2nd term drooling moron ...
I remember Reagan's testimony. And the 'rest' below.
The weakest defense in Washington? Saying ‘I don’t recall’
During Watergate, President Richard Nixon urged White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman to play coy in the event he was asked to give testimony. Haldeman, pictured, would later be convicted in part for perjury.
THE IRAN-CONTRA HEARINGS : Admiral Didn’t Recall 184 Times
L.A. Times Archives
July 24, 1987
WASHINGTON — Rear Adm. John M. Poindexter’s fuzzy memory struck 184 times during his five days of questioning at the Iran- contra hearings.
A review of Poindexter’s testimony by United Press International shows that the former national security adviser answered frequently along the lines of “I can’t recall” and “I don’t remember” when pressed by congressional questioners on points both large and small in relation to President Reagan’s worst crisis. Poindexter testified under a limited grant of immunity.
By contrast, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, who testified Monday without immunity or the assistance of an attorney, seldom said he could not recall details of the Iran affair.
The 50-year-old rear admiral, whose Navy fitness reports praised “spectacular mental capacity” and even a “photographic memory,” explained himself by saying that, before he assumed his White House post in December, 1985, he had “never been hit with so many issues in such a short period of time.”
Poindexter’s 184 memory lapses exceeded those of H. R. Haldeman, President Richard M. Nixon’s chief of staff, whose memory failed him on about 150 occasions in his testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee 14 years ago.
The tactic, "I don't recall" has been abused enough for nearly 40 years! And still congress weak as hell as not fixed it . . . but continues to have 'show trials' for whatever theater they can muster.
Yes! I remember Reagan's use of the phrase.
reagan really couldn't recall, since his wife, the hollywood BJ queen of the 40's, wasn't sitting next to him to whisper into his ear what to say ..
all those decades of brylcreem in his hair finally enveloped his brain and it fell out of his ear when he was sleeping in the mid 80's ...
One 'guy' given top level information in an online session not properly secured. He read what cabinet-level officials "do" - which now puts him in potential risk! Because such details were exposed to him!
Aside from that, I guess the 'smart' think to do for the administration will be to (additionally) blame him for noy 'outing' himself so he could be removed. Rather than asking how they carelessly let him in to the several different session unabridged.
(Hell, I read that journalists use that service. . . how could someone let somebody with barrels of ink into a session like that?
The spin-'gods' for the never humble administration are going to be out there tonight trying to take good old "JR' to task for his lingering around looking for a "Gotcha!"
Do you believe it is proper to engage in highly classified discussions via a group chat on the private sector Signal app rather than in a hardened facility?
Was highly classified information shared on this chat?
How can you possibly not know the answer to your question?:
This is all over the web. Numerous sources. Much discussion. How could you possibly miss this??
Your claim is that it was highly classified. It was inappropriate but was the information highly classified?
Other than taking the word of the Atlantic editor that said Covid came from a wet market and Hunters laptop was Russian disinformation do you have a link to this Classified info?
You do not acknowledge that discussion of a planned attack is highly classified information??
Even Trump is not engaging in the level of bullshit you are attempting:
Yeah, just keep denying the facts, George. Disregard the abundance of information provided to the public on this event. Just keep with the absurdly partisan defense of Trump and his administration no matter what.
Keep repeating nonsense ... eventually people will believe it.
Since when is the discussion of a planned attack not classified info?
Sensitive information , yes. Highly classified? Please note the officially designated part. "Highly classified" means information or material is officially designated as extremely secret and restricted, requiring a high level of security and access control, typically for reasons of national security.
So you don't have anything to back up your bullshit comments other than the word of a known liar. i think we are done. When you can show that the actual classified information was shown let us know.
Things like exact times and locations where military actions will occur and with which specific weapons, all two hours prior to them happening? What could possibly be more classified than that?! We’re just lucky we don’t have dead pilots and cheering enemies because of this appalling lack of common sense and refusal to follow the most basic protocols. This is what happens when you hire tv personalities and right wing QAnon blowhards to do the most important work of national security.
You are attempting to deny the obvious. It is pathetic. It shows that Trump supporters have no limits to how low they will stoop to defend Trump.
What were they? What did the chats actually say? Not the readers digest version the author says nut the actual messages? He made the claim, don't you think he should back it up?
How anyone can write the kind of crap you just posted and not be embarrassed is uncanny.
Seems to me that there is nothing that Trump does that you will not try to defend ... not matter how feeble, how irrational the 'defense'.
Nu huh is not a valid response. What are the actual posts that are highly classified? "Highly classified" means information or material is officially designated as extremely secret and restricted, requiring a high level of security and access control, typically for reasons of national security. Who officially designated it as such
A common tactic when someone has nothing
Yea, yea yea. A response of the Trump haters when they are selling bullshit and it is not being bought.
Again, it was probably sensitive information but no one has supplied the actual texts and who designated them as highly classified. That is just something the partisan Trump haters are trying to sell without any proof.
It would be funny if this were not such a serious matter that you are actually trying to downplay the fact that Hegseth, et. al. discussed a planned strike in Yemen on a private sector group chat via the app Signal.
