So far (7:25 pm, March 24), there is not a peep about this disturbing story at the Citizens Free Press or at PJ Media, including Instapundit. Not a good look.
Naturally the usual Axis media, anti-Trump news sources are all over the story, as they should be, perhaps with a little less glee, but still. Among conservative publications, I see it at the New York Post, the Boston Herald, and the Washington Examiner. The Daily Caller has the story, if a bit late. Fox News carried it, though their pundits tonight have been mum so far.
Citizens Free Press and PJ Media better catch up quick. If they stall much longer, they deserve no credibility and are ethically estopped from complaining about the “legacy media” burying stories uncomfortable for Democrats. There is no excuse for this.
Ethics Alarms 
FoxNews and ZeroHedge have articles up about this incident. I hope Instapundit, PJ Media, Townhall, and RedState follow.
I am agog at this story. I know Goldberg said he was concerned it was a fake conversation he’d been lured into, and that he dismisses that idea because he could confirm the strikes happened as described and then had confirmation from Brian Hughes (National Security Council spokesperson) that the messages seemed authentic. It still is so abysmally incompetent that a fake chat still seems more plausible. Or a chat into which Goldberg was lured to see if he would leak the information.
If this is real, Hesgeth better be out, and there better be measures put in place to make sure classified war plans stay in the appropriate places. If this is not real, there better be a damned good explanation for why it seems sufficiently real. And I hope the other members of the conservative media are taking their sweet time reporting so that they have a broader, more thoroughly investigate story to tell.
On the other hand, the Babylon Bee ran with it
Ahem….the link appears not to have saved from the comment above.
https://babylonbee.com/news/security-concerns-as-trump-holds-strategy-meeting-at-cracker-barrel
What makes that Bee article doubly-funny for me is that there really is a Cracker Barrel in Sterling, VA and I’ve eaten there many many times.
I can’t say for sure if the background of the photo is actually OF the interior of that restaurant, but . . . it really COULD BE.
–Dwayne
My President!!!
“Others present at the time said the president proudly solved the restaurant’s famous wooden triangle peg game by simply dumping them all out onto the table at the same time. “Done. Record time,” Trump reportedly said. “Don’t know why everyone thinks this thing is so hard. I’m the best at it. Maybe ever.””
“Kobayashi Maru”!
The Bee gets it.
jvb
as I was listening to radical right-wing talk radio, Joe Pags was talking about it (and not in defense of Hegseth).
-Jut
the press should be making this a known issue. If Hegseth did this he should resign. If hegseth did this trump should be asking for his resignation, and firing ifnot immediately forthcoming. The staffer that added the journalist should be fired. The journalist should be rewarded with interviews and better access.
“The staffer that added the journalist should be fired.”
Assuming the system in question is not authorized for the transmission of Top Secret information (which I’m 99% sure is true), then adding an uncleared person to an unclassified system is not a violation.
Introducing classified information into an unclassified system, OTOH, most certainly IS.
–Dwayne
adding a reporter to that chat without approval is certainly a violation of judgement and trust. It is still let go for cause. So the staffer can keep his clearance as he looks for his next employer, good for him.
Possibly, and even probably true, but also completely distinct from the classified information issue, which is what I was trying to clarify.
–Dwayne
Citizens Free Press has a link to the Atlantic article. It’s titled “Michael Waltz (accidentally) includes journalist Jeffrey Goldberg on Signal chat about ‘impending’ strike on Houthis”. It’s been there since earlier this afternoon so it’s a little way down the page now.
Why is no one asking for Waltz’s resignation if he was the one who “accidentally” added Goldberg’s name to the chat. In my mind each one is guilty of using an unsecure means of communication if Signal is proscribed for such discussions and no one stopped the discussion at the first indication of wrongful use. If it is allowed for some communications then issue changes to what is allowed.
I do not engage in chat activity and have no understanding of what each participant can see. So if I try to break this down we have.
Three senior individuals on the chat + Goldberg.
That encrypted chat software is or is not typically used by government and a secure government channel is required for most communications of this level – This I do not know. I also do not know who initiated the chat.
If other members can see the participant list why did none of the others Rubio or Waltz remind Hegseth that only non-sensitive information could be discussed before such information was discussed or why did any of the participants continue in the discussion. If the participant list is not visible to all that should be a disqualifier of the method used which would require sanctions on all three.
It just seems to me that putting the hammer down on Hegseth without any sanctions on the other government officials. Is being an ex Senator an exculpatory reason for any discussion of their roles in this situation?
