[flagged]
Have you seen the full conversation yet?
Goldberg is highly respected and has gone on the record to say that it was.
The obvious solution here is that if the Trump administration believe it isn’t classified then they simply need to release the transcript.
And it’s implausible that a chat room with Secretary of State, Defense, VP, National Security Advisor etc discussing the Houthis would not be classified.
That is almost certainly false. Goldberg didn't show us any, to be sure, but he also noted he left out a lot of what went on in the chat.
Of course per Goldberg it was much worse. An active intelligence officer was in the chat group. Specific human targets (this was an assassination of members of Houthi) were detailed, as were specific ordnance and weapons used.
We'll see the story change quickly in coming days. Goldberg will release more information -- they say it is unclassified -- and immediately the story will kneejerk that he is a traitor putting the country in danger, or maybe that Trump waved his magic wand and declassified it in real time, etc. It's going to be hard for the cult to keep up with whatever the shifting talking points are.
I see that they've already embraced the "somehow he hacked into the group!" narrative that Waltz has shifted to this evening after previously admitting to erroneously inviting him to the group. Soon Goldberg will have burgled Waltz' house and nefariously added himself.
Anyhow, after Israel returned to bombing, the Houthis resumed that blockade, and Trump announced plans to continue and escalate such actions and direct another carrier there. Similarly the weapons used are unlikely to have varied - mostly just HARM and TLAMs, perhaps backed by more Hellfires from Predators. And finally the targets are also self evident - Houthi leaders, who we've been regularly targeting throughout this entire thing.
Granted I couldn't tell you the exact time the latest bombs would land, though by cross referencing the time the additional carrier arrived I could have given you a pretty good ballpark!
The journalist published the messages. The messages take almost no time to read and are very short.
See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/live/SNJF-hi4rus?t=7547s
Lots of lies about these leaks.
He then proceeded to, a few sentences later, admit that it was a mistake.
Edit: Regarding your edit, I saw the clip earlier. He absolutely admits it was a mistake after Ossoff asks him. Right here - https://x.com/Acyn/status/1904567023923089696
And if you're gonna lament people lying, at least get your house in order first[1].
>The journalist published the messages.
This is patently false. As of the time of my making this comment, Goldberg has still withheld the messages containing the details of the plan of the attack.
Fortunately, good journalists do not harm air missions. Unfortunately, bad journalism creates political illusions.
The journalist said he withheld sensative information that the senate hearing today emphasized was regarding an ongoing investigation, and not about war plans. If the whole government is lying, hopefully the journalist is good and publishes facts instead of opinions
Edit: in your clip, CIA director says 'they characterized it as a mistake', not 'he'.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/26/politics/the-atlantic-publish...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/26/us/politics/rubio-signal-...
...
>According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time. So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.
Literally guaranteed classified information if even the timeline is accurate: If he knew hours in advance of an upcoming strike, they're busted.
Now maybe Goldberg is just a filthy liar and he's making all of this up. Do you really think that? Do you not think he has receipts?
So your proof is no proof was provided? Do you call this "proof by omission"?
You said, two minutes ago, that he published the messages[1]. I don't know that you're arguing in good faith here.
now done, enjoy the read.
The people in the chat group included Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, various other Trump administration officials and aides and notably Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
As American Oversight lawyers pointed out in their lawsuit Tuesday, Rubio is also the acting archivist of the United States and, as such, “is aware of the violations” that allegedly occurred.
The lawsuit, brought by the watchdog group American Oversight, requests that a federal judge formally declare that Hegseth and other officials on the chat violated their duty to uphold laws around the preservation of official communications.
Those laws are outlined in the Federal Records Act and, according to lawyers for American Oversight, if agency heads refuse to recover or protect their communications, the national archivist should ask the attorney general to step in.
There are four areas of damage here at least:
* Advance knowledge of US bombings and action was conveyed to a journalist (who didn't know if this was 'real' until the bombs he read about were dropped at the date, time, and locations he read about (and redacted from his reporting))
* Records of thes chats are not being preserved as required by US law for archives, transparency, etc.
* Diplomatic damage via raw opinions of allies shared.
* Reputational damage .. the USofA is now seen as having a meritless day drinking political hire as DoD head who is clueless about "OpSec" .. etc.
Time will tell how this buttery Signals chat plays out .. it's certainly given many other countries more fuel to ridicule the USofA, it's hard to believe these clowns are our partners in global "intelligence".