Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Yeah, this is Charleston's Morning News with Kelly and Blaze.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Little chili out there this morning and to warm up
to be a nice day. Welcome into a Thursday edition
of the program here on ninety four to three WSC.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Well, I didn't me any clear mindset. Excuse me.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I had to laugh a little of like MIC's.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
On hot Mic. Well, it's pollen, man.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
I know.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
I was just thinking normally I wouldn't want and ask
for showers, but we could use a few. Splash and dash.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
It is killing me. Yeah, this morning's recovering. This morning's
top story is a reporter who was included on a
group chat with Trump intelligence officials discussing airstrikes as releasing
more of the text conversations in a statement, the Pentagon's
chief spokesperson said these additional signal chat messages confirmed there
were no classified materials or war plans shared. The messages
(00:50):
published yesterday by The Atlantic show exact times of the
military strikes in Yemen. The group chat that included Vice
President J. D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegsath, among others.
Depend again went on to say the secretary was merely
updating the group on a plan that was underway, and
I'd already been briefed through official channels.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
So I'm curious what you think about the response coming
from You've got Taylor I think his name is Budowitch.
You've got Caroline Levitt, we all know her Press secretary,
his whole comms team, Stephen Chung. They're I mean, they're
out here scumbag Trump, Peter. I mean, they're pretty harsh
(01:32):
in their response to him, which he We've already said,
this guy he's been perpetuating hoaxes basically when it comes
to the Trump, you know, being an anti Trumper.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Yeah, he's perpetuated fake news in the past to take
down Trump.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
So I you know, I just I'm kind of there's
part of me that really enjoys the way that they're
coming at im Hart saying the entire story was another
hoax written by a Trump Peter Caroline Love there. You know,
they lied, They're perpetuating yet another hoax. That's Taylor. I mean,
I appreciate that they're all remaining strong together, I suppose,
(02:11):
is my point. On the other hand, it's a little
bit I don't know.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
Well, I mean, this is a problem, and that's the
problem I have with it. I have less of a
problem with it being the classified information and all of this,
and put in national secrets off on a text message
and all of that. I have less of a problem
with that than the fact that somebody was so incompetent
that they included this guy on that message chat, or
(02:40):
that somebody within that inner circle did it on purpose. Well,
see this, So that's the problem I have. And then
to come out and say, well, no, to call this
guy's comeback and try to discredit him. Notice how they're
not saying, oh, it didn't happen.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Well, no, they admitted immediately clearly that it happened. I mean,
he obviously started it by saying it happened.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Well, and at this point they're like, oh, we still know,
and the stat like they know who did this, Well,
so how come we don't know.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Mike Walls himself. We know he was on with Fox
and you know saying lor Ingram it was me. I
created the chat, I created the group, he said.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
I take responsibility.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
See this is where I think, you know, we can
get into the weeds on how I think it's a
lesson clearly learned, and it's one of those things where
we learn from our mistakes, and I'm kind of glad
it happened because if you really dig into the weeds
on it, which many have now at this point, including
US no locations, no sources, no methods, no war plans.
(03:46):
All the foreign partners had already been notified that these
strikes were immin it. So you know, it goes to
the bottom line. In a tweet on exit, Mike Waltz
put out the bottom lines, President Trump's protecting America and
our current interests, and that's is correct.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
So well, I don't deny that, but I just have
a problem with letting this fester. Yeah, fester is a
good word for too long. So come out say I
made a mistake. Move along. But all of this, you know,
the semantics of it and everything else, it doesn't sit
well with me. And I want to know who's responsible.
(04:22):
Who did this? So did it come from Mike Walls Waltz,
did it come from a staffer? I want to know
where it originated from. And so was it simply an accident?
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I don't think we're go find out or was it.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Done on purpose? Well, we deserve to find out.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well, I think it's very key that this guy, the
anti Trumpet, you know Trumper here, who's being called all
kinds of names. Whether you like it or not, I'm sure,
I'm not sure how I feel about that. Bart, but
that he had to backtrack from the no, this wasn't
war planning, you know, that was his narrative, you know
that he was alleging falsely.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Well, he didn't really backtrack, he did absolutely no. They
changed the language and the story, so he didn't come
out and say no, it wasn't war plans. What they
did was change. They updated the story and the language
changed from war plans to I think sensitive information or
something like that.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Well, God forbid to take responsibility for say, well, maybe
I use the wrong verbiage. It just quietly changed their mistakes.
Well again, any article they put at the bottom.
