Subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Overcast | Pocket Casts
It’s occurred to the very best of us. We mistakenly ship a textual content a few colleague we’re mad at to that very colleague. We by accident embody our mother on the sibling textual content chain about our mother. At present on Radio Atlantic, a a lot higher-stakes texting error: The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, acquired a connection request on Sign from a “Michael Waltz,” which is the identify of President Donald Trump’s nationwide safety adviser. Two days later, he was added to a gaggle textual content with high administration officers created for the aim of coordinating high-level national-security conversations concerning the Houthis in Yemen. On March 15, Goldberg sat in his automotive in a grocery-store car parking zone ready to see if the strike would really occur. The bombs fell. The textual content thread needed to be actual.
We speak with Goldberg about this absurd chain of occasions, and with Shane Harris, who covers nationwide safety for The Atlantic, about what it implies that protection officers have been discussing detailed struggle plans on a textual content chain.
The next is a transcript of the episode:
Hanna Rosin: On March 15, the U.S. started a bombing marketing campaign towards Houthi teams in Yemen. A few hours earlier than that, our editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, sat in his automotive in a grocery store car parking zone, ready to see if and when the assault would begin. How he knew about this army marketing campaign is a really bizarre story. Not way back, Jeff was added to a textual content chain of essential individuals within the administration. Presumably, he was added to it by chance.
I do know, it occurs to the very best of us—however there was the editor of The Atlantic monitoring the back-and-forth between Protection Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President J. D. Vance, and others, questioning: May this presumably be actual? The truth is, Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the Nationwide Safety Council, later confirmed that it was certainly all actual. I’m Hanna Rosin. That is Radio Atlantic, and in the present day, we’ve got on the present editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg and workers author Shane Harris, who covers nationwide safety, to clarify what occurred and what it would imply.
Jeff, welcome to the present.
Jeffrey Goldberg: Hey, Hanna.
Rosin: Hello, Shane.
Shane Harris: Hello.
Rosin: Jeff, on Tuesday, March 11, you get a Sign message from a consumer recognized as Michael Waltz, which can also be the identify of President Trump’s nationwide safety adviser. The place are you if you get this message, and what are you considering?
Goldberg: Weirdly and randomly, I used to be in Salzburg, Austria, and what I’m considering just isn’t a lot, as a result of in my line of labor, that wouldn’t be the craziest factor to occur.
Rosin: Like, it may very well be him; it may very well be somebody pretending to be him. You’re not that fussed.
Goldberg: Properly, I’m at all times cautious about individuals reaching out throughout social media or messaging apps.
I don’t assume that they’re the individual that the identify suggests, however I must say that I used to be glad, additionally, and I hoped that it was the precise Michael Waltz, as a result of I’d prefer to be in common contact with Michael Waltz for all the apparent journalistic causes.
Rosin: Proper. So that you’re like, Oh, possibly he has a scoop for me.
Goldberg: Yeah.
Rosin: Okay, so then what occurs subsequent? You’re going about your life, going about your small business, and …
Goldberg: After which I get added to a gaggle, a Sign group—you recognize, a text-messaging chat group—known as “Houthi PC small group.” PC I do know from protecting White Home points, you recognize: “Principals Committee,” mainly the highest leaders of Cupboard departments typically related to national-security points, after which a message from Mike Waltz speaking about how he’s placing collectively this PC small group to speak concerning the Houthis, as a result of one thing’s gonna be occurring over the subsequent 72 hours. That’s after I kind of suppose—I imply, truthfully, the very first thing I assumed was: I’m actually being spoofed. Like, anyone is—this can be a hoax. This can be a state or nonstate actor, most likely nonstate actor, seeking to entrap, embarrass, no matter phrase you wanna use, a journalist.
Rosin: Proper. So that you’re on alert. Like, it’s just a little bit fascinating, but in addition …
Goldberg: Hanna, as you recognize, I’m at all times on alert.
Rosin: Yeah, okay, okay, okay.
Goldberg: Hanna, what am I gonna let you know?
Rosin: All proper, so then, so possibly it’s a spoof, possibly it’s not. How does it begin to get extra actual?
