In the interest of time—mine—I’m going to list the relevant developments and my observations as bullet points, with the full knowledge that I will be posting on this again, and probably soon. So here we go, into the wreckage…
- The Senate Intelligence Committee wasted no time pouncing on this: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who were both in the group chat that mistakenly also included “The Atlantic” editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, are being grilled right now. Good.
- Trump’s follow-up response to the fiasco is not encouraging, as he should shut up until he has taken in all the facts and the reaction to it them.“Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man,” Trump said during a phone interview with NBC’s Garrett Haake. Comment: Yuck! Pure rationalization. Even worse, Trump called this “the only glitch in two months, and turned out not to be a serious one.” That’s pure moral luck, and I assume he knows it. We can also assume from this that Waltz is the designated scapegoat should it be necessary to have a public execution. Swell, as long as somebody goes down to show that when there is a massive screw-up in this administration there is accountability, unlike in the Biden Administration, the Bush II Administration and the Obama Administration. Observation: It still should be Hegseth, but I assume Trump will be loathe to set himself up for all the “I told you so!” reactions.
- Leavitt continues to duck and weave, attacking the messengers: “Stories claiming otherwise [ that is, that dispute the President’s comments] are driven by anonymous sources who clearly do not speak to the President, and written by reporters who are thirsty for a ‘scoop.’”
- Hegseth appears to be lying outright (and he is NOT paid to lie) claiming that “no war plans were discussed.” Goldberg, who was watching the chat unfold, has posted sufficient screenshots to prove that is wrong. “No, that’s a lie. He was texting war plans,” the Atlantic editor-in-chief told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. “He was texting attack plans, when targets were going to be targeted, how they were going to be targeted, who was at the targets, when the next sequence of attacks were happening.” Goldberg said he didn’t include the specific plans in his story because he felt that it was “too confidential, too technical” and that revealing the information to the public could endanger American military personnel. “What’s in the public interest is that they were running a war plan on a messaging app, and didn’t even know who was invited into the conversation,” Goldberg said.
- Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds beclowned himself with this lame excuse for posting on the story so late: “I WAS TRAVELING YESTERDAY, AND FELL A BIT BEHIND, but the Signal story seems like a nothingburger to me. In fact, I kind of wonder if Goldberg was deliberately included as part of an information op, allowing them to release stuff they didn’t want to be seen releasing openly. Anyway, “war plans?” Not so much, but it’s Jeffrey Goldberg so. . . ” Comment: Ick, pooey! Just following along with the White House strategy of blaming the messenger. How discouraging.
- Ditto Stephen Kruiser, who has a morning newsletter at PJ Media that collects links on what he regards as important stories for his conservative audience to see. Among the stories meeting that standard: “23andMe Just Filed for Bankruptcy.” Nowhere to be found? You guessed it.
- Here’s the Unethical Quote of the Day on this topic, from hair-on-fire conservative author and pundit Kurt Schlicter:
“The Signal chat thing is a gut check for alleged cons. Nothing significant was revealed. Worst case, it was a mistake that will never happen again. More likely, a proven liar has now lied about at least some of it. And yet, so many people are delighted to have the opportunity to freak out about something that Trump administration did. It’s bizarre how they play along with leftist narratives. The answer to your enemies is to give them nothing. Nothing. You’re not being principled. You’re not demonstrating integrity. You’re showing weakness. Never ever ever give them the head of one of your allies. Understand that your enemies never get anything except pain and mockery. There’s no such thing as even handedness. Either win or you lose. I choose winning. You do you.”
Ethics Verdict: Unethical, irresponsible and corrupt.
- Finally, here’s Instapundit’s late night host Sarah Hoyt cheering on Schlicter: “Sure. Fat finger happens. On the other hand, I’m going to doubt anything from this particular assclown at the Atlantic. For the record, there are ways to duplicate a phone that will even do aps like Signal. (It’s just not as easy as the attack I suffered a few years back.) Yes, it’s hideously illegal. So are bombs in Tesla dealerships. Keep control of your electronics and anything else you don’t want the left to get into. The left has entered its wounded animal phase. They’re dangerous.”