Deflection fail, so you have zero proof it actually happened. other than the word of a proven liar, and immediately try to bring trump into the conversation. how was trump involved in this? was trump in or authorized the chat?
I am calling it what it is until someone proves it is something different. Why do you continue to try and sell it as highly classified without any proof? That seems less than honest way to try and make it seem worse than it could be.
Your posts on this topic are ridiculous, George. Who do you think is going to believe that Hegseth, et. al. did not discuss a planned strike in Yemen on a private sector group chat via the app Signal?
If this was nothing then Trump would be all over it. Instead he excused it with "learned a valuable lesson".
Imagine a defense attorney denying every piece of evidence provided by the prosecutor by folding his arms, shaking his head, and mumbling 'nuh-uh, that is not proof'.
Like I said, your posts would be hilarious if this were not such a serious matter. The fact that even with matters this serious that you, et. al. continue to defend Trump is truly sickening.
Your posts on this topic are also ridiculous. How can you expect to convince anyone that that Hegseth, et. al. discussing a planned strike in Yemen on a private sector group chat via the app Signal is not a classified breach?
Just disgusting seeing this level of partisan nonsense on serious matters like this.
Chicken shit seems to also be a liar.
And I trust every word that comes from townhall
So now we have moved from Highly classified to discussing something? i guess that is something, and again my original comment was about hypocrisy which hasn't really changed has it?
Where was this level of outrage when Obama released the name of CIA officers in Afghanistan? or when Biden outed DEVGRU to the world putting them and their families at risk. IF this happened exactly who was put a risk? be specific and link to sources that support your conclusions.
But you trust the word of a proven liar like Goldberg.
So you have no proof that the texts were deemed highly classified and try to hide that with the usual "ridiculous", "disgusting" and "partisan " claims .
Got it.
It is funny watching folks buying a source that amounts to "believe me". I guess I am just having problems thinking war plans can be shared with a text, I always thought it would be pages with pictures and maps and lots of other stuff.
Imagine a prosecutor saying I don't have proof other than another guy says he has proof but won't show it to me.
More stupid games from you.
You deflect and obfuscate because you cannot admit that Hegseth, et. al. discussing a planned strike in Yemen on a private sector group chat via the app Signal and that a discussion about a pending attack is highly classified information.
Just pathetic.
Look, you can play these ridiculous games all day but it will not change reality. This discussion did take place in a chat room of a private sector app and they did indeed discuss the up and coming Yemen attack.
Even Trump is not resorting to the slimy level of denying this ... and that is saying something.
I was directly responding to your statement. If it was a game it is you that started it.
This discussion did take place in a chat room of a private sector app and they did indeed discuss the up and coming Yemen attack.
A discussion did take place and they may very well have discussed the upcoming attack. It is the claim of "highly classified" that so many are claiming without any proof in an attempt to make it much worse than it may actually be that is the issue. I would think there will be an investigation and changes made going forward.
And everyone but the Trump haters, partisan democrats and democrat politicians will move on with their lives
Agree, that someone would start out screaming about trump and highly classified would then have to backtrack all the way down to discussion and Hegseth. and we still have no evidence of this highly classified information you seem to think happened, post a link to it or admit you are wrong, or at least taking the word of a proven liar.
and again you have failed to even breach the original subject of hypocrisy. is this worse than outing a CIA officer in a war zone or giving a terrorist organization of the names of the people who killed their leader, on a scale of 1 to 10 where does this rank compared to the others.
What exactly was said that made it highly classified? Who designated it as highly classified?
Maybe one of these would be more to your liking.........
Your Comments are helpful... in understanding the MAGA mind. A capacity for denying reality as great as yours would be hard to [imagine,deleted][✘]
Goldbergs imagination and his gullible readers?
How about answering the questions? Either there is proof or there is not.
That and a healthy dose of confirmation bias.
No point. Denial is stronger than reality.
It sure looks that way
If there is any good news about whatever comes of these unprofessional people, history is recording all of it for posterity. One would think they 'generations to come' to be proud of the family name. History will not let them so unscathed.
Exactly. We don't come here for shit and giggles . Let bullshitters (no other way to say it) talk to the 'hand.' This is a serious breach of security and the depths of which need to be plumbed. If they just want to shoot the 'breeze' or render fake ass talking points (damage control) given to them online this morning. . . I don't want any of their 'field' of rabbitholes!
In coming days, "retribution" will come over this. . . the "daggers" will be out. Keep backs hidden as best they can. (Figuratively-speaking of course.) Who will be feel 'the Boot' first?
Unlike the rest of the people in the chat, he is actually concerned with releasing classified info.
it wasn't classified, until it was released, and then it might be, if trumpski says so ...
Yes, but, Hillary's emails !
The funny thing John is that do to partisanship you fail to realize that Hillary's emails put far more lives at risk than this "CHAT" every had a chance of doing. we are talking multiple classified communications just there for the taking by our enemies [deleted][✘]
And what is the cut off before it's wrong?
What is wrong with these people? Don't they know they are supposed to keep highly classified information in the bathroom at Mar-a-Lago?
[✘]
Hegseth should step down immediately.
He is proving day in and day out that he is unqualified and unprepared for the position.
