The story will grow legs. Hegseth and Waltz before the Yemen strike against Houti individuals and other targets used a public channel to discuss a planned strike and inadvertently included the Atlantic's editor in the chat.
"I know nothing about it. I am hearing about it for the first time." That was Trump's response to a press conference question. Trump might need to have a discussion with the group of high administration officials who fucked-up if honestly hearing of the fuck-up for the first time was via a press conference question.
Whatever Trump knew and when did he know it, multiple reports exist on the Internet. It is all over multiple sites and with extensive video reporting.
The original Atlantic article is behind a subscription wall, but some readers might have access. (Crabgrass, from another site's commentator's gift access has full access, but that gift access was granted in a context for that site's community, not generally.)
Crabgrass will, before ending, quote mimimally from the Atlantic item, but for now, for context, two video posts, first, this twelve minute video. It includes a Hegseth reaction which will be a part of the legs growing. All readers are urged to view it.
The
Signal chat group, I concluded, was almost certainly real. Having come
to this realization, one that seemed nearly impossible only hours
before, I removed myself from the Signal group, understanding that this
would trigger an automatic notification to the group’s creator, “Michael
Waltz,” that I had left. No one in the chat had seemed to notice that I
was there. And I received no subsequent questions about why I left—or,
more to the point, who I was.
Earlier
today, I emailed Waltz and sent him a message on his Signal account. I
also wrote to Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, and other
officials. In an email, I outlined some of my questions: Is the “Houthi
PC small group” a genuine Signal thread? Did they know that I was
included in this group? Was I (on the off chance) included on purpose?
If not, who did they think I was? Did anyone realize who I was when I
was added, or when I removed myself from the group? Do senior
Trump-administration officials use Signal regularly for sensitive
discussions? Do the officials believe that the use of such a channel
could endanger American personnel?
Brian
Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded two
hours later, confirming the veracity of the Signal group.
Those questions are important enough to set out, with surrounding context. There is no indication, yet that Crabgrass knows of, any answers.
Newsweek today reported editor Goldberg is in discussions about public and or other more limited possible disclosure of the full text of all of the chat sequences before he removed himself from the chat group.
If operational detail which might indicate future military deployment details where personnel are in danger are details of the chat thread, there is cause to be cautious among those to whom troop safety matters.
Hegseth is on the record stressing that personnel risk and threat are major things he views as important things to manage as part of the job. From his own former infantry man's perspective in the field, that should matter to his doing the job.
John Bolton weighs in, followed by a panel discussion, here.
All for now. It will grow legs. Actually, it already has.
____________UPDATE____________
Since guessing is sometimes helpful, Crabgrass speculates the target individual for inclusion in the chat was, clearly not Jeffry Goldberg, but rather Spaceforce General MICHAEL A. GUETLEIN, a senior official grounded in remote sensing sigint.
If you attack any site, you want impact assessment, which means a former Deputy Director and Air Force Element Commander, National Reconnaissance Office, Chantilly, Va, would fit into the general framework apparently under chat - bomb them and see what happens.
Perhaps that general, from being experienced, avoided any Signal use whatsoever, preferring secure spook channels instead.
As any competent spook might.
__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
A likely better guess at the JG intended to be a part of an EmptyWheel chat:
As the trade rep, he'd be expected in the part of the chat touching getting Egypt and Europe to pay for cleaning "their" trade route; from The Atlantic item:
The
account identified as “JD Vance” addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete
Hegseth: “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing
Europe out again.” (The administration has argued that America’s
European allies benefit economically from the U.S. Navy’s protection of
international shipping lanes.)
The
user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: “VP: I fully
share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is
correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger)
who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel
like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen
shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours
of decision space.”
At
this point, the previously silent “S M” joined the conversation. “As I
heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear
to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out
how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate,
then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at
great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in
return.”
screenshot from Goldberg's Atlantic item
That bit of Eurobashing caught the attention of Guardian whose agent in Washington wrote it up, jumping all over it with spurs on.
