Congressional Democrats find their voice as Signal slip-up becomes talk of the town

It was sheer coincidence that two of the witnesses testifying before a rare, public hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday were part of the botched text chain about military action in Yemen.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe were scheduled for the committee’s annual “worldwide threats” hearing.

But something else commandeered the talk of the town.

Had the text chain not dropped, there would have been lengthy discussions about domestic terrorism and the threat at the border. How the U.S. was grappling with China. Was there progress in the Middle East? How about the war in Ukraine?

RUBIO BREAKS SILENCE ON LEAKED SIGNAL CHAT: ‘SOMEONE MADE A BIG MISTAKE’

FBI Director Kash Patel joined Gabbard and Ratcliffe at the witness table. Patel just assembled a task force to address domestic terrorism. Under other circumstances, senators may have questioned Patel about people setting Teslas afire and keying Cybertrucks.

But that was not to be.

Democrats have reeled since the early days of the second Trump Administration. They’ve failed to establish their footing. They’ve attacked one another after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sided with Republicans to help avoid a government shutdown. Other Democrats faced irate voters, infuriated that the people they elected aren’t doing more to stand up to President Trump and Congressional Republicans.

And then Democrats scored a gift with the bolloxed text chain.

Or, it was at least something Democrats could wield against the other side.

They were apoplectic about the group chat.

“It’s the dumbest thing I’ve seen,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.

“I think this is one more example of the kind of sloppy, careless, incompetent behavior,” bemoaned Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

HEGSETH SAYS NO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WAS SHARED IN SIGNAL GROUP CHAT: ‘NOBODY’S TEXTING WAR PLANS’

Democrats charged that intelligence officials were cavalier with information.

“This sloppiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work for them is entirely unacceptable. It’s an embarrassment,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. “You need to do better. You need to do better.”

Gabbard initially sidestepped when Warner questioned her about the digital misfire.

“Senator, I don’t want to get into the specifics,” Gabbard said.

That response confounded Warner.

“You’re not going to be willing to address…?” said Warner. “Are you denying that? Will you answer my question, ma’am?”

But Gabbard deliberately addressed the group chat controversy when she testified Wednesday before the House Intelligence Committee. She did so in her opening remarks. But after she addressed cybersecurity threats from China and volatility in the Middle East.

Gabbard said that it was a “mistake” to include Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg on the text chain.

“The national security adviser has taken full responsibility for this. And the National Security Council is conducting an in-depth review, along with technical experts working to determine how this reporter was inadvertently added to this chat,” said Gabbard. “No classified information was shared. There were no sources, methods, locations, or war plans that were shared.”

ELON MUSK TAPPED TO HELP LEAD INVESTIGATION INTO SIGNAL CHAT LEAK: WHITE HOUSE

Gabbard then informed the committee that because of a lawsuit filed about the text chain she was “limited in my ability to comment further on that specific case.”

The CIA and other intelligence services sometimes rely on the encrypted chat app Signal for coordination.

“The use of Signal message and end encryption applications is permissible and was in this case, ‘use permissible,’” said Ratcliffe at the Senate hearing.

Gabbard said the bungled texts divulged no top secrets.

“There was no classified material that was shared in that,” said Gabbard.

“So then if there (is) no classified material, share it with the committee. You can’t have it both ways,” countered Warner.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who sits on the Intelligence Committee and is the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chimed in at a news conference.

“If that’s true, the administration should immediately provide a copy of the group chat to Congress,” said Reed.

The debate over operational security and faulty handling of sensitive information is the entrée for this story. But frank assessments about Europe and U.S. allies by Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth constituted a fascinating group chat biproduct.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: IMPEACHAPALOOZA IS HERE TO STAY

Vance texted his concerns about the U.S. commencing airstrikes – which may be more beneficial for Europe than the United States. Vance and other Trump Administration officials have criticized Europe for their approaches to security – often leaning on the United States.

“3 percent of US trade runs through the suez,” texted Vance, addressing how the Houthis pose a risk to shipping through the Suez Canal. “40 percent of European trade does.”

Vance blessed the operation on the text chain. But added this jab.

“I just hate bailing Europe out again,” texted the Vice President.

Then Hegseth jumped in.

“I fully share your loathing of European free-loading,” replied Hegseth. “It’s PATHETIC.”

“Doesn’t that harm our relationship with them?” yours truly asked Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

“I think you have to put that into context for what it is,” replied Thune. “This is a new administration. There’s a new sheriff in town. And, at some point, I think the Europeans and all the other countries around the world – whether they like it or not – realize that.”

Some Republicans tried to give the national security officials a pass.

“If you have never made a mistake, then you can throw the first stone,” said Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, R-Fla.

ATLANTIC REPORTER PUBLISHES MORE TEXTS ABOUT ATTACK ON HOUTHI TARGETS

Other Republicans shot the messenger.

“What The Atlantic did by making public something that they believed could have been national security sensitive is irresponsible activity (by) the press,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

But deserved or not, consider how much time lawmakers from both sides burned on the chat group snafu versus delving into actual global threats at the hearings. After all, that was the expected subject of the sessions. There are consequences for that.

“The penalty is we’re less prepared to deal with the dangerous world,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “We’re not as far as long as we should be and having a very serious discussion about national security.”

House Intelligence Committee member and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Penn., said it was her “intent to talk about biosecurity and bioterrorism” at the hearing. But she couldn’t because of the text chat.

“It does distract from the conversation. And I’m frustrated by unforced errors that we don’t have to be dealing with,” said Houlahan.

RATCLIFFE SAYS NEW SIGNAL TEXTS SHOW HE ‘DID NOT TRANSMIT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION’

But despite what played out in public, both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees conducted private, frank sessions with officials after the open forums.

“We covered a lot of things in that closed session,” said Rep. Jim Himes, D-Ct., the top Democrat on the Intelligence panel. “Everything from Russia to China to fentanyl. You name it.”

But Himes lamented that the committees exhausted so much time discussing the text chain.

The group chat story is here to stay. At least for a while. Until another major story barrels its way onto the scene and rattles everything on Capitol Hill. At that point the new subject becomes the talk of the town.