He should and so should Waltz. I'm taking bets that it won't happen
@mrsbettybowers.bsky.social
Imagine if the American military in World War II were run by such transactional, ally-despising chuckleheads.
"This whole D-Day thing is wrong. I just hate to help Europe."
"Yeah, I say we make them agree to pay us before we even bother."
"FIST! US FLAG! EXPLOSION!"
I believe the "SM" in this exchange is Stephen Miller. He says Europe should pay the US monetarily for re-opening the shipping lanes.
Trump probably gave him a little something extra in his check this month.
Can you imagine the audacity of expecting Europe to cover the costs for protecting it's shipping lanes? the horror!
Can you imagine the horror of high level officials ("the Best people" we're told) NOT knowing than the media is in the "room" with them why they bat their innermost ideas about national issues back and forth between themselves. Nobody even thought to ask why "JG" was not commenting; did not even question his 'moniker' ("Who is "JG"?) in a hidden comment to the group moderator; did not ASK for a statement from the 'mysterious' hanger-on.
In a word: UNPROFESSIONAL.
Don't look like any "war plans" I've ever seen in my career. But I guess, it's enough to feed the liberal freak out we are seeing.
why did the CIA then ask goldberg not to include one message in the signal group chat he released if trumpski and all his criminal accomplices claim there wasn't any classified materials?
You're asking the wrong person. Doesn't change #9.4 in the least.
... not to any dyed in the wool trump supporters.
somewhere in one of our enemies conference rooms there are heated debates about the odds of unanswered first strike success.
Keystone Kops
Good gawd.
SM is Steven Miller, URP...
BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They got Pete using the f-word. That’s when you know it’s bad.
"epic fuck ups" is precisely what the current administration is composed of ...
On a weekly basis even. It is incredible.
And no matter how serious the potential consequences, many (if not most) remaining Trump supporters keep defending this buffoon. And when the facts are overwhelming, they just shake their heads in denial ... nuh-uh. It is pathetic.
there will be a day of reckoning and we are rapidly approaching the cutoff date for them to make a choice ...
Hegseth said Monday evening that "nobody was texting war plans," and he slammed Goldberg as "a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist" who "peddles hoaxes."
Yeah, Pete - you should totally try bullying your way out of this. He probably didn’t notice what was happening because he was drunk the whole time. Maybe he needs his mommy to come rescue him again.
Once again, much ado about nothing. Another bogus hit piece by Goldberg. Left wingers eating it all up!
The Crucial Detail That's Missing in the Hegseth Signal Chat Saga
Here's What the Media Won't Tell You About the Atlantic Hit Piece – PJ Media
It's amazing that the left keeps falling for stories from outlets that have lied to them repeatedly
Why aren’t these cabinet clowns showing all this unclassified communication to show their innocence?
the trumpski party girl put it all on illegal immigrants and china in her opening statement ...
Do you not know how it works? they don't need to prove their innocence. and maybe they didn't screen capture it?
It seems many on the left don't know the difference between sensitive information and highly classified information.
But they just testified to the fact that signal communications are only allowed if they are retained, as required by law. Try again.
Then release it or admit that there would be nothing improper about it being released by the person who was inadvertently invited to view it. Easy peasy.
[✘]
And again, in America they don't have to prove their innocence.
Why are people saying it was highly classified when they have no proof?
I bet J. Goldberg professional journalist that he is likely to be has receipts!
Why release it? Just because some people are making accusations of it being highly classified without proof?
Some people? Lol. You guys are drowning in your lies.
We do know the difference between information that should not be given out to an unauthorized journalist placed on a call. We do know when a MISTAKE of UNTOLD PROPORTIONS happens and also we do know that other intel agents go to 'spy' school to get this type of information as additional link to other pieces of information.
And, let's be clear, Tulsi Gabbard, is a fool if she can't remember what PHONE she was on at any given moment. But, we'll let her tell it like she will. . . until they drag it out her.
OK, some wingnuts. I was being nice.
Obviously not. "Untold proportions" means a size, amount, or level that is so great it is impossible to measure or express. It emphasizes the sheer magnitude or enormity of something.
Well since you went there, let me drop this in your spirit:
Yet another in a continuous series of MAGA affiliates looking for a "blocking play" ( minutia ) instead of the substance of any comment. Well, there you go; handle the small stuff above.
Above is my one and only 'offering' to a distraction.
I will continue here in my role of asking about the substance any MAGA commenter have failed to address in this thread.
You forgot the keyword. Proportions. If it were just untold would be one thing but, "untold what" is the key. Untold Proportions means basically, "never seen level".
Are you suggesting that since everything was above board and that no classified information was shared on signal, then Goldberg should just go ahead and release every word that he was invited to be privy to? It sure sounds like everyone being grilled in front of congress is alluding to that.
Well, since the raid has already happened according to Goldberg, what could the harm be? release it and we may actually find out what this classified info is, and was it really classified, if so the person who added Goldberg should be terminated immediately.
lol - just the person who added him? Not one top level cabinet official should care who is on the text chain about war plans? Who the fuck do these morons think they are?!
What war plans? you only have the word of a liar that there were war plans. he should release it if it exists.
