You Let WHAT Leak? (Is there something more here?)

You Let WHAT Leak? (Is there something more here?)

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
I just I don't know how to best put this.
I find it hard to believe that this was an accident. Really,
so if you missed the story, essentially what has happened
Jeffrey Goldberg, He's not just any writer. He is the
editor in chief of a more liberal leaning publication called

(00:25):
The Atlantic. And I don't know, do you know much
about The Atlantic? I know it's not the Pacific, that
is true. The Atlantic does have two million followers on
social media, at least on x and it's very liberal.
So like, for instance, the last thing they posted was
a movie review of Disney's Snow White.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
And of course they did.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
Now I don't know about love, but they said Disney's
live action remakes tend to add little more than gloss
the timeless animated works, which, in a sentence, in a vacuum,
it's true. I mean, if you've seen The Lion King
or a Little Mermaid or any of the other live
action ones, I mean, it's basically just like we made
the cartoon the animated movie, we made it live. It

(01:09):
really doesn't do much of anything to change the story
at all. Well, it says snow White doesn't break the mold,
but at least it could conjure some magic, and it's
reimagining of its princess, And of course that has everything
to do with the fact they changed the entire backstory
of snow White to make sense of who's playing snow White.
And I'm not here to get on that, but it
kind of tells you where they are on the spectrums

(01:30):
that makes sense. I'm not here to talk about snow White.
I don't know how good snow White's doing. It sounds
like it's not doing so hot to start with, and
a lot of critics don't like it. It's gotten so political, though,
I just don't care. I really just don't care. I'm
my movie going or show going experience is not going
to be affected by politics. However, you know what it

(01:55):
is going to be affected by my politics?

Speaker 1 (01:57):
What politics? Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:59):
You know the thing politics is supposed to be about?
Oh so old Jeffrey Goldberg, who has also followed by
two hundred and ninety thousand followers now on x I'm
sure that number was much smaller until yesterday when he
was added into a conversation somehow like a text chain
on this social media app or I guess it's a

(02:21):
supposed to be like a kind of a secretive app
called Signal, and he was added into a conversation that
he got plans of what Pete Haig Sayth and JD.
Vance and Mike Waltz are talking to each other about
going in and trying to attack the Hohothies, And uh, yeah,
does it bother you?

Speaker 1 (02:41):
It bothers me. Maybe he was.

Speaker 3 (02:43):
Eating a waffle, Yeah, I mean, you know, he got
syrup on his fingers and hit the wrong thing.

Speaker 1 (02:49):
Happen you know.

Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, we're still trying to unpack every last detail of
exactly what happened here. But at the end of the day,
I think the biggest problem that I see here is
that this could very well end up being a setup
by somebody who's somehow got access to these guys. There's

(03:11):
somebody in that conversation that added Jeffrey Goldberg to the conversation.
And I mean, hey, haig Seth himself, we know how,
we know how controversial he ended up being as a decision,
as a choice, And I suppose from a variety of perspectives,

(03:34):
we could talk about how what hag Seth's background is
trying to be nice here, he basically was asked yesterday,
and I don't want to play the whole audio, but
he basically said that this is a quack. This guys
is unfounded. This guy is always lying. This is a
publication that lies that that isn't true. He we know

(04:00):
it from Brian Hughes from the National Security Council, who
said that this seems to be an authentic piece. But again,
you can imagine if your hag Seth or your Vans
or your Waltz, and you're gonna have to answer questions
about this, You're going to be trying to do everything
you can to say this really wasn't classified information. We
weren't trying to keep any secrets. Now, the attack essentially happens,

(04:21):
and after the attack happens, probably to cover his own behind,
that's when Goldberg decides to publish this stuff and say, ah,
I got texted this stuff somehow. Yeah, it was a
little more convoluted than him, just accidentally like them that
fingering a couple of numbers and they were texting each
other and there's an extra number here. Nobody knows quite

(04:42):
who it is, but it's oh, it's the editor in
chief of The Atlantic. No, he got in there purposefully.
I have an inkling that this is a setup to
try to get hag Seth smeared so they can try
to remove him. That's your inklining that he got in
there somehow he got in there because he got let
in there with the idea that he would do this
real house of cards. So you're saying somebody on the

(05:05):
text chain let him in. There were more than just
a couple of people, and somebody had to have let
him in.

