Members of the President’s cabinet insisted on Wednesday at a House committee hearing that there is nothing wrong with using the consumer messaging app to discuss the U.S. military plan to strike Yemen’s Hotty target.
On Tuesday, the spy chief told the Senate that they did not believe any of their materials and were not classified as “intelligence” and revealed in a chat, with senior officials discussing the timing, desirability and possible targets of the government’s planned air strikes in Yeman’s Hossis.
Their responses at least made some of the Pentagon plans shared in the chat classified.
But on Wednesday, there was no swaying hint, Tulsi Gabbard, director of the National Intelligence Department, asserted that confidential materials were not placed in the group chat.
“There is no shared source, method, location or plan of war,” she said.
Republicans on the committee almost ignored the issue, whose issues focused on the official theme of the hearing, the intelligence community’s annual threat assessment.
Texas representative Dan Crenshaw, a combat veteran and recipient of the Purple Heart, was one of the few Republicans in the panel to defend the chat (if partly a joke).
“I’ll notice that when I see terrorists being killed, I’m always using fire emojis,” he said. He refers to three emojis – the bumpy fist, the American flag and the fire – held in the chat by National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, on the Signal App.
Democrats have struggled to find their stance in the Republican-controlled federal government, and they were stuck in a lockdown when they met one of the most famous mistakes since taking office by Trump administration officials.
On one question after another, Democratic caucus members hammered the chat group’s questions during the five-minute allocated period.
Chrissy Houlahan, a former Air Force official, said she initially intended to discuss the biosecurity and bioterrorism threats facing the United States.
Instead, she said she will take the time to urge Mr. Trump’s national security team to the risks of communicating on the commercial messaging app.
“The threat is in the house, the threat is supporting the house,” Ms. Houlahan said, pointing to Ms. Gabbard, director of the CIA, and other intelligence officials, appearing at the hearing. “I need to ask these questions. My job asks you these questions.”
She and other Democrats believe chats are vulnerable to confrontational powers, and if dialogue is held against Iran-backed Iran-backed militia groups, they will endanger U.S. pilots, which have a complex air defense system.
The intelligence report is the annual assessment of global threats by federal agencies and submitted to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. In past committee meetings, Republicans have sometimes focused on single issues they are passionate about, such as the flaws in the intelligence community’s work on Russia, or the people who removed Trump loyalists from key intelligence efforts – Democrats have spoken about the essence of the hearing topic.
But this year’s role has been reversed, with Democrats ruthlessly asking for signal chats, believing that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already incorrectly shared classified information on the non-approved platform.
The chat group accidentally added the Atlantic editor-in-chief. The Atlantic Ocean’s conversation this week showed that Mr. Heggs shared key details of the upcoming action, including the exact timing of the attack.
Trump administration officials downplayed the matter at a House hearing Wednesday.
Ms Gabbard pointed out that the information about the strike in the chat also provided the same information to allies. Mr Ratcliffe said the Atlantic revealed that he had no classified intelligence. His contribution to the discussion does seem to have made any detail reveal the exact activities of these institutions.
But Democrats condemned that line of defense. For example, Texas representative Joaquin Castro said the information in the signal chat about Houthi strike was not classified.
“You all know this is a lie,” he said. “This is a lie to the country.”
The hearings have caused controversy at many moments. The exchange between Democratic Democratic Representative Jimmy Gomez and Mr. Ratcliffe briefly turned into a yelling match as Mr. Gomez asked witnesses “Whether Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked confidential information.”
Mr. Ratcliffe shot backwards, “I think this is an offensive question-the answer is no.”
During the confirmation process, Mr. Heggs promised to the senator that he would quit drinking if identified as Secretary of Defense.
Some of the most effective questions came from Colorado Democratic Representative Jason Crow, a combat veteran. Mr. Crow noted that Huthis has been able to shoot down our MQ-9 harvester drone, a weapon used in the strike against Yemen.
After his assistant behind him picked up the poster, Mr. Crow described Huthis’ advanced air defense system and then said that the government’s responsibility for not accepting the leak was outrageous.
He said: “It was a leadership failure, which is why Hegseth Minister Hegseth had to resign immediately.
At the end of the hearing, more Democrats on Capitol Hill joined in calling on Mr. Heggs and Mr. Walz to resign.
While most Republicans have been aligned with Mr. Trump’s response strategy to downplay and deny the seriousness of the incident, at least one Republican, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, called on the Inspector General to review the incident.
Senate panel chair Mr Wicker said in the Pentagon’s oversight agency that he and the committee’s ranking Democratic members will request a classified briefing on the matter.