Speaker 5 (05:30):
I don't like this.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Guy at all. He's a leftist. I am not on
his side at all. I am not on the left
or the Democrats side at all. And they're going to
beat this, as you know, this horse, as much as
they can. But what I have a problem with is,
all right, instead of saying all right, where did this
come from? How did this happen? Who did it? Now
we're saying, oh, well, this guy should have done that,
and see how he didn't do that and doing the
(05:53):
same thing the left does. So I'm just trying to
be consistent, that's all. Before anybody gets all upset and says, oh,
you're some leftist's sun there said, no, I want to
be consistent. If we're going to call out the leftists
for doing what they do, then we have to take
responsibility for what we do on our side, or shut
our mouth because we're doing the same damn thing. That's
(06:14):
my point. Seventy two to one Talk seven two, five
fives number of the studio this morning. Don't forget about talk, pack.
Speaker 5 (06:21):
Us headlines and the talk you need.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
This is Charleston This Morning News with Kelly and Blaze
on ninety four to three WUSC.
Speaker 6 (06:30):
We've had one of the world's most critical sea lanes
get shut down. I mean, these guys are like al
Qaeda or Isis with advanced cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and
some of the most sophisticated air defenses, all provided by
Iran were just to so everybody understands the impact here.
The last time one of our destroyers went through the
straits there, it was attacked twenty three times, seventy five
(06:54):
percent of our US flag shipping now has to go
around the southern coast of Africa rather than going through
the US Canal.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Mike Walls there on faced the nation with the strikes
against the Huthy terrorists in the Red Sea, with the
signal chat, which I notice is a gut a hashtag
signal gate.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Yeah, and everything he said. I mean, that's all great.
I don't dispute that, but that's not what this controversy
is about, as much as they would like to flip
the script and make it about our success on these
strikes and why we did them. And this is the
problem I have with it, right because instead of talking
about our success, we're talking about this failure. And somebody
(07:37):
needs to be held accountable for this failure so that
it doesn't happen again. And so that same thing with
any other action against somebody that did something wrong as
a deterrent, if it was done on purpose for the
next person that thinks about doing it.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Well, see that's what you're talking about. That's what the
left is talking about. We have a choice to talk
about what he is bringing and shining light on which
the previous administration failed to do, because the left is
sitting here painting this as a national security crisis when
I think it's more of a crisis that our ships
are having to go around the Horn of Africa and
out of the way so they're not shot.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
At two different issues.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
We can talk about more than one issue at a time.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
In mind, it's not me and the left talking about it.
Have you turned down the news?
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Of course?
Speaker 3 (08:24):
All right, it was just me and the left talking
about it.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
I mean, we have a decision and a choice to
have a conversation about all of it, is all I'm saying.
We don't have to focus on one singular issue, and
we've been talking about since.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
But now you can't disconnect. You can't disconnect one from
the other. That's my point. The politics of this are
getting red hot, and so the liberals are saying, you know,
it's the worst security breach in the history in the
modern day history of our country. It's nowhere near the truth,
and they're going to play politics with this. The left is,
And no do I think it's all as serious as
(08:59):
they're all making it out to be. I'm less concerned
with the security aspect of it than I am with
was this done on purpose. Is somebody in that administration
trying to undermine the president? How did this happen? Was
it a stupid mistake? Okay, people make mistakes. Own up
to the mistake, admit it, apologize for it, say we're
(09:20):
going to put some whatever in place to we're going
to change tactics here on how we communicate to make
sure this never happens again, and move along from it.
If it's somebody that did this on purpose, then you
fire there, you know what, on the spot and make
an example of them. But I don't so all of
this in the meantimes just chatter back and forth and
(09:41):
blah blah blah, and like it's pissing me off.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Right because it's really not focusing on the bigger issue,
which is the fact that we have Houthi rebels shooting
twenty three times at our ships that are having to
go at the cost of American taxpayers and potentially the
lives of our service members around the West, you know,
the Horn of Africa instead of going through the Suez Canal.
We're not even talking about what's the most important thing here,
at least one of the most important things. So you
(10:07):
mentioned the left, So aris, what was your question.
Speaker 7 (10:09):
I wonder how many Democrats would want to be held
the same standard they keep throwing up here on this,
you know, the you have to retain this information also
stuff I tend to remember about thirty thousand emails that
somehow disappeared this j sixth information that was supposed to
(10:32):
be retained and somehow got encrypted and lost. That's just
a short list of a number of things that I
really don't think that Democrats want to create some kind
of hubbub about this and be held at that same
standard because they would fail every time.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Well, I just shows how hypocritical they are.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Well, I think you know, as I said, both sides
are mishandling this if you ask me, and I'll actually
even give it to the left, because that's what they do.