Speaker 3 (05:12):
This plot is thicker than oatmeal.

Speaker 2 (05:14):
And that's all I'm saying is, you know, if we
can find out exactly who that was, why did they
want Jeffrey Goldberg in there? And how can you possibly
tell me that this was an accident. You don't accidentally
add somebody to your conversation in signal unless that person
also was in cahoots. Now there's this meta kind of

(05:35):
not meta the company, but this meta thinking that maybe
this was intentionally leaked in some kind.

Speaker 3 (05:42):
Fourteen D chess.

Speaker 2 (05:44):
Yeah, that the Trump administration and the people the powers
that you wanted this information to be leaked as some
sort of deterrent or distraction somewhere else. That would surprise
me considering the fact that we didn't hear about it
until after the attack happened.

Speaker 1 (05:58):
Why would they do that?

Speaker 2 (05:59):
Well, that could be a ploy to kind of kick
start negotiations. Let's say we're you and me are on
a text chain and we're talking about, you know, blowing
something up, but we don't really want to blow it up.
We just want the people who we are planning to
blow up to know we're thinking about blowing them up.

(06:19):
So maybe they'll come to the table and say, hey,
we heard through the grapevine you're thinking about blowing us up.
What if we sat down and kind of talked through
this before you decide to blow us up? Like okay,
That's why we would leak that conversation to them, so
they would have an idea of like, oh, okay, maybe
they're serious, maybe we should actually like start negotiating with them,
And that would be the strategy for that. But the

(06:41):
timeline doesn't add up because the conversation was about something
that then happened, and then after it happened is when
it got published. So I don't know, there's a lot
of different ways to look at this. It's unsettling to me.
The Trump administration. Haig Seth Waltz vance, they can act like,
this really isn't that big of a deal, and maybe

(07:02):
in terms of the kind of information that we learn
about on a day to day basis, it is, maybe
it isn't really that big of a deal because we're
hearing about different negotiation tactics all the time. At the
same time, the fact that somebody who certainly is no
friend of this organization of this administration, from The Atlantic,
which is a liberal leaning publication, that their editor in

(07:23):
chief somehow was given access to this conversation unknowingly to
the rest of the room and was able to publish
this to try to dunk on this administration and how,
you know, amateur hour, this administration is, which is the
whole point of his piece.

Speaker 3 (07:40):
Is there any possibility that his name is very close
to another name in the list and the guy was
just eating waffles and he wasn't being careful.

Speaker 2 (07:49):
Jeffrey Goldberg, Yeah, I don't think so.

Speaker 3 (07:52):
Have we looked over the list?

Speaker 2 (07:54):
You know, we could go through the list, but this
is not the kind of thing that you would just
fat finger somebody in acts put them in there and
then start talking about, yeah, let's go bomb Yemen.

Speaker 1 (08:03):
You know what I mean?

Speaker 2 (08:03):
Like this is you wouldn't do it intentionally. Yeah, but
you wouldn't do it at all? Like why would you
have this guy's contact information at him? There anyway you wouldn't.
You wouldn't.

Speaker 1 (08:12):
Is there not?

Speaker 3 (08:12):
I don't know how it works. Is there not a
list down where you're selecting recipient recipients in the signal app?

Speaker 1 (08:18):
Youah?

Speaker 4 (08:18):
Sure?

Speaker 3 (08:18):
Is goodness, shouldn't be talking about this in the signal app.
Let's at least put that out there.

Speaker 2 (08:22):
Well, it depends because theoretically a lot of this stuff
should be protected, but we know how the internet works.
The Internet, nothing's really protected. It's all that to Hillary. Yeah,
well that's the thing. A lot of people who are
on the liberal left for sade and they were crying
this political party and this president was crying about Hillary's
emails a decade ago, and here they are having their
own faux pad just trying to message each other on

(08:43):
a social media app of some kind.

