Comment by legitster

8 months ago

> 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.

13 comments

legitster

Reply
ceejayoz  8 months ago

She's also tweeting "This entire story was another hoax" this morning.

https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1904875629612331123

  • legitster  8 months ago

    So they are not going to even address that someone in the group apparently had Goldberg's personal contact information saved to their phone?

    • danso  8 months ago

      I haven't used Signal for group chats, but given that the published screenshot [0] says "Michael Waltz added you to the group", does that not mean that the adding user (Waltz) has Goldberg in his Signals contacts? Even if it was one of Waltz's aides who handled the phone while adding Goldberg, Goldberg's contact must have existed in Waltz's phone?

      Something that's piqued me (and my ignorance of Signal): It's not clear to me what Goldberg's Signal display name is, i.e. is it "Jeffrey Goldberg" or "JG". And who sets that? Goldberg, or the user who has him in his contacts? I mean if he were simply "JG", and it was Waltz who set that — then the question is not so much why Waltz has a prominent journalist like Goldberg in his contacts, but why does he obfuscate Goldberg as "JG"?

      It's fun to imagine that maybe Waltz has in the past been a secret source of Goldberg's. Goldberg outing the chat like this would seem to undercut that theory, but it's possible that Goldberg judged the situation as so egregious that it was worth burning his source (Waltz). And technically, Waltz wasn't acting as a "source" for this story and thus Goldberg isn't obligated to give him the usual journalistic protections.

      [0] https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/TcCybzsovOAQXiH4pDwlQupn...

      3 replies →

  • tim333  8 months ago

    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.