Have the Democrats declared that this is “bigger than Watergate!” yet? Because — checks watch — it’s definitely gonna happen. I’ve lost track of all the GOP scandals that were “bigger than Watergate!” but it’s still the left’s go-to epithet. If they haven’t used the phrase yet, I’ll bet you a Diet Coke they’ll use it by noon tomorrow.
By now, you’ve heard the news: In a weird, inexplicable SNAFU, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was inadvertently included in a Signal conversation with high-level White House officials, where he eavesdropped on their planning for the (successful) attack on the Houthis. Although it sounds implausible, this Signal conversation has been authenticated by administration officials.
Goldberg contends that Michael Waltz — the U.S. national security advisor — invited him to connect on Signal and join the conversation. And for a short while, that was the dominant theory throughout DC: Waltz was careless, invited the wrong guy, and nobody realized the mistake until Goldberg left the chat.
But what if something else was going on?
Mike Waltz was on Fox News on Tuesday evening, talking about the incident with Laura Ingraham.
🚨 Mike Waltz issues new statement on the leaked Signal chat
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 25, 2025
"I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but of all the people out there, somehow this guy, who has lied about the president... gets on someone's contact, and gets sucked into this group?"pic.twitter.com/NNnkh8DlPl
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but of all the people out there, somehow this guy who has lied about the president, who has lied to Gold Star families, lied to their attorneys, and gone to Russia hoax, gone to just all kinds of lengths to lie and smear the president of the United States, and he’s the one that somehow gets on somebody’s contact and then gets sucked into this group?
You gotta admit, that’s a heckuva coincidence. Out of ALL the people in D.C., one of the smuggest, most vicious Trump antagonists in the mainstream media is “accidentally” added?!
It doesn’t quite pass the giggle test.
And the entire chain of events raises a series of questions. For example, in his article, Goldberg claims he voluntarily left the group chat all on his own:
The Signal chat group, I concluded, was almost certainly real. Having come to this realization, one that seemed nearly impossible only hours before, I removed myself from the Signal group, understanding that this would trigger an automatic notification to the group’s creator, “Michael Waltz,” that I had left. No one in the chat had seemed to notice that I was there. And I received no subsequent questions about why I left—or, more to the point, who I was.
Question: What kind of journalist worth his salt would voluntarily leave that kind of chat room?! This was his opportunity to win a Pulitzer! I’d assume it’s much more likely that a guy in Goldberg’s shoes would continue to lurk in the shadows, trying to learn as much as he could — and for as long as he could.
Typically, journalists don’t burn their sources. They keep ‘em! Because a good, reliable source is insanely valuable. Some media-source relationships last decades.
Yet Goldberg discarded this one almost immediately.
Hmm.
Furthermore, this isn’t the kind of story that’s particularly time-sensitive. Forget about the Houthis: The reason people care about this has nothing to do with the Middle East! This is a big deal because of the participants.
So why didn’t Goldberg try to use the story to negotiate access to a bigger story? No harm trying, right? And if your (discreet) overtures are spurned, you simply launch your story one week later and still receive the exact same amount of media coverage.
And isn’t it weird that nobody noticed that he left the Signal group? As Goldberg wrote, the group’s creator, Michael Waltz, should’ve received an automatic notification.
Question: If you were in Waltz’s shoes and were notified that one of the most rabidly anti-Trump journalists in the industry(!) had just left a White House group chat that he had no business being in, at a freaking minimum, wouldn’t you have followed up on it?!
Of course, if this wasn’t an error by Waltz, but some kind of cyberattack — or if the actual timeline differs from Goldberg’s reporting — that could explain how Goldberg was both privy to this info and left the group chat without notifying anyone. Perhaps Goldberg is innocent in all this, and was simply a “useful idiot” for an anti-Trump hacker, mole, or agent.
It could be a lot of things.
All we know for sure is that this was a really strange “scandal” with some puzzling inconsistencies. Yes, it could be a conspiracy. Or it could just be sloppiness. At this point, who the hell knows?
(Actually, the Democrats know: This is “bigger than Watergate!” Just you wait!)
One Last Thing: The Democrats are on the ropes, but make no mistake: The donkeys are still dangerous. 2025 will either go down in history as the year we finally Made America Great Again — or the year it all slipped through our fingers. We need your help to succeed! As a VIP member, you’ll receive exclusive access to all our family of sites (PJ Media, Townhall, RedState, twitchy, Hot Air, Bearing Arms): More stories, more videos, more content, more fun, more conservatism, more EVERYTHING! And if you CLICK HERE and use the promo code FIGHT you’ll receive a Trumpian 60% discount!
Thank you for your consideration!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member