Speaker 1 (08:45):
Lock her up, lock her up? Yeah.

Speaker 2 (08:47):
Well that's the other thing too, right, is uh, you're
gonna twist this politically every single possible way. And uh,
Haig Seth said yesterday, this is a so called journalist
who has been highly discredited and deceitful and pedals hoaxes
by all accounts, That's not what this is. And I
don't know who's going to have to answer to this.

(09:08):
I don't anticipate this administration caving in saying, oh yeah,
it's gonna be Jeffrey Goldberg from the Atlantic that's going
to force us to fire hag Set. That's not what's
going to happen. But this is certainly going to be
another thing that it's going to be piled on for
the opposition of, like, this is not a qualified person
to be doing this. This is not a qualified administration.

(09:28):
Look at how amateurish everything they do is That to
me is a bit of an issue. Alas one thing
after another. We'll do the best that we can. It
is two eighteen. Thanks for listening to us today. If
you got thoughts, email me Emrie atkfab dot com. We
were all along on news radio eleven ten Kfab and
Maurice Sunger I saw this. I'm waiting for more information here,

(09:49):
but what we know from the sources, in from what
The Atlantic has continued to post in the hours after
this initially got put in. Mike Waltz it was a
a connects your request on Signal the Signal app from
an account with the name Mike Waltz. That's the name
of the National Security Director. Now again, that doesn't mean

(10:12):
that was Mike Waltz. And Mike Waltz has been speaking
today because he's been asked about this, because obviously that'd
be a problem that your national security director is adding
a usually uninvited guest into a conversation of this magnitude.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
But yeah, I.

Speaker 2 (10:30):
Mean this is also something that could be absolutely done
to try to damage him as well. So who was
in there If it's not Mike Waltz, who added him?
And that doesn't make any sense, but you know how
it goes. Have you been on Zoom or teams calls
or anything like that, You can change your name to
read whatever you wanted to read. Can you do that
on Signal? Well, I don't know. I haven't used a
signal app, but you would, I would think so. The

(10:53):
account the account says Mike Waltz as like the name
of the person who added that person to the chat.
And I don't know how many people generally are in
chats like this, but according to this a couple of
weeks ago, jeff Goldberg was added to the group, and
the group was the HOUTHYPC Small Group and it included

(11:16):
JD Van's, Mark Rubio, Pete Haigseth, among others. And while
the account that added this name this Jeffrey Goldberg in
said Mike Waltz, we have not gotten official confirmation that
it was Mike Waltz or whom exactly that would have
come from. You figure that be traceable to an email

(11:38):
address or to some account, or maybe it's just an
elaborate hacking job, and of all of the things that
you could hack into, this is what you do.

Speaker 3 (11:46):
I feel like we need an expert to the the
app signal. You know, somebody who can explain how exactly
it works. You do you know how this works? I
actually have it be on How does it work? I
don't use it a very often other than to just
keep tabs on a group chat that I'm involved in
with my church.

Speaker 2 (12:05):
Okay, well that makes sense, this is like that. But
how as far as how the inner workings work? Yeah,
like how do you start a chat? And how I
don't know because I've never done that. I'm just I
was just added to a group chat and can participate
in this group chat, but I don't know exactly the
inner workings and how people are added or subtracted. So
this is is this like the WhatsApp? I mean it

(12:27):
kind of reminds me of the WhatsApp because it's like encrypted.
That's why you wouldn't do it in like a text
chain like the WhatsApp, you can like message each other
and it doesn't really matter where you are. It says
you must register with about phone number, but your phone
number doesn't have to be publicly visible, and users can
create encrypted group chats and make secure voice and video calls.
You can also set your messages to disappear after a

(12:49):
certain number of time, and Signal offers features like relay calls,
which could hide your IP.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
Address with no ad tracking.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
This is this is you know, like the the the
encryption giveth and the encryption take it away, because that's
what can help protect somebody who's doing the farious things,
is that the app itself is fully encrypted. Now does
that mean they can go back in and find the
stuff that they're looking for?

Speaker 5 (13:13):
Now?