Goldberg: Properly, it will get actual within the sense that if anyone’s doing a spoof, it’s a really, very correct spoof. What occurs is, plenty of Cupboard-level officers begin reporting into this chain, giving the names of their deputies or contact individuals over the weekend, when, clearly, one thing’s gonna occur in Yemen. Uh, on reflection, clearly one thing’s gonna occur in Yemen. And that was that for that day; it was the subsequent day that they begin participating in a coverage dialogue actually in earnest. And it’s, you recognize, explicated within the story that I wrote. However, um, that’s after I’m kind of considering to myself, If this can be a simulation or this can be a pretend, somebody’s going to an enormous, big size to make it appear actual, as a result of everyone within the chat appears like the one that they’re quote-unquote taking part in. So I don’t say I’m 50–50; I’m nonetheless 60, 70, you recognize, 70–30 this can be a fakery, as a result of, for the straightforward cause that that is nuts—I imply, clearly why, why would I be concerned on this?
Rosin: I wouldn’t even know what to suppose, as a result of yeah, like, we embody individuals on textual content chains who we shouldn’t. Like, the error appears as implausible as the truth—like, each model appears implausible.
Goldberg: All of us make the error. Because of this that is so relatable. Yeah. All of us … I’m considering of Shane, and I’m writing to Hanna about Shane—an project, or how nice Shane is. And I kind in Shane into the recipient, as a result of that’s the identify that’s on my thoughts.
I don’t know what was happening in Mike Waltz’s thoughts, who he was considering of—we’re making an attempt to determine that out, nonetheless making an attempt to determine that out. However in any case, I used to be added to this group, and it’s a misdirected e-mail or textual content chain that I shouldn’t have been on. However the bigger level—and clearly Shane can communicate to this—the bigger level is that: Why is that this dialog occurring out within the open? Now, I do know Sign is end-to-end encrypted, however it’s a business texting service that anybody, not simply individuals with safety clearances within the federal authorities, can be a part of.
So, so, and that’s the important hazard, and that’s, if you wish to give it some thought, an authentic sin. The unique sin is speaking very delicate data in a channel the place you may mistakenly usher in—I imply, overlook the editor of The Atlantic. You could possibly have introduced in a Houthi, for all you recognize. You could possibly usher in anyone who’s actively sympathetic to the Houthis and sharing real-time data with you. That’s considerably appalling.
Rosin: So, Shane, I’m gonna ask you about that in a second, however I want yet another a part of the story earlier than we transfer on to that. Give me an instance of—you stated it appeared like them. Like, if it was a simulation, it was an incredible simulation. Are you able to give us an instance?
Goldberg: Certain: Pete Hegseth writing an all-caps about how he finds the Europeans pathetic. J. D. Vance sounding like a type of quasi-isolationist, speaking about: Why would we do that kind of factor? Europe doesn’t—Europe ought to maintain this downside; it’s not our downside. Commerce conversations. Essentially the most fascinating one, and the one which I assumed, Whoa, that actually does sound just like the man: On the finish of this chain, Stephen Miller, or I ought to say “S M,” an individual recognized as “S M,” is available in and mainly shuts the dialog down and stated, I heard the president. He was clear to me; he desires to do that. It was mainly—and clearly that is actually fascinating—it’s a dialog with not solely the secretaries of state, treasury, and protection, however the vice chairman of the USA, and right here comes Stephen Miller, deputy chief of workers, ostensibly simply deputy chief of workers, coming in and saying, Uh, everyone, uh, the president spoke. I heard it. Y’all want to simply cease doing what you’re doing. After which everyone type of will get in line and, like: All proper, properly I suppose we’re attacking Yemen.
Rosin: It’s so loopy that you just’re simply watching this dialog unfold.
Goldberg: Look, the White Home has confirmed that that is an genuine chain, however we’re nonetheless making an attempt to determine some points of it. I nonetheless don’t know the identities of 1 or two individuals, as a result of they’d their initials. So after we discuss them, I’m assuming that “S M” is Stephen Miller, however I’m not guaranteeing that to you.
That’s a very good instance of 1 individual. However, clearly, the one known as “Hegseth” is Hegseth.
Rosin: So that you heard Vance disagree with the president, which just about by no means occurs publicly. That’s fascinating.
Goldberg: I imply, to be honest to all vice presidents and presidents, it by no means occurs in any administration, the place a vice chairman is gonna exit and, I imply, in fact he didn’t exit right here. He thought he was—really, it’s actually, it’s fascinating, as a result of Vance is saying within the dialog: I don’t suppose the president understands the ramifications of what he’s doing. He’s saying that to individuals who work for the president. It’s type of a daring transfer, to say: Trump doesn’t perceive what’s happening. And now if I’m simply kind of—that is simply hypothesis—but when I’m Stephen Miller, and I’m studying that, and I’m the enforcer, I’m like: Okay, thanks, J. D. That’ll be sufficient of that.
