Posted on 03/24/2025 3:03:49 PM PDT by Miami Rebel
President Donald Trump said he knew nothing of members of his administration discussing sensitive war plans in a group text that errantly included Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic when asked about the bombshell report on Monday.
Goldberg, the outlet’s editor-in-chief, reported Monday he was looped into a Signal group earlier this month wherein multiple top Trump administration officials discussed bombing Houthi terrorists in Yemen.
Those people apparently included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Vice President JD Vance. Goldberg said he was added to the group after an invitation from Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz on Signal, an encrypted messaging cell phone app.
The report sent shockwaves across Washington. When Trump was asked about it Monday afternoon by a pool reporter, he said he knew nothing of the report:
REPORTER: Mr. President, your reaction to the story, The Atlantic, that said that some of your top cabinet officials and aides have been discussing very sensitive material through Signal and included an Atlantic reporter for that. What is your response to that and are you going to take it –
TRUMP: I don’t know anything about it. I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it’s a magazine that’s going out of business. I think it’s not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it. You’re saying that they had what?
REPORTER: They were using Signal to coordinate on sensitive materials, and –
TRUMP: Having to do with what? Having to do with what? What were they talking about?
REPORTER: The Houthis.
TRUMP: With the Houthis. You mean the attack on the Houthis? Well, it couldn’t have been very effective because the attack was very effective, I can tell you that. I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time?
Golberg reported Monday that in the conversation, Trump’s inner circle discussed bombing Yemen – something Vance had reservations about, but Hegseth was in favor of.
He added Hegseth posted sensitive and classified information that The Atlantic opted against sharing.
I’d say discussing war plans is about as high up the national security pyramid you can get.
Everyone with a brain knows Mediaite is a propaganda outlet. Leftist drivel.
If it’s true (and no one of this crew has denied it,) then the only reason for the delay was that The Atlantic sat on the story.
I don’t know about you, but I’m squeamish about letting The Atlantic act as gatekeeper of our national secrets.
But “massive leak”? “War plans”? Lol. Cmon man.
Re: 22 - you need to work on your ability to discern.
Welp, since the told him I guess now they’ll have to kill him...
What happened to using a SCIF?
Oh breathless Freepers. Let’s all remember the 48 hour rule on breaking news stories.
If it’s drivel then Hegseth, Vance, Waltz, and most importantly President Trump could easily refute it.
As I said in my first comment, it is mind-blowing that this story was exploding all over cable news and the internet, yet no one bothered to inform the President.
It doesn’t take 48 hours for the White House to shoot this down if it’s a lie.
You can tell that it was deliberate because any actual breach on that scale owuld have been reported to Trump immediately. He wouldn’t have to hear about it from a “journalist.”
You believe their lies? Wow.
‘ Don’t buy BS from The Atlantic.’
There are actual logs you know.
WTF are they DOING holding conversations on Signal outside US secure communication channels? Signal is used to make sure there’s no government record. It’s a common tool of leftists.
War plans? ROFLMAO. Are you saying the incoming air raid was announced by a Goldberg and the USA still decimated the targets?
“You can tell that it was deliberate....”
What was deliberate? Fox and every other news channel had this story for over an hour before the President spoke. Was the story deliberately withheld from him?
The Atlantic released its story after the attacks.
“Canary Trap” — indeed, a possibility.
A “Canary Trap” is a clever technique used to identify the source of a leak when sensitive information gets out. The basic idea is to plant unique, slightly altered versions of a document or piece of info among different suspects, then see which version pops up in the wild. It’s like leaving a trail of breadcrumbs—each crumb is different, so when one gets picked up, you know who dropped it. The term comes from the old “canary in a coal mine” concept, where the bird’s distress signaled danger; here, the “canary” is the bait that reveals the leaker.
Including the "journalist" on the chat.
Thanks for posting this - another motive for the “limited hangout”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.