Ethics Verdict: Rationalizations and more rationalizations.
Integrity grade so far: F
______________________
Sources: Instapundit, The Hill, New York Post, CNN
Ethics Alarms 
So far my reading into Signal suggests that not only do many government employees use Signal, but that it is one of the platforms encouraged for use, due to its encryption and dedication to privacy. (However, the app is not approved for classified information.) Part of that dedication to privacy is that a phone number is all that is needed to sign up, the user appears however the user wants to appear, and messages can be set to be automatically deleted from the app.
It may be that use of this app is going to run up against the Federal Records Act, since if these are official government messages, setting them up to be automatically deleted would be destroying official electronic records that should be archived for posterity.
Ryan Harkins wrote, “It may be that use of this app is going to run up against the Federal Records Act, since if these are official government messages, setting them up to be automatically deleted would be destroying official electronic records that should be archived for posterity.”
That is a GREAT point!
Could this be used as an intentional government messaging blackhole?
Yes, obviously that’s the whole point. Though at this stage an evidential trail of crimes hardly matters. That hasn’t sunk in yet. Inertia in thinking is very powerful. Everyone is too used to living under a rule of law.
Zoe wrote, “Yes, obviously that’s the whole point.”
I’m not so sure the “intentional government messaging blackhole” is the whole point. As far as I can tell, the whole point of the software is to encrypt messages so those that are not part of the chat cannot read them.
Can the software be used nefariously, I’m sure it can but most people simply don’t think that way. It’s been reported that the Biden Administration actively promoted the usage of Signal Chat, why would they do that if the knew it could be a government messaging blockhole thus sidestepping the Federal Records Act?
I actually knew nothing about this software/app until this story came to my attention. I went online, downloaded the desktop app and the app for my iPhone to check it out. It seems to be simple to operate, similar’ish to the iPhone Messages but has the added encryption. You start a chat and choose who you want to be in your chat (name, username, or phone number) based on the contact list you have.
At this point in time with my short software evaluation, I don’t see how anyone could “accidentally” add someone to their chat without knowing who it was. Yes you can delete messages, delete an entire chat and delete the group chat but only after you delete each member in the chat group which could be cumbersome.
The last report I heard, Mike Waltz built the group and he did not intentionally add the reporter to the chat, he claims to that there was a different contact meant to be added but he didn’t say how that was. on a Fox News interview Waltz said, “You got somebody else’s number on someone else’s contact. So, of course, I didn’t see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else. Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean is something we’re trying to figure out.” Did someone hack his contact list and change one of the phone number’s to the reporter or was it a fluke typo.
I really hope they get to the root cause of this fiasco.
This whole fiasco was completely avoidable and they better address the pitfalls in the Signal Chat program!!! I think President Trump should immediately ban the use of Signal Chat until better security protocols can be put in place, and verified, to prevent these kind of things happening again. In my opinion based on what I’ve heard about Signal Chat, I think there is clearly something wrong with how Signal Chat is programmed for users.
Based on what I know so far, my overall questions regarding the security of this whole completely avoidable fiasco is,
1. Doesn’t Signal Chat have some kind of security protocol in place that requires providing each person in a chat to see a complete listing (not initials or psydonyme) of those that are on the chat so each individual can be absolutely sure that no one that shouldn’t be part of the chat isn’t part of the chat?
2. Doesn’t Signal Chat notify individuals in a current chat when someone new has been added to the chat and have essentially a verifiable “paper trail” of who exactly added whom and when?
3. How does Signal Chat give an individual the ability to add another person to a chat?
4. Does Signal Chat require multiple verification steps when adding someone to a chat so the individual that’s trying to add someone knows with absolute certainty who they chose to add and knows for sure that they haven’t added someone that shouldn’t be there by “accident”. I’d call accidently adding someone to a chat that doesn’t belong in the chat to be negligent. If an individual doesn’t fully understand what they’re doing in the program, then they shouldn’t be using it.
5. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of every person in a chat to know exactly who is in the chat with them, and it’s the responsibility of each individual to raise questions about who is in the chat if they see someone that may not belong.
