In football, “chipping” is when an offensive player makes brief contact with an onrushing defender. The goal is not to halt them or apply a full-on block but to delay the other player just long enough to slow their scheme and allow the offense to make a play.
We need to remember that media people may claim to be “reporters,” but the fact that they file “stories” is closer to the real truth, which is that events are merely plot devices used to move the preferred narrative (story) along. It’s always been this way, think “Remember the Maine.”
So having gotten that out of the way, let’s deal with the unfolding story regarding how, allegedly, a media type got access to a principal’s call re: military strikes against the Houthis.
My introduction to the story came yesterday when somebody alerted me to a story in Politico. I found it strange that despite their assigning four reporters to the story, Politico was in fact only following up on a story broken by The Atlantic. Also the entire Politico story, nearly 1,000 words, was about reporting the reaction to The Atlantic. All those words, all that manpower, and they added nothing really of value.
That’s another favorite method of reporting, quoting people. In some cases that’s good: you find an expert that might shed some light on the evidence, though usually a reporter knows how to find the right “expert” to give them the quote they need to write the story they have already decided on.
Here, with the Politico piece, there is some verbiage from an expert or two, but most of the piece consists of one-liner emotional reactions from DC swamp creatures. You know that the reactions are emotional and sincere because Politico includes the profanity they used:
“Get the f*ck out,” said one Democratic congressional aide, capturing a general feeling on Capitol Hill that important security protocols had been broken. It’s an “operational security nightmare,” the person said. The aide, and others, were granted anonymity to be candid about a sensitive security issue involving the administration.
Another go-to reaction came from newly elected Senator Gallego from AZ, who Politico helpfully reminds us is a Marine, but otherwise it’s not clear why Mr. Gallego is being asked for his opinion.
Keep in mind as well that Politico went with the story as it was unfolding, so I seriously doubt anybody they quoted really knew what they were talking about outside of hearsay. Emotional intelligence is not part of the DC culture.
However, that was the purpose of the Politico piece — not to get to the bottom of the story by verifying the original Atlantic piece, but rather to make the reaction to the Atlantic piece (whether anyone actually read it or not) the story. There have been plenty of stories where the original premise was either 1) proven later to be false or 2) simply more complicated than the story implied, but by the time such subtleties became known the original false or falsely simple narrative had taken off. See George Floyd.
So, Politico put four reporters on the story, and even leaving aside their refusal to do verification, there are some glaring questions they worked hard to avoid.
First, with the outraged reactions those four reporters gathered, are these informed opinions? What exactly are those DC creatures outraged about? The use of the Signal app or the fact that a journalist got in on a principal’s call? Makes a difference.
Second, the Signal app itself. Regarding Signal, Politico states:
“National security experts questioned why senior Trump administration officials would resort to using Signal, a freely available app developed by a nonprofit, to discuss battle plans”
That sounds scary. Maybe Politico could tell us more about Signal and the issues involved, but once they got that quote and some other verbiage from a lawyer it was too good to check. After all, Signal’s being a “freely available app developed by a non-profit” makes it look like a kludge they randomly chose from the app store. You know where Politico wants to go with this: that using Signal is the equivalent of sending battle plans by AOL 20 years ago.
A few quick calls, or even just a click or two, would help our inquisitive reporters find that Signal is perhaps the most secure encrypted chat application available. The next question would be, was the app cleared for government use? If so, under what circumstances? Is it more secure than that lawyer wailing about not using “high side” government systems? These might be good questions for one of those four reporters to track down, rather than waste their time getting a pull quote from a pin head like Gallego.
But we know why they didn’t do that, right? For the same reason they never quote from the Atlantic article — because facts would just clutter the narrative and dilute the rage of the reaction.
Let’s do something Politico and their four reporters never did, turn to the Atlantic article.
The first thing to note is that the Atlantic isn’t the epitome of integrity it once was. Launching an 8+ year anti-Trump jihad as well as prostituting its reputation for about every lefty cause will do that. In reality the Atlantic is like one of those old Getty mansions. It may still look good from the outside, but inside it has been riddled by termites and taken over by a homeless encampment.
The second thing to note is the by-line, Jeffrey Goldberg. Not only one of the great Russian hoaxers, but this was the same guy who dropped the October Surprise in the 2020 Election that Trump had refused to visit the Aisne-Marne National Cemetery during a trip to Europe because he thought the Americans interred there were “suckers.” The only thing more shocking than the story was how quickly it was debunked by the principals involved, even by people who by then had become Trump’s mortal enemies. Dropping garbage as an October surprise? That’s Goldberg.
So why take him at face value?