That's what they're going to turn this into a They're
going to turn it into a battering ram. They're going
to go after the Trump administration. Would you expect anything differently,
So they're just playing out of their same playbook, that's
what they do. But the Trump administration is playing right
(11:13):
into their hands. And let's get to the bottom of
this and get the facts out and instead of all
of this trying to discredit to what's been reported and
discredit the liberals and bring up Hillary. Now we're back
in two thousand whatever, you know, ten years ago or whatever,
instead of in the present, and we're argued about all
these stupid things, instead of, you know, the task at
(11:36):
hand of fixing the country and, according to the President,
making it great again. So I wish the President just
would have come out and the rest of them too,
and said, you know what, we're going to get to
the bottom of this. I'm not even going to comment
on this right now. We're going to find out what happened.
We're going to share that with you, we're going to
take steps to fix it, and then we're going to
move along. But that's not what happened. Instead, they're just
(11:58):
like back and forth. It's just a mess.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Well it's because it happened over the weekend. You know
that this is you know, warp breakneck speed that this
two point zero Trump administration is working. And he did
say that he's going to get to the bottom of this,
and I think we will hear something from him. As
a true leader. I really do.
Speaker 5 (12:18):
Your news, traffic, weather and information station.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
This is Charleston's Morning News on ninety four to three WUSC.
Speaker 5 (12:27):
Now back to Kelly and Blaze.
Speaker 8 (12:30):
As the texts come out, it's becoming abundantly clear that
the discussions were not top secret. They may have been
confidential or fouo, but it didn't contain any actual details
on MAME, location, ordnance, et cetera. Also as a blunder
forminke wobols the systeam to include this journalist, but it's
(12:51):
an equal problem that the journalists remained within the chat.
He takes ass the plane for sure, they're not acknowledging.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
That top that feature on the Ihea app. You can
hit the round radio microphone there and let us know
in thirty seconds before you go. Welcome into a Thursday
edition of the program, and our signal gate chat continues.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
I mean, I've heard that mentioned before, and I get
the point, and I don't know. I'm kind of on
the fence on that.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
I think if I was invited to this chat, I'm
not sure I had to jumped out of it, right.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
The journalists are you know, the media is the fourth
estate of government and they're there to hold the government accountable.
And if all of a sudden you get invited in
here accidentally. I mean right away, you know that that's
an issue. And I won't say that this guy hasn't
milked it for everything that it's worth and continues to
do so. But I don't know if I would have
(13:38):
jumped on out of there.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
So I've already put myself in this situation. And what
I would have done is identified myself in the chat
and said I got an invite here, I'm here, here's
who's in the room talking to me. And this is
a very basic example. But if you call me and
you're in the car, and you've got your kids in
the car and I'm on speaker, you need to let
me know, right So I would have identified myself and
(14:03):
then they could have decided from there whether they create
a new chat or otherwise. That's where maybe to the
talkback feature. Their caller's point, Well, I would have identified myself.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
I probably would have handled it differently, really, and maybe
I'll take keat for that. I would have stayed and.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Yes, I crapped quietly in the back.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
I would have. I would have, and then as soon
as that it was over, I would have contacted those
government officials and said, you accidentally invited me on this chat,
and I was privy to everything you discussed, and I'm
going to report on this what's your side of this story?
So yeah, I would have stated a thing that.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
I wouldn't report on the fact that I was invited
to the chat, but I would have made sure they
knew who was in the room.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Well, again, just simply if you're a journalist and it's
your job to hold the government accountable, and all of
a sudden you find yourself in that situation, of course
you're curious, being just by the nature of things and
through your job and everything else. So I probably would
have stayed to the end, but I would have given
them a chance to also weigh in on their side
(15:08):
of the story before I reported it.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Yeah, well, no doubt I would do that anyway, absolutely,
but I would have identified myself just in case I
would want the same. Frankly, I'd like to you know,
it's a golden rum. I want to treat others a
way that you know I want to be treated.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Well, obviously you don't want to accidentally invite me into
a chat.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
All right, So doctor down, you have a history in
security in the past.
Speaker 9 (15:30):
Well, in the Navy, I was the cryptology material security
officer for a command. This is obviously before medical school,
and I was the officer responsible for receiving and destroying
up to top secret materials. Any civilian that forced their
way into that access would have been immediately arrested and
(15:53):
interrogated by back then anis or an essay, I know
of an that since that time. That happened less than
ten years ago in DC, when one of my friends,
who was a security officer retired Air Force security officer
for a construction company and was discussing plans for building
(16:17):
a military facility. One of the gentlemen spoke up on
the table. This is a vice president of an international
corporation and had an accent and and my friend said, well, gee,
when did you become an American citizen? And he said,
oh no, I'm still whatever country he was. They closed
the binder immediately and said we can't continue this discussion.
