Pete Hegseth denies texting war plans to journalist
Pete Hegseth denies texting war plans to journalist
On Monday, The Atlantic reported that Hegseth and Trump officials used Signal to relay plans for US military strikes in Yemen.
Summary
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denied allegations that he texted classified war plans to a Signal group chat that mistakenly included The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.
The National Security Council confirmed the chat’s authenticity but called the inclusion of Goldberg an inadvertent mistake.
Lawmakers from both parties demanded investigations, with former CIA Director Leon Panetta warning of potential espionage violations.
Hegseth dismissed Goldberg as a "deceitful" journalist. Trump denied knowledge of the incident.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm not usually an alarmist, but this one has the hair on the back of my neck up...
This feels like a false flag to target journalists spreading "misinformation."
I was reading the Atlantic article thinking 'What a bunch of dumb fucks." Until I read this part:
The Hegseth message goes on to state, “Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive
Hard stop right there. "This is intentional."
Then Tulsi comes out talking about "aggressively pursuing" journalists., and now P Heggs is just gonna play dumb?
Smells pretty bad, imo.
(False flag may not be the right term here, but I hope my point is still clear enough)
I think it was a deliberate leak. A mole from inside the administration is trying to warn us of Trump’s actions before he does them.
>Signal is most secure with these new usernames and group chat links, sir, let me arrange this for the whole small group from your account
Ya but… stupidity… hmmm 🤷♂️
If someone left their phone unlocked, that’d make sense. (I assume a serious wartime messaging app would make it very difficult to just leave unlocked like that… could be doing lots of biometrics too)
and we look indecisive
Ugh. I didn’t want to agree with you but this little flex for the faithful seals it.
And yet the information was valid and confirmed? The bombs dropped right when Signal User "Pete Hegseth" said they would; NSC confirmed this was a genuine thread. It seems too elaborate to be a false flag event.
I'm not saying it was bad info. And adding a journalist to a "private" signal chat that was probably going to happen either way isn't exactly elaborate.
International warfare seems pretty elaborate to me, or am I misunderstanding your point?
I think so...
The attack wasn't the "false flag" (I think I misused that term), that was going to happen anyway. I think adding a journalist to their little group chat about it was.
They knew it would come out, and now they have the pretext to start going more aggresively after journalists spreading "deceitful" information.
I'm not saying I'm right, it just stinks.
But the information wasn't deceitful, it was verifiably true. The people this looks bad for is those involved in the group chat, save the journalist. It looks especially bad for Mike Waltz, the user who added the journalist to the chat. I suppose i just don't see how the Trumpists could benefit from this leaking the way it has.
I hope you're right