I am not going to scapegoat one if the others are also just as culpable.
As of 9:05 eastern, Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit has commented on the Goldberg Atlantic revelation. Powerline Blog has also commented on the story this morning.
The general consensus I’m gathering from conservative voices (is this a circling the wagon moment?) is that this was a fishing expedition to see if Goldberg would take the information and run with it, and in doing so send a message to Europe how unhappy the US government is with Europe. The defense seems to be that only coordination and voting on the plan took place on Signal, not that any of the actual tactical information was exposed. Goldberg states that he did receive tactical information, but since he is choosing not to reveal the details, he could be (as he has been wont to do in the past) overstating the case or flat out lying about having the details. So the fact that no heads are rolling (yet) at the White House means that Goldberg’s inclusion was not an accident, and that he danced like a puppet to the White House’s tune. Cynical Publius, for example, looked at the chat exchanged and declared that a war game exchange it was not.
As note, Ann Althouse also takes the stance that Goldberg thought he was eavesdropping, but was actually deliberately included.
I don’t know if anyone else has any new insight into this? I would think if the Trump administration was deliberately setting Goldberg up, there would be a reveal to show him how he was played. Unless there is a good reason to keep up the appearance that this was a breach of confidence triggered by mass incompetence at the highest levels?
If this is true, it is a stupid and sloppy way to trap someone. Goldberg proved to have more integrity than that and it just makes the DoD and all involved look ridiculous.
We did not vote for our government to engage in juvenile Gotcha games.
I certainly agree we did not vote for childish games (though we knew it was probably going to happen). I think this affair needs a open, transparent explanation from the Trump Administration. In my experience, people are for more forgiving when you say, “I apologize, I screwed up, I take ownership of the mistake,” than when you keep trying to play it as though it were not a mistake, or that nothing at all happened, or spin it with a whataboutism or not-the-worst-thing rationalization.
At the same time, I also feel that judgment should be reserved until more information is available and known. Just like we shouldn’t try criminals in the court of public opinion, we shouldn’t try administrative actions in the court of public opinion until sufficient facts are known. And the media being so untrustworthy makes me, at least, question if all the facts are known.
Still, there is no arguing this is terrible optics for the Trump administration, no matter how you spin the speculation at this point. How did Goldberg end up in the chat by mistake? What information was really discussed? How much do we trust the Trump administration? How much do we trust Jeff Goldberg? What a mess.
On the topic of how Goldberg ended up in the chat, the primary way people are inadvertently added to threads, that I’ve seen, is that someone is hastily inviting someone, and someone else’s name pops up in the autocomplete. But that other name is usually in autocomplete because it has been used before. So are we to believe that Goldberg is in regular correspondence with Waltz on Signal, that he could be so easily accidentally brought into the conversation? Do we have any Signal users who can add their experiences?
Sure, I’ve accidentally hit the wrong name on an email or text message. or used the wrong autofill. It’s embarrassing when it happens.
If it was a simple autofill error, there still needs to be an admission that they were sloppy with the technology – something that a great many people in really important positions seem to be – and what steps will be taken to correct it.
But DoD discussions should be doubly protected from user error.
If I accidentally sent a confidential company report to a policyholder, I might expect to lose my job.
I would especially expect to lose it if I’d decided to test said policyholder’s integrity by deliberately sending it to see if it would be used.
The idea that someone in Trump’s administration might think it was a good idea to try such a thing is signature significance to me. That conservatives may be trying to rationalize such an action rather than admit that Hegseth was a bad choice is even worse.
Jack, thanks again for rescuing my comment!
I too would love to know the full text conversation before finalizing my own judgment on this – but I ain’t paying the Atlantic to only find out the guy who was foolishly let into the conversation posted select bits.
So many of these leaks are just selective editing and heavily suggesting our imaginations fill the gaps with all sorts of sordid possibilities.
Then when the full story comes out, after the outrage has subsided and moved on to a fresh outrage, turns out to be an actual, as Obama puts it: “A Nothingburger”.
Kind of like every time a police officer is in a situation where a black suspect is shot. Turns out 99% of the time the shooting was justified. But not until after we’ve ginned up seething levels of violent rage.
And, if Goldberg saw tactical info prior to an attack which has now happened and which is open knowledge… Why could he now not show what he purports to have been shown? Enquiring minds want to know!
I know we all like a good OMG I can’t believe such and such happened moment, but the intrigue over this incident smells like something that would increase the credibility of the Babylon Bee.
He has, in fact, done some of that.