He should - as soon as he is preemptively excused for doing so. With the cast of incompetent clowns running this country (into the ground) their next move would be to imprison him for releasing classified information. And yes, the administration has ALREADY admitted it does exist and it is authentic. You should change the channel.
They think they're intelligent planners, preparing for America's future in the world.
That's the measure of how delusional they are.
Can't do that. As some information still is SENSITIVE and 'not ready for the world.' However, congress NEEDS to stop sticking it to the public with these partisan games of intrigue they launch which are just for show.
Damn it. The AMERICAN PEOPLE deserve to know what they can about the FACTS and not some stupid roundabout of adults sitting on long over-stretched panels letting cabinet members blow smoke up their you-know-whats in five minute intervals.
I will call it out: THE FIVE MINUTE GAME LIMIT IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARING IS UNPROFESSIONAL AND OF LITTLE TO NO VALUE. We insist on better "efficiency' from all participants, every last member on the panel and the guest who are supposed to deliver facts and not 'game'.
Spin doctor: STAT!
How is it he is on the 'call'? Multiple 'calls'? Hello!
Trump is speaking about this right now. His explanation is basically "shit happens".
"Shit Happens" is when I screw up a daily task
This is way beyond shit happens
The Department of Very Serious People.
Just unreal! John Ratcliffe assigned to the Middle East was actually in Russia during this chat.
America is definitely not safer with this group of ignorant clowns.
For whomever in Russia that was tasked with spying on Ratcliffe during his visit, if they did not get this intel in real time then they’re about to have a date with a 20th story window. That would be непростительный!
I thought that DOGE was here fire incompetents ... Muskie has some 'splainin' to do.
It's " all -right" if the president says it is. He does.
(See what I did there?)
Meanwhile over at DOGE H Q Elon be all like...
Elon is now on the case. He’ll get to the bottom of this! I think it’s clear that the left has a new secret weapon that infects victims through their phone and forces them to not only use illegal ways to communicate highly sensitive information but also adds journalists to the chat.
For years the American people writ large have been enabling all this insanity ( both proactively and passively) and now the bird flu infected chickens are coming home to roost.
You were supposed to keep that quiet
You need to start attending the super secret meetings
Upon reading this article I too am shocked at high level officials discussing these sorts of plans, even if not classified or terribly detailed, on such an APP that while secure, is still not the type of security that is needed for exchange of this type of info. Even more appalling is how they didn’t notice the Goldberg character lurking in the corner on the group chat after he went through two levels of accepting invite requests first from Waltz in a one on one, and then again upon being invited to the group chat.
It would be interesting to know how Goldberg’s Signal Profile was set up. Did he use his full name or just his first name or nickname? And was the connection request based on his phone number or his User profile, both of which could be exposed upon his acceptance of the requests, depending on his settings. In any case, why didn’t anyone ask, “Who the hell is this guy?”
Then he lists a number of reasons why he thought it was a fake account, or a ruse, but yet he says,
At that point his mandatory Signal Profile would have been shared with the requestor . It wouldn’t have simply been a phone number unrecognizable to the requestor. Hard to imagine how Waltz would not have known there was a problem when the request was accepted and more info about Goldberg’s Signal Profile account was made available to him. Also, if Goldberg really thought it might be Waltz wanting to discuss important matters as he reported, then why for two days wouldn't he have messaged Waltz asking what he wanted to discuss after he accepted the request?
One isn’t simply added to a chat group in Signal, one is invited and must accept the invitation at which point the user’s mandatory Signal Profile is shared with all members of the group.
Again, hard to imagine somebody in the group scanning the list of high-level participant Signal profiles and not asking, “Hey who is this Jeffrey Goldberg fucker?”
All the other clearly high-level participants answered, why did Goldberg not chime in at that point and say, “Hey guys, I think I got invited by accident.” If, as he says, he is so concerned about national security that seems like it would have been the prudent thing to do. The article never indicates whether Goldberg spoke up to ask Waltz for example what he wanted to talk about initially ( he wanted to chat about Ukraine, or Iran, or some other important matter ), or questioned the group as to why he was invited to the chat. Just seems odd doesn't it?
At any rate, what a fiasco and absolutely astounding as to how it could have happened!
Waltz was actually getting interrogated by Laura Ingraham. He told her the phone number somehow got mixed up with another person’s contact in his phone. I’m sure he wasn’t expecting her to ask who it was that was supposed to be that was on the call, but she did. He sheepishly claimed he couldn’t divulge that. Yeah, sure … fucking lying ass piece of shit.
Agree with this one hundred percent.
If this POS Goldberg had any ethics, he would have done what you said instead of tell the world he was part of the chat and release the messages.
What we are hearing just now that the blog "The Atlantic" released more messages in the chat.
If the messages were truly classified in any way, they know they would be charged with leaking national security information and rightfully so.
By releasing it, they acknowledge that none of it was classified.
lol. How’s the koolaid today?
Sooooooooooooo
Agreeing with you is now labeled as koolaid?
OK, whatever.
I assure you that we are not in agreement on this. I question your grasp on reality if you see any commonality between our comments. Not surprising at all though.