Speaker 1 (13:13):
I ask, can you change your name on Signal? And
it said yeah.

Speaker 2 (13:16):
Signal allows users to set a display name, which appears
in group chats, but that name isn't linked to your
phone number, and you can change it whenever you want. So,
I mean, how would you even know? Like you and
I could do this and name ourselves Mike Waltz and
get away.

Speaker 1 (13:29):
With it, it.

Speaker 2 (13:30):
Said, And I asked, how do you change your name
on Signal? And it gives me the infrastructions. So open
the app, tap your profile icon, select your name, edit
your name, and then tap say and now your name's
changed on.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
The Signal app. That's all you gotta do.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
So yeah, huh, whatever, whatever the Mike Waltz, whatever the
Mike Waltz account is. I mean, they could have easily
changed their name within seconds. So somebody, somebody who's actually
hacked in or or somebody knew of this group chat
because they're close to the administration, they somehow got added
into the app or into the group changed their name

(14:08):
to Mike Waltz, or maybe like you mentioned, they did
like a search for Mike Waltz instead of threw his
phone number, and this Mike Waltz popped up, and this
Mike Waltz intentionally added Jeffrey Goldberg into the chat. So
it's like a like a superficial hack job thing that
they had. These accounts, got added into a group chat,

(14:31):
added Jeffrey Goldberg to a group chat. They saw everything,
and then he had the information and he was off
and running once the operation was finished. So which is
more likely Emery Songer, hack job or mole.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
It's got to be a mole.

Speaker 2 (14:47):
If the plan was to get Jeffrey Goldberg in there,
it has to be a mole. But they it would
have resembled kind of a hack job though, of how
to kind of weasel their way into the group chat,
because how else this person be in there. You have
to be added into the chat, and then you add
a person into the chat. You know, I don't know.

(15:08):
It's weird, isn't it weird? It's a bit weird.

Speaker 3 (15:10):
Concerning what are you doing talking about this stuff on signal.

Speaker 2 (15:15):
And again unless you're intentionally trying to leak this, but
why would you leak it to the Atlantic?

Speaker 1 (15:19):
That makes no sense.

Speaker 2 (15:20):
And you can hide your IP address because it's encrypted,
so that could protect whomever did this from really being
tracked backwards to it, especially because you can fake a
phone number, especially if you're like in the government, you
can easily just have a burner phone.

Speaker 1 (15:34):
Well, I could get you there.

Speaker 3 (15:36):
If we want to do a little thought experiment of
why would you leak it to the Atlantic? Now that's
a that's not a guy you like very much. No,
but that's what I'm saying. So you wouldn't leak it
to somebody you like?

Speaker 1 (15:47):
Why not? Because this is egg on your face?

Speaker 3 (15:50):
So then you got to turn about and start going
to war?

Speaker 1 (15:52):
All right? Hold that thought.

Speaker 2 (15:53):
We're gonna have to investigate open the phones too, in
case people have opinions on this. Four h two five
five eight eleven ten. We're going to do the best
we can to try to understand this. And I don't know,
I don't know. This is a weird thing to be
dealing with just two months into a presidency. But we'll
find out exactly as time goes on. On news Radio
eleven ten.

Speaker 1 (16:11):
Kfab Emery's songer on news Radio eleven ten.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
Kfab security at Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic of all people,
got added into a chat on the Signal app about
plans to go after the who he's in Yemen and
Mike Waltz and Pete haig Seth and Jade Vance Mark

(16:35):
Rubio among those who were in the chat. Now, Kathleen
emailed in, and I don't want anybody to get the
wrong idea about what we're talking about here. But Kathleen said, Emory, buddy,
why are you guys trying to stir the pot by
inventing conspiracy theories around the group chat era? You know
a lot of people take what you say seriously. The
President confirmed a staffer had inadvertently added the Atlantic guy

(16:56):
to the chat. My words are talking up to human
error and experience and sloppiness. Like Trump says, it's a
lesson learned. Now, I sent you some audio you want
to play that. It's raw. I didn't get a chance
to really to listen to the whole thing. It's a
couple of minutes, but it's Trump taking questions today, and
he's sitting amongst a lot of his staff, and he
basically kind of asks Mike Waltz to speak on this,

(17:18):
and we're going to listen to this for the first
time fully together. Let's go ahead and hear what this
sounds like it is.

