It was **NOT** Hegseth, It Was Waltz Who Included Journalist in "War Plans" Messaging App

Much ado is being made claiming Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth "sent War Plans to a Journalist."  That claim is inaccurate and Hegseth didn't do anything wrong.

In an article published by "The Atlantic" Reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, the reporter who received the war plan info, reveals the following:

On Tuesday, March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text-messaging services are capable of delivering. I assumed that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. I did not assume, however, that the request was from the actual Michael Waltz. I have met him in the past, and though I didn’t find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me, I did think it somewhat unusual, given the Trump administration’s contentious relationship with journalists—and Trump’s periodic fixation on me specifically. It immediately crossed my mind that someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. It is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.

Goldberg goes on to reveal:

I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine, or Iran, or some other important matter.

Two days later—Thursday—at 4:28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a Signal chat group. It was called the “Houthi PC small group.”

That . . . .  that right there . . . .  is where this problem started.

As anyone who has used a messaging app can tell you, when you get included in a messaging group, by someone you know, you understand that the group is trustworthy.

When Hegseth got the same invitation to the same group, from the same Mike Waltz, he would have understood implicitly that the group was secure.

So when Hegseth, later, sent the war plan info to this small, special, closed, group of Principal United States Officers, he had no reason to believe anyone was in it who didn't belong there.   As such, Pete Hegseth did nothing wrong; or even sloppy.

All the media hype about "Hegseth sent war plans to a reporter" are INTENTIONAL gross distortions designed to smear and discredit Hegseth.

I say "intentional" because in the Article by Reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, he actually reports it was Mike Waltz who invited him into the group!  So for all the rest of the media to be blaming Hegseth is a reckless distortion.  Sure, Hegseth sent a message to the group, but he did not send it to Goldberg (individually) deliberately or even by accident; he sent it to the GROUP of Principal Officers.

If anyone is to "blame" for this, it would be Waltz, and even then, none of us know if Waltz even set up the group himself, or had a staffer do it.  None of us know if Waltz intentionally included Goldberg or simply had a "fat fingers error" which included Goldberg into the group by mistake.

Moreover, even if Waltz included Goldberg on purpose, it was nothing more than a mistake.  Maybe bad judgment, but still nothing sinister, reckless, or deceptive.   Put simply, this whole thing is no big deal.  At all. 

Thankfully, Goldberg did not reveal the war plans to anyone who could have used it to harm our troops.

For Goldberg to reveal this in the manner he has chosen to reveal it, is cheap theater.  Goldberg could have called Hegseth - or Waltz - and told them he had been included in the group, and maybe he should not have gotten this info.   It all could have been handled quietly.

Had he done things quietly, he would have garnered respect from the Principals and perhaps could have been included in other things.  Now?  Not a chance.

Instead, Goldberg chose to make a PUBLIC big deal out of it, and now he's out of that group anyway, and has caused a public spectacle.

Childish theater.  That's what I see Goldberg's article as being.  You should see it that way, too.

You can read his childish theatrics in the Original Article HERE