Rosin: Proper, proper, proper, proper, proper. So among the issues are, like, overheard throughout the lavatory stall—you don’t hear them in public. Different issues are, like, precisely as you count on.
Goldberg: Proper, proper, proper. Different issues are precisely as I count on. I imply, even later within the story, when, after the primary profitable strike on the Houthis in Yemen—
Rosin: And that’s when you recognize this was actual.
Goldberg: Properly, then I do know it’s actual, as a result of I used to be advised beforehand that it was gonna occur, in my cellphone, after which two hours later it occurs.
That’s fairly good proof that, you recognize, if anyone is spoofing this, then it’s not some media-gadfly group. It’s a international intelligence service that had information of the U.S. strikes—appears implausible. However then the half that actually struck me as very Trump administration was the sharing of all these emojis: flag emojis, muscle emojis, fireplace emojis.
Rosin: Prayer emoji.
Goldberg: Prayer emoji, which, you recognize, and it’s like, by the best way, I imply, it was—discuss relatable. It’s like each office—I imply, that is what I really thought after I’m seeing this come over the cellphone, is Wow, each office is similar. It’s like, Large victory! We obtained the brand new, you recognize, the Dunder Mifflin contract, and, you recognize, muscle emoji, and it’s like, right here was, you recognize, We took out some Houthis! Good, good, good work, everyone. In order that’s after I thought, Wow, these guys are—these may very well be these guys. As a result of if I have been making an attempt to spoof them, I wouldn’t do one thing so implausible as to start out inserting juvenile emojis right into a national-security dialog.
Rosin: Until you have been so good.
Goldberg: Yeah, no, if I had outfoxed myself, you recognize. I wouldn’t have finished that if I have been doing a simulation.
Rosin: Yet one more query about your actuality: As all that is occurring and also you’re beginning to notice this is perhaps actual, are you speaking to individuals about it? Are you in your individual actuality about it? Are you, like, the place are you?
Goldberg: Properly, I’m speaking to sure colleagues, together with and particularly Shane, who’s sitting subsequent to me. Shane, who’s been protecting the intelligence neighborhood for a protracted whereas. And, you recognize, I’m speaking to him from the start about this, ’trigger I do want some reverb, some response to it, ’trigger it’s by no means, I’ve by no means seen this sort of factor or heard of one thing like this occurring.
However after I first confirmed him simply the preliminary foray—you recognize, the “we’re having a gaggle”—Shane was like, No, no. Anyone’s making an attempt to—that is an operation. I don’t know who it’s, I don’t know why they’re doing it, however that is an op. This can be a disinformation operation, as a result of these guys don’t do this.
Rosin: Okay, Shane: “These guys don’t do this.” Why was that your first thought? What don’t they do?
Harris: I imply, what they do is discuss who we’re gonna bomb and why ought to we bomb them. They don’t do it on Sign. And, I imply, within the preliminary presentation of this that Jeff gave to me, I assumed: Properly, this, this sounds loopy. Why would they be that reckless? Why would the nationwide safety adviser arrange a gaggle, name it, you recognize, PC Houthi group, after which begin including these individuals?
And it was really type of baffling, too, as a result of, once more, if this was a hoax, anyone was going to essentially nice lengths to do it—which may occur.
Goldberg: I imply, you recognize, refined operations do occur within the intelligence world.
Harris: Then the query was, in fact: Why? To what finish? So the place is that this going? After which because it went on, I feel it grew to become, like, as Jeff stated, more and more clear that the needle was shifting shortly in the direction of genuine. However my preliminary response as to why it was most likely not actual was: I couldn’t think about senior national-security officers deciding that it was a good suggestion to debate one thing of this sensitivity the place, let’s be clear, pilots are within the air, they may very well be shot down, individuals may very well be killed, individuals are going to be killed on the bottom—issues are occurring very quick. Why would you not do this within the State of affairs Room or in a safe facility? Many of those Cupboard officers, by the best way, have amenities like that of their home. They’ll go have these conversations.
Goldberg: Many of the related ones, the heads of intelligence businesses, the, clearly, protection secretary and the like, they’ve loads of methods to speak with one another inside a minute or two of needing to.
Rosin: Despite the fact that Sign’s encrypted?
