Hacker News Reader

Comment by bediger4000 | Hacker News Reader

> There was no classified data transacted

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.

View on HN

A surprise attack in a hostile country, especially one using manned aircraft, is 100% classified, 100% of the time, for plainly evident reasons. Unless they discount that Goldberg knew about this attack in advance, which they have not done, they absolutely broached classified information.

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.

The attack was not a surprise. The US has been bombing Yemen endlessly, but it fell of the news cycle when this failed to have much of an impact on their blockade of the Red Sea, which was paused only thanks to the cease fire with Gaza/Israel.

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!

That is not true. Today at the hearing, the CIA director said there was no classified material. He was questioned if the event was a "huge mistake", and answered "No."

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 was questioned if the event was a "huge mistake", and answered "No."

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.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478553

CIA director explained that nothing could have been classified because classification authority rests with the secretaries involved themselves. In the journalists opinion, war plans should be classified. Fortunately, we dont rely on Journalists to make that determination.

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'.

>The information Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth disclosed in the Signal chat of top Trump national security officials was highly classified at the time he wrote it, especially because the operation had not even started yet, according to a US defense official familiar with the operation and another source who was briefed on it afterward.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/26/politics/the-atlantic-publish...

And if we needed more, here's Rubio calling it a "big mistake".

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/26/us/politics/rubio-signal-...

>At 11:44 a.m., the account labeled “Pete Hegseth” posted in Signal a “TEAM UPDATE.” I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. 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.

...

>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?

> That is almost certainly false. Goldberg didn't show us any

So your proof is no proof was provided? Do you call this "proof by omission"?

So you want Goldberg to release the classified information? The journalist is the only one who knew what he was doing.

He never said he had classified information. He said he witheld sensitive information which is related to an ongoing investigation (and not related to Houthi airstrikes).

>He said he witheld [sic] sensitive information...

You said, two minutes ago, that he published the messages[1]. I don't know that you're arguing in good faith here.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478529

The hearing today said the messages are not classified, and wouldnt be, given it is a cabinet meeting convo. They said what was withheld by the journalist was sensative information. Sensative is not Classified, Classified is not Sensative. The Sensative material withheld is about an unrelated matter, suggested to be an investigation, supposedly. Im not sure what faith has to do with it. The media is saying there are classified leaks, but the public leaks arent classified or sensitive. The journalist can publish facts showing classified or sensative information if they want to, but so far the only facts in evidence are no classification occurred.

>The journalist can publish facts showing classified or sensative information if they want to

now done, enjoy the read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com