OK then if you think he is lying about that, then how do you think it happened? Do you think he invited him on purpose? To what end?
Again, once Goldberg accepted the invite, his profile should have been visible to Waltz and the other group participants. How they didn’t notice that is what astounds me.
Who knows, but everyone in this administration is rightfully terrified of being accused of being a leaker. The fact that he’s trying so desperately to claim there must be nefarious reason for Goldberg to be in his contacts makes me think he knows exactly why it is there. Perhaps he’s thinking ahead to the almost inevitable firing he and others will face (because that’s what eventually happens in any Trump administration), and how to subsequently defend his reputation. Why would divulging who was inadvertently associated with Goldberg’s number be sensitive information? If it was an innocent mistake then provide the innocuous background information. Or don’t and dig your hole even deeper.
That isn't how the Signal APP works. There is no way Goldberg's number gets mixed up with someone else's profile. The number and profile are linked at both ends of the exchange and no two Signal accounts can have the same cell phone number.
Waltz could have got the phone number for the initial connection request wrong (typo or something), but as soon as Goldberg accepted the invite, Waltz would see HIS profile. And what are the chances he gets that number wrong and it just so happens to be one of President Trump's biggest media nemesis?
Something is definitely fishy here, I agree, he had to have had Goldberg's number in his contacts when he sent the original connection request, maybe thinking it was someone else, but then when Goldberg accepted and his profile came up, how the hell did Waltz miss the fact that it wasn't who he expected? It would be interesting to know what Goldberg's profile looks like.
Bugsy - Just to clarify, the quote to which you were responding came from me, not from Hal.
I think his claim is that the name and number conflict was in his phone contacts. When he added the secret person to Signal it ended up being Goldberg instead of the super secret person that he can’t name. Apparently that person’s identity is more sensitive than the time, place, location, and weapons planned to be used in two hours on another country.
That would make the most sense. Although why would Waltz have Goldberg's number on his phone in any case? But still, it boggles the mind that Waltz didn't notice the mistake immediately when the Goldberg's Signal profile came up after he accepted the invite.
Here's a theory. What if the phone contact to which he accidentally assigned Goldberg's number was Trump himself? Now that would make things interesting.
Would you? I wouldn't. I would see how far I could get into the conversation and blow the whistle if classified material was discussed on the chat. But I'm sneaky and not always ethical
Yes I think I would if I felt I didn’t belong there and might hear things I’m not supposed to be privy to. I would also have been curious when I first accepted Waltz invite and asked him what he wanted to discuss. By the time I got invited to the group and saw the other profiles of the group members I would have known I was in the wrong place and I still could have reported on the use of Signal by high level officials for sensitive communication without collecting and apparently recording the rest of the discussion.
But it doesn’t matter what you or I would have done. The important thing is that it happened and should not have happened at all. And as TiG indicated at least now something will be done to make sure something like it does not happen again.
You're a good person
Three things can be right at the same time. The man is a professional journalist, . . it is not wrong to expect that he will 'report' . . . because, well, reporters report. But, "All of the Above" is the answer.
The fact that Goldberg has no intention to release any information he heard tells me that it was best that he listened in. If he had not done so, we would not have had this inexcusable, amateur-hour breach of security known to the public. If not known, nothing would likely be done. Now, we have some level of confidence that security will be taken more seriously (at least for political reasons).
I wonder how many other failures to properly handle sensitive information has taken place in this administration.
Maybe if we looked in old cardboard boxes behind a cabinet member's Corvette, we may find some.
It is sickening that you post partisan bullshit on a matter this serious. The security of our nation and especially the safety of those engaged in a military operation is not something to be taken lightly or be the foundation for a pathetic partisan joke.
It's sad to see veterans who act like this
I mentioned no names, no political affiliation, but you jump to claiming partisanship. Perhaps it is you that posts partisan bullshit.
"The security of our nation and especially the safety of those engaged in a military operation is not something to be taken lightly or be the foundation for a pathetic partisan joke"
Then why are you and fellow leftists not calling for the arrest of this "journalist" for posting (leaking and essentially stealing) "national security concerns and military operations" on a public site (X)?
I can assure you that if it were the Biden/Harris admin and a reporter from Fox News did the same, you, et al, leftists would be calling for that person's head.
Trying to defend the leftist position, especially when they are always on the losing side of EVERY 80/20 issue in this country, is unpatriotic, delusional, politically suicidal and just plain stupid.
Why are you not calling for Goldberg to be arrested for posting (leaking) "national security concerns" on X?
Your comment ignored the seriousness of the national security breach and the potential for putting personnel in harms way during a military operation and instead make a partisan joke.
Disgusting.
Because it is not the topic of discussion and it can be presumed that any problem with the posting at this point has been professionally vetted and moot. Furthermore, if you have that question - go read Goldberg's paper about it (potentially he has explained himself there because he is on CNN with Wolf Blitzer this morning talking about it.)
Now, that is all I care to do with this DISTRACTION. I will focus on the topic of real-time military information being shared on 'Signal' and improper app for such information by top officials of our government. . . and MAGAs lack of lying outright and continuously, and taking no responsibility for this fiasco.