Harris: Yeah. So the issue is that this. There’s a pair issues. One, it’s encrypted, however it’s by no means been authorised by the federal government for sharing labeled or what’s known as national-defense data. Now, to be clear, we talked to former safety officers, former U.S. officers, who stated, Yeah, we did use Sign within the authorities. We’d use it to transmit kind of, um, definitely unclassified, not delicate data. We’d speak round one thing or, like, notify somebody that you just’re leaving a specific nation. However this stage of specificity—precise planning for an ongoing operation, the sharing of intelligence and details about strikes—that’s clearly not what Sign’s supposed for.
It’s very handy, and it’s comparatively secure. I imply, I do know, like, some officers who’ve traveled abroad in battle zones who use it as a result of they’re not close to a U.S. embassy, let’s say, however it’s not meant for this sort of detailed planning which happens as, you recognize, Mr. Waltz stated, on the principals-committee stage—that’s finished within the State of affairs Room, or that’s finished at their varied, you recognize, buildings the place these individuals work.
Rosin: Simply so I’m clear, what stage of element crosses the road? I do know you don’t wanna say what they really stated concerning the marketing campaign, however what sorts of particulars if you noticed them have been like: That may by no means occur.
Harris: So particulars just like the variety of plane which might be concerned, the sorts of munitions which might be being dropped, particular occasions—
Rosin: That was on the chain?
Harris: Particular targets on the bottom, um, you recognize, intelligence-related issues regarding the strike and to the targets, names of people—of U.S. officers—who shouldn’t have been put in an unclassified chain due to their standing as intelligence officers. You understand, you may type of, like, you may—there’s most likely six or seven totally different varieties of knowledge which might be arguably implicated underneath the principles and the legislation for a way you’re presupposed to deal with these items.
Goldberg: By the best way, a number of it’s simply frequent sense. I imply, you learn one thing, and you would inform the distinction between strategic data and tactical data. We should always take care of the Houthis—wonderful, proper? We should always deal—we must always do X, Y, and Z, as a result of the Houthis are a risk to commerce and American national-security pursuits.
That is what we’re gonna do to the Houthis in two hours just isn’t data that the general public ought to have. I imply, at the same time as a reporter I say that, and, like, I’m fascinated. I need to understand how they’re making choices, why they’re making choices. I wanna know after motion why issues occurred, why they went proper, why they went incorrect, and so forth.
However I don’t need—and I’ve been doing this for some time, as has Shane—I don’t need data earlier than a kinetic motion, earlier than a strike of some type that has to do with the sensible points of that strike, data that if it obtained into the incorrect fingers may really endanger the lives of People.
I imply, the north star for me and Shane and most traditional individuals, regular reporters, is: Look, we don’t need to endanger the lives of American personnel within the discipline. And that’s why this was—that’s why the Saturday texting, the Saturday chain, was very, very totally different than the Friday: as a result of it obtained very sensible.
Rosin: When was the bombing marketing campaign?
Goldberg: Saturday the fifteenth. The primary bombs exploded in Yemen round 1:45 p.m. jap time. I discovered at 11:44 jap time that it was occurring.
Rosin: Received it. So simply so I perceive, it’s like, they’re revealing specificity of plans that are about to happen, which may put lives in peril, sure?
Goldberg: Okay, like, so right here’s the factor that crossed my thoughts all all through this, which is: Think about if it weren’t me in that chain. However think about if it have been anyone—I imply, this sounds implausible, however it’s additionally implausible to incorporate me within the chain—think about it was anyone who was a Houthi.
Harris: Or an Iranian diplomat.
Goldberg: Or an Iranian diplomat, or a diplomat from one other nation who was a facet take care of the Iranians. They actually would’ve recognized when issues have been going to occur.
Rosin: However I’ve to say: A journalist is not any much less harmful. ’Trigger you would have printed these plans. So that you’re not your best option both.
Goldberg: Um, properly, I, I’m the—sure.
Rosin: Of journalists, you’re a wonderful selection.
Harris: I imply, a much less scrupulous one—
Rosin: However a much less scrupulous journalist.
Goldberg: No, no, I imply, and I’m certain there are journalists who disagree with my view, who take a type of, I might name it nihilistic view, which is, like: Info is data; we must always simply put all of it on the market.
Rosin: Proper.
Goldberg: And rattling the torpedoes. I’m not—that’s not my factor.
