What started as a group chat has turned into a circular firing squad.
Trump administration officials who participated in the now infamous leaked Signal chat are scrambling to minimize the political stain on themselves. Many are blaming the media, or Democrats, for making such a big deal about it. Some are subtly pointing fingers at each other. Others are finding ways to reframe the conversation so they become minor players, otherwise deflecting, or staying silent and hoping the storm passes over.
Nineteen people were on the chat in which top officials discussed sensitive details of an attack against the Iran-backed Houthi militant group in Yemen, all in view of a journalist who was accidentally added to the group. Debates continue about how big of a security breach this was, but it’s clearly not a good look for those involved.
While President Donald Trump has so far stood behind the officials in the group chat (in public at least), the scandal could balloon big enough that someone loses their job.
Administration officials have defended themselves by saying no classified information was shared in the chat and, regardless, the strike on the Houthis was a success. None of those in the chat have expressed regret about discussing the sensitive material, which some former and current officials do believe may have been classified at the time it was sent. Signal has an unclear security reputation within the U.S. government and has previously been barred from use on government devices.
One common villain has emerged: The Atlantic’s top editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, the journalist who was added to the chat. Administration officials accuse him of over-torquing the story and sensationalizing what was discussed in the chat.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the differing strategies administration officials are taking.
Here is POLITICO’s review of how the main characters from the chat are tailoring their responses to the Signalgate scandal.
Continue reading
Discussion about this post