Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

um accusing jeffrey goldberg of making this up it's all a big lie never discussed war plans etc that's their fallback and the results of this ought to be his resignation i think tulsi gabbard should resign if she can't be trusted to know better with national security information she can't be trusted with the nation's secrets the same is true of ratcliffe and if whitcoff was

in texting from the Kremlin or from Russian soil, he should be gone. They should be fired or they should quit.

in texting from the Kremlin or from Russian soil, he should be gone. They should be fired or they should quit.

in texting from the Kremlin or from Russian soil, he should be gone. They should be fired or they should quit.

Yes, I am. Yes, I am. And, you know, if this were any other administration, it would be a foregone conclusion. They would be gone. But you compound it with the testimony we heard today from many of these same people where Ratcliffe was essentially, no, this wasn't a big mistake. And Gabbard is like, well, this information wasn't classified. All of that is just utter nonsense.

Yes, I am. Yes, I am. And, you know, if this were any other administration, it would be a foregone conclusion. They would be gone. But you compound it with the testimony we heard today from many of these same people where Ratcliffe was essentially, no, this wasn't a big mistake. And Gabbard is like, well, this information wasn't classified. All of that is just utter nonsense.

Yes, I am. Yes, I am. And, you know, if this were any other administration, it would be a foregone conclusion. They would be gone. But you compound it with the testimony we heard today from many of these same people where Ratcliffe was essentially, no, this wasn't a big mistake. And Gabbard is like, well, this information wasn't classified. All of that is just utter nonsense.

And, you know, for them to try to pretend this is anything serious, other than a desperately dangerous mishandling of national security information from the same crowd, the same Hillary email crowd, is just the most unconscionable hypocrisy.

And, you know, for them to try to pretend this is anything serious, other than a desperately dangerous mishandling of national security information from the same crowd, the same Hillary email crowd, is just the most unconscionable hypocrisy.

And, you know, for them to try to pretend this is anything serious, other than a desperately dangerous mishandling of national security information from the same crowd, the same Hillary email crowd, is just the most unconscionable hypocrisy.

Well, if they weren't classified, they should have been classified. And I think what she's doing is the same thing that Hegseth tried to do, which is play with the language. So Hegseth says, well, these weren't war plans. So he's going to fall back on the excuse. We're not in a state of war with the enemy. Therefore, these are not war plans.

Well, if they weren't classified, they should have been classified. And I think what she's doing is the same thing that Hegseth tried to do, which is play with the language. So Hegseth says, well, these weren't war plans. So he's going to fall back on the excuse. We're not in a state of war with the enemy. Therefore, these are not war plans.

Well, if they weren't classified, they should have been classified. And I think what she's doing is the same thing that Hegseth tried to do, which is play with the language. So Hegseth says, well, these weren't war plans. So he's going to fall back on the excuse. We're not in a state of war with the enemy. Therefore, these are not war plans.

None of that matters if you're discussing details of military strikes. The risk is the same. And what Gabbard is saying basically is this information, because it was in real time, there was no agency opportunity to classify it. Well, that's giving a technical answer to obfuscate the truth, which is this is deeply sensitive national security information, which, by the way, is a crime to mishandle.

None of that matters if you're discussing details of military strikes. The risk is the same. And what Gabbard is saying basically is this information, because it was in real time, there was no agency opportunity to classify it. Well, that's giving a technical answer to obfuscate the truth, which is this is deeply sensitive national security information, which, by the way, is a crime to mishandle.

None of that matters if you're discussing details of military strikes. The risk is the same. And what Gabbard is saying basically is this information, because it was in real time, there was no agency opportunity to classify it. Well, that's giving a technical answer to obfuscate the truth, which is this is deeply sensitive national security information, which, by the way, is a crime to mishandle.

And they recklessly mishandled this information, having this conversation. And while the conversation itself, they can argue about the material contained in the conversation, the details of this attack and the timing and the targets, all of that should be classified.

And they recklessly mishandled this information, having this conversation. And while the conversation itself, they can argue about the material contained in the conversation, the details of this attack and the timing and the targets, all of that should be classified.

And they recklessly mishandled this information, having this conversation. And while the conversation itself, they can argue about the material contained in the conversation, the details of this attack and the timing and the targets, all of that should be classified.

Well, you've got Laura Ingraham pretending that, what, I guess she's constantly texting the wrong person detailed military strike plans? Is that something that's a normal thing of her day? That is absurd. And then you get the suggestion that he just plants in there that, well, maybe the reporter somehow inserted himself into this chat, which cannot happen on Signal.