(16:40):
And the CEO of the corporation said, yeah, he's friendly,
he's good, he's okay, And my buddy and his boss
said no, we're done, and I'm calling NSA and they
both of them were told they were going to be
fired if they didn't continue to brief and they said, fine, virus,
that's better than prison. And within thirty minutes they had
NSA in the boardroom interrogating with them up against the wall,
(17:05):
every executive in a suit. How this gentleman was not
treated the same way is he got a pass. He
got a big pass, because having access to cryptologic materials
or any classified materials and not divulging your access immediately
(17:26):
is illegal. So much as you said Blaze would be
in trouble.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
I beg to differ. He was invited in, Don, So
that's different than forcing your way in. That's different than
finding some classified document and it's marked classified and you're like, oh,
I'm going to see what's in here.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
It was under a different name, though, So.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
He was invited in. So that would be a tough
thing for the prosecutor to overcome, and I think an
easy thing for the defense to say, Look, you invite
him in. He's supposed to know all the rules. You're
supposed to know that, not him, and he was invited in.
So as much as I respect your opinion, Donna, I
disagree with you.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Running down the fallout of signal Gate.
Speaker 4 (18:13):
I think the main thing is, wouldn't it be great
if I already said hey, yeah, we screwed this up.
Speaker 5 (18:17):
We're going to put proceeders.
Speaker 4 (18:18):
In place to make sure this never happens again. And
the reason we're still talking about it is because that
hasn't been the way they've approached, you know, the messaging
associated with it.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
So that's j Yeah. See, so that's general h. R.
Big Master. He worked in the former Trump White House,
and he's sitting down with CBS this morning and the
whole Gael King crew. He literally just went off and
so I was rolling on him live there, and he
really made a good point about you know, well, probably
because Gail keeps pushing well, why hasn't he done that?
(18:48):
Kind of breathlessly, so why hasn't he done that? Like things,
we could move on from here. And all I could
think is, would you, Gale and crew on CBS News
this morning, you're very left leaning, would you really move
on from here? If Trump gave an inch, showed weakness
and said, oh I'm sorry, I don't know. It's not
as Mo, He's not that guy, well, it.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Put it plays right into their hands. And that's been
the point I've been trying to make for two days
now over this issue, is that if they would have
played it differently and had done what hr McMaster just
suggested they do. And this I brought this up yesterday.
Get it all out there, get it behind you, and
then they can do whatever they're going to do, and
they're going to look more and more foolish as they
(19:28):
do it. You say, we already addressed this, we took
measures to prevent it ever from happening again, and we
have more than important things to deal with now. But
instead this thing, They let this thing fester. And I
wish they would have come out, you know, they should
have come out that night and said, I don't care
how big of a team it takes, get on this.
(19:49):
Find out how this happened, where it came from, whether
it was a leak or a mistake or whatever. Get
the facts out there and then put it behind Well, what.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
They're doing, really, at least from Caroline Levitt's perspective and
the comms team, the communications seem they're pointing fingers back
at the hack reporter Trump, Peter, calling him names, you know,
and so on. And I will say this, I mean,
at least Pete heg Seth and others, including Waltz, are
saying Listen, there were no this is this is not
a breach of a security and not a national threat
(20:23):
here when it comes to security, the no locations, no sources,
no methods, no war plans. Even hr Master was saying,
you know that the foreign partners had already been notified
and that strikes were imminent. So you know, calm down
on the left intimating that someone like a Waltz's head
should roll. I mean, even Telza Gabber's name was put
(20:43):
out there. And there's about twenty seconds more if you
want to hear this of h R McMaster where she's saying,
why in the world won't they just apologize? Listen.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
I think most Americans, I mean, they're going to be
pretty tolerant about this kind of thing if they say, hey, listen,
we screwed up.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
It's a new administration. Every new administration.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Had, you know, some degree of friction, makes make some mistakes.