Speaker 6 (17:26):
And I think I'll ask Mike. Mike is here, and
you want to respond to that. Listen, Yes, mister President,
you asked about lessons. I think there's a lot of
the lessons. There's a lot of journalists in this city
who have made big names for themselves making up lies
about this president, whether it's the Russia hoax or making
up lies about gold Star families.

Speaker 7 (17:45):
And this one in particular, I've never met, don't know,
never communicated with, And we are and we are looking
into and reviewing how the heck he got into this room.
But I'll tell you what the world owes President Trump
a favor under by and global shipping was shut down,
pencrick attacks months between them are destroyers being fired upon

(18:07):
dozens of times. President Trump took decisive active action with
his national security team. Took out the head missileer, knocked
out missiles, knocked out headquarters, knocked out communication sites, and
for once, as we hear, as you all hear from
every one of our allies, thank god for American leadership again,

(18:27):
thank God for American strength.

Speaker 1 (18:30):
A year to help hou.

Speaker 7 (18:35):
We had a national security team that was coordinating these efforts.
As Director Radcliffe testified today, his first day on the job,
he was introduced to this app on his government systems
at the CIA and at the State Department and otherwise.
So look, this journalist, mister president, once the world talking
about more hoaxes in this kind of nonsense, rather than

(18:59):
the freedom that you're enabling. And a key part of
our sovereignty is open sea lanes and knocking the crop
out of terrorists, which is exactly what your team. And
Pete Hegsept, a good friend and fellow veteran, is leading
the charge on and it's we're very very successful.

Speaker 6 (19:14):
Excuse me, we had a very very successful evening, all.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
Right, So there's a there's that that's I mean, that's
the first time Waltz has actually spoken on this. Look,
I don't want to be conspiracy memory because I'm not.
I'm not a conspiracy guy. I'm usually the guy shutting
down conspiracies, right, I'm usually the guys saying, hey, maybe
we got to be careful about the way we talk
about certain things. You cannot tell me that it was
Mike Walts who accidentally did this. You can't tell me

(19:40):
that a staffer underneath Mike Waltz accidentally added this guy,
of all of all guys into this chat. And you
also can't can you see who's in your chat? Does
the signal app like, give you a list of like
who's in the group chat?

Speaker 1 (19:54):
I can't remember.

Speaker 3 (19:56):
We we we need a signal expert.

Speaker 1 (19:58):
That's what we need. Somebody calling right now. Maybe that's
maybe that's them. Let me see if I can figure
it out. Uh so, yeah.

Speaker 2 (20:09):
I again, I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist here.
I'm just saying that this couldn't have been just a
mistake or an accident. If I'm Mike Waltz, I'm going
to every single staffer, and I am not that you
don't want to trust people, but you kind of have to, like, like,
you got to put something else in there. You got
to you gotta think about this from from that perspective
of not only is my job if you're Mike Walt's,

(20:31):
my job's on the line here, but the country's national
security could be on the line. And you're giving this
information or access to this information to someone who wants
to smear this administration, who obviously is against Republicans and
against conservatives. That's not an accident to me. There's just
no way. Teresa's on the phone line of four h two, five, five,

(20:52):
eight to eleven ten. What's going on?

Speaker 4 (20:54):
Teresa Okay, first of all, that Kim Wall's speaking, Mike Walls.
Mike Walls, thank you, wrong Waald. He didn't even address
what President Trump was asking. I have not heard and
I've watched a lot of I know, all the fake news,
and I watch a lot of the Voice of America

(21:15):
whatever the heck it is on Pluto, So I mean,
I watch all of them. I haven't heard one Republican apologize.
And I have a question for you, Avery Emory.

Speaker 1 (21:25):
But yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 4 (21:26):
Sorry, sorry, I'm getting everything screwed up today. Have you
ever apologized to one of your dogs?