I’m not going to rationalize any of this, it’s an security embarrassment and they need to own it and fix it. The administration should be as transparent as they possibly can regarding this perceived breech of security embarrassment.
Optics regarding this are very important.
Sometimes they just don’t get it. From a public relation standpoint it is better to deal with these situations straightforward. If Nixon had just stated before the American public that as president , he took full responsibility for the Watergate situation and then did a whole string of apologies , he would go down as one of the top ten presidents in history. You could apply the same to Clinton.
Hegseth will try to spin and lie with Trump’s support and MAGA support. Just Trump or Hegseth should have gone fully public with a series of mea culpa’s since the only thing Americans enjoy more than punishment is forgiveness.
Trump’s statement today was “We made a mistake, but the mission was a success.” OK, but the mistake still has to be addressed. If my baby-sitter leaves my infant on the subway and he is found unharmed, my reaction isn’t going to be: “Hey, no harm, no foul!” I’m finding a new babysitter.
This is more of an addendum to a comment I made on the earlier post.
I have since learned that Signal is an approved app for government officials because it has end to end encryption. This is apparently not new. I have also learned how Goldberg remained on the line without the mistake being caught. It would seem to me that initials to id people is not the best method.
What’s in the public interest is that they were running a war plan on a messaging app, and didn’t even know who was invited into the conversation,” Goldberg said.
He signed in not as Jeffry Goldberg but as JG which are the same initials as Trump’s trade rep for the middle east Jaimeson Greer.
I found parts of the transcript that Newsweek published but not the TEAM UPDATE that seems to be the information that is supposedly classified and by Goldberg’s own admission he did not publish any of this information because of security concerns. Goldberg’s statements were corroborated by Kaitlen Collins, Editor in Chief at the Atlantic. I have no reason to trust Kaitlin Collins at the Atlantic given the magazine’s known bias and Goldberg’s past history on othe Trump “hoaxes. When you cannot trust any media your only choice is to evaluate the evidence yourself and I cannot find the evidence that Hegseth gave operational plans. I am no saying it does not exists I am saying I have not found it yet.
Because of Goldberg’s history of making unsubstantiated claims about Trump, it is hard to simply take him at his word without actually seeing the screenshots he provided for other discussions; especially now when targets and timing have already been reported on because the attack took place on March 15 and the claims must demonstrate contemporaneous evidence.
According to Goldberg, Hegseth posted a “TEAM UPDATE” which included “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”
I understand that these text chats span several days which means that Goldberg took no steps to correct the error. This shows that the ends justify the means for Goldberg.
Someone help me understand why operational secrecy is paramount 2 weeks after the after the attack so why can he not publish the evidence contained within the TEAM UPDATE.
Here is a question that no one is asking. If Waltz’s aide inadvertently put Goldberg’s name on the Houthi small group distribution list, why did that aide have Goldberg’s contact info in the first place given that Waltz had virtually no reason to have it because he did not know Goldberg personally or in a professional capacity and how did he know to sign in as JG instead of his full name? Is that aide behaving like Vindman? Enquiring minds want to know.
Before I jump on the get Hegseth bandwagon I am going to pull a Boesbert and demand that he get a full hearing on the matter before I send him to the pillory.
I understand that these text chats span several days which means that Goldberg took no steps to correct the error. This shows that the ends justify the means for Goldberg.
There is no competent journalist who ever lived, past of present, who wouldn’t take full advantage of being mistakenly included in such a discussion. He didn’t steal documents or rely on an illegal leak. They gave him access. 100% justified. Even legal ethics is coming around to the “You snooze, you lose” principle again when attorneys reveal client confidences by botching technology.
That is a fair statement. The question arises would Goldberg done anything differently had it been under Biden?
Oh, probably, since he is indeed a hyper-partisan sleaze. But that’s irrelevant regarding the facts of the botch and proper accountability.
Upon further consideration of the response below . . .
“who wouldn’t take full advantage of being mistakenly included in such a discussion. He didn’t steal documents or rely on an illegal leak.”
How do we know this was an accidental inclusion and not a purposeful inclusion by a staffer seeking to undermine Waltz. It’s not like the career government employees at the NSC or elsewhere are above sabotaging Trump and his appointees.