Is it really a fact that he has no such intention? I read in another report that Goldberg said he may post additional pieces of info to prove that his claim of classified or highly sensitive info being illegally divulged is true. I will try to find that article when I get back to my computer.
At any rate, I agree it should never have happened and wonder what other breaches of security might have occurred if this hadn’t come to light.
The only "security breach" was done by this "journalist in question.
I don't make jokes about national security. I guess that shows the good of those that served their country.
You still haven't answered the question, but continuously deflect....so, again....
Why are you not calling for Goldberg to be arrested for posting (leaking) "national security concerns" on X?
He stated that he had no intention of releasing this information and the reason he gave was that he knew that the information could compromise the operation.
At this point, since the operation is over, there is no threat that it will be compromised. Thus the situation is different.
Under a normal administration, I would have preferred Goldberg refer this matter to Congress for investigation. But given the current Congress is rubber-stamping the administration, that serves little purpose.
More disgusting denial of a serious matter that could have endangered the lives of those executing this military operation. Just sickening to watch these continued, pathetic, partisan attempts to defend the Trump administration from a fundamental fuck-up in national security.
So he may release classified material to prove his claim of classified materials. He might want to get a lawyer first.
True, that is why I asked you to stop in a different post.
"More disgusting denial of a serious matter that could have endangered the lives of those executing this military operation. "
As opposed to the ignoring of the colossal failure of the dementia riddled president after the murder of 13 American soldiers in Afghanistan.
I think this compared to no one getting hurt shows the true double standard of your side.
Does classified information automatically become declassified when the operation is over?
No, pay attention to what I wrote. The endless dishonesty.
And you continue to ignore the fact that what was discussed, if it fell into the wrong hands, could have put the lives of those executing the strike in danger or at least compromised the success of the mission.
This is a major league failure of national security by the VP, Secretary of Defense, et.al. No way should they be discussing any details of a pending military attack via a group chat on an unsecured private sector app. This discussion should have been held in person or via SCIFs.
Amazing that you cannot see that a serious a breach of national security took place. That all you care about is trying to defend the administration. Pathetic.
No, pay attention to what I wrote. The endless dishonesty. I have stated they should investigate and plug the hole but you continue to ignore that fact as you ignore the question I asked. Pathetic.
Don't play word games then.
This is a serious breach of national security. Your posts are trying to deflect from that fact.
So pick a position and stick with it. If you recognize this is a serious breach of national security than stop the pathetic attempts to argue that the discussion was okay to be held on Signal.
Make up your mind. This was a major fuck up in national security.
I am not the one trying to sell it as highly classified.
Again, read what I wrote. I have always said it was an issue that needs to be investigated and fixed.
Stop with the pathetic attempts to put words in my mouth. I have never said it was OK the discussion was held on Signal.
You are trying to argue that the discussion of a pending military strike was not highly classified. A stupid argument anyway:
You are doing this to deflect from the fact that a pending military strike was discussed by the VP, Secretary of Defense, et. al. on a private sector chat app rather than following national security protocols.
It is a pathetic attempt to deflect from the seriousness of this fuck up. It is, yet again, a feeble attempt to defend the Trump administration.
You have yet to prove it was and who designated that it was.
Once again you continue to ignore the fact that I have stated mistakes were made or the fact that it was not a highly classified chat.
Between this and your partisan accusation you have overused them to the point of being meaningless.
A good question. I would imagine that some of it does, but any names of field operatives involved, even after the operation is over, would still need to be classified or redacted.
You make this claim and then try to downplay the seriousness.
Make up your mind. Your attempt to have it both ways is laughable.
Hegseth, et. al. engaged in a major breach of security. That is the issue. You either acknowledge that or not. It does not matter if you believe discussing a pending military operation is classified or not (it is by definition). That does not change the security breach.
Hegseth, et al, did not leak the communication.
The "journalist" on your side did.
Why haven't you called for the arrest of this "journalist" for leaking what you believe is classified information on an unsecure social website?
Strawman.
The issue is the major breach of security ... the use of Signal rather than a secured protocol suitable for discussing a pending military operation.
The Biden admin says you are wrong. They specifically said it is an end to end encryption for communication.
Maybe you should take your whine to them.
Biden-era guidance encouraged use of Signal app by senior officials: 'Best practice' | Fox News
You keep refusing to answer my question. To wit...
Why haven't you called for the arrest of this "journalist" for leaking what you believe is classified information on an unsecure social website?
You demand everyone answer your questions. Why don't you practice what you preach?
More ridiculous spin from you.
This is a recommendation to use encrypted communication apps like Signal vs. NOT USING ANY AT ALL!
This is NOT a recommendation to use Signal instead of SCIF for meetings such as discussing a pending military operation.
Buy a vowel.
“Hegseth, et al, did not leak the communication.”
And the communication would not have been ‘leaked’ had Hegseth, et al taken even a modicum of precautions.
What the hell is it with you and SCIFs?
Do you not understand that SCIFs cannot simply be shit out in remote areas or areas where there is no military assets around?
Do you think Hegseth, et al, can just wish a SCIF into existence and...poof...there they are?