Speaker 7 (21:32):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (21:33):
Thank you. So you're a good Republican. And I'm saying
this because I'm a parent. I have three children, and
I have always apologized to my children when I was
in the wrong. I don't know how this happened, and
it's horrible that it happened, because I just keep thinking

(21:53):
about So the President could have been calling military families
letting them know that their pilot son, pilot daughter has
been killed in action because just and again, I don't
know if it's a mole or if it's a oop. Now,
maybe we should be googling the name Jeffrey Goldberg to

(22:15):
see if there's somebody with that name or a facsimile
of that name, yeah, in in our government. Maybe that's
how it happened.

Speaker 2 (22:27):
Yeah, I mean, I guess we're gonna find out, because
there's going to have to be more answers to this
than just Oops, a guy from the Atlanta got somehow
into this this chat. That's just not a good enough
reason for me, Teresa. But I appreciate the.

Speaker 1 (22:39):
Call, Tame.

Speaker 4 (22:40):
I agree, I agree, but I am happy that it
was him and not somebody else that could have done
a lot worse, you know what I mean?

Speaker 2 (22:47):
Yeah, No, for sure. One, I appreciate the call, Teresa.
Thank you for listening.

Speaker 1 (22:50):
Today.

Speaker 2 (22:51):
I've got another Teresa somehow on the phone line, Teresa
number two. What's going on today?

Speaker 5 (22:55):
Hi?

Speaker 8 (22:56):
Yes, So my thoughts are that if you are an invitation,
unless you have that app on your phone, that means
you have to download it and sign up and all
of that, And it's kind of like napchat. If you
download it, you get yourself all set up. Everybody in

(23:16):
your contact then can be communicated with. Right, So, did
this reporter just happened to have everybody's private number? I mean,
I'm sure that you know where I'm going with.

Speaker 2 (23:29):
Yeah, and I'm looking here, and there is a way
for basically anyone in the group to see everyone else
who's in there. So nobody thought to see exactly who
was in this chat. And it was just like who's who?
They say, it's this weird number here, you know, like
like they would have not recognized at least one of
the numbers.

Speaker 8 (23:47):
And then here's the other thing about this journalist or
whoever he is. He says that he listened or read
the face chat messages for two hours. Right, you know,
where is it? Hey, I'm accident here. I'm sorry, guys.

Speaker 1 (24:04):
You know, yeah, no, Teresa, it's about the clicks.

Speaker 2 (24:07):
I mean, in journalism, especially when you're running for something
like the Atlantic, of all things, in order for people
to like know who you are and to do stuff
you there, the integrity is to the craft, not to
the country, not to the government, not to anybody except
the craft. And that's just the unfortunate reality. Have you
watched House of Cards, the TV show?

Speaker 4 (24:29):
No?

Speaker 2 (24:29):
Okay, so it's like I know it's a TV show.
I know it's a TV show, But there's like stuff
like this that's happening all the time, and it's like politics.
This guy's trying to kind of weasel his way up
the political ladder because he feels like he's been wronged,
and he uses the press as kind of like an agent,
if you will, of chaos. He gets information, and he

(24:50):
will give that information to somebody in the press and
say I'll keep giving you scoops if you will print
them like this, and yeah, and it kind of usurps
a lot of the stuff that's happening, and it ends up,
you know, creating a lot of chaos. And I'm not
saying that's exactly what's going on here, But if there
is just anyone who has access to Jeffrey Goldberg, and

(25:10):
certainly Goldberg and every single other writer at a national
level wants to have a contact somewhere close to this administration,
I'm sure that they're given dollars to somebody to get
this kind of access to information so they can make
a bunch of money in terms of people subscribing or
people you know, clicking on the story, or advertisers or whatever.