And fortunately, Gail right, I mean, there weren't any negative
consequences associated with this. It was a potential breach as
far as we know, not like a real breach of
that information.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
There you go exactly again. I mean, that's what it
boils down to. So the issue at hand is not
what information was shared. And of course the left is
going to play politics with this. They're going to do
what they normally do and play politics. But at the
same time, I mean, this is an egregious event and
it shows stupidity on somebody's part or even more nefarious
(21:37):
if somebody did it on purpose. It shows somebody, you know,
going willing to go to that extent to get their
way and to cause friction in this administration. So that's
a serious issue. And as McMaster just said, get the
facts out there, get it behind you, and be totally
(21:57):
open and honest about it, and the America and people
would probably be pretty forgiving about it.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Thanks for listening to the Charleston Morning News podcast. Catch
Kelly and Blaze weekday mornings from six to nine
Yeah, this is Charleston's Morning News with Kelly and Blaze.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Little chili out there this morning and to warm up
to be a nice day. Welcome into a Thursday edition
of the program here on ninety four to three WSC.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Well, I didn't me any clear mindset. Excuse me.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I had to laugh a little of like MIC's.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
On hot Mic. Well, it's pollen, man.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
I know.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
I was just thinking normally I wouldn't want and ask
for showers, but we could use a few. Splash and dash.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
It is killing me. Yeah, this morning's recovering. This morning's
top story is a reporter who was included on a
group chat with Trump intelligence officials discussing airstrikes as releasing
more of the text conversations in a statement, the Pentagon's
chief spokesperson said these additional signal chat messages confirmed there
were no classified materials or war plans shared. The messages
(00:50):
published yesterday by The Atlantic show exact times of the
military strikes in Yemen. The group chat that included Vice
President J. D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegsath, among others.
Depend again went on to say the secretary was merely
updating the group on a plan that was underway, and
I'd already been briefed through official channels.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
So I'm curious what you think about the response coming
from You've got Taylor I think his name is Budowitch.
You've got Caroline Levitt, we all know her Press secretary,
his whole comms team, Stephen Chung. They're I mean, they're
out here scumbag Trump, Peter. I mean, they're pretty harsh
(01:32):
in their response to him, which he We've already said,
this guy he's been perpetuating hoaxes basically when it comes
to the Trump, you know, being an anti Trumper.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Yeah, he's perpetuated fake news in the past to take
down Trump.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
So I you know, I just I'm kind of there's
part of me that really enjoys the way that they're
coming at im Hart saying the entire story was another
hoax written by a Trump Peter Caroline Love there. You know,
they lied, They're perpetuating yet another hoax. That's Taylor. I mean,
I appreciate that they're all remaining strong together, I suppose,
(02:11):
is my point. On the other hand, it's a little
bit I don't know.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
Well, I mean, this is a problem, and that's the
problem I have with it. I have less of a
problem with it being the classified information and all of this,
and put in national secrets off on a text message
and all of that. I have less of a problem
with that than the fact that somebody was so incompetent
that they included this guy on that message chat, or
(02:40):
that somebody within that inner circle did it on purpose. Well,
see this, So that's the problem I have. And then
to come out and say, well, no, to call this
guy's comeback and try to discredit him. Notice how they're
not saying, oh, it didn't happen.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Well, no, they admitted immediately clearly that it happened. I mean,
he obviously started it by saying it happened.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Well, and at this point they're like, oh, we still know,
and the stat like they know who did this, Well,
so how come we don't know.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Mike Walls himself. We know he was on with Fox
and you know saying lor Ingram it was me. I
created the chat, I created the group, he said.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
I take responsibility.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
See this is where I think, you know, we can
get into the weeds on how I think it's a
lesson clearly learned, and it's one of those things where
we learn from our mistakes, and I'm kind of glad
it happened because if you really dig into the weeds
on it, which many have now at this point, including
US no locations, no sources, no methods, no war plans.
(03:46):
All the foreign partners had already been notified that these
strikes were immin it. So you know, it goes to
the bottom line. In a tweet on exit, Mike Waltz
put out the bottom lines, President Trump's protecting America and
our current interests, and that's is correct.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
So well, I don't deny that, but I just have
a problem with letting this fester. Yeah, fester is a
good word for too long. So come out say I
made a mistake. Move along. But all of this, you know,
the semantics of it and everything else, it doesn't sit
well with me. And I want to know who's responsible.
(04:22):
Who did this? So did it come from Mike Walls Waltz,
did it come from a staffer? I want to know
where it originated from. And so was it simply an accident?
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I don't think we're go find out or was it.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Done on purpose? Well, we deserve to find out.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well, I think it's very key that this guy, the
anti Trumpet, you know Trumper here, who's being called all
kinds of names. Whether you like it or not, I'm sure,
I'm not sure how I feel about that. Bart, but
that he had to backtrack from the no, this wasn't
war planning, you know, that was his narrative, you know
that he was alleging falsely.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Well, he didn't really backtrack, he did absolutely no. They
changed the language and the story, so he didn't come
out and say no, it wasn't war plans. What they
did was change. They updated the story and the language
changed from war plans to I think sensitive information or
something like that.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Well, God forbid to take responsibility for say, well, maybe
I use the wrong verbiage. It just quietly changed their mistakes.
Well again, any article they put at the bottom.