The third thing to note is that Goldberg expends a lot of words expressing skepticism over the validity of both the invitation to the group chat and of the chat itself. I find that curious because it’s so unlike modern journalism, let alone a proven crap weasel like Goldberg, to publicly go through such self-doubt over a good source. He wonders if it might be a prank played by hackers and trolls? Or perhaps a foreign intel operation? Goldberg is like a 21st Century version of René Descartes, wondering if what he sees is real or simply a trick played by a demonic 4Chan.
Me thinks Goldberg doth protest too much, because he never addresses the most obvious question for a journalist, which is whether the chat invitation is a deliberate “leak” by someone in government. He mentions that the invitation was generated by a “Michael Waltz” who is the National Security Advisor. The question he never (suspiciously) addresses, or that Politico bothers to mention, is why either Michael Waltz would want an anti-Trump weasel like Goldberg on a call or how Waltz would come across Goldberg’s contact information in such a way that he could be accidentally brought into such a chat. Note that Goldberg was brought in several times to such meetings.
This wasn’t an accidental thumb dial or a wrong number. Somebody deliberately and repeatedly reached out to Goldberg to put him on that chat, somebody wanted him to see what was being said.
Goldberg implies, given the name on the invitation, that it is Waltz. I find that hard to believe, unless Waltz had a strange 4-D chess like plan to play Goldberg like a dupe.
To paraphrase Casablanca, of all the secure Trump administration chats, the worst anti-Trumper Goldberg just happened to walk into mine.
Yeah, right.
So who did it?
The sad thing is, by this time in the morning, nobody really cares and that’s the whole purpose of the exercise as far as the media is concerned.
As for the the Politico and Atlantic pieces, the reactions they generated are the story, No matter how weird and strange it all seems, they exist for one reason: to “chip” the onrushing Trump administration.
There is another take developing on the story. Over at Powerline Scott Johnson links to Park Park MacDougald at the Scroll who provides a partial transcript on the chat and some interesting things about said about the Europeans
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/03/sorry-wrong-number-2.php
I’ve seen it in other places that these unflattering comments were the real reason to get Goldberg on the chat, so that he can play the dupe, leak them, and would give our message to them some oomph. I think that’s too clever by half.
I do think someone wanted very much to get Goldberg on the call and Goldberg’s explanations about his skepticism sounds no more convincing then when my 12-year old tried it. Issues about the effectiveness of Signal or whether it should have been used at all, if a closed government communications system was used there would have been no way to invite Goldberg in.
Occam’s Razor, just plain incompetence? Perhaps. However I doubt Waltz or whoever did the inviting had Goldberg on his contacts list right between “Gilbert” and “Gooberhead” and just accidentally fat-fingered him.multiple times.
First: is there any evidence, at all, that anyone except Goldberg is who they said they were? It appears that somebody had some sort of advance information that an attack was being planned, but that is probably a disturbingly large group. I would have guessed that some sort of attack would happen sooner rather than latter. Is there any specific information that would have narrowed the time beyond “soon” or the attack details more than “bomb the hell out of them”?
Second: A high level group just below the President himself is going to include a random journalist without an even token effort to control disclosure? Did they try for Kamala first, and then Goldberg when she was too smart to fall for it? Was Hillary on the list or maybe Waltz.
Nothing here passes the smell test.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/how-reporter-may-have-been-added-signal-text-chain-national-security-leak-according-wh-official
There is a story over at Fox, a few points:
From the WH Levitt stated that:
“Jeffrey Goldberg is well-known for his sensationalist spin,” Leavitt wrote, before offering three “facts about his latest story.” Leavitt said no “war plans” were discussed, no classified material was sent to the thread and that the White House Counsel’s Office has provided guidance on a number of different platforms for the president’s top officials to communicate “as safely and efficiently as possible.”
So presumably Signal got a thumbs up from the legal guys. The talking point the Lefty hordes are passing around is that the principals were talking war plans using an ordinary app found on your phone. Ummm no. Also the article later confirms that Signal is allowed in multiple agencies, probably with a record keeping requirement. Also you can tell we she’s making her stand – Goldberg is full of crap. He’s a TDS crank no war plans or classified material was shared so what’s he talking about?
That’s smart because neither Goldberg nor his magazine have any credibility.
Second, Fox states that Goldberg’s contact info was probably added to a contact card by a staffer – there were staffers in addition to the principals on the call. The info comes from anonymous WH official. Is this rock solid? Was Goldberg on the actual principals chat?
Third, Trump has no plans to fire Waltz.