If the inclusion was intentional by a staffer seeking to embarrass the Trump administration then it is an illegal leak and perhaps even conspiracy to disclose state secrets.
I cannot fathom why a junior staffer at the NSC has Goldberg in his or her address book except to leak information.
“Someone help me understand why operational secrecy is paramount 2 weeks after the after the attack so why can he not publish the evidence contained within the TEAM UPDATE.”
I can address this part, at least. Sometimes, the existence of the information itself is a key that unlocks how it was collected. If the US Gov wants to preserve that method of collection and/or protect the identities of people acting as informants, the information itself still has to remain classified.
An example: Say you’re a bad guy and you hear a recording of a telephone conversation you had recently. That’d be a pretty good indicator that the police have wiretapped your phone. If you knew that, you’d change the way you use your phone, so the police don’t want you to know that you’re under surveillance. So they’ll keep the recording a secret at least until there’s no need to keep it so (i.e. You’ve been arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced).
–Dwayne
Dwayne I know you are in this space so I defer to your judgement. I was interested in knowing why the Hegseth comments on targets and time were not part of the screen shots. Given that the targets and times could be verified without giving away sources and methods after the fact, the lack of the screen shot noting them in advance by Hegseth requires that we take on faith he actually identified them.
I am not saying Hegseth did not I just have some doubt when that claimed message is not forthcoming as the other more innocuous ones were.
I understand that these text chats span several days which means that Goldberg took no steps to correct the error. This shows that the ends justify the means for Goldberg.
Not sure how Signal notifications work. Not on team Goldberg either. I have pretty tight controls on my phone notifications; including who/what can notify me and when. I’ve logged into apps and found messages that were left for me weeks and months prior. I had no clue they were there.
That is to say who knows if Goldberg was following along or came upon the conversation after logging in not knowing he was added.
Also, Goldberg claims he and Waltz have never met (?) How do his digits end up in that group chat?
Is this the first (known) Alexander Vindman style sabotage incident in the current Trump administration? Could a staff person, intent on torpedoing the current Trump administration, added Goldberg to the call, effectively creating a hell of a controversy for the administration to deal with? Frankly, I’ve been surprised we haven’t had leaks of this nature in the last two months along the lines of the steady stream of insiders sliming Trump as we did in his first term. This could very well be a setup.
The AUC pounces: Trump’s Team Calls Europe ‘Pathetic’ in Leaked Signal Group Chat Messages – The New York Times Setup?
Did this conversation and the inclusion of Goldberg happen ten days ago? Enough time to mount a coordinated fusillade of stories? Was this an inside job?
Could a staff person, intent on torpedoing the current Trump administration, added Goldberg to the call,
It does beg the question how no one in that chat recognized that there was an extra set of initials belonging to someone not participating in the conversation. How did they not notice? I’ve been in enough group chats to flat out ask “hey, who is *insert unrecognized phone number* ?”
The latest update is that the full transcript of the chat has allegedly been released. The assertion is that there was no classified data discussed. Anyone reading over the text can reach their own conclusions of whether or not the announcement of F-18s being launched and drone strikes starting is best shared in this Signal chat, but if this is the full transcript, it is far from revealing any details of how intelligence was gathered, or who the actual strike targeted, and so on.
Over at Ann Althouse’s blog, she presents a transcript of an interview with Goldberg, and she noted that it was very telling that he backed away from saying there was classified material in the chat discussion.
So to recap: We have the fact that Signal is an approved communication tool. It came pre-installed on computers and phones. Officials were instructed on the use of Signal. Signal, an open-source (and thus vetted by millions) communication app, has end-to-end encryption, and in general, the only way to get into a chat group is to be invited. White House Counsel gave the green light to use Signal, so maybe that dodges any issues with the Federal Records Act. A chat group was established to discuss an upcoming strike on the Houthis in Yemen. Goldberg was invited, apparently by an aide to Michael Waltz. The go-no-go was discussed, and when the go-ahead was given, later announcements of F-18s scrambling and drone strikes launched were posted to the thread. Goldberg said these were classified war plans in his article, refusing to reveal what he heard because he respected our laws and our soldiers. Only now, if the revealed transcript is accurate, his claims are being revealed as overblown if not outright lies, and he is rapidly backing away from his initial claims. Europe has learned through unofficial channels that the US is not happy with Europe and thinks the Europeans are pathetic for their complete reliance on the US to bail them out.