Harris: There’s one more reason why this was so harmful that doesn’t have, doesn’t contain mistakenly including a journalist to the thread. And that’s that whereas Sign—I imply, you stated it’s end-to-end encrypted; it’s excellent and safe that means. That’s true. However the system that it’s on, proper, is your cellphone. And whereas the iOS system is fairly good, nation-states—and right here I’m speaking about China particularly, which, keep in mind, is behind a latest, you recognize, penetration of the telecom networks known as Salt Hurricane—the cellphone within the pocket of each a type of national-security officers should be presumed to be a No. 1 goal for a international intelligence service.
Rosin: Mm-hmm.
Harris: And there are sorts of malware that they may get implanted on that cellphone. There may very well be very costly, very refined stuff that might enable them to learn the messages on the cellphone as they’re being typed. That’s why a system like Sign, though it’s good end-to-end encryption, just isn’t authorised for sharing labeled data. ’Trigger it’s in your cellphone, which might be hacked.
Rosin: Proper. So it’s clearly sloppy, reckless. Does it violate any legal guidelines?
Harris: So there are a pair that it would. Conceivably, it may violate the Espionage Act, which, regardless of the identify, it’s not nearly spying; it’s concerning the dealing with of what’s known as national-defense data. So if that is thought of national-defense data, there are provisions of that legislation governing the way you transmit it, who’s allowed to have it—P.S. Somebody like Jeff, who doesn’t have a safety clearance? Not allowed to have it. So now these officers made this recognized to somebody who wasn’t cleared—inadvertently, in order that may very well be, you recognize, a mitigating piece of knowledge. There’s additionally a provision of the Espionage Act that governs what’s known as gross negligence within the dealing with or, extra exactly, the mishandling of labeled data. This was the availability that the Justice Division checked out when deciding whether or not to cost Hillary Clinton for utilizing a personal e-mail server, and in the end they didn’t, and this provision of the legislation has solely, to my information, been efficiently used as soon as to prosecute somebody. As a result of it’s ambiguous—what do you imply by “gross negligence”? Was it grossly negligent to place it on Sign? Was it grossly negligent so as to add Jeff ? The commonsense response to that is perhaps sure. In order that’s attainable that that might, you recognize, implicate possibly Mike Waltz or Pete Hegseth, even underneath the legislation. After which there’s additionally the Presidential Data Act and the Federal Data Act.
And on this case, I feel these textual content messages are each federal information and presidential information, as a result of they’re popping out of the White Home in some instances. And the legislation says—
Goldberg: Actually, one of many individuals is the elected vice chairman of the USA.
Harris: And one other is the White Home nationwide safety adviser. And we quoted an knowledgeable within the story, an knowledgeable on these legal guidelines, who stated: Look, you recognize, if it’s a presidential file, you must preserve it. And what which means is, on this case, a backup of those messages would must be despatched to some type of authorities official account. In the event that they have been doing that, then they’re complying. However there are additionally DOD rules about not placing labeled data on an unclassified system, as clearly occurred right here as properly.
So that you’ve obtained a few legal guidelines, possibly two or three legal guidelines, provisions of these legal guidelines and rules, that this exercise would appear to violate.
Rosin: Properly, Jeff, congratulations. You’re now a part of the official Trump file—authorities official file. Okay, theories. I do know you don’t know why this occurred. Is there some chance they needed you to know? Have you ever run that by way of your head?
Goldberg: Oh, yeah. I ran all the chances by way of my head. You understand, the humorous factor is, once they’re having their coverage dialog—coverage disagreements—I used to be struck by the sophistication of the arguments. Some have been, you recognize, kind of knee-jerk, anti-Europe type of invective that one expects, however they have been having a critical dialog about what to do a few difficult downside—an issue, by the best way, they have been left with by the Biden administration, which didn’t deal with that scenario properly or adequately.
So that they have been, that is one thing they inherited, they usually’re making an attempt to work their means by way of it. As they have been doing that, I used to be considering to myself, Oh, possibly they need me to see this. So I write a narrative about how intelligent they’re in coping with the Houthis. And I assumed, That’s very type of a round means of getting anyone to write down one thing about—
Harris: Like, Waltz may simply name you. He has your quantity.
Goldberg: They might simply name me and say, I’d love to do an interview with you about our Yemen coverage, and I’d be like, Nice, let’s do it. So I couldn’t, I can’t—you recognize, Occam’s razor explains a number of the world, and the reason right here is that it was heading into the weekend; they have been out and about; issues have been occurring within the Center East that they needed to keep in contact with; they’ve these superb gadgets of their pockets, like all of us do, the place they’ll talk with the world; they put collectively a gaggle; they put it collectively sloppily; they usually did it on one thing that they shouldn’t have finished however for comfort; and, uh, that’s it. That’s what occurred.