Your line of argument is delusional.
It is obvious you do not know how SCIFs work.
Using a source like Signal is recommended when there are no SCIFs available to use.
Get a clue
I believe it is in agreement that the group chat members screwed up by letting this POS "journalist" in the chat.
The "journalist" could have simply stated he believes he should not be in the chat and back out. Nothing would ever have been heard about this, but this "journalist" has always been so hell bent on getting Trump, he figured it was worth it to leak what even he is stating is classified information.
Then the individual must travel to a properly secured facility or have a temporary one created (if possible).
Under no circumstances is it proper to use a private sector app (especially open source) running on the public internet to discuss a pending military operation.
Flat out false.
All you do is make bullshit claims. Back it up. Show where it is recommended for high level officials like the VP and Secretary of Defense to use Signal to discuss a pending military operation.
Let's define our terms clearly. "Your side", referring to TiG, is the pro-American side. The other side, since you made the distinction, isn't.
It is good that the journalist made this fundamental failure of national security known. Who knows how often the Trump administration fucks this up and what they might have done in the future.
Now we at least have some sense that this failure will be remedied.
By the Trump regime? I wouldn't be so sure.
So you are OK with what you think is classified information be leaked by a friendly journalist.
He could have simply let the group participants know that he can see the chat and it would have been taken care of.
Your approval of what you consider classified information being leaked shows hatred for one man over rides everything else.
Reactionary response.
By "side", I mean the ideology one approves of.
Show me where I have made ANY post that insinuates I am not pro-American.
The "reactionary response" was clearly the attempt to disparage and divide using the term "your side" in your comment responding to TiG. Typical reactionary/neo-fascist propaganda. Everyone knows it.
Well, it failed
I will answer this question again and for the last time.
Prior to the military operation, the information about the operation is sensitive (implicitly this is classified info). The operation could be compromised and people could die if it fell into the wrong hands.
After the operation was over, the information about what will be hit, when, where, how all becomes available to the public as news.
The journalist, properly, chose to not disclose the information he got in real time and what he did disclose was after the operation had completed.
The issue is that the VP, Secretary of Defense, et. al. held a meeting to discuss a pending military operation and did so on a private sector app that was not secured for this level of communication. It was a major league failure of national security. A profound fuck-up by some of the highest level operatives in the Trump administration.
Even Trump admits it was a mistake!
We all know that you desperately want to spin this but it is not possible.
I have correctly stated several times that a mistake was made that should be investigated and actions should be taken so it will not happen again.
What I refuse to do is buy into the all things Trump hysteria exaggeration by accepting incorrect terms like highly confidential, major breach and most likely done before. If exaggeration is needed to make a point the point is pretty weak to begin with.
Actually the accusation I am trying to have it both ways is what is laughable.
Was that the specific information in the chat?
There is a pretty big difference between we made a mistake and what you et al are trying to sell. I am waiting for the "this is worse than Watergate" spin.
Something we agree with Trump.
The fact remains that leftists have been screaming that classified information was put on an unsecure form of communication. That is false. Signal is 1) not unsecure, and 2) there was no classified information put out.
However, just because the operation was completed does not mean the information, in this case it was never classified, is automatically declassified.
Goldberg himself stated that there were things on the chat he believed was classified, so if no one "declassified" the information, then in essence, Goldberg leaked "classified" information.
Democrats today called for Hegseth to resign for putting out "classified information"( there was none), so with that same standard, you, et al, on the left, should call for the arrest of Goldberg for leaking "classified" information.
Bottom line.
It has been acknowledged there were mistakes made, ie, admitting so, unlike the Biden admin.
No classified info was leaked by Hegseth, et al, so leftists need to simply let go, stop whining about a nothing burger and allow the Trump admin to fix their ways and means and move on.
No, it wasn't, hence there were no war plans released.
If only it were easy for many on the left to do. This is just the latest bone they will hang onto until a new bone is throw their way. Probably a week or so after the rest of the country has moved on (in a day or two).
They sure are a gullible bunch
And yet some on the left keep up with the obvious false narrative.
DoD and National Intelligence both have written definitions of what should be considered Classified Top Secret. The declaration that the United States is about to engage in a military operation is one of those things. This conversation absolutely should have been considered Classified Top Secret. Claiming otherwise, is like saying it’s nighttime even though the sun is directly overhead.
The administration team tried to 'punk' Goldberg, daring him to prove them liars. . .and he took a moment to think it though and did so. It was the right thing to do. They tried to bluff him 'out.'
So the left has gone from it is highly classified, the information given was what will be hit, when, where, how all the way to the US is about to do something to someone somewhere and should be considered classified top secret.
I can't wait to see what it is tomorrow, if anyone is still talking about it at all.
You are still playing this stupid word game? You claim to understand the seriousness of this security breach yet continue to focus on the words used to describe the sensitivity of the information discussed. The language used to describe the sensitivity of the information is irrelevant, the security breach is what matters.
And by the way, again, your stupid word game is wrong too:
Of course it is relevant. Accuracy is always relevant. If exaggeration is needed to make a point the point is pretty weak to begin with.
If it was so irrelevant why do you et al keep using the incorrect words to describe it? That is a rhetorical question, we all know why.