The main questions yet to be answered are: Was Goldberg’s inclusion an accident or deliberate? Was the transcript that was released the full transcript? What will the administration do to ensure accountability?
As this has evolved, I’m no longer perturbed by the delay in the conservative media over the story. They are now all over talking about the story, and if it took a day, it seems that they were trying to make sure they had as many pertinent details as they could. Initial dismissiveness of the story as a “nothingburger” was not prudent, and the fact that Goldberg’s claims are turning out to be weak sauce does not excuse not taking the story seriously. Still, I would say that the subsequent reporting by the conservative media takes their grade from a F to a C.
1) The assertion that the discussion wasn’t classified and intended to be secret is insulting and absurd
2) You can’t let the conservative media off the hook that easily. They at least have the obligation to report the known facts as soon as they become available. That’s when “developing” becomes SOP.
It’s increasingly apparent that the “known facts” were mostly hyperbolized speculation by an activist reporter behind a pay wall however.
So refraining from reporting anything other than “This guy at the Atlantic thinks he found something” is actually the ethical and responsible thing to do.
It’s also now increasingly apparent that the most likely unethical event in this whole thing is the single incompetence (or intentional act) of allowing the journalist into the chat group.
That act alone is certainly worthy of condemnation and should raise concerns about the efficacy of using Signal for these kinds of discussions.
But it doesn’t look like this “train wreck” will include much more than that other than the unethical engagement in sensational journalism to drive subscriptions to the Atlantic.
Seriously? How about “a discussion on a commercial chat platform among high level government officials including the VP, the Sec. of Defense and the Sec. of State accidentally included a journalist for reasons yet unknown.” That’s news.
Didn’t Chris Marschner discover Signal had been approved for use for quite a time now?
Again- looks like the problem here is the inclusion of the journalist. Which I have agreed is incompetent.
So far that seems to be the ethical lapse.
I’ve also indicated that this should raise concerns over the approval of signal as a useful app unless further modifications are used similar to that which helps secure texts, emails, phone calls, etc on government phones.
Yes. Signal was approved for use under the Biden administration. (Take that with a grain of salt!) It comes pre-installed on government-issued phones and computers. It has been vetted through White House counsel. Government employees receive training on using Signal. The questions we can ask are whether this use of Signal that has been exposed to the world at large falls under the acceptable use category, or if the discussion violated training, counsel advice, etc.
So more and more ethical reporting of the story should be limited to the inclusion of the reporter in the conversation and the appropriateness of Signal as an approved platform here on out.
Ethical reporting of the story is decreasingly about the claim that signal was used for this particular conversation.
It certainly doesn’t make sense to claim double standard by someone who condemned Clinton’s use of unauthorized methods for that same person to not condemn use of Signal… an approved method.
Should also be increasingly noted that the sensationalism of the journalist in question seems less about raising awareness of irresponsible vetting of chat group members and more about driving subscriptions.
Jack,
What’s your take on the transcript I linked to? Do you think it really is, as claimed, the full thread? I would assume that Goldberg could raise a ruckus if it is not. And is any of the information we see in what was released actual data that should be classified? Secret, I’ll grant, but the idea of the Signal app was for private communication.
And I’ll give them a C because my F grade lies in deliberately hiding the story the way the left-leaning media buried stories for years. Being late the the party means you won’t get any higher than a C, and the spin certainly makes this a low C. But they are not hiding the story and are reporting the facts, albeit amidst all the spin.
In my opinion, I hate “developing” snippets. I’d rather have a fully developed story that I spend my time on, than wasting time on “We don’t anything, but stay tuned!” But that is a personal preference, and not the way news works these days. As you said, SOP.
Europe has learned through unofficial channels that the US is not happy with Europe and thinks the Europeans are pathetic for their complete reliance on the US to bail them out.
Since Trump has sung this song since 2016, I’m not sure this is breaking nor shirt-rending news.