> Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: “As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release.”
Posting the statement with all of the typos is a nice little touch.
You can complain all you want about the media, but the White House (ostensibly) pays a team of people to deal with the media full time and it doesn't seem like they do a better job communicating for themselves.
Really enjoying this series of drops. This really is good TV.
No, Really, I'm thoroughly entertained and really invested in this story. I eagerly await the name-reveal of that CIA operative!
It's also hilarious how they seemingly understand rhe president is an absolute babbling buffoon (note how they discussed the inconsistency in his messaging), but are still catering to all his needs. it's a rare moment from behind the scenes showing how morally bankrupt that faction is.
These guys really hate Europeans but ate still forced to do theor boss' bidding like some sort of cliche mafia family.
At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, “TEAM UPDATE:”
The text beneath this began, “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Centcom, or Central Command, is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East. The Hegseth text continues:
“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
Let us pause here for a moment to underscore a point. This Signal message shows that the U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg’s cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi “Target Terrorist,” was expected to be killed by these American aircraft.
The Hegseth text then continued:
“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
“1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”
“1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”
“MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”
“We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security.
“Godspeed to our Warriors.”
At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent the following text, containing real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa: “VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.” Waltz was referring here to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command; and the intelligence community, or IC. The reference to “multiple positive ID” suggests that U.S. intelligence had ascertained the identities of the Houthi target, or targets, using either human or technical assets.
Statement from Goldberg's original article about what he omitted:
> 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.
> two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi “Target Terrorist,” was expected to be killed by these American aircraft
Which, by the way, is sufficient time and targeting information to down a F-18.
Tulsi Gabbard is a liar and needs to be removed from all positions and tried for perjury. How you can see that and then say, under oath, "nah, no weapon systems were discussed"?
> The Trump administration is arguing that the military information contained in these texts was not classified—as it typically would be—although the president has not explained how he reached this conclusion.
It's been a minute since the classified-documents case was surreptitiously scuttled by the <checks notes> Honorable Judge Aileen Cannon — so The Atlantic must have forgotten that Trump can change the law by thinking about it, and that he did change the law by thinking that he could declassify documents by thinking that they are declassified, even later in time than the point at which that later thinking about the declassification actually had the effect of declassifying them.
I thought I had heard that there were some details on CIA operatives, such as names that were mentioned in the chat as well. Is it possible there is more that Goldberg is still sitting on?
> A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was “completely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted.
> A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was “completely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted.
they will probably trickle this info out, the administration said that there was no classified information in the chats, so the atlantic are now free to publish these latest messages. The next step is for the administration to claim that there was nothing "operationally sensitive" in the messages, which will free the atlantic to release the next batch that contradicts that claim. Repeat.
One thing I haven't seen talked about is that given the many similar events, why is nobody clamoring to improve government systems so that they are actually used by the people who won't actually go to prison for not using them?
Because optimizing for security is sometimes specifically decreasing convenience.
In the original (first) article some of those considerations are discussed.
Based on the (changing) relative timestamps in the published screenshots, it looks like Goldberg was taking screenshots throughout the days he was privy to the chat. The published images also appear to be the actual screenshots (e.g. as opposed to a reproduction of them, using CSS etc. to mimic Signal's design).
I had thought that once Goldberg realized what he was into, that he and The Atlantic would've taken some steps to mitigate the risk of the government seizing his phone. Like using another camera to take photos of his phone displaying the group chat's contents (and then saving those jpegs on several USB drives via an air-gapped computer). Maybe they did do that, but realized they don't need to publish those stowed-away jpegs after Trump asserted that nothing classified was in that group chat.
That’s how I would do it too recording with another phone/camera everything, the chat history, all members and open their contact information and yours, record how it’s your phone and you enter into the signal app.
Backup your phone, maybe delete some things and be ready that you have to hand it in.
> Trump asserted that nothing classified was in that group chat
It's kind of a scary "what if" had the administration denied the legitimacy of the thread from the start. This could have been drawn out into months of questionable digital forensics. Maybe they were worried another one of the unknown numbers in the thread would have come forward?
"Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."
> 1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)
Was certainly supposed to be classified, lest "target terrorist" goes "oh fuck, get out of the house" in those two hours.
> Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: “As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release.”
Posting the statement with all of the typos is a nice little touch.
You can complain all you want about the media, but the White House (ostensibly) pays a team of people to deal with the media full time and it doesn't seem like they do a better job communicating for themselves.
She's also tweeting "This entire story was another hoax" this morning.
https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1904875629612331123
So they are not going to even address that someone in the group apparently had Goldberg's personal contact information saved to their phone?
8 replies →
That tweet:
>The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT “war plans.”
The leak:
>...1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
>1415: Strike Drones on Target...
Seems kind of war plan like to me.
Just for the history records:
https://youtube.com/shorts/3vVIZgAQCR4
https://youtube.com/shorts/L9qHKsDWkSk
Really enjoying this series of drops. This really is good TV.
No, Really, I'm thoroughly entertained and really invested in this story. I eagerly await the name-reveal of that CIA operative!
It's also hilarious how they seemingly understand rhe president is an absolute babbling buffoon (note how they discussed the inconsistency in his messaging), but are still catering to all his needs. it's a rare moment from behind the scenes showing how morally bankrupt that faction is.
These guys really hate Europeans but ate still forced to do theor boss' bidding like some sort of cliche mafia family.