(25:34):
So I don't I don't expect anybody like Jeffrey Goldberg
to have integrity because that's just how the game works.
I guess, yeah, no, that's that's that's also true. Hey Teresa,
thanks la Caall, Yeah, thank you so much for listening.
Two forty seven. We'll finish this conversation up. I'm supposed
to speak with John Ewing, our second mayoral candidate. This

(25:55):
schedule to join the show this week for next week.
So what kind of whine this conversation down and talk
to John Ewing here at the top of the hour.
But WHOI what an interesting way to start a Tuesday
on news radio eleven ten KFAB really don't know. Is
that where we've landed based on the limited amount of
information that we're told, and I'm guessing based on the

(26:18):
way that the White House has kind of handled this,
I'm assuming that's going to stay that way. Any additional
information is probably gonna be kept tight to the vests.

Speaker 3 (26:26):
You said, more accident than intentional, No, more intentional an accident. Oh,
I can't get behind that. No, I haven't. I haven't
seen that. To say that, you have to have definitive proof. Well,
but I'm saying there's just no way you had this
guy's number. Yeah, but then you're just assuming emotions you
don't know about or things behind the scenes you don't
know about.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
But somebody who's a staffer who would have access to
this information would have added that number. And I'm just
wondering how no one noticed that number. You want to
play Aukham's razor a mistake is the most is the
most likely scenario here, And you're probably right, But I
still don't think, like, of all of the people, it's
the editor in chief of The Atlantic, that somebody gets
the number and adds into the signal app and nobody

(27:06):
notices that he's there for two plus hours while they're
talking about this stuff.

Speaker 1 (27:11):
I mean, what's going on here? Yeah? That I like,
how is that possible?

Speaker 2 (27:16):
But again, there could be either or I'm just thinking
that there's way too many things. There's just way too
many things that this could end up being. Chris sent
in this email and said Handling's raisor is never a
tribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

(27:38):
Uh yeah, I get what you're saying there, Chris, But
how many phone numbers do you know?

Speaker 1 (27:45):
Matt?

Speaker 2 (27:46):
Like, like, I could I know my wife's number, I
know my number. I couldn't tell you your number my memory. Yeah,
there's no reason to know people's numbers, right my memory
now we keep them all into our virtual phone book
here on our phone. Yeah, so so I don't know,
Like I'm just I'm like, I'm sitting here thinking about it,
Like you would have had to intentionally dial that number. Basically,

(28:08):
you'd have to add that number intentionally, because that's how
things go.

Speaker 1 (28:12):
And I just I'm looking here as.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
An innocent young man who wants to believe in his government,
and I do think this administration is being ridiculously targeted
by the left. And you're already hearing all of the
senators who are Democrats say that they need to resign.
Hegeseth and Waltz need to resign because of this faux pop.
But that's what they wanted here, and that's the only

(28:36):
reason that this would have happened, is to try to
force them out of office through this leak. I just
cannot believe nobody noticed that. Hey, Zeus is on the line, Hazeus,
I have about a minute. What's on your mind about this?

Speaker 9 (28:45):
Okay?

Speaker 5 (28:46):
Well, you know I have a long term memory, So
I remember the first time in the administration Trump came
in and if you remember the words crossfire, hurricane when
an FBI or CIA person leaked seldossier which wasn't true,
which allowed them to do phone taps to Trump's administration

(29:07):
and to car A Lago and to the Trump Tower
and all of that. The leaks that happened when for
humans with oh my goodness, with the.

Speaker 8 (29:20):
Gentleman that I can't remember his name.

Speaker 7 (29:23):
That the.

Speaker 9 (29:25):
Illegal immigrants, when they were doing all of that, they
leaved those two times they found those speakers. Yeah, And
I think it's just it's gonna these things are gonna happen.
How many times did it happen in the camp in
the first one, it's gonna happen. But this is the
first one, the first time this has happened. And I

(29:46):
don't think you know they got how did they catch leakers?
Did they get the leakers the one for the for
the Roe versus way yet? I mean there's some actors
and leakers.

Speaker 2 (29:56):
Yeah, and he's just some runner at a time. And
I appreciate the call on this today. I'm not here
to debate that as much as I'm just here mostly
just to say there's way too many things that would
have had to have happened for this to happen. And
nobody to know that this guy was there until he
published his piece in the Atlantic.

Speaker 1 (30:15):
You know what I'm saying, it's been two weeks. Nobody noticed,
nobody knew. I mean seriously,