Rosin: So on condition that that may occur to the very best of us and does occur to all of us on a regular basis, is there—
Goldberg: You’re at all times, you’re at all times planning the bombings of nations in your cellphone along with your podcast crew.
Rosin: I imply, like, including the incorrect individual to a textual content chain. So on condition that that occurs to the very best of us, are you able to draw any specific conclusions concerning the Trump administration? Like, does it reveal something to you about them that’s particular, versus simply, you recognize, they’re sloppy like the remainder of us?
Harris: I feel there’s that side too, which, I imply, there’s a little little bit of a Who amongst us?, proper? We’ve all finished this—I imply, not about planning a struggle—however we all know what that is like and the way embarrassing and unintentional it may really be. However what I do suppose this reveals is a stage of recklessness. There’s simply no world wherein an inexpensive individual serving these positions would suppose it’s okay to debate this sort of lively operation, I feel, on this means. Now, there could also be individuals who would problem me on that, and there could also be individuals who would say, Hear, it’s not as dangerous because it appears to be like; they weren’t moving into completely the operational weeds—though I feel they really have been. You could possibly make excuses for that, however simply as a judgment matter, this was a nasty one. It was a nasty name, I feel, to make use of Sign on this means. It’s not authorised for this manner. And you may see why it was such a nasty name, as a result of a horrible accident like this, from their perspective, can occur. However what I additionally suppose it reveals, too—and that is vital to the coverage debate—is there’s not settlement within the administration over whether or not they’re doing the appropriate factor with this motion. There’s widespread settlement, it appears, that they need to make the Europeans attempt to pay for this army motion, ’trigger it’s largely European items which might be shifting by way of this a part of the world. However when the vice chairman comes out and says, I disagree, and I don’t suppose that the president understands the implications for this and the way it will have an effect on his international coverage—that’s fairly placing.
And also you see within the messages how they’re referring again to earlier conferences that they’d the place it appeared to some individuals within the room like this situation was settled. However apparently it wasn’t. They usually go on this sort of prolonged debate about: Properly, ought to we wait a month? After which Stephen Miller, as Jeff stated, is available in and says, No, the president stated we’re doing this.
And so that you see that there’s not readability across the president’s resolution making across the coverage, and that’s simply—to be a fly on the wall for that’s extraordinary. That’s very revealing concerning the coverage course of on this White Home.
Rosin: You imply for such an vital resolution that there are last-minute disagreements that haven’t been buttoned up, that haven’t been hashed out, that haven’t gone by way of correct channels or, you recognize, like, thoughtfully resolved?
Goldberg: I feel they have been—I imply, other than the truth that they have been doing it on an insecure channel within the presence of the editor in chief of The Atlantic journal—other than these two technical points, they have been having an inexpensive dialog that you’d count on them to have.
And like I stated, I used to be just a little bit heartened that, Oh—they really debate amongst themselves. They discuss this; they work by way of these items. They appear to be—as Shane identified, that is clearly the residue from different conferences that have been happening reside and in individual, the place they’re nonetheless figuring out points.
What I discovered—possibly simply on a private stage or a, you recognize, a citizen stage—disconcerting was when “S M,” who we assume is Stephen Miller or presume is Stephen Miller, when he is available in and says, Nah, I didn’t hear that. I heard the president say, “We’re doing it.” Thanks very a lot. Name it a day. After which everyone—
Harris: And nobody disagrees.
Goldberg: After which everyone, together with the secretary of protection, goes: Agree.
However I’ve to say, and I need to be very clear right here, after I understood that this was actual, I did take away myself from the group and started the method of penning this in order that I may make the general public conscious, our studying public conscious, that this authorities had, um, let’s simply say poor digital hygiene. So it’s a really critical factor and I might reasonably not be engaged in that type of textual content chain.
Rosin: Properly, Jeff, Shane, thanks for becoming a member of us in the present day.
Harris and Goldberg: Thanks.
Rosin: This episode of Radio Atlantic was produced by Kevin Townsend and edited by Claudina Ebeid. It was engineered by Rob Smierciak. Claudina Ebeid is the chief producer of Atlantic Audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. Listeners, in case you like what you hear on Radio Atlantic, keep in mind, you may assist our work and the work of all Atlantic journalists if you subscribe to The Atlantic at TheAtlantic.com/podsub. That’s TheAtlantic.com/podsub. I’m Hanna Rosin—thanks for listening.