At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, “TEAM UPDATE:”
The text beneath this began, “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Centcom, or Central Command, is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East. The Hegseth text continues:
“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)” “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
Let us pause here for a moment to underscore a point. This Signal message shows that the U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg’s cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi “Target Terrorist,” was expected to be killed by these American aircraft.
The Hegseth text then continued:
“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)” “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)” “1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.” “MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)” “We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security. “Godspeed to our Warriors.”
At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent the following text, containing real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa: “VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.” Waltz was referring here to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command; and the intelligence community, or IC. The reference to “multiple positive ID” suggests that U.S. intelligence had ascertained the identities of the Houthi target, or targets, using either human or technical assets.
Statement from Goldberg's original article about what he omitted:
> 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.
He did not lie or exaggerate.
> two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi “Target Terrorist,” was expected to be killed by these American aircraft
Which, by the way, is sufficient time and targeting information to down a F-18.
Or leisurely pack up his stuff and move away from "his known location".
Tulsi Gabbard is a liar and needs to be removed from all positions and tried for perjury. How you can see that and then say, under oath, "nah, no weapon systems were discussed"?
We also learned during that hearing, she recently retweeted something from a Russia Today reporter.
https://bsky.app/profile/secretsandlaws.bsky.social/post/3ll...
On the left: Hegseth's message.
On the right: the applicable CENTCOM classification guide provisions.
This is all very plainly classified at the SECRET level.
They all lied. They should all lose their jobs.
Bio includes: Former CIA attorney
Losing their jobs would be the least.
The irony of "We are currently clean on OPSEC" is pretty heavy...
I wonder what his BAC was at the time.
Likely also pretty heavy.
https://archive.is/4vt0B
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/here-are-the-attack-pla...
> The Trump administration is arguing that the military information contained in these texts was not classified—as it typically would be—although the president has not explained how he reached this conclusion.
It's been a minute since the classified-documents case was surreptitiously scuttled by the <checks notes> Honorable Judge Aileen Cannon — so The Atlantic must have forgotten that Trump can change the law by thinking about it, and that he did change the law by thinking that he could declassify documents by thinking that they are declassified, even later in time than the point at which that later thinking about the declassification actually had the effect of declassifying them.
We have concepts of a justice system.
Trump said he wasn’t part of the group, so unless he declassified it before it was classified when they shared it.
Time travel non of the president‘s powers
[1977] Nixon: Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/...
1 reply →
Precisely.
I thought I had heard that there were some details on CIA operatives, such as names that were mentioned in the chat as well. Is it possible there is more that Goldberg is still sitting on?
> A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was “completely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted.
> A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was “completely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted.
they will probably trickle this info out, the administration said that there was no classified information in the chats, so the atlantic are now free to publish these latest messages. The next step is for the administration to claim that there was nothing "operationally sensitive" in the messages, which will free the atlantic to release the next batch that contradicts that claim. Repeat.
One thing I haven't seen talked about is that given the many similar events, why is nobody clamoring to improve government systems so that they are actually used by the people who won't actually go to prison for not using them?
Because optimizing for security is sometimes specifically decreasing convenience. In the original (first) article some of those considerations are discussed.
Based on the (changing) relative timestamps in the published screenshots, it looks like Goldberg was taking screenshots throughout the days he was privy to the chat. The published images also appear to be the actual screenshots (e.g. as opposed to a reproduction of them, using CSS etc. to mimic Signal's design).
I had thought that once Goldberg realized what he was into, that he and The Atlantic would've taken some steps to mitigate the risk of the government seizing his phone. Like using another camera to take photos of his phone displaying the group chat's contents (and then saving those jpegs on several USB drives via an air-gapped computer). Maybe they did do that, but realized they don't need to publish those stowed-away jpegs after Trump asserted that nothing classified was in that group chat.
That’s how I would do it too recording with another phone/camera everything, the chat history, all members and open their contact information and yours, record how it’s your phone and you enter into the signal app. Backup your phone, maybe delete some things and be ready that you have to hand it in.
> Trump asserted that nothing classified was in that group chat
It's kind of a scary "what if" had the administration denied the legitimacy of the thread from the start. This could have been drawn out into months of questionable digital forensics. Maybe they were worried another one of the unknown numbers in the thread would have come forward?
The clowns in charge have stated that nothing classified was discussed in the chat, so raging that revealing this is prosecutable is utterly risible.
From Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism:
"Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."
And this:
> 1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)
Was certainly supposed to be classified, lest "target terrorist" goes "oh fuck, get out of the house" in those two hours.
Get out of the house? How about "get the countermeasures out"?
1 reply →
Hypocrisy is a feature, it makes clear than they are above and you are below.
This is very perceptive. They cannot fail, only be failed.
Who would do the prosecuting? The DoJ? Who would they prosecute? Hegseth? Walz for adding Goldberg to the chat?
Could the DoJ behave sufficiently separately from the office of the President to conduct a proper prosecution?
Risible, but the attacks will be against The Atlantic and anyone asking similarly "un american" questions against The Administration.
Expect some investigations into the outlet and their staff.
The administration still needs the support of the people. Things like this and the Putin appeasement will reduce that.
The rising costs do the rest
1 reply →
"Who are you with 4ndrewl ?"
I had Austria on top of the list of countries with sloppy security around secrets, not anymore...
https://archive.md/zYq8M
[dead]