Why Jeffrey Goldberg left the chat
Oskar Forsberg
Published 19.20
Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was invited to a secret chat with US defense chiefs.
His involvement was discovered when he left – which he may have done out of fear of being prosecuted for espionage.
– I don’t think he risks it, says Michael Ahn Paarlberg, associate professor of political science at the University of Virginia.
The journalist about the group chat: “I thought someone was trying to trick me”
0:53
The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was invited to a top-secret chat on the Signal app.
In the conversation, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared his war plans with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as several other high-ranking figures in Trump’s administration.
A few hours before the US attack on the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Goldberg was able to read about targets and what weapons to use.
This is because Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared those details in the chat group.
Risk of being prosecuted
The person who added Jeffrey Goldberg was Trump's national security adviser Mike Waltz.
It wasn't until Goldberg left the chat that it was discovered that he had been involved.
But why did he leave voluntarily?
One report is that he did so out of fear of being prosecuted for espionage or other similar crimes.
- But I don't think so. Rather, it would be the person who invited him to the group who risks prosecution, says Michael Ahn Paarlberg, associate professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia.
Compare with Wikileaks
However, when it comes to publication, different rules apply.
– If, in theory, he had published sensitive information, he would risk being held liable, as in the case of Wikileaks. But it would also depend entirely on the type of information involved, says Michael Ahn Paarlberg.
The US Department of Justice could prosecute him, Ahn Paarlberg believes. But it would primarily be a matter of whether the information in question put other people in direct danger.
In Sweden, with Swedish legislation, it would probably have been more difficult.
– Would a Swedish prosecutor have prosecuted him for having taken part in the information? That is probably doubtful, says Jörgen Holmlund, a teacher of intelligence at the Swedish National Defense University.
Holmlund continues:
– In my opinion, journalists conducting an examination of the system's weaknesses and the like is a good journalistic act.
The authority bears responsibility
Jörgen Holmlund compares it to the events surrounding former national security adviser Henrik Landerholm.
– It is rather the person with the authority responsibility who failed in their responsibility. In a similar Swedish context, the person who invited the journalist to the group would probably have been prosecuted.
According to Michael Ahn Paarlberg, that would also probably have been Goldberg's defense in a possible trial – that he had been invited.
But that defense might have become more difficult to maintain the longer he remained in the group, after it was clear to him what was being discussed.
"Shocking negligence"
A total of 18 people are said to have been part of the group in question, including Trump's peace envoy Steve Witkoff.
"I will do everything to maintain 100% operational secrecy," Hegseth is said to have written in the chat.
Goldberg was not impressed by his promise.
“Shocking carelessness” of sensitive information, Goldberg writes about his experience.
Not thinking much about security
Michael Ahn Paarlberg is not surprised that the 18 people are said to have had a group call. He is more surprised that they used an app on their phones.
– It is a little surprising. But I am not surprised that they do not seem to be thinking more about security. It is like when President Trump held meetings at Mar-A-Lago on national security issues in the open.
– These discussions do happen, but the typical thing is that they occur in a locked room with only those directly involved. However, this administration has shown that it does not really apply to them. They do not have that regulatory framework in the same way.
What do you think will happen now? what will be the aftermath?
– Probably not much. The Democrats will probably hold a few hearings but not much more than that. I don’t think anyone will lose their jobs.
Send feedback
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar