Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee all but accused America’s spy bosses of committing perjury Wednesday during a fiery hearing that delved into the bombshell Houthi strike plans Signal chat leak.
“I think that it’s by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning the deaths of dead pilots right now,” fumed Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the panel’s ranking member.
“There’s only one response to a mistake of this magnitude,” Himes added in his opening remarks “Apologize, own it, you stop everything until you can figure out what went wrong, and how it might not ever happen again.
“It’s not what happened. The secretary of defense responded with a brutal attack on the reporter who did not ask to be on the Signal chat.”
Hegseth had lashed out at The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who revealed the leak, calling him a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist.” The Pentagon chief added Monday night that “nobody was texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.”
Multiple Democrats on the panel seemed convinced that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe were not being truthful in their Tuesday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“The idea that this information, if it was presented to our committee, would not be classified — y’all know is a lie,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), who served with both Gabbard and Ratcliffe in Congress.
“I’ve seen things much less sensitive being presented to us with high classification. To say that it isn’t is a lie to the country.”
Ratcliffe told the Senate on Tuesday that the Signal chat “did not include classified information,” while Gabbard said, “There was no classified material that was shared in the Signal chart.”
Later, the two clarified that they did not personally put classified information into the chat and said that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth would have been the one to determine whether the intelligence was sensitive, top secret or secret.
But Democrats on the panel were unconvinced, arguing that the March 15 strike plans shared by the Pentagon chief were classified — even if they bore no markings to that effect.
At one point, Himes read into the record the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) guidance for top secret material, which states that “information providing indication or advance warning that the US or its allies are preparing an attack” is top secret in all cases.
“I don’t disagree with that,” replied Gabbard, who is in charge of the guidance. “I just point out that the DOD classification guidance is separate from the ODNI classification guidance. Ultimately, the secretary of defense holds the authority to classify or declassify.”
Here is the latest on the Yemen Signal group-chat:
- Atlantic publishes more ‘war plan’ Signal texts, including minute-by-minute details and weapons to use in Yemen strikes
- Atlantic editor Jeff Goldberg weighs ‘obligation’ of releasing more ‘war plans’ texts – as he reveals undercover CIA agent’s identity was exposed
- Trump feels ‘very comfortable’ after being briefed on Houthi attack text scandal, blames ‘lower level’ Waltz staffer for mishap
- Trump national security team messaged plans for Yemen strikes to Atlantic editor-in-chief in stunning breach
“There were no sources, methods, locations or names of targets that were included in that chat and the decision to conduct this operation had been made long before that conversation took place,” she later added.
Himes also grilled Gabbard over her prior suggestion that weapons packages were not discussed in the Signal chain.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) asked the pair whether weapons packages, targets or timing of strikes was discussed in the chat. Ratcliffe told the senator, “Not that I’m aware of.”
“Same answer,” Gabbard replied.
Himes pressed Gabbard on that assertion in light of the Atlantic publishing details of Hegseth’s messages that gave a play-by-play of the use of F-18s, Tomahawk missiles and drones.
“My answer yesterday was based on my recollection, or the lack thereof, on the details that were posted there,” Gabbard countered, referring to Goldberg’s initial disclosure about the chat, published Monday.
“What was shared today [Wednesday] reflects the fact that I was not directly involved with that part of the Signal chat,” she added.
After the Atlantic released the detailed message that Hegseth blasted out, top administration officials universally quibbled with the magazine’s initial characterization of the exchange as “war plans.”
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) walked through Hegseth’s message about the strikes and again read through the ODNI classification guide for top secret material. He also noted that the Houthis have shown an ability to shoot down American aircraft.
Although he didn’t explicitly accuse Gabbard or Ratcliffe of lying, Crow was adamant that classified information was shared in the Signal chat.
“Responsibility is core to leadership. You accept responsibility when things go wrong. You admit mistakes. You set the standard from the very top,” he raged. “It is completely outrageous to me that administration officials come before us today with impunity, no acceptance of responsibility — excuse after excuse after excuse.
“That’s why Secretary Hegseth, who undoubtedly transmitted classified, sensitive operational information via this chain must resign immediately.”
Screenshots published by the Atlantic indicated that national security adviser Mike Waltz’s Signal account added Goldberg to the chat.
Waltz has since denied knowing Goldberg and bizarrely claimed that the editor somehow got on “somebody’s contact and then get sucked into this group.” Goldberg has said he may have met with Waltz twice since the Floridian was elected to Congress in 2019.
President Trump has publicly maintained confidence in Waltz amid the scandal.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Ratcliffe also accused Goldberg of “misleading” the public by describing his chief of staff as an “active intelligence officer” in his bombshell Monday article.
Goldberg initially declined to publish the name of the individual in his original piece and then claimed in the Wednesday follow-up that “a CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name.”
“[Goldberg] also indicated that I had released the name of an undercover CIA operative in that Signal chat,” Ratcliffe said. “In fact, I had released the name of my chief of staff, who is not operating undercover. That was deliberately false and misleading.”
Goldberg described the chief of staff as an “active intelligence officer” in Monday’s story and said, “CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified.”
In a subsequent interview released Tuesday, the Atlantic editor suggested the person in question was “undercover.”
Vice President JD Vance, who was among the 18 officials on the Signal chat in question, similarly lashed out against Goldberg for his characterizations of the CIA official.
“Remember when he was attacking Ratcliffe for blowing the cover for a CIA agent?” Vance hit back on X. “Turns out Ratcliffe was simply naming his chief of staff.”