Speaker 5 (05:30):
I don't like this.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Guy at all. He's a leftist. I am not on
his side at all. I am not on the left
or the Democrats side at all. And they're going to
beat this, as you know, this horse, as much as
they can. But what I have a problem with is,
all right, instead of saying all right, where did this
come from? How did this happen? Who did it? Now
we're saying, oh, well, this guy should have done that,
and see how he didn't do that and doing the
(05:53):
same thing the left does. So I'm just trying to
be consistent, that's all. Before anybody gets all upset and says, oh,
you're some leftist's sun there said, no, I want to
be consistent. If we're going to call out the leftists
for doing what they do, then we have to take
responsibility for what we do on our side, or shut
our mouth because we're doing the same damn thing. That's
(06:14):
my point. Seventy two to one Talk seven two, five
fives number of the studio this morning. Don't forget about talk, pack.
Speaker 5 (06:21):
Us headlines and the talk you need.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
This is Charleston This Morning News with Kelly and Blaze
on ninety four to three WUSC.
Speaker 6 (06:30):
We've had one of the world's most critical sea lanes
get shut down. I mean, these guys are like al
Qaeda or Isis with advanced cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and
some of the most sophisticated air defenses, all provided by
Iran were just to so everybody understands the impact here.
The last time one of our destroyers went through the
straits there, it was attacked twenty three times, seventy five
(06:54):
percent of our US flag shipping now has to go
around the southern coast of Africa rather than going through
the US Canal.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Mike Walls there on faced the nation with the strikes
against the Huthy terrorists in the Red Sea, with the
signal chat, which I notice is a gut a hashtag
signal gate.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Yeah, and everything he said. I mean, that's all great.
I don't dispute that, but that's not what this controversy
is about, as much as they would like to flip
the script and make it about our success on these
strikes and why we did them. And this is the
problem I have with it, right because instead of talking
about our success, we're talking about this failure. And somebody
(07:37):
needs to be held accountable for this failure so that
it doesn't happen again. And so that same thing with
any other action against somebody that did something wrong as
a deterrent, if it was done on purpose for the
next person that thinks about doing it.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Well, see that's what you're talking about. That's what the
left is talking about. We have a choice to talk
about what he is bringing and shining light on which
the previous administration failed to do, because the left is
sitting here painting this as a national security crisis when
I think it's more of a crisis that our ships
are having to go around the Horn of Africa and
out of the way so they're not shot.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
At two different issues.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
We can talk about more than one issue at a time.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
In mind, it's not me and the left talking about it.
Have you turned down the news?
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Of course?
Speaker 3 (08:24):
All right, it was just me and the left talking
about it.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
I mean, we have a decision and a choice to
have a conversation about all of it, is all I'm saying.
We don't have to focus on one singular issue, and
we've been talking about since.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
But now you can't disconnect. You can't disconnect one from
the other. That's my point. The politics of this are
getting red hot, and so the liberals are saying, you know,
it's the worst security breach in the history in the
modern day history of our country. It's nowhere near the truth,
and they're going to play politics with this. The left is,
And no do I think it's all as serious as
(08:59):
they're all making it out to be. I'm less concerned
with the security aspect of it than I am with
was this done on purpose. Is somebody in that administration
trying to undermine the president? How did this happen? Was
it a stupid mistake? Okay, people make mistakes. Own up
to the mistake, admit it, apologize for it, say we're
(09:20):
going to put some whatever in place to we're going
to change tactics here on how we communicate to make
sure this never happens again, and move along from it.
If it's somebody that did this on purpose, then you
fire there, you know what, on the spot and make
an example of them. But I don't so all of
this in the meantimes just chatter back and forth and
(09:41):
blah blah blah, and like it's pissing me off.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Right because it's really not focusing on the bigger issue,
which is the fact that we have Houthi rebels shooting
twenty three times at our ships that are having to
go at the cost of American taxpayers and potentially the
lives of our service members around the West, you know,
the Horn of Africa instead of going through the Suez Canal.
We're not even talking about what's the most important thing here,
at least one of the most important things. So you
(10:07):
mentioned the left, So aris, what was your question.
Speaker 7 (10:09):
I wonder how many Democrats would want to be held
the same standard they keep throwing up here on this,
you know, the you have to retain this information also
stuff I tend to remember about thirty thousand emails that
somehow disappeared this j sixth information that was supposed to
(10:32):
be retained and somehow got encrypted and lost. That's just
a short list of a number of things that I
really don't think that Democrats want to create some kind
of hubbub about this and be held at that same
standard because they would fail every time.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Well, I just shows how hypocritical they are.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Well, I think you know, as I said, both sides
are mishandling this if you ask me, and I'll actually
even give it to the left, because that's what they do.
