Posted on 03/28/2025 2:52:17 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
A Signal messaging group called "“Houthi PC small group” was set up for Trump administration's security team [Hegseth, Rubio, Ratcliffe, Gabbard, Stephen Miller, Waltz, Wiles, J.D. Vance].
...
At the beginning of March, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic Monthly, was added to the group, giving Goldberg access to all the messages.
...
Goldberg claims that on 11 March he initially "received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz", Trump's national security adviser and he subsequently received a notice that he was to be included in a Signal group titled the "Houthi PC small group." Goldberg claims the group received a message from Waltz, which also noted one of his deputies was "pulling together" a team of top staffers relevant to the discussion.
...
Let's focus on the content of the leaks.
It would have been problematic if they were caught making obscene or bigoted remarks or using expletives, or engaging in jingoistic bravado.
It would have been scandalous had they been conversing about targeting political opponents or disparaging the MAGA agenda.
But the opposite occurred. ...
It would have been scandalous if officials sounded inept, uncaring, or laid back, or casual. But the chat revealed that members of Trump's security team were serious, focused, competent, and disciplined, while not forgetting why they were elected. Usually, politicians from both parties receive votes on promises they have no intention of keeping. The messages were logical, precise, and thoughtful. The English was formal, and there were almost no short forms or emojis. Voters curious to know the inner workings of the Trump administration will be pleased.
But these good revelations do not excuse the seriousness of leaks.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
He should have turned the request down and informed the administration of their error. That’s what an honest, patriotic person would have done.
Waltz told Laura Ingraham he doesn't know Goldberg and has never interacted with him. He said he received the contact from someone else and that the contact was erroneously labeled, i.e., the name was another individual but the number was that of Goldberg. If this claim is true, this sender of the contact could be the saboteur assigned to cause trouble.
2 links to the Atlantic but none to American Thinker.
Article Link: Deep Dive: The Signal Chat Leak
Sorry the wrong link on this article. Here is the correct link:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/03/deep_dive_the_signal_chat_leak.html
It's one thing to have a glitch or to make a mistake. Happens all the time.
It's another thing entirely for that glitch or mistake to result in intel (even unclassified) being sent to an enemy. That is not a coincidence.
And Jeff Goldberg is as close to an enemy as you can get.
For those who have forgotten, Jeffrey Goldberg is the person who, as editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, reported in a 2020 article that Trump canceled a 2018 visit to Aisne-Marne American Cemetery (WWI) near Paris not because of weather, as the White House said, but because he called the fallen soldiers “losers” and “suckers” for dying.
The article was entitled, Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’.
One would think most people if invited to a chat, then suddenly realize it was a mistake, would leave the chat. Why did this reporter stay on the chat (he clearly knew he should not be on) or not make himself known?
Second, the need to know level. Two questions here. At what point does a ‘staffer’ determine ‘need to know.’ And when does that stop/end? If the reporter felt it was leaked information why would he have NOT followed standard protocol and reported it to the administration? Instead he blasts it as a public article?
Third, why was it not noticed that a reporter with no clearances was on the chat? Typically at such high levels, there would have been a moderator. It would not have been Hegseth, but a government moderated chat. Who had that responsibility? In business when group chats happen the ‘list’ is checked before the chat takes place for numerous reasons these days we do that. From leaks to cybersecurity it seems no one moderated that chat list. If the list is too long or so long then too many people are on the chat. See ‘need to know basis.’
It seems to me the outrage is being put in the wrong context. Clearly this reporter would have never been normally invited by this particular administration. The outrage and investigation is focussed on the wrong thing(s).
BUT, in the end when does a United States Citizen Reporter have a civil responsibility above the 1st Amendment no matter how they came by the information? The only reason full operational security was compromised was because Goldberg (end of the line) chose to blast the information in the media and void his civic duty. Thereby compromising everyone involved in the operation at every level down to the man on the battlefield. (and that’s the article that should be written).
These “good revelations” reinforce my suspicion that the contents of this discussion were INTENDED — with the knowledge of all the participants — to be made public.
See Post #9.
The reporter was the guy who put out the fake story about Trump calling men in the WWI military cemetery in France losers and suckers. Why did a Walz staffer even have that reporter’s phone number at all?
Stinks to high heaven.
Everyone involved committed assault crime. Sabbath and Radcliffe lied to Congress about it.
I’ve been saying there’s a hidden party. I read the person that put Goldberg on the list was a woman...who they will not name. Leads me to believe she’s connected to either Hillary, Obama or Kamala.
Goldberg not only stayed but had to do screen shots since the chat would go away at a disclosed time.
I am not accusing Waltz of being the guilty party. I'm just pointing out that this photo raises questions about Waltz's claim of never having interacted with him.
This photo of Waltz and Goldberg was originally posted by Bernard-Henri Lévy on X in 2021.
Why would you suspect that?
and that still does not forgo Goldberg’s civic duty to report the ‘mistake.’ before blasting it in the media.
Which is the bigger story here? the leak or the saboteur?
Goldberg has no sense of civic duty. See post #7 above.
Or the wife of Wong.
He should have turned the request down and informed the administration of their error. That’s what an honest, patriotic person would have done.
*******
Exactly right. Goldberg is an opportunistic selfish jerk.
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.