That third point is smart because the way to keep one of these “scandals” going is to act like you have done something wrong, throwing someone overboard is the quickest way to do it. The best metaphor for DC scandal is a wildfire, it needs a constant source of fuel otherwise it dies out (or more accurately replaced by something more promising in the scandal dept) and doesn’t make it into the media cycle.
This is a test for the new Trump mode of dealing with the DC Establishment-Media – The “I Don’t Care Margaret” Approach. Don’t apologize and really don’t explain, make a statement and then go on – starve it of oxygen. The job is not to win a public debate, because these are not debates but info ops so if Leon “51 Names” Panetta, congressional critters, and other swamp creatures want to have their say let them but they better get a good night’s sleep while they can because DOGE works 24/7 and you never know what they will dig up next
The biggest vulnerability for the Republicans is if they break ranks – say somebody in the House or Senate – or if new, game-changing revelations come forth that make Leavitt and previous statements look dishonest. The good news is that this is not 8 years ago, Trump has loyalists in his administration and he is the undisputed leader of the party
The key is to stop the fire from accessing new fuel until the next Trump offensive hits the news cycle which will then flatfoot the Left again.
One part of the story that’s interesting is that Goldberg was apparently on MSNBC this morning dishing on what was in the chat stating:
“Goldberg appeared on MSNBC on Tuesday morning to discuss the contents of the text chain. The reporter said Vice President JD Vance “asserted his disagreement” with Trump in front of other Cabinet members believed to be on the text chain and “articulated a view that the president didn’t understand the consequences or stakes.”
“I think it’s notable that the vice president of the United States is telling members of the Cabinet that I don’t think the president understands,” Goldberg said. “I just think it’s noteworthy, just my journalistic perspective, that the vice president is, is being so, so blunt about that. But it’s a very it’s a substantive policy disagreement on some levels.”
So Goldberg is an inside player and he knows the rules. He’s got the spotlight for the moment and he either keeps the fire going and maybe makes himself the hero for the next 4 years or he just goes back to running a has-been mag kept alive on a dead man’s (Steve Jobs) money. So he’s going to use it to sow dissension within the Administration, that the new MAGA golden boy JD is dissing the bus on some level. He’s all in.
Sit back and watch what goes on and learn from this. This is not only a classic DC game played by experienced swamp creatures but we may see an inflection point of either the Democrats use this to climb out of their torpor or (more likely) they fall into Mt. Doom.
some people don’t get the clue
https://twitchy.com/samj/2025/03/25/katie-pavlich-rashida-tlaib-n2410424
We all understand that the EuroScum are free-riders who should not be on the US’s Christmas card list — and it is good to keep getting that message out. The more interesting question in this case is what is the US objective in bombing the Houthis?
Remember the Houthis neighbors the Saudis. They have a big well-armed military, bottomless funding, a border with Yemen, no language or cultural communications difficulties, and good reason to fear the Houthis. Yet the Saudis fought an all-out war with the Houthis for years and got nowhere. So what can the US hope to achieve by dropping a few bombs? Here are some possibilities:
1. Egypt is suffering economically from reduced traffic through the Suez Canal because of Houthi actions in the Red Sea, and the US is trying to keep the Egyptian government afloat to avoid even more disruption in the Middle East.
2. The US is “sending a message” — albeit not a very clear message — to Iran, which sponsors the Houthis.
3. The US Administration is creating distractions to keep the domestic opposition off balance while they try to resolve existing issues in the Ukraine and Gaza.
4. Elements of the US military are pursuing their own agenda and are not fully under control by the civilian administration.
Finding out what is behind the bombing is much more important than some DC Swamp journalist’s “gotcha”.
they do seem to reprising what happened in Yemen in 2017, there was a raid to go after an Al Queda leader in a small village, it failed to get the main target, one seal was killed, another casualty was one of the Awlaki clan, the press made a big deal about it, many fo the deep staters implicated in the Russia hoax tried to blow it up, information recovered from the raid helped target the leader eventually in 2020,
A couple of things:
The operations against the Houthis are a bit different than the Saudis and others which was regime-change. Here it is a bit limited. The Houthis have been having the time of their lives for the past 18 months being pirates in seizing shipping, shutting down one of the biggest shipping channels in the world, and taking pot shots at the US Navy. It looks like we are doing more than just blowing up goatherds but have real-time, perhaps even on-ground intelligence given reports that we have killed several Houthi leaders.