That's what they're going to turn this into a They're
going to turn it into a battering ram. They're going
to go after the Trump administration. Would you expect anything differently,
So they're just playing out of their same playbook, that's
what they do. But the Trump administration is playing right
(11:13):
into their hands. And let's get to the bottom of
this and get the facts out and instead of all
of this trying to discredit to what's been reported and
discredit the liberals and bring up Hillary. Now we're back
in two thousand whatever, you know, ten years ago or whatever,
instead of in the present, and we're argued about all
these stupid things, instead of, you know, the task at
(11:36):
hand of fixing the country and, according to the President,
making it great again. So I wish the President just
would have come out and the rest of them too,
and said, you know what, we're going to get to
the bottom of this. I'm not even going to comment
on this right now. We're going to find out what happened.
We're going to share that with you, we're going to
take steps to fix it, and then we're going to
move along. But that's not what happened. Instead, they're just
(11:58):
like back and forth. It's just a mess.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Well it's because it happened over the weekend. You know
that this is you know, warp breakneck speed that this
two point zero Trump administration is working. And he did
say that he's going to get to the bottom of this,
and I think we will hear something from him. As
a true leader. I really do.
Speaker 5 (12:18):
Your news, traffic, weather and information station.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
This is Charleston's Morning News on ninety four to three WUSC.
Speaker 5 (12:27):
Now back to Kelly and Blaze.
Speaker 8 (12:30):
As the texts come out, it's becoming abundantly clear that
the discussions were not top secret. They may have been
confidential or fouo, but it didn't contain any actual details
on MAME, location, ordnance, et cetera. Also as a blunder
forminke wobols the systeam to include this journalist, but it's
(12:51):
an equal problem that the journalists remained within the chat.
He takes ass the plane for sure, they're not acknowledging.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
That top that feature on the Ihea app. You can
hit the round radio microphone there and let us know
in thirty seconds before you go. Welcome into a Thursday
edition of the program, and our signal gate chat continues.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
I mean, I've heard that mentioned before, and I get
the point, and I don't know. I'm kind of on
the fence on that.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
I think if I was invited to this chat, I'm
not sure I had to jumped out of it, right.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
The journalists are you know, the media is the fourth
estate of government and they're there to hold the government accountable.
And if all of a sudden you get invited in
here accidentally. I mean right away, you know that that's
an issue. And I won't say that this guy hasn't
milked it for everything that it's worth and continues to
do so. But I don't know if I would have
(13:38):
jumped on out of there.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
So I've already put myself in this situation. And what
I would have done is identified myself in the chat
and said I got an invite here, I'm here, here's
who's in the room talking to me. And this is
a very basic example. But if you call me and
you're in the car, and you've got your kids in
the car and I'm on speaker, you need to let
me know, right So I would have identified myself and
(14:03):
then they could have decided from there whether they create
a new chat or otherwise. That's where maybe to the
talkback feature. Their caller's point, Well, I would have identified myself.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
I probably would have handled it differently, really, and maybe
I'll take keat for that. I would have stayed and.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Yes, I crapped quietly in the back.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
I would have. I would have, and then as soon
as that it was over, I would have contacted those
government officials and said, you accidentally invited me on this chat,
and I was privy to everything you discussed, and I'm
going to report on this what's your side of this story?
So yeah, I would have stated a thing that.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
I wouldn't report on the fact that I was invited
to the chat, but I would have made sure they
knew who was in the room.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Well, again, just simply if you're a journalist and it's
your job to hold the government accountable, and all of
a sudden you find yourself in that situation, of course
you're curious, being just by the nature of things and
through your job and everything else. So I probably would
have stayed to the end, but I would have given
them a chance to also weigh in on their side
(15:08):
of the story before I reported it.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Yeah, well, no doubt I would do that anyway, absolutely,
but I would have identified myself just in case I
would want the same. Frankly, I'd like to you know,
it's a golden rum. I want to treat others a
way that you know I want to be treated.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Well, obviously you don't want to accidentally invite me into
a chat.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
All right, So doctor down, you have a history in
security in the past.
Speaker 9 (15:30):
Well, in the Navy, I was the cryptology material security
officer for a command. This is obviously before medical school,
and I was the officer responsible for receiving and destroying
up to top secret materials. Any civilian that forced their
way into that access would have been immediately arrested and
(15:53):
interrogated by back then anis or an essay, I know
of an that since that time. That happened less than
ten years ago in DC, when one of my friends,
who was a security officer retired Air Force security officer
for a construction company and was discussing plans for building
(16:17):
a military facility. One of the gentlemen spoke up on
the table. This is a vice president of an international
corporation and had an accent and and my friend said, well, gee,
when did you become an American citizen? And he said,
oh no, I'm still whatever country he was. They closed
the binder immediately and said we can't continue this discussion.