If MSNBC is the best you can do to try and prove your point that also shows the weakness of your argument.
It is a deflection from the fact that this was a major security breach.
And classified information, top secret, etc. are all accurate descriptions of the sensitivity of this information. So you continue to be wrong even in your stupid game.
How entirely pathetic. That video shows a hearing where Tulsi Gabbard's claim (and your stupid word game) is destroyed by Jason Crow with hard evidence. You did not even watch the video and just dismissed it with a feeble excuse. This content is not MSNBC opinion, it is showing the hearing!
You just keep saying the same ridiculous thing yet you continue to not be able to prove the information was classified. All you seem to do is exaggerate and be dishonest as to what information was on the chat to try and make it more important than it is.
Trying to claim that accuracy is not important and just a deflection shows just how desperate the conversation has gotten.
I would continue on with this but as long as you keep saying the same incorrect thing again and again there is no point. Besides it has gotten boring and I am moving on to other things, like everyone other than Trump haters are already doing.
More bullshit from you.
Chuck Hagel's position:
Thanks for your opinion. See the last paragraph of 23.3.54
I have to chime in here. The info in the chat was about a mission before, during and after. ON AN UNSECURE APP.
If any of my loved ones were active military right now I'd be scared shitless for their safety. Any of adversaries could have gotten into that text chain and things could have gone very differently. And there is no sign of ANY of the trumpers taking the risks to future missions any differently than they did for this one. They wanted that text chain to disappear so WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT in the future.
I really don't understand how you or anybody could defend this breech.
Every one of those trumpers on the chain is responsible for this. All of them are in positions of power that require competence, and all of them let this information about an active military operation out and then lied about it under oath.
Of course you are welcome to your opinion but I haven't seen much of anyone defend the breech or say a mistake was not made or that changes shouldn't be made..
You also seem to be making other claims that are not verifiable but if that is what you want to do then by all means do it.
First, I’m not the left. Nor did any of what I wrote come from there. It came from representatives and senators reading official definitions and then cabinet officers on the signal conversation confirming those definitions.
And then you just mumbled a bunch of nonsense yesterday and today, and pretended they were different things. Why are you trying so hard to deflect on this issue?
[deleted][✘]
Thanks for your video of the dem perspective. Fire everyone! See the last paragraph of 23.3.54
It is a video from the perspective of a veteran Senator who lost her legs in combat. But of course all you can see is party affiliation.
I also gave you a video of Chuck Hagel commenting @23.3.55. He is an R.
You have nothing.
Thanks
See the last paragraph of 23.3.54
Well, . . deflection is a problem for some here and I - understand that it is extremely hard for some here to talk about this. But it is important. Let's deescalate and return to the main issue: our national security breach.
It certainly is
Look at any of my several posts above that directly answer that.
A mistake was made
It should be investigated
Corrective actions should be taken to make sure it does not happen again.
It took a 'moment' and some persistent pressing and several better informed leaders are stepping up to call for an (formal) investigation now. That will be a new article, nevertheless. Still, Let's see how it goes.
Agree, I am all for that and have been all along.
gabbard's entire opening statement in the senate hearing was a deflection ...
I had read earlier that they used the Signal app because it was already installed on their systems. As this app was encouraged by the Biden admin and used throughout the Biden White House, perhaps the screaming about using Signal might be misplaced. A deeper dive into who added a journalist to a text group would IMO be a more urgent issue to look into. How did the wrong person get added to this group text so that it doesn't happen again.
Signal was installed and its intended use was for non-sensitive communication.
The VP, Secretary of Defense, et. al. should all know that remote-based discussion of a pending military operation should be done in SCIFs.
If they did not know that then we have a bunch of incompetent amateurs running the show.
If they did know that then we have a blatant disregard for national security.
Ummmmm.....................
Another fine example of incompetence from the “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot straight.”
Waltz already accepted full responsibility for the reporter.
Waltz takes blame for texts amid calls for Hegseth ouster
But Trump down played it and said Waltz did nothing wrong?
‘No need to apologise…’: Trump backs Mike Waltz after leaked war plan chat on Houthis sparks uproar | Watch
Rubio said it was a big mistake.
Rubio admits Signal group chat debacle was a ‘big mistake’
and Hegseth's cell phone number, email address and some passwords turn up on the internet.
REPORT: Passwords of Top U.S. Security Officials Found Online – Hegseth, Gabbard, Waltz Among Those Affected
Our country is being run by the Keystone Kops.
The more Pete Hegseth denies wrong doing about the chat, the more one wonders about the accusations of family abuse. Drinking on the job...
He's still gaslighting the American public.
How much longer is probably still up to Pete.
Trump told reporters this afternoon that Hegseth "had nothing to do with " the Signal texts.
Millions of people will believe him.
That's actually an insult to the Keystone Kops, lol.
Yeah, we know this it has been talked about already. The problem is WHAT IS SHARED OVER 'SIGNAL' has to be QUALIFIED based on its established level of security. Operational (actionable) plans may not meet Signal's permissive use. And as for the journalist added, well at least he was not any 'Toyko rose' (with her big mouth).