This is what we have a navy for, going back to Jefferson and Barbary pirates and the the goal is fairly limited so achievable. My concern is that the objectives are achievable and a clear end-objective, I would imagine the message is being delivered mostly to the Iranians in terms of resupply and ships in Red Sea providing targeting info. The movement of B-2s to Diego Garcia I believe falls into the category
I would imagine we are going to see here in the next 24-48 where the Signal controversy is going to go. The WH has downplayed this seeking to contain it, pointing that Signal was used by the Biden people and nothing secret was put on the chat. Goldberg says otherwise. So we’ve reached an inflection point. It either starts to fade or it flames anew
This is the first real “crisis” that I see of the Trump admin where they are getting blindsided by an foreseen issue – the DOGE stuff with the courts I believe was anticipated. We are going to see.
Personally in the post-2017, no holds bar DC, I would replicate the Media Matters approach of a friendly NGO to go after Trump’s critics on this issue. Legal? Yes. Ethical, not so much. Effective, yes. Nothing in life is free – we’ll call it the “Houthi Memorandum”, if you take slimey pot shots of opportunity expect a massive response. I would imagine there is dirt on alot of these characters who are playing for the camera have gotten sloppy over the years. Game theory says the best way to get a side to change behavior and play nice is to give them a taste of their own medicine They already have dug up stuff on Warner.
I still want to know how Goldberg scored an invite, that is if really was on the call.
One element to watch is that if Goldberg was on the call, which it seems he was, can we trust his verification that there was secret war plans and other confidential info discussed. I don;t know enough about Signal to know how much of it can be verified or faked, but int he theoretical universe it is still possible that Goldberg was on the call but is providing fake info.
As far as retaliation in the future, keep in mind Elon has promised to sue attacks on him.That doesn’t apply here but it does enforce some basic courtesy
Mike, one of the side issues in this whole brouhaha is -somebody- seems to have sunk the Iranian spotter ship that was parked in the south end of the Red Sea. The one that was feeding the Houthi’s targeting info. Or so I hear.
Signal is secure for some value of secure in that the messages are encrypted on the sender’s device and decrypted by the recipient if they are part of the “group”. The difference with SMS, email etc. is that these messages aren’t sitting on a server somewhere in clear text to be hacked. I wasn’t able to find if they are stored on the individual devices encrypted or not. If not, even if deleted, they will remain recoverable for some length of time by anyone with access and time. Just displaying them in plain text will leave some traces that might be persistent. Then there’s the chance that one of those devices has been hacked already and is sending screen shots somewhere.
Then there is the perennial problem of misdirected messages. What happens when somebody forwards the plans for attacking Iran to their school car pool group by mistake? Nobody bothered to check just who, exactly was in this group? They just copied and pasted a contact of JG without making sure just who JG was? They collectively deserve all the ridicule they’re getting, whether or not they actually compromised security.
Case in point: I intended to post this here when my fantastic prediction above was proven delusional about the same time I hit Post.
Looks like my imaginer is broke again.
While the Signal ap might be secure, it would seem that not paying attention to who’s on the chat might be something somebody should have paid attention to. As usual, foolproof underestimates the ingenuity of fools, or in this case, sabotage.
If it was a staffer, maybe somebody should be fired to encourage others to pay attention to who their staffers are. Responsibility flows uphill.
Of course, who would pay attention to Goldberg or believe he was on the chat without confirmation?
Instead I posted it on Jay’s thread by mistake.
Read this and then remember that they just handed the SBA 1.6 trillion in student loans to oversee. What could go wrong?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2025/03/25/new-report-exposes-jaw-dropping-incompetence-in-sba-fraud-detection-process-n2654437
There seems to be some controversy on whether that Iranian spy ship was sunk, but I do wonder if it took a hint and won’t be coming back. Perhaps somebody reminded them of what happened to the Iranian Navy in 1988 when they started fragging tankers and a Republican was in the WH
I sense that things are starting to lose steam on this for the Left. Maybe there will be a fresh gust of wind to refuel it but Goldberg’s release of chat info didn’t do much to move the needle. We are at about the top of the arc.
I have to admit that for once I was wanting to watch CNN just to hear what Scott Jennings was going to say.
As I said before this whole thing stinks. I can understand why a National Review would turn on Trump like a rabid dog without addressing those issues, but other outlets like the Free Press? The Free Press and other Trump-friendly (or at least not TDS) outlets don’t owe the Administration blind allegiance but their “shock and horror” are not only trite but they don’t add anything new, nothing I couldn’t get from CNN or the NY Times and they don’t address the unresolved questions.
Just goes to show the problems in completely escaping the media eco chamber. By contrast Matt Taibbi, man who prizes his independence and doesn’t back down form anybody (Dem or Rep.), is still on track.
Oh and far as punching back twice as hard? Trump is declassifying the Russia Hoax documents
well the Free Press wants to ‘play fair’ and ignore the underlying details, the Comment sections gets a lot of brushback, from some of their premises,