(16:40):
And the CEO of the corporation said, yeah, he's friendly,
he's good, he's okay, And my buddy and his boss
said no, we're done, and I'm calling NSA and they
both of them were told they were going to be
fired if they didn't continue to brief and they said, fine, virus,
that's better than prison. And within thirty minutes they had
NSA in the boardroom interrogating with them up against the wall,
(17:05):
every executive in a suit. How this gentleman was not
treated the same way is he got a pass. He
got a big pass, because having access to cryptologic materials
or any classified materials and not divulging your access immediately
(17:26):
is illegal. So much as you said Blaze would be
in trouble.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
I beg to differ. He was invited in, Don, So
that's different than forcing your way in. That's different than
finding some classified document and it's marked classified and you're like, oh,
I'm going to see what's in here.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
It was under a different name, though, So.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
He was invited in. So that would be a tough
thing for the prosecutor to overcome, and I think an
easy thing for the defense to say, Look, you invite
him in. He's supposed to know all the rules. You're
supposed to know that, not him, and he was invited in.
So as much as I respect your opinion, Donna, I
disagree with you.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Running down the fallout of signal Gate.
Speaker 4 (18:13):
I think the main thing is, wouldn't it be great
if I already said hey, yeah, we screwed this up.
Speaker 5 (18:17):
We're going to put proceeders.
Speaker 4 (18:18):
In place to make sure this never happens again. And
the reason we're still talking about it is because that
hasn't been the way they've approached, you know, the messaging
associated with it.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
So that's j Yeah. See, so that's general h. R.
Big Master. He worked in the former Trump White House,
and he's sitting down with CBS this morning and the
whole Gael King crew. He literally just went off and
so I was rolling on him live there, and he
really made a good point about you know, well, probably
because Gail keeps pushing well, why hasn't he done that?
(18:48):
Kind of breathlessly, so why hasn't he done that? Like things,
we could move on from here. And all I could
think is, would you, Gale and crew on CBS News
this morning, you're very left leaning, would you really move
on from here? If Trump gave an inch, showed weakness
and said, oh I'm sorry, I don't know. It's not
as Mo, He's not that guy, well, it.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Put it plays right into their hands. And that's been
the point I've been trying to make for two days
now over this issue, is that if they would have
played it differently and had done what hr McMaster just
suggested they do. And this I brought this up yesterday.
Get it all out there, get it behind you, and
then they can do whatever they're going to do, and
they're going to look more and more foolish as they
(19:28):
do it. You say, we already addressed this, we took
measures to prevent it ever from happening again, and we
have more than important things to deal with now. But
instead this thing, They let this thing fester. And I
wish they would have come out, you know, they should
have come out that night and said, I don't care
how big of a team it takes, get on this.
(19:49):
Find out how this happened, where it came from, whether
it was a leak or a mistake or whatever. Get
the facts out there and then put it behind Well, what.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
They're doing, really, at least from Caroline Levitt's perspective and
the comms team, the communications seem they're pointing fingers back
at the hack reporter Trump, Peter, calling him names, you know,
and so on. And I will say this, I mean,
at least Pete heg Seth and others, including Waltz, are
saying Listen, there were no this is this is not
a breach of a security and not a national threat
(20:23):
here when it comes to security, the no locations, no sources,
no methods, no war plans. Even hr Master was saying,
you know that the foreign partners had already been notified
and that strikes were imminent. So you know, calm down
on the left intimating that someone like a Waltz's head
should roll. I mean, even Telza Gabber's name was put
(20:43):
out there. And there's about twenty seconds more if you
want to hear this of h R McMaster where she's saying,
why in the world won't they just apologize? Listen.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
I think most Americans, I mean, they're going to be
pretty tolerant about this kind of thing if they say, hey, listen,
we screwed up.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
It's a new administration. Every new administration.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Had, you know, some degree of friction, makes make some mistakes.
And fortunately, Gail right, I mean, there weren't any negative
consequences associated with this. It was a potential breach as
far as we know, not like a real breach of
that information.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
There you go exactly again. I mean, that's what it
boils down to. So the issue at hand is not
what information was shared. And of course the left is
going to play politics with this. They're going to do
what they normally do and play politics. But at the
same time, I mean, this is an egregious event and
it shows stupidity on somebody's part or even more nefarious
(21:37):
if somebody did it on purpose. It shows somebody, you know,
going willing to go to that extent to get their
way and to cause friction in this administration. So that's
a serious issue. And as McMaster just said, get the
facts out there, get it behind you, and be totally
(21:57):
open and honest about it, and the America and people
would probably be pretty forgiving about it.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Thanks for listening to the Charleston Morning News podcast. Catch
Kelly and Blaze weekday mornings from six to nine
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.