By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A White House investigation revealed that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz inadvertently included journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in a Signal group chat discussing Yemen strikes. This resulted from a series of errors beginning with Goldberg emailing the Trump campaign, his number being forwarded to Waltz, and ultimately being saved incorrectly on Waltz’s phone. Though Trump briefly considered firing Waltz, he ultimately decided against it, partly to avoid giving the Atlantic satisfaction. The incident prompted a forensic review, which highlighted the use of Signal for sensitive discussions due to a lack of secure alternative platforms.
Read the original article here
The core issue revolves around how Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic, ended up in a highly sensitive White House Signal group chat. The explanation offered centers on an iPhone’s “contact suggestion update” function, where the phone automatically suggests adding unknown numbers to existing contacts based on perceived relationships. Representative Mike Waltz’s iPhone apparently made this suggestion, inadvertently adding Goldberg’s number to a contact under another person’s name.
This explanation, however, overshadows much more serious concerns. The use of Signal itself on personal phones to discuss classified war plans is a significant breach of protocol and likely a violation of federal record-keeping laws. The fact that the administration prioritized Waltz’s inclusion of Goldberg, a journalist the former president despised, over the far more significant issue of discussing classified information on an unsecure platform speaks volumes about their priorities.
The sheer carelessness displayed is astounding. Individuals with security clearances should be intimately familiar with the potential consequences of such actions. The “mistake” of adding Goldberg, while technically a blunder, pales in comparison to the intentional circumvention of federal regulations by using an unmonitored platform like Signal for classified communications. This raises the question of whether this was a deliberate attempt to conduct sensitive conversations outside official channels.
The White House’s narrative downplays the extent of the infraction. Attributing the inclusion of Goldberg to an iPhone algorithm shifts blame away from the crucial decision to discuss classified material on an unsecure app in the first place. The focus on a supposed technological error obscures the fundamental flaws in security protocols that allowed this to occur.
The suggestion that the iPhone’s contact suggestion function is the primary problem is a simplistic and misleading characterization. The more significant issues include the use of personal devices for official business and the intentional circumvention of record-keeping laws. It’s a gross misrepresentation of the situation to suggest that a technological malfunction is the only, or even the most important, aspect of the story.
The reaction from various parties reveals further unsettling aspects. The administration’s apparent lack of concern regarding the potential security implications and the violation of record-keeping laws points to a broader problem of disregard for established protocols and transparency. The fact that this event happened before the election raises suspicions about the timing and potential motives.
A far more alarming reality is the possibility that the entire episode was not accidental. Some suggest that the presence of Goldberg in the chat could be intentional, perhaps indicating a deliberate leak. This casts the situation in a far more sinister light, raising questions about the potential for compromised security and deliberate attempts to undermine official processes.
Furthermore, the use of Signal itself, an encrypted messaging service, to conduct sensitive military discussions raises significant red flags. While encryption can offer privacy, it also creates opportunities to bypass official record-keeping, potentially hindering accountability and transparency. The administration’s indifference to this aspect of the story underscores a deeper pattern of behavior.
It’s difficult to reconcile the White House’s explanation with the severity of the situation. The nonchalant response only serves to fuel skepticism and further highlight the lack of accountability within the administration. The story raises concerns far beyond a simple technological mishap; it exposes a profound disregard for security protocols and a potential attempt to operate outside established procedures.
The fact that discussions of such importance took place on Signal, bypassing official channels and potentially violating record-keeping laws, is deeply troubling. The administration’s attempts to minimize the incident only highlight the seriousness of the lapses in security and judgment. The situation necessitates a thorough investigation to determine whether intentional actions played a part and to ensure similar breaches do not occur in the future. Ignoring the underlying issues and focusing solely on a purported iPhone error allows the more